Daily Perspective

More Praise for Paul Ryan

2008-10-08T15:11:00.003-05:00

Wall Street Journal columnist Kimberly Strassel penned a great article in support of Congressman Paul Ryan's decision to support the bailout package this last week. I attempted to post a response on the WSJ Forum but alas, it was locked. Here, in entirety, is that response:

The negative comments seem to be overlooking one thing: he didn't create this mess, but is damned if he isn't going to do something to fix it. A simple analogy can relate this to everyday life ...

Suppose Paul Ryan was the head of a city's sewage control center. Over the course of several years, he noted that a large storm would cause the city to become awash in sewage and that it would destroy farm land and pollute the local lakes and rivers. He made his case to the mayor and his superiors at the state level, but everyone assured him that the system was fine and would handle the next storm just as it had in the past. Lo and behold, soon enough a large storm passes through and all the rainwater seeps into the sewage control's storage and causes a massive overflow, just as he had warned. Well now it comes down that the city has to spend tens of millions in clean up and expansion efforts, but there isn't much room in the budget so there must be a tax increase. As a fiscal conservative in nature, it would be against his principles to put his name behind such a proposal, but it is the only thing that can be done. After it passes the city council and is signed by the mayor, angry citizens call his office and demand he resign for not preventing this situation.

This is exactly what happened to Rep. Ryan. He warned the nation's leaders and tried to fix the faults in the system that created this mess in the first place. But even though he did everything he could to prevent this mess and nothing to create it, he knows it is his responsibility to fix it before it gets worse, even if that goes against his principles. I live just north of Ryan's district, so I hear plenty about the great things he does in Congress, and I can live with his decision even if the Paulies can't ... This is a time for rationality, not idealism ...

Back in the Saddle

2008-09-07T09:16:00.002-05:00

Readers of this blog have come to realize by now that I can be a little sporadic with my postings. Unfortunately my schedule over the past few months has been such that I rarely have much of an opportunity to sit down and put out my thoughts in this forum. However, as school is back in session and the election has reached full throttle (to put it into racing terms in honor of today's Belgian Grand Prix) I can no longer shuttle my inner desire to share my thoughts.

That said, on to business ...

As we're all aware by now, the two presidential front-runners have been officially nominated along with their chosen running mates. Barack Obama has chosen Delaware Senator Joseph Biden and John McCain has chosen Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. On their respective faces, it seems the former choice hopes to enhance the ticket's breadth of expertise given Biden's knowledge of foreign affairs, while the latter hopes to shore up support among the more conservative members of the Republican Party, as well as to garner some insurance votes from the ranks of the undecided.

Looking deeper into the picks, Obama's choice of Biden raises some interesting questions. For example, why pick the obvious Beltway insider that everyone saw him picking in the first place ... why pick a white male from a small state with no executive experience ... why pick a combative, short-tempered, liberal heavyweight? These questions yield other options Obama might have looked into. To name one: Bill Richardson, the governor of New Mexico. He's the son of a native Mexican mother and Nicaraguan father. He has the necessary executive experience and foreign policy understanding to enhance Obama's credibility. And finally, he has presidential ambitions, making a run for the second in command all the more legitimate. He's also a Roman Catholic, so take Biden, remove the white and add the executive, and you have a much better running mate.

On the other side of the coin, the choice of Governor Sarah Palin is seen in some objective circles as the clear choice of a maverick. Both of the prior front-runners for the VP nomination (Gov. Pawlenty and Gov. Romney) were conservative executives with shining resumès. They were young and ambitious and the former is having success as the governor of Minnesota while the latter had a successful career as Massachusetts top state official and narrowly missed a shot at the Republican presidential nomination a few months ago.

When the final decision came last week Friday, many people (including some insiders) were caught off-guard by the choice of a political novice in the form of Governor Palin. She is only 44 years old, and has been the head of Alaskan government for under two years. Before that her experience amounts to the mayorship of her small-ish hometown (as I come from a town that size, I refuse to accept that 9,000 residents amounts to a "small town"). What she lacks in experience, she more than makes up for with her ability to take on entrenched special interests and to root out sources of corruption which prior to her gubernatorial election ran roughshod over the Alaskan landscape.

Pundits across the country have chalked this up to a "naive" and "desperate" pick by McCain. They believe he's taking a huge risk with someone as inexperienced as Sarah Palin, but then again, how are the voters not taking a huge risk with their support of a presidential nominee with less than one term of federal experience.

In a tight election, these choices might turn out to be the eventual decider in November. Will voters choose the obtuse Obama and bitter Biden or the magnanimous McCain and principled Palin? Don't take my word for it, as I'm not the most objective observer. Let the candidates speak for themselves and perhaps you'll come to the same conclusions as I have - that Obama is too partisan to be effective whereas McCain is ready and able to reach across party lines to get things done.

Send the ACLU a Christmas Card

2007-12-17T14:39:00.000-06:00

*** Crosspost from John at Stop The ACLU ... link ***

Its become a popular yearly tradition now to send the Anti-Christian Liars Union grinches a Christmas card. I personally think its ineffective, and that the money you waste on a stamp for the organization to toss in the shredder would be better served towards a good cause. So, I encourage you to save that money, dig a little deeper, and contribute to an organization that fights the ACLU and defends Christmas. The Alliance Defense Fund, and the ACLJ are both great organizations that defend Christmas each year. The Alliance Defense Fund does it for free. Why not help groups like that out this year?

However, from experience last year...I know that many will insist on sending the ACLU a Christmas card. Afterall, it is tradition. If that is how you want to make your message...we have some great greeting cards and postcards available at our online store. Plenty of other great Christmas gifts too.

Send your Christmas card to the ACLU at:

ACLU
125 Broad Street
18th Floor
New York , NY 10004

Soviets In Sheep's Clothing

2007-12-17T14:06:00.000-06:00

It hasn't been long since a truly autocratic Soviet Union controlled a sizable chunk of Eastern Europe and Northwest Asia. Less than two decades after the crumble of the Evil Empire, all signs point to a legitimated revitalization of Soviet practices under the guise of democracy.

Vladimir Putin isn't going anywhere. At the least he will leave the post of President and assume the role of Prime Minister. Under a worst case scenario he'll become the puppet master in control of the new Soviet Russia. (source)
Russia is getting rich off the "privatization" of its resources industries. A quick look at the list of Forbes rich list shows nearly all Russian billionaires in their 40s (the oldest being 61). (source) This could be a coincidence or a cleverly perpetrated hand-off of the state-owned companies to tycoons friendly to Putin. One who didn't fit this mold was Mikhail Khodorkovsky, jailed former CEO of Yukos and at one time th 16th richest man in the world. Mr. Khodorkovsky supported closer ties with the United States and was said to be financing Putin's opponents. (source)
Russia is supporting the Iranian nuclear program and has become friendly with the voraciously anti-US leader of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez. (source & source)

Who can say for sure whether these points are intertwined or just part of Russia's natural angst for America and the West in general. Whatever the case may be, the evidence points to a resurgence in anti-capitalist, anti-freedom rhetoric and policy in Russia. Its support for authoritarians around the world and animosity towards the West are at the least signs of its foreign policy intentions for years to come.

Coming Soon - How Hollywood Is Like Big Business

2007-05-24T01:50:00.000-05:00

Yes, that's right. Hollywood and big business: one and the same. The similarities aren't evident right from the get-go, but once the diligent observer digs deep it is quite easy to see why the business of making movies is just like the business of making consumer products or anything else for that matter. For one, just examine the pay structures for everyone behind a movie and everyone behind an iPod or Dell laptop.

Climate Change or Climate Cycle?

2007-05-16T22:21:00.000-05:00

It is truly amazing how global warming alarmists and doomsayers are so invested in their philosophy. It is as if the rest of their lives go on hold while they galavant across the frozen regions of the Earth searching for "examples of climate change." It would seem they've hit the mother lode in this case.

A remote chain of Norwegian islands in the Arctic seems to be experiencing a slight heat wave. UN scientists claim the region is warming at twice the rate of the rest of the world and receding glaciers in the area are leaving previously "undiscovered" islands in their midst. They argue that this represents a "portent of changes further south."

I argue, conversely, that this is exactly what happened after the Ice Age when the glaciers that used to cover the Midwest states receded all the way to the North Pole. There were no evil SUVs and CO2 emissions to worry about back then. The only thing that possibly could have caused this intense warming (which followed, go figure, an intense cooling) has to do with celestial interference. By this I mean what many scientists have been referring to recently; the sun has always been prone to periods of relative dormancy and relative activity. They noticed this when, in researching Martian weather patterns recently they discovered similar warming patterns as Earth's.

An article published by the Heartland Institute says:

The planet Mars is undergoing significant global warming, new data from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) show, lending support to many climatologists' claims that the Earth's modest warming during the past century is due primarily to a recent upsurge in solar energy.

Interesting. Solar energy causing changes in the climates of two planets many millions of miles away? It may seem ridiculous, but the correlations are much more convincing than anything being trumped up in the Algore camp. It also has the luxury of lending support to the theory that we aren't to blame and that we don't have to use one square of one-ply toilet paper to combat our destructiveness.

According to a recent post on Sen. Inhofe's (R-OK) Environment & Public Works blog, there is a growing list of former global warming alarmists moving into the skeptics' camp. With so much dissension, shouldn't there be more of a rational debate than simply having news anchors claim "the debate is over" as Brian Williams said not too long ago ...

Foresight: A Tool, Not A Trick

2007-05-16T16:09:00.000-05:00

*** NOTE: After finishing my finals today, I'll be sure to keep the posts coming on a more regular basis. ***

There is one fundamental difference in how liberals and conservatives handle economic issues. Conservatives value foresight as tool while liberals view everything through its short-run effects. While studying for my history final, I read a section on the Reagan tax cuts in 1981 which seemingly caused an economic downturn, according to the book's author. There is an economic tool that conservative supply-siders use to discourage this notion.

Economic policies tend to have a lag effect. For example, a tax cut will cause consumers to act as though they have more money when in reality they won't until at least the following year. Increased consumption and demand in domestic markets leads to price inflation. So immediately following a tax cut, the short-run effect is inflation. In the long-run, however, tax cuts increase output and bring prices down. Several years following Reagan's tax cuts, inflation and unemployment dropped drastically, but nobody understood exactly why. That, ladies and gentlemen, is the lag effect.

The lag effect is a prime example of the benefits inherent in foresight. A good economist knows both short-run and long-run policy implications. Short-run thinking leads to reactionary policies that keep the economy on a see-saw pattern of expansion and recession. Long-run thinking smooths the crests and valleys caused by the business cycle. Liberals often make the mistake of seeing benefits in the immediate future while overlooking the obvious long-run implications. For example, medicare and social security are headed for insolvency in the very near future. They see any solution as having a negative effect on current recipients but they choose to ignore the long-run implications of doing nothing.

Short-run thinking often wins elections, which is exactly why it is so alluring. If a politician can pursue a policy that has very visible positive effects in a short period during election season, they can trumpet their success during the campaign. Nobody notices the implications five years down the road when the same politician is championing a solution to the problem they caused. This is one of the biggest reasons that we need term limits in Congress. A politician with no option for re-election will find it much easier to adopt a long-run philosophy.

State Sponsored Price Gouging

2007-05-09T23:31:00.000-05:00

It seems like a story from a parallel universe. You know, one where the same people who accuse multinational oil conglomerates of price gouging turn around and perpetrate the very action they condemn all the while leaving their victims no choices. Well such is the case here in Wisconsin where Governor Doyle two summers ago was on a list of signatories for a letter condemning so-called "gouging" at the pumps in the Katrina aftermath.

I'll leave for another day the explanation of why gas stations and their corporate suppliers were and never have been guilty of gouging. For now, here's a little piece for you to chew on. A gas station in Merrill, Wisconsin has been offering discounts of two and three cents/gallon for seniors and boosters which support youth sports, respectively. The state Department of Agriculture was quick to intercede on behalf of a law that prohibits gas stations from undercutting a designated 9.2% markup on wholesale prices. The Unfair Sales Act was created to prevent stations owned by big oil companies from undercutting smaller, privately owned suppliers. It's no wonder the National Federation of Independent Business supports the legislation.

In reality what has resulted is a much higher average per gallon price in the state of Wisconsin than the rest of the nation. According to the AAA's gauge of daily averages, Wisconsin currently exceeds the national average of $3.03/gallon by twelve cents. Our tax burden at the pump is currently the highest in the nation without having to worry about the minimum mark-up law. At $0.321/gallon, the current state gas tax is equal to 14% of the reformulated gasoline futures contract and over 10% of the current statewide per gallon average fuel price.

Price gouging, by definition, is raising the price of a good at a time of adverse supply shock when demand is highly inelastic so as to take advantage of the consumer's need for the given product. That is exactly what our high gas tax and minimum mark-up law are guilty of doing. They are taking advantage of Wisconsinites' need to drive on a daily basis and are prohibiting station owners from discounting for any reason whatsoever. The real gougers, it appears, have seats in the State Capitol ...

Tancredo Voices Support For Fair Tax

2007-05-08T12:03:00.000-05:00

The "FairTax," or national consumption tax, is an idea that has been batted around the offices of conservative members of Congress for several years now. It was explained plainly and simply in a book two years ago by libertarian talk-show host Neal Boortz and Congressman John Linder (R-GA). It is the alternative to the flat tax which would tax income at a uniform rate across all income levels. The FairTax would tax consumption at a uniform rate, and it would do so implicitly by being factored in to the prices of all new goods and services (not second-hand or used goods).

Every new session of Congress brings the reintroduction of the FairTax Act by Rep. Linder and each time it gains support in the form of additional cosponsors. It has received some very vocal support recently as Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO) uttered the following phrase during the segment on taxes during last week's Republican presidential debate:

For all the reasons mentioned by some of my colleagues I absolutely support the Fair Tax, it has to be accompanied however with the repeal of the 16th Amendment or we'd end up with a consumption tax and an income tax.

You can't be more supportive than that. The thing to distinguish this option from everything else being ballyhooed around the halls of Congress is that second part of Tancredo's statement. The repeal of the 16th Amendment would essentially end the IRS's choke-hold on the American taxpayer and shut down the Marxist form of taxation. The income tax has become the Washington's easiest way to increase their influence on the economy through continuously tweaking the code and inventing new loopholes while closing others. It is because of this that there is a $500 billion annual cost of complying with the tax code. This equates to a per capita cost of $1,667.

Opponents to the FairTax, some of whom are conservatives, will decry the loss of jobs suffered by IRS employees. Well, I for one wouldn't shed a single tear for them. Did they go to school specifically to be employed at the IRS? I'm sure that 100% of those people would be able to find a job in the financial services marketplace within a month.

The honest truth is that we need to figure out ways to cut the ever-increasing influence of the federal government in our everyday lives. The best way to do so is to take their collective hand out of our pockets once and for all ...

House Democrats Offer Reparations ... to Guam

2007-05-07T19:55:00.000-05:00

When you hear the words "Democrats" and "reparations" in the same sentence, it most commonly will have something to do with paying African-Americans back for the cruelty of slaveowners over 150 years ago. Their penchant for thinking emotionally leads to these kinds of offers, but nobody could have seen this coming.

In submitting H.R. 1595, they are offering to compensate the residents of Guam for the oppressive acts of Imperial Japan during the course of World War II. Even more ridiculous than the purpose is the opening sentence of Paragraph II:

Directs the Secretary of the Treasury to make specified payments to: (1) living Guam residents who were killed, injured, interned, or subjected to forced labor or marches resulting from, or incident to, such occupation and subsequent liberation ...

Leave it to a Democrat to draft a statement so non-sensical. Beyond this, the overall idea of the bill is simply absurd. In the culminating battle for the island, soldiers from the 3rd Marine Division and the 77th Infantry Division landed on July 21st and proceeded to retake the island from Japanese forces. With a toll of over 10,000 casualties including 3,000 KIA, the battle for Guam lasted three weeks in the summer of 1944.

After the price paid by members of the American military, men from all walks of life each with families of their own, House Democrats neglect their sacrifice by arguing that we owe the citizens of Guam for what agents of another country perpetrated. The absurdity of the 110th Congress continues ...

New Poll Puts Sarkozy Well Ahead in French Race

2007-05-03T13:27:00.000-05:00

A poll taken after the televised debates between French presidential candidates Nicolas Sarkozy and Segolene Royal has the conservative Sarkozy leading 54-46 over the Socialist, Royal.

I'm going to venture a guess and say that even the French don't want a Socialist at the helm after the many years of left-wing presidents who've destroyed the country from within through plentiful disincentives to hard work, including: a 35 hour work week, massive unemployment benefits, and measures making it hard to fire poor employees and difficult to hire good employees. The subsequent escape of capital has left the French economy in a shambles with the unemployment rate creeping into double digits.

Sarkozy will win handily, and you can be sure that the American media will be shocked.

Wall Street's Bull Run Continues

2007-05-02T20:42:00.000-05:00

Several months ago, the majority of financial commentators were sounding the death knell for Wall Street's historic three-plus year rally. Between then and the time the second round of Bush tax cuts went into effect (May 2003), the blue-chip Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) had soared 47%. Yet many in the financial community as well as naysaying pundits on America's editorial pages were calling for a stock market correction (when an exchange or index loses 10% or more of its value in a short period of time) and an economic recession. The popular question of Dow 9,000 or 12,000 was met by the resounding reply of "NINE THOUSAND!!"

And back to the present ...

The DJIA is now setting records that seem to come day after day, week after week. At its intraday record value of 13,256 the blue-chip index is at a 60% premium from its May 2003 low. In the last month, the DJIA has gained on 21 of 24 sessions with the total amounting to a 7.4% gain, its best winning streak since 1955 when it gained 10% on 22 of 25 up sessions. On top of that, the tech-heavy NASDAQ is at a 6 year high and the S&P 500, an index of the 500 largest companies, is at a 6-1/2 year high.

The economy is hitting on all cylinders as well, trouncing all calls for an oncoming recession. After a year and a half of interest rate hikes by the Federal Reserve, inflation is moderating and any signs of economic weakness are becoming signs of economic stability. What was said to be a housing bubble has turned out to be nothing more than a valley. Even a crisis in the subprime lending industry hasn't seeped into the robust economy, but has been contained to the already hampered housing industry. Put another one in the "wrong" column for the pessimists.

Clinton had the tech boom to grant him a roaring economy for his first seven years in the White House. In 2000, the tech bubble and stock market crash left the economy in a downward spiral when George Bush took over. In only his eighth month, the despair was compounded by 9/11. But after the 2001 tax cuts staunched the bleeding, the road to recovery was short and robust growth was restored with the 2003 tax cuts. After all of this, Clinton gets the praise while Bush is looked upon as a foolish failure. Sounds like someone has their facts mixed up ...

One Month Down, Five To Go

2007-05-01T12:46:00.000-05:00

*** In a deviation from the norm, here is the inaugural baseball post as promised. ***

With the first month of baseball in the books, things are looking up for the Milwaukee Brewers organization. They enter the month of May with a National League leading 16-9 record (tied for best with the Atlanta Braves) and a promising 8-5 road record. The Brew Crew now finds itself in the midst of a 10 game homestand with series against St Louis, Pittsburgh, and Washington. The best, albeit unfortunate, thing about their success in April is that it came without Ben Sheets on his A-game following an opening-day gem.

The Brewers are sixth in the NL in hitting and eighth in pitching due to several blowouts and a number of one-run wins. The bright spots in the organization come in the form of starting pitching and the outfield's offensive production. Jeff Suppan and Chris Capuano are both tied for third in the league with four wins in April and both are in the top 25 in the league in ERA. The left field platoon of Geoff Jenkins and Kevin Mench has combined for six HRs and 21 RBIs with a combined .338 BA. The team has carried a streak of games with a double through the entire month to a current franchise record of 25 games in a row.

MLB.com had this to say of the Crew's April Success:

Milwaukee manager Ned Yost piloted the Brewers to one of the best records in
baseball despite Ben Sheets' groin strain and batting slumps from regulars Bill
Hall, Rickie Weeks and Craig Counsell. Makes you wonder what Yost's team will do
when they start hitting.

If April's success is any indication of future performance, the plethora of preseason predictions that the Brewers would top the NL Central division may indeed turn out to be accurate. I, for one, am holding out until the end of this month to make any firm judgments either way.

Something to Remember This May Day

2007-05-01T00:39:00.000-05:00

This May Day, as was the case last year, immigration and workers' rights activists will be out in force to demand improved conditions for unskilled laborers. In many cases, they will simply refuse to show up for work and cause many companies to shut down operations for the day to avoid racking up the fixed costs associated with machinery using energy but producing nothing. Last year, several companies pre-empted the rallies by announcing closures ahead of time and allowing their employees to have the day off. I'd just as easily have fired and replaced them, but unfortunately, I don't have that luxury.

In light of the rallies that will take place today and that have taken place in the past, I have something for everyone to keep in mind. Everyone that works in the absence of a written and signed contract in the United States is considered an "at-will employee" and is subject to immediate termination at the discretion of management. In my case, if I refused to show up at my part-time job at Golf Galaxy, they've notified me that after my third unexcused absence I can be terminated. In other cases, businesses are more or less lenient based on the supply of labor in that particular field. For example, if the supply of labor is tight in the production of widgets, then the producer will be less inclined to fire employees. Conversely, if the supply of labor is plentiful in the production of cogs, then the producer will be more strict.

So everyone should remember one important thing. Every individual is replaceable to the point where nobody else is willing to do their job. At that point, any worker is free to demand whatever their hearts desire from management for the latter is without leverage in the bargaining process. Until that point, however, workers are at the mercy of their employer save the few cases where unions still wield power in their industries. If conditions are truly worth changing, then the labor market would dry up as job seekers avoid the field until conditions improve.

Simple neo-classical economics tells us this. For those of you unfamiliar with the concepts discussed in this post, I direct you to Henry Hazlitt's Economics In One Lesson.

Meet the 2008 Dark Horse

2007-04-29T21:33:00.000-05:00

Fred Dalton Thompson isn't a name on the tip of many tongues as a favorite in the already hot 2008 presidential race. He is better known as New York City District Attorney Arthur Branch from the wildly popular television drama, Law and Order. Yet only five short years ago he wrapped up his successful senatorial career as the Ranking Minority Member in only his eighth year (he replaced Al Gore in 1994 and was re-elected in 1996). In Fred Thompson we conservatives have a candidate eerily similar to our hero, Ronald Reagan.

According to OnTheIssues, Thompson believes in low taxes and a balanced budget, tort reform and capital punishment, school choice, free trade and welfare reform. In other words, he is fiscally and socially conservative with certain libertarian tendencies. He believes in deregulation of industry and loose federal control over the economy. He is fallible, of course, like every other human being on this earth. Not every issue will resonate with the entirety of the conservative base, but then again even Reagan passed the most liberal abortion law for its time when he was governor of California.

And now, twenty years removed from the last actor turned President, the stars have seemingly aligned in a similar pattern to bless this nation with yet another. And to add a proverbial cherry on top, some of Reagan's closest advisors have voiced support for Fred Thompson. Reagan's deputy chief of staff, Michael Deaver, says of Thompson:

He is very popular in his party. He could change this whole thing and turn this
primary system upside down. (source)

Clark Judge, a former Reagan speechwriter, added this, "Fred Thompson, like Ronald Reagan, is a man of tremendous substance." Roger Stone, a former Reagan campaign strategist, put it this way:

The president Americans want is, in fact, the guy they see on Law and Order:
wise, thoughtful, deliberative, confident without the cockiness of George W
Bush, urbane yet country. Fred Thompson communicates all those virtues.

And this coming Friday night, in Reagan's backyard of southern California, Mr. Thompson will address the 45th annual dinner of the Lincoln Club. The club has been portrayed as the largest and most active political club in America, and the event was highly sought after by other Republican candidates.

It will be interesting to see, in coming months, whether or not Thompson has delayed his decision too long even though it is still relatively early for the race to be so heated. These races ultimately come down to the person with the best message and more importantly, the most money. The former will most likely be firmly in Thompson's court, but the latter will be a difficult mountain to climb with several candidates having ties to Wall Street and other large-scale donors.

The candidate many on the right have been hoping and praying for is here. Now the only question is, will he run?

Nanny Gore: Artists Can Fight Warming Too

2007-04-28T10:09:00.000-05:00

When Algore opens his mouth, it is almost assured that something sycophantic will come out. Lo and behold he hasn't dissappointed this time as he has delivered an SOS at the opening of the Tribeca Film Festival in the New York City district of the same name. In this case, however, SOS stands for "Save Our Selves."

“Art, music, film, dance, poetry — all the arts — have long been our greatest
tools to explore the regions of imagination that defy our efforts to think
rationally about subjects that our emotions tell us are too painful to
contemplate,” he said.

Rationally, you say? I'm hard-pressed to find anything in the art world that has done anything rationally. All five artistic categories thrive on irrational, out-of-the-box thinking that appeals to a cross-section of society.

There is an explanation for Gore's latest call-to-arms; he wants to utilize an industry whose financial lifeblood comes almost entirely from the public sector. The entire emphasis on fighting global warming has been placed on the government by Mr. Gore in a predictably pedantic series of demands. Gore urges the world's governments to cut back on carbon emissions by 90% before 2050 and wage green warfare on businesses if they fail to comply with his hodgepodge of regulations and economic hogties.

The most important thing Algore has failed to realize is something that was put graphically in a Wall Street Journal editorial several months ago. The graph most definitely speaks for itself; in concurrent five year spans from 1990 to 2004, the United States has gone from a 6-10% growth rate to a paltry 2.1% in the latest span. Meanwhile, the first fifteen members of the European Union, or EU-15, have proceeded to take a 2.2% cutback in emissions before all of the hype to a 4.5% growth rate AFTER they all signed onto the Kyoto Protocol in 2002.

The difference between the two nations, apart from the glaring fact that the US never signed Kyoto, is that the European Community has undertaken a series of industry-crippling regulations while the United States has remained steadfast in its support of free markets. Free competition has forced many large corporations to cut emissions independent from government coersion. From General Electric to United Technologies, some of the biggest companies by market capitalization have been cutting emissions at double-digit clips for several years now.

A word to the unwise, Mr. Gore. America's people have always been skeptical of government. We broke away from a tyrannical king 231 years ago, broke away from ourselves 146 year ago, and spent almost a half-century fighting hyper-government in the form of Communism during the Cold War. If you so desperately want to fight global warming, perhaps you should step aside and let the free market continue its course toward your desired end. It would amaze you how efficient markets can be ...

The Perspectives: La Terza Parte

2007-04-28T00:06:00.000-05:00

Back again, after my second (and sad to say, much longer) hiatas, the blog is under a redesign. During the latest reboot, if you will, I'm going to be changing the looks and the content. In addition to politics and current affairs topics, there will be some sporting additions in honor of the newly christened baseball season. Mainly, these sports posts will be concerning the daily Brewers games.

Anyone who has been checking in for updates over the last year, thank you. You will not be disappointed with Version Three.

Stay tuned for more ...

Chappaquiddick Teddy

2006-03-27T12:28:00.000-06:00

I often hear Senator Kennedy (D-MA) refer to conservatives as "the hard right."

As opposed to you, senator, the founding member of the "Hard Left Club" (hint: think Chappaquiddick).

Taxation From Hell

2006-03-27T01:08:00.000-06:00

After reading a bit on the British version of the inheritance tax over at the Adam Smith Institute Blog, I got to thinking about that whole deal here on the west side of the pond.

Just to make things clear right away, I am as opposed to any form of inheritance (or death, if you will) tax the government can possibly think of.

I was thinking to myself (seeing as my roommate would have no interest in hearing my contemplations) that not only are we taxed when we work, but we are taxed when we shop, when we invest, when we retire, and when we die! I have, most assuredly, left out something that we are taxed for, but I have neither the time nor the patience to find out what that may be.

I seem to recall the 18th century, when our humble central government survived on duties gathered from liquor and tobacco products alone. These small excise taxes led to the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794. Sure the higher tax rate for small producers over larger competitors was a big reason for the rebellion, but can you imagine what would have come from quadruple-taxation, and worse?!

I must say our national government must be supremely thrilled that we haven't rioted through the streets demanding our money back. The Framers must be reeling in their graves and begging God to reincarnate them so they can give Congress their comeuppance for being such greedy swine. President Washington would throw a fit of astronomical proportions over current congressional salaries.

All history aside, our current tax system is simply outrageous. If a tax on labor isn't disturbing enough, then surely a tax on gasoline and liquor and tobacco products, a tax on nearly all goods, a tax on dividends and capital gains, and a tax on the estates of the recently deceased surely take the cake. The last tax mentioned, affectionately referred to as the "death tax" is so abhorrent, I can hardly put it into words. For those estates just barely over the threshold of qualification, half of the assets to be given to the next generation are seized by the federal government (or more accurately, 46% for 2006). If these assets include a family-owned business and a modestly-sized house, one of the two must be relinquished.

It is a sad state of affairs in which a nation must steal from the families of the dead to pay their own debts because they don't know when to set down the checkbook. Thankfully this wretched tax will be phased out in 2010 once and for all ...

NYT vs WSJ vs IBD

2006-03-23T17:40:00.000-06:00

That's right folks, it's a battle of the newspapers. Which of the three acronyms in the title will give you the best for your money? Well hey, I'm no expert but I know a little something about each. For one, we have the far left representation in the New York Times. Then we have the always informative, always objective Wall Street Journal. Finally there is the right of center, business-minded Investor's Business Daily. There are stark differences between the three print dailies in the way they report the news and the focus is squarely on the economic front.

Where else to begin but with the loony left and their periodical of choice, the New York Times. The Times is known for its hositility towards right-minded news-seekers. The stories we seek and the opinions we wish to hear are rarely representated on the pages of Sulzberger's rag. Now the Times is making it difficult for even their readers to make money by relegating the stock tables to its digital edition. Now only those who subscribe to the Times will have access to these money-making numbers. People too cheap for subscriptions but who enjoy both the stories and have an interest in the financials won't simply go to the Wall Street Journal for the tables; they will be SOL in most cases.

Then there is the Wall Street Journal, perenially known as the financially-astute reader's newspaper. The majority of the stories in this massive, four section daily deal with stories that have something to do with money and its pursuit by savvy investors. Nevertheless, it offers much in the way of world news and political commentary as well. Where the NYT is concerned more with world news and lefty politics, the Journal strays from getting entangled in opinion and is exceptional at reporting objectively. For those simply concerned with making easy money in the marketplace, the embedded sections "Marketplace" and "Money & Investing" are must reads. When delving into the world of politics, there are two pages of commentary in the main section, the Journal has always been one of the most editorially conservative national newspapers. All in all, the Journal maintains readership of 2 million-plus for good reason -- it easily appeals to many readers because of its objectivity and focus on investment news.

The final paper, and most expensive of the three, is the Investor's Business Daily. However, for the wealth of knowledge encompassed in its pages, the hefty subscription rate is fine by its readers. The majority of IBD readership comes from six-figure investors looking for premium investment information that their peers do not have access to, or must wait to receive. Nevertheless, their reporting and political commentary are unabashedly right-of-center. The paper's editorials are often featured on the blog of pro-growth group, Club For Growth. Subscribers, however, have access to premium investment tools at the website, investors.com.

For a comparison in the reporting tactics of NYT and IBD, see Larry Elder's piece on WorldNetDaily.

Subscribe to: New York Times ... Wall Street Journal ... Investor's Business Daily

The Truth Can Be Funny

2006-03-21T00:17:00.000-06:00

I found this joke quite entertaining ... h/t Adam Smith Institute Blog

Five Caribbean Surgeons were discussing the best patients to operate on. The first, a Cuban surgeon, said, "I like to see accountants on my operating table, because when you open them up, everything inside is numbered."

The second, a Jamaican, responded, "Yeah, but you should try electricians. Everything inside them is colour coded." The third, a Barbadian surgeon, said he preferred librarians because he found everything inside them was in alphabetical order, and the fourth, a Trinidadian surgeon, liked construction workers because they always understood when you had a few parts left over

But the fifth, a Guyanese surgeon, shut them all up when he observed: "You're all wrong. Politicians are the easiest. There's no guts, no heart, no balls, no brains and no spine, and the head and the ass are interchangeable."

Protectionism Is For Chumps

2006-03-20T16:41:00.000-06:00

Just a few minutes ago, former presidential candidate Pat Buchanan said on Kudlow & Company that he favors protectionist tariffs on imported goods to help end the outsourcing of manufacturing jobs.

This is where my libertarian side thumbs its nose at my conservative side.

Free trade and globalization create a better economy domestically and abroad for our trading partners. Protectionism is so ridiculous because instead of hurting our trading partners and helping us, it does the opposite. Sometimes, it hurts everybody, as in extreme cases like the 1930 Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act that helped cause world trade to decline by 66% by 1934, according to the State Department.

Wikipedia says that "[A] revenue-generating tariff can be beneficial to an individual domestic economy, if other countries do not retaliate with tariffs of their own." Well the problem is that in efforts to protect their own industries, or just out of spite, foreign nations often do retaliate and fuel cyclical devastation that would plunge the WORLD economy into recession.

Rich Karlgaard, publisher of Forbes and Digital Rules blogger, argues that "Paleo Pat's" doctrine of "economic patriotism" would be "disastrous for the U.S. and the world."

I agree ...

Blog Spotlight: Adam Smith Institute Blog

2006-03-13T11:32:00.000-06:00

Adam Smith once said, "All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind."

Thankfully, his work led to a contradiction of this statement and a movement championed by some of the greatest economists the world has ever seen. Friedrich Hayek used the principles of the capitalist system to debunk socialism and ensure that its spread would not corrupt another European country. Milton Friedman used these same principles to argue for economic freedom and became one of the most widely cited economic thinkers of the 20th century.

I was fortunate enough this morning to happen across The Adam Smith Institute and its blog thanks to a reference on the Club For Growth's blog. ASI calls itself "the UK's leading innovator of free-market policies" and its blog features several free market writers and a "Joke of the day" segment that has no shortage of side splittery.

Today's insights include a look into the "fair trade" coffee shops whose practices seem slightly Orwellian as well as a summary of the negative effects of high marginal tax rates on the British economy (our friends across the pond have an average tax rate that is fast approaching 50%).

I would suggest adding their RSS atom feed to your feed-readers; this is a daily read for anyone interested in the economy, domestic or foreign.

The Sarbanes-Oxley Monster

2006-03-08T16:51:00.000-06:00

Former Clinton Commerce Secretary Robert Reich and Wall Street Journal Editorial Columnist Steve Moore were just debating Sarbanes-Oxley, the corporate governance legislation, on Kudlow and Company when Mr. Reich said:

We have a democracy, and most people are going to say, "If we didn't have enough to stop all of those shenanigans, we are going to have to have more."

Rarely have I heard anything more naive from a man of obviously high intelligence. Robert Reich is not a stupid man, he knows a thing or two about the criminal justice system and why laws are required to maintain order in a society. But to suggest that if current laws result in crime the solution is more laws is so absurd, and it almost borders on communist-speak. His comments bring to mind the communist ideal of a "heaven on earth" and "utopian society" by making it so difficult to be bad that all of a sudden, all the criminals will become upstanding citizens.

No matter how many or how few laws are on the books, there will always be people who break them. The whole point of the laws is to ensure that these people are brought to justice. Simply because a few more CEOs, financial officers, and accounting firms are "cooking the books" at various corporations doesn't mean that the current law is too lenient. That is like arguing that because murder rates spiked one year that the law isn't working and we need more laws. You can't come to logical conclusions based on such a limited sample base as Sarbanes-Oxley was. This kind of knee-jerk reactionism is what creates larger, less efficient bureaucracies that attempt to control every malfeasance.

Furthermore, these kinds of sweeping regulations tend to have an ill effect on smaller entities, in this case smaller businesses planning on going public. The increased cost of complying with the new regulations make it more difficult and less appealing for smaller companies to list on the domestic exchange and drives many companies to list abroad.

For an outline on this phenomenon and a solution, see Monday's op-ed by Nasdaq CEO Bob Greifeld in the Wall Street Journal.

Ports Deal Updates

2006-03-08T11:31:00.000-06:00

The Wall Street Journal has a "Ports Deal News Tracker" that is loaded with almost up to the minute updates concerning congressional hearings and other worldwide news about the ports deal.

One of the more recent updates includes an article today reporting that House Republicans are "distancing themselves from" Bush and many are opposing this deal because of constituent concerns. Give me a break, I understand that the job of these politicians is to represent their constituency, but since when have they ever fought for their "constituents' views"?!

This is probably not just my own theory, but I'm wondering if this sudden 180 on national security by the Democrats hasn't forced congressional Republicans to follow suit in an attempt to avoid another black mark as election season heats up again.

Baseball Season At Last

2006-03-07T17:54:00.000-06:00

While the regular season of Major League Baseball is still three weeks away, baseball as real fans know it has already begun. I am not referring to the spring training month that precedes every season; I am talking about the inaugural edition of the World Baseball Classic. Last week the Asian bracket led off the classic with Korea upsetting the Far East version of America, namely Japan, with a 3-2 victory in the Pool A title game.

Today, the remaining three pools of four teams started with a thrilling late-inning victory by the Dominican Republic, scoring five runs in the top of the ninth to pull away from Venezuela for an 11-5 victory over the league's best southpaw, Johan Santana. Immediately following that game was a nail-biter between the United States and our southern neighbor, Mexico. Two solo home runs -- one by Chicago Cubs' first baseman Derrek Lee and the other by Atlanta Braves' third baseman/left fielder Chipper Jones -- accompanied lights-out pitching by a cornucopia of big name pitchers led by San Diego Padres' ace Jake Peavy as the US team beat Mexico 2-0 in a pitching gem that yielded only 10 hits.

Keep up the great work Team USA! They face their other North American neighbor, Canada, tomorrow in game two of the first round. Baseball is here everybody, so get pumped!

Kirby Puckett, RIP

2006-03-06T22:16:00.000-06:00

One of the greatest natural hitters in baseball history has passed away. Kirby Puckett died today after suffering a stroke at the age of 45. My prayers are with his family ... may he rest in peace.

Fanatical (insert religion here)

2006-03-06T14:23:00.000-06:00

It has come to my attention that certain Muslims are offended by cartoons about their prophet. Actually it has come to everyone's attention due to the overdramatization of the situation by the Muslim world. From discussions to demonstrations to full-blown riots, the condemnation of the Danish cartoons seems to be unable to reach a climax. Hopefully it will before the rioting escalates into violence, but then again depending on how one looks at things, maybe it already has.

I read a story in the Wall Street Journal just prior to writing this that covered a local French Muslim backlash against the reading of a 1741 play by Voltaire called "Fanaticism, or Mahomet the Prophet". The article states that the play "uses the founder of Islam to lampoon all forms of religious frenzy and intolerance." It later mentions this weekend's message by bin Laden associate Ayman al-Zawahri which said the Danish cartoons "showed the West has double standards because 'no one dares to harm Jews...nor even to insult homosexuals.'"

Here is where my big problems with fanatical Islam arise. Why, as al-Zawahri says, does "no one [dare] to harm Jews"? Perhaps because fanatical Jews didn't pilot jetliners into the WTC and Pentagon on 9/11. Nobody has been running around scared of fanatical Christians or Hindus or Jews because none of these groups have committed mass-murders in the name of their Lord. Do we see Jewish mobs running rampant in Germany seeking retribution for the ill-treatment of their grandparents during the Holocaust? Do we see protestants terrorizing the Catholic Church worldwide in search of payback for sins against their faiths many centuries ago? Remember, it wasn't a hard-line Hinduist regime that blew up two 1,000-plus year old statues of Buddha because "calling them idols of infidels and repugnant to Islam."

In truth, as the WSJ article outlines, the Christian faith and Catholics in particular were outraged with Voltaire's play in the 18th century and "Roman Catholic clergymen denounced it as a thinly veiled anti-Christian tract." The Catholic king of France even banned Voltaire from Paris, forcing him to move to Geneva where the Swiss burned one of his books. However it appears the Church has taken a more "live and let live" approach to modern society. It does rebuke certain policies like abortion, but these stances never change for neither does the value of a life. In comparison, the effect of a play now 265 years old does tend to wane as the decades progress, and its offense to a few Muslims aside will hardly create shockwaves that reverberate through the masses.

Nearly every group on the face of this planet has in some way or another been victimized. The difference between the fanatics and the rest is that the latter have moved on while the former carries a grudge that must be avenged. Imagine Mel Gibson in the movie Payback magnified by about ten thousand. This number of fanatical Muslims (probably more, but ten thousand is a nice round number) give the other billion a bad name by screaming "ALLAH!!" while they run around bombing discos and markets in an attempt to purify the world.

In the words of one French daily, "Help us Voltaire. They've gone mad."

When Hypocrisy Yields Hilarity

2006-03-06T12:01:00.000-06:00

via Drudge (h/t Dan):Barbra Streisand has launched a new spelling error-ridden dispatch on the Internet -- a dispatch that mocks President Bush for being a "C student!" In her February 28th, 2006 essay, Streisand flubs 11 words, a personal record.Wow, I don't know what is funnier than that ... perhaps something along the lines of Gore calling Bush stupid even though the latter had better grades.

According to her Wikipedia biography, "She has been criticized for being one of the stupidest women in America. This has recently been reinforced by her rising to the number two spot on the 'Top Ten Stupidest Women In America' list." Thank goodness we have such intelligent people in Hollywood to reinforce popular sentiment. *** heavy sarcasm ***

This Day in History

2006-03-04T22:28:00.000-06:00

On this day, 217 years ago, our republic officially began. March 4th, 1789 marked the beginning of government under the United States Constitution.

Today is also the anniversary of the inaugurations of Abraham Lincoln and FDR in 1861 and 1933 respectively.

"Gentle" Drill Instruction

2006-03-04T16:13:00.000-06:00

A Marine Corps reservist from New York said the following in a Letter To The Editor published in the Weekend Journal:

Preparation is the best ingredient for molding our future soldiers. I almost laughed at the thought of Army recruits running 60% less, having enough seconds to eat and not being subject to tough emoitional stress from their drill instructors. The Army is doing a disservice to these recruits. Years ago in Vietnam, I ate one C-ration per day, hiked 10 to 20 miles daily with a 70-pound pack, slept in the mud with mosquitoes and experienced the fright of someone trying to do bodily harm to me. I survived physically and emotionally because I was trained by "mean" Marine Corps drill instructors. Let's properly prepare all recruits and not worry about recruiting goals.

There is a serious problem with this modern society in which the powers-that-be have decided it better to play it safe with recruits than to push the boundaries and possibly hurt their feelings. With today's standards of drill instruction, WWII infantrymen and paratroopers would never have been able to deal with the pressure. Imagine what today's preparations would have done for the 101st Airborne as they were scattered all over France, missing drop zones by many miles in some instances. The ability to run long distances and still remain alert to any threat is what gave these brave paratroopers a slight advantage in their horribly disadvatageous positions.

Today there are activist groups representing every possible cross-section of America ready to sue at the first cry of discrimination. Whether it is calling a recruit "Private Pyle" as R. Lee Ermey's character did in Full Metal Jacket, or using any of a number of derogatory terms to train their recruits to deal with anger and frustration, drill instructors are becoming increasingly worried that their actions will be scrutinized by the armchair generals that make the ultimate decisions in Washington.

The aforementioned reservist certainly hit the nail on the head when he summed up his experiences with the worst conditions to help train him for the fighting that he was sure to encounter in the coming months. Then we have the case of people like my father who were in no way ready to submit to the crap being dealt by drill instructors in the Vietnam-era. He simply wanted to serve his one year and get back to America, so his impatience took the form of contempt for authority. Were it not for the harsh treatment during training, it would've been much more difficult for him to take orders on the battlefield with all the carnage and horror that surrounded him.

The truth is that all the yelling and cursing and belittling of recruits is ultimately done to prepare recruits for conditions on the front lines. If a recruit goes through basic training without being really afraid, what are they going to do when they are part of a unit being ambushed by enemies armed with machine guns and RPGs? The only way to really prepare someone for that is to subject them to the worst possible conditions before they even leave America. Once they know just what to expect, they can begin to mentally prepare themselves.

If it were not for drill instructors and boot camp, many more young men and women would be returning in body bags. Thank God the pacifists aren't in charge of this country ...

Do The Poor Deserve Cheaper Phone Calls?

2006-03-04T02:31:00.000-06:00

During my end of the night, bedtime reading of the Wall Street Journal, I came across a little blurb in the Washington Wire section on page A4. The section "PHONE FIGHT" reads:

FCC Chairman Martin faces resistance to overhaul of Universal Service Fund, which subsidizes phone services for poor and rural areas. NAACP and Gray Panthers slam his flat-fee-per-phone-number idea, citing burden on those making few long-distance calls. At Senate hearing, seniors' group AARP asks: "Is it fair for Bill Gates and Aunt Edna ... [to] pay the same amount?"

My answer: YES! There's a fine line preventing us from falling head-first down the slippery slope toward price cuts for lower-class consumers. First it is phone calls, then it is internet access ... who knows where it could lead. The point is, the whole situation stinks of socialist-type redistribution of wealth theories which utiliize many clever schemes to soak the rich and give break after break to the poor.

In response to those who believe we need to take it easy on the poor and give them a few breaks so they can make ends meet, I say this; are poor people worth less than rich people? Of course not, every human being on this earth has the same intrinsic value in the eyes of God. What they do with their lives has the foremost bearing on their altered standing in His mind. That said, why do leftist social reformers constantly bicker over ways to treat the poor differently than the rich?

This isn't ancient Rome where the nouveau rich, or newly rich, treated themselves to lavish pleasures including priceless crystal and building immense palaces while utilizing the services of hundreds of slaves whom they murdered savagely for no more than disgracing their masters. This is modern America where a poor person is free to do the same things as a rich person. Perhaps there are some activities not accessible to the former, but there is no barrier firmly in place preventing them from having these opportunities afforded them through hard work. Their laziness, self-doubt, etc. represent the natural barriers from self-improvement.

Unfortunately, in today's society the poor have become accustomed to the welfare system and "self-improvement" is as foreign to them as a $100 bill ...

Revenge of the Editorial Cartoonists

2006-03-03T15:33:00.000-06:00

Die Karikaturisten schlagen zurück!

A smorgasbord of editorial cartoons poking fun at the fanatical Islamist response to the publishing of the Danish cartoons. It just goes to show that the right to free speech is something that will never be forfeited by a free nation. Even in the face of fatwas against their lives, supporters and even the authors of the cartoons are still standing strong behind their words and actions. There is very little that better defines perseverance.

Hat tip: Little Green Footballs

Port Security vs Islamophobia: Part 2

2006-03-02T23:09:00.000-06:00

*** This article will appear in the next issue of the Mendota Beacon ***

Good morning, class. Today’s one question pop quiz deals with the topic of port security and the bid for a United Arab Emirates company to purchase the British company that currently operates six United States ports. The question is; what does this deal have to do with U.S. port security? If you answered, “Nothing,” then take your seat at the head of the class.

There is no question that the case involving the $6.8 billion takeover of London-based port-operator Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co. (P&O) by state-owned Dubai Ports World (DPW) has aroused a vitriolic reaction from both sides of the aisle. The opponents of this deal are saying that it puts unnecessary risk on port security in a time when our number one priority is the safety of American airports and shipping ports. Supporters of the deal, led by President Bush, argue conversely that the DPW-operated ports would run just as smoothly and safely as the same ports have under P&O operation. More recently, the tide of the debate has shifted to a matter of whether or not this administration knows what it is agreeing to in the deal, and thus the takeover has been delayed at the request of DPW corporate brass.

What one must understand is the extreme patience that DPW has shown through this whole process. The takeover of P&O will transfer operation of ports not only in the United States, but also in Australia and Great Britain, to DPW. However, according to DPW Chief Operating Officer Ted Bilkey, the trouble they have run into here “has come as a surprise.” The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported last Wednesday that the debate in the U.S. is the only obstacle preventing this deal from reaching a conclusion. Are we to assume that the U.K. and Australia have nothing to fear from terrorism? I was under the distinct impression that Muslims had attacked the heart of the U.K. in July.

Let us quickly analyze the role played by the United Arab Emirates in assisting us as we fight the war on terror. First, we must confront the fact that two of the 9/11 hijackers hailed from the UAE and used their banking system to move money for use in planning the attacks. Well, in a WSJ editorial, former Clinton Defense Secretary William S. Cohen points out that Great Britain, Germany, Florida, California, and Arizona banks moved money for the terrorists, but “no one … has suggested that any of them were deliberately aiding or abetting terrorism.” Then there is the conveniently ignored fact that the UAE has been one of our strongest allies in the war on terror. According to the WSJ, “[I]t was one of the first countries to join the U.S. container security initiative, which seeks to inspect cargo in foreign ports.” Does this not seem like useful information for the current debate?

It is really quite simple; Dubai, one of the seven emirates that make up the UAE, is attempting to shift its world image from oil-rich desert oasis to an international financial hub comparable to New York or London. This was the plan set forth shortly after 9/11 by Mohammed Bin Rashid al-Maktoum, the emir of Dubai. Would it be smart policy to facilitate the attack of a major trading partner, especially when it would seem so obvious that they were complicit? Of course not, and if you were the head of P&O, would you willingly allow your company to be taken over so the company you built up could be used as a front for anti-Western Islamofascists? The security risks posed by this deal are purely imaginary. Until we realize this, the tide of this debate will remain unchanged.

Howard Dean's Conundrum

2006-03-02T14:32:00.000-06:00

This is from James Taranto's Best of the Web Today on OpinionJournal.com ...

The Democratic Party's official blog features excerpts from a speech chairman Howard Dean delivered the other day to the Jewish Council for Public Affairs:

The Democrats have a better idea. First we will conclude the negotiations with the Chinese and the North Koreans to disarm North Korea. Secondly, under no circumstances will a Democratic Administration ever allow Iran to become a nuclear power. Three, we will kill or capture Osama bin Laden and four, the authority and the control of the ports of the United States must be retained by American companies.

I have just one thing to say to Dr. Dean. "How, how, how, and how?!" That's one of the main differences between a liberal and a conservative; the former tells you what to do while the latter tells you how to do it.

Post Office: Most Trusted Government Agency

2006-03-02T11:00:00.000-06:00

I hope I am not the only one who thinks that if the United States Post Office is the most trusted government agency, then there is something seriously wrong with our government.

As a Club For Growth member said about this news, "Is this a good thing?"

What Happens When Unions Take Over

2006-03-01T21:41:00.000-06:00

What happens when unions take over? Very little. Just take a look at the front page article in today's Wall Street Journal on General Motors and the UAW "Jobs Bank". Here is a short excerpt:

This is the "Jobs Bank," a two-decade-old program under which nearly 15,000 auto workers continue to get paid after their companies stop needing them. To earn wages and benefits that often top $100,000 a year, the workers must perform some company-approved activity. Many do volunteer jobs or go back to school. The rest must clock time in the rubber room or something like it.
It is called the rubber room, Mr. [Jerry] Mellon says, because "a few days in there makes you go crazy."

There's quite a lot wrong with this situation. First of all we are hearing news come out of General Motors that they're going bankrupt because car sales are down and the company is going to have to lay off thousands of workers and close a plant or two. But to hear that some of the most inefficient automakers are paying employees to sit around and do nothing is simply outrageous. What happened to the days when the likes of Carnegie and Rockefeller would go to any length to cut costs? Cost-cutting must be archaic in today's automobile industry.

As you can see in the graphic to the right, the number of workers in the "Jobs Bank" has increased by a large margin since this time last year, 47% in fact. Just sit down for a minute and think about why this institution is even out there. Now let me tell you why; the unions that represent a large portion of the American automobile industry employees will not allow these workers to be out of a job unless the plant they work in is shut down. As long as there's a plant, there is something for these workers to do. And by something, I mean sitting in the "rubber room" or any number of other "company-approved" activity.

The best thing for the automobile industry to do if it wants to remain competitive is to file for bankruptcy and void their union contracts. With the unions no longer calling the shots, General Motors and Ford will no longer have to allow thousands of workers to soak up salaries while taking classes on crossword puzzles and Trivial Pursuit. Costs will fall and workers will be forced to do their jobs more efficiently. Vehicle prices will subsequently drop and American automakers will pick up the chunk of market share that has been lost in the past few decades to hyper-efficient Japanese automakers who are building increasing numbers of factories here in America.

If America's automakers don't become more competitive in a hurry, they'll find their old factories rebuilt with a foreign name on the walls ...

CBS News Poll Can't Hide the Truth

2006-03-01T14:34:00.000-06:00

The most recent CBS News poll (PDF file), released yesterday, has President Bush's approval rating at an all-time low of 34%. Nearly every question has a more negative response than the past and like vultures to a rotting carcass, the liberal pundits have jumped on this news with vigor. The only problem is the fact that this "representative poll" included only 27% Republicans and 40% Democrats out of 1,018 respondents. Therefore the reactions espoused in the poll are to be expected from such a biased sample base.

Nevertheless, there is one poll question that hit me like a ton of bricks:

DANISH CARTOON CONTROVERSY

Justified --- Not justified --- Don’t Know

Publishing cartoons -------------------- 32% ------------ 27 --------------- 41

Violent Muslim reaction --------------- 9% ------------- 56 --------------- 35

Even a skewed poll shows support for the Danish cartoons and opposition to the fanatical Islamist response worldwide. Nevertheless, the terrible media coverage of the DPW ports deal is yielding negative results as 21% of respondents supported the ports deal. However, a simple matter of question wording could clear this up quite a bit. If the question, instead of saying, "Should UAE company operate US ports?" maybe they could try, "Should the sale of a British company that owns six US ports to a UAE company be allowed?" I think the response would be much more favorable, and I'm pretty sure they knew that.

This is why you will rarely see me quote poll data unless I find a good question and a responsible source. Too many times I have seen polls ask stupid questions to skewed sample bases, and it simply gets on my nerves. However, I will do my best to uncover the truth so that you can spread the real story to those who may not know what's truth and what's make believe thanks to the MSM ...

A Testament to Bravery: Part 2

2006-03-01T14:19:00.000-06:00

Salman Rushdie and nearly a dozen other writers have issued a statement warning against "Islamic totalitarianism". BBC News reports:

"After having overcome fascism, Nazism, and Stalinism, the world now faces a new global threat: Islamism," the manifesto says.

They also include a list of the writers that signed the document, and I believe every one of them deserves praise for their bravery. Every one of them will have a target on their back and a bounty from Islamic fascists with a hunger for revenge.

Salman Rushdie - Indian-born British writer with fatwa issued ordering his execution for The Satanic Verses
Ayaan Hirsi Ali - Somali-born Dutch MP
Taslima Nasreen - exiled Bangladeshi writer, with fatwa issued ordering her execution
Bernard-Henri Levy - French philosopher
Chahla Chafiq - Iranian writer exiled in France
Caroline Fourest - French writer
Irshad Manji - Ugandan refugee and writer living in Canada
Mehdi Mozaffari - Iranian academic exiled in Denmark
Maryam Namazie - Iranian writer living in Britain
Antoine Sfeir - director of French review examining Middle East
Ibn Warraq - US academic of Indian/Pakistani origin
Philippe Val - director of Charlie Hebdo

SEC: Subpoena Happy

2006-03-01T00:09:00.000-06:00

Some crazy things are coming from the drop in Overstock.com's share prices lately. Recently, MarketWatch columnist Herb Greenberg was subpoenaed by the Securities and Exchanges Commission (SEC) along with another Dow Jones reporter. Sought in the matter were conversations between the two and stock traders and analysts. This afternoon brought on another round of SEC lunacy as it was divulged that TheStreet.com and co-founder Jim Cramer, also the host of the CNBC show Mad Money, were served subpoenas in connection with stock manipulation allegations.

I have only one thing to say regarding this matter, and it has already been echoed by Cramer and others. Seasoned analysts tend to be right when they tell their subscribers or their clients that a stock is a "sell" or a "buy". This implies that their news doesn't cause stock prices to fall, but in fact it just amplifies the effect of the company's negative outlook. If Jim Cramer comes out on his show and responds to a caller asking about a certain stock by saying "SELL SELL SELL" accompanied by a good reason, where is the logic in calling this stock manipulation. The stock was already headed south on its own but investors with more information decided to either avoid or get rid of their shares in the company in question.

The government is rarely a good regulator whether it's private enterprise or the financial markets. It overreacts; it underreacts. Why doesn't the SEC just stick to the big stuff, like insider trading. Too many people are fed up with companies like Tyco and Worldcom whose CEOs have been disgraced but whose employees have been swindled. I don't see the public outcry against Jim Cramer and Herb Greenberg simply doing their job in advising their clients to avoid losses and head for the easy gains. Without them and their fine work, investing would be far less profitable ...

Good GDP News

2006-02-28T23:32:00.000-06:00

Unfortunately for President Bush, a slowdown in economic growth last quarter has depressed public support for his handling of the economy, but then again even great numbers would've been bashed by liberal scaremongers. The 1.1% real GDP growth rate published last month by the Bureau of Economic Analysis was lower than expected and just bad on all accounts.

However, there is a bright side to this story. This morning the BEA released the "preliminary" real GDP numbers for the 4th quarter of 2005 ("advance" estimates are released first, followed by "preliminary" estimates one month later, and the final revisions after another month) and the results were a 0.5% upward revision. The release reiterated how much the decelerated PCE (personal consumption expenditures) deflated the growth rate. In fact, the 4.1% growth rate of the 3rd quarter was boosted by a 4.1% growth in PCE while the meager 4th quarter GDP growth rate was weighed down by a 1.2% PCE growth rate.

The Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia published a survey two weeks ago estimating first quarter GDP growth at over 4% and year-over-year growth of 3.2%. Now these numbers could be high or they could be low, due to fluctuations over the next month beyond their control or foresight. Nevertheless, barring any major negative action against the domestic economy, there is little that will prevent GDP growth from eclipsing 4% yet again. In fact, that figure could receive a nice boost from Congress in the form of a tax cut extension. Decreased pressure on investors would result in an increase in investments and on businesses would result in greater capital investment and expansion.

Don't be fooled by pessimists in the guise of reporters; their message is laced with inaccuracy and stinks of bias. A quick look at the facts shows economic expansion abound in the American economy from nearly every angle. Oil prices are dropping, soon below $60/barrel, and soon energy prices will follow suit. Natural gas prices are already half of what they were after Katrina (in fact the latest closing price of $6.714 is only 43.6% of what it was at its peak in December) and the trendline is still pointing south.

It is nice to be the bearer of good news as opposed to the MSM and their track record of pessimistic reporting. Then again, the man in the Oval Office has an "R" after his name, so the pessimism could be here for a while, God willing ...

Thank (bleep) We Got Him ...

2006-02-28T17:35:00.000-06:00

That's the reaction from Richard Shaw, Yale's dean of undergraduate admission, upon signing up a former Taliban spokesman to their roles. The New York Times reported that Yale "had another foreigner of [Sayed] Rahmatullah's caliber apply for special-student status ... we lost him to Harvard," and "I didn't want that to happen again." Journal columnist John Fund wrote yesterday:

Something is very wrong at our elite universities. Last week Larry Summers resigned as president of Harvard when it became clear he would lose a no-confidence vote held by politically correct faculty members furious at his efforts to allow ROTC on campus, his opposition to a drive to have Harvard divest itself of corporate investments in Israel, and his efforts to make professors work harder. Now Yale is giving a first-class education to an erstwhile high official in one of the most evil regimes of the latter half of the 20th century--the government that harbored the terrorists who attacked America on Sept. 11, 2001.

Indeed. Diversity is becoming a nuisance on our college campuses. Not that it's a problem, but when you try to make a big deal of something that really never was, it becomes a problem. And now someone has to take the role of "bad guy" and deal with it ...

Michael S. Joyce, RIP

2006-02-28T17:00:00.000-06:00

National Review Online's John J. Miller has a look back at one of the great philanthropists of the 20th century, Michael S. Joyce. He wasn't the man with the money; he was the one who knew where to spend it best. Miller says of Joyce:

Michael S. Joyce, who died on Friday at the age of 63, was one of the conservative movement’s great philanthropic spenders. As executive director of the John M. Olin Foundation (1979-1985) and the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation (1985-2001), he was responsible for tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars of spending on conservative ideas and causes. His name will long be linked to the rise of school choice, welfare reform, and faith-based initiatives.

His work for school choice is already yielding dividends here in Wisconsin. The number of Milwaukee students able to use public money to attend private schools was raised by 7,500 earlier this month.

We can only pray that a man with his philanthropic genious will arise to take his place in the near future. May he rest in peace, but may his mission live on ...

Let's Put the Tax Code Where It Belongs

2006-02-27T12:16:00.000-06:00

... in the trash.

The Internal Revenue Code is long. In fact, "printed 60 lines to the page, it would fill more than 7500 letter-size pages" according to one source. There is craziness abound in this abomination of economic freedom. One such example is the "double-taxation on dividends" which spawns from corporate income taxes that are included in the dividend and then are compounded when the individual recipient pays dividend taxes. This is why President Bush pushed hard for its elimination back in 2003.

As you can see, compliance with this bohemoth tax code is all but impossible. This may seem farfetched, but let's take a look in recent news shall we. A story erupted with a press release from H&R Block (h/t: TaxProf, the nation's largest tax preparation firm, saying:

The restatement pertains principally to errors in determining the company’s state effective income tax rate, resulting in a cumulative understatement of its state income tax liability of approximately $32 million as of April 30, 2005.

That's right, the company that promises to get you the maximum refund guaranteed can't even get its own taxes right. That doesn't bode well for middle-aged single mothers who sit at home for a week straight at the beginning of April filing their tax returns and praying they don't get audited.

According to the Tax Foundation, compliance costs for the Federal Income Tax alone are $265.1 billion or 22% of receipts from the tax, which come out to around $1.2 trillion. They project that taxpayers will spend about 6 billion hours complying with the tax code this year. Even worse, however, is what is coming -- by 2015, it is projected that compliance costs will grow to $482.7 billion, or nearly half a trillion dollars!

Then there is the Form 1040, otherwise known as the Individual Income Tax Return. MarketWatch has the "Form 1040 lines that lead to the most mistakes". Now, mistakes are always a bad thing, but on a tax return form, they can ruin one's life. (h/t: Club For Growth)

As I've been paying taxes for only a few years now, I really don't have much to complain about. Nevertheless, does it really make a difference? We're talking about money we should gladly give up. It pays for roads, national security, the amazing feats of science going on daily at NASA, and much more. However, when it takes the average American (between one day and one hundred and fifty years old) over 21 hours to file income tax returns, people are bound to get upset. In the same way that nobody likes waiting in line at the Department of Motor Vehicles, nobody likes waiting in line at the post office that second week of April every year.

Reform is badly needed, and not that paper-thin reform from the President's Tax Panel which simply suggested that we abolish the AMT. No, we need to abolish the AMT, payroll taxes, income taxes, estate taxes, gift taxes, and the whole lot of 'em. One, simple tax is all that is needed for the federal government to bring in all of its revenue. That tax is the national consumption tax, or FairTax.

Olympic Failure

2006-02-25T19:40:00.000-06:00

You know, coming into these Winter Olympics, one would assume skier Bode Miller was headed for five medals in five races. He had the media's support at every turn, and he had cockiness to boot. Too bad the media darling rarely comes out on top.

Even after fellow American Ted Ligety took gold in the Men's Combined event, the papers gravitated not to Ligety's victory but to Miller's failure. Now, at the last of Miller's five races, he has been DQ'd for missing a gate. That means three disqualifications along with fifth and sixth place finishes.

I think it's safe to assume that with overconfidence comes a sense of assuredness that leads to a lapse in work ethic and ends up in either failure or a performace far below expectations. There's nothing wrong with believing that you will win, but to believe you cannot lose is not what we need in champions. A good champion is always humble in their victories, just look at Tiger Woods. I will pay anyone who sees him flaunt his many victories ...

Government Can Learn From Wal-Mart

2006-02-24T12:18:00.000-06:00

Actually, a more fitting title would be "Government Can Learn From (insert private corporation here, except maybe Enron, Tyco, or Worldcom)". However, it just turns out that Wal-Mart is the best at what it does; it keeps prices lower than competitors and improves the lives of its customers. This is what Edwin Feulner, president of the Heritage Foundation, believes. In his column yesterday, he wrote:

Wal-Mart does what government intervention can't: It drives down prices and makes life better -- in New Orleans and, soon, in Chicago.

The company opened a store last month in Evergreen Park (where I was born), after the City Council refused to allow it inside the city limits. Some 25,000 people applied for the store's 325 jobs, which suggests Wal-Mart is popular with employees as well as consumers.

Let me get this straight, a company that gets flak from state governments for not spending enough on employee healthcare and from unions and their lap-dog activist groups (see WakeUpWalMart) for not treating their employees like they oughtta be (you know, make lots of money and get lots of benefits for doing a job that plenty thousands of other local people are willing to do for less money and fewer benefits).

The opponents of Wal-Mart must have received failing grades in freshman economics, because they obviously never learned that competitive enterprise equals lower prices and improved well-being for the community. If Wal-Mart did not run so efficiently and provide high-quality products, they wouldn't turn such a large profit (although their profit margin is nothing to write home about). There would be fewer customers and employees would be less content, both of which equal greater costs (the former through decreased sales, the latter through decreased productivity).

I could argue for hours on the beneficence of Wal-Mart and the impact it has on the retail sector. However, I have come to realize that trying to convince leftist activists that Wal-Mart is good is like trying to convince people the sky is not blue. It is useless to try to change those that cannot be changed. Oh well, maybe evolution will kick in and weed them out ... *** sarcasm ***

Port Security vs Islamophobia

2006-02-24T01:32:00.000-06:00

*** MILESTONE: 200th Post ***

*** UPDATE: Larry Kudlow takes my side ... check out his NRO article ... ***

Very exciting times for my two hundredth post, and all since tax day last year: April 15th, 2005. There's much to discuss, so hopefully the weekend will allow me to cover everything without sacrificing quality.

It is for this reason that I am so pleased with my most recent discovery; Mansoor Ijaz, an expert on Arab-America relations, wrote a stellar article for National Review Online Wednesday that finally allows me to comment on the proposed DPW acquisition of six American seaports and control of management responsibilities.

You see, I have found myself at odds with several of my favorite columnists, including Michelle Malkin (who is in frenzy mode over the deal). I rarely take a firm position unless I know that I stand on solid ground with which to base my argument, and Mr. Ijaz's most recent column has given me the foundation I need.

Until now, the best I could come up with were simply White House talking points, saying the same old thing about how the U.S. would run day-to-day security operations and the like, and so on, and so on. However, if one wants to make a plausible argument, one can't expect to do so by using one source that isn't the most neutral observer to say the least.

Indeed, I am a gung-ho supporter of American sovereignty and would even put myself close to those who suggest we leave the United Nations to fend for itself. However, while the U.S. may be getting the raw end of the deal from that bureaucratic nightmare, it still serves a purpose (if only a minimal one at that). Nevertheless, the ports deal has nothing to do with sovereignty and everything to do with the fact that the UAE is smack in the middle of Arab Central. Were one to cross the Persian Gulf to the north, one would find themselves in good ol' America-loving Iran. To the east is Oman and to the south is Yemen, site of the 2000 USS Cole bombing that seems to have faded from memory after 9/11. To the west is Saudi Arabia, a half-ally in the War on Terror but a freedom-embracing democracy it is not.

Now, this brings me to point #1; would anyone be so up in arms against this deal if the proposed buyer were, say, the Netherlands. Home of the largest port system in the non-Asian world (in 2004 the largest five were Hong Kong, Singapore, Shanghai, Shenzhen - China, and Busan - South Korea) in Rotterdam, the Netherlands is a shipping powerhouse and governed in much the same way as the rest of Europe. The point is, no big terrorist threat.

Of course, the same is true of Dubai, one of the seven states that make up the United Arab Emirates. According to Mansoor Ijaz,

"it was a citizen of the UAE ... who piloted United Airlines Flight 175 into the second World Trade Center tower, and it was through the banks of this country that the 9/11 attacks were partially financed."

Nevertheless, Dubai today is a metropolis and Ijaz says,

"it is rapidly becoming the prototype city-state that could serve as an important example for the future in Muslim societies bedeviled by high unemployment, low literacy rates, bad trade policies, and authoritarian political structures."

Let's imagine this scenario for a second from a business perspective. Dubai is what Vegas would look like if it were an entire state and sat on an ocean. It is, basically, New York meets Las Vegas. Dubai hosts an annual golf tournament that attracts Tiger Woods and other world-wide golf heroes (the bonus of several million dollars also helps). It is far from the decrepit, terrorist-harboring, Islamofascist nation that many somehow believe it is.

The truth that few bother to dig up is as Ijaz sums up in the following,

"Dubai was the first Middle East government to accept the U.S. Container Security Initiative as policy to screen all containers for security hazards before heading to America. In May 2005, Dubai signed an agreement with the U.S. Department of Energy to prevent nuclear materials from passing through its ports. It also installed radiation-detecting equipment — evidence of a commitment to invest in technology. In October 2005, the UAE Central Bank directed banks and financial institutions in the country to tighten their internal systems and controls in their fight against money laundering and terrorist financing."

How is that for a wake up call?

And you thought security would be jeopardized with this deal? I presume we'd have more to fear from a deal with the Netherlands ... you know, with all those legalized drugs.

Harris Poll Shocker

2006-02-23T00:21:00.000-06:00

Following the uproar over expanded surveillance powers that came from the leak to the New York Times, a new Harris Poll shows that the same amount of people "feel that U.S. law enforcement is using its expanded surveillance powers in a proper way". The poll data is as follows:

"Overall, thinking about the possibility of terrorist threats, do you feel that U.S. law enforcement is using its expanded surveillance powers in a proper way, or not?"

Base: All Adults

	June 2005	Feb. 2006
Using expanded surveillance powers in a proper way	57%	57%
Not using in a proper way	34	40
Not sure/Decline to answer	8	3

Source: Wall Street Journal

Islamic Hatred Takes Focus in Iraq

2006-02-22T23:54:00.000-06:00

You may expect this hatred to be focused on the "infidels", but the infidels on this occasion are Muslims. The Wall Street Journal reported tonight that a Shiite shrine was bombed yesterday in response to attacks against Sunni mosques.

Yesterday's bombing of one of Shiite Islam's holiest shrines and retaliatory attacks against Sunni Muslim mosques have raised Iraq's sectarian tensions to new heights, just as talks among the country's ethnic and religious groups on forming a unity government are floundering.

The consistent news coming out of Iraq these days involves suicide/homicide bombings on Iraqi civilians, attacks on holy sites, many times leaving the American death toll at a maximum of only a couple. Does anyone recall the story of a Shiite pilgrimage that encountered a machine gun trap on a bridge in Iraq? I doubt it; one would be hard-pressed to find a news account of the massacre. I only heard about it from a friend here at UW-Madison who recently returned from Iraq.

While the stories dominating mainstream media these days highlight the deaths of American soldiers, often they brush aside the massive civilian casualties and even fail to report cases where no American lives are lost. This is exactly the reason the blogosphere has had such a profound impact and is so hated by the liberal media. Whether it is uncovering scandals or shedding light on frauds (Rathergate, Korangate ... just to name a few), bloggers tell the whole story and not just the whitewashed edition that makes it onto ABC Primetime or CBS 60 Minutes.

A Testament to Bravery

2006-02-21T00:45:00.000-06:00

Dutch MP Ayaan Hirsi Ali deserves the utmost praise for her words regarding the Mohammed cartoons.

Cox and Forkum have reposted two articles from last week that show why she has earned "Allah's wrath and our praise".

Whose Oil Are We Addicted To?

2006-02-20T23:40:00.000-06:00

If one were posed the question, "Where does the United States get the most oil from?", I'm sure the responses would tend to gravitate to "the Middle East" and "Saudi Arabia". It is true that we get a lot of oil from Saudi Arabia; Saudi oil accounts for 7.2% of daily consumption in the United States (based on 2004 data *Excel file*). We imported 1,495,000 barrels from Saudi Arabia per day in 2004 and consumed 20,731,000 barrels daily, so you do the math ...

Now I am pretty sure this comes as quite the shock to many of you who for so long believed we were "dependent" on Middle East oil, but that fact is far from the truth. One and a half million barrels is quite a lot of oil, but 7.2% of total consumption is not nearly as dramatic. Just to make this a little more representative, the Middle East accounts for one-fifth of the top fifteen exporters of oil to the United States: Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Kuwait. Out of these fifteen nations, the amount of oil exported from the three Middle Eastern nations amounts to just over one-quarter, or 26%, and 11.5% of total consumption.

The biggest surprise will assuredly lie in the next piece of information. The Middle East does not represent the largest exporter of oil to the United States, and it does not represent the next to largest exporter as well. Saudi Arabia is the third largest, Iraq is the seventh largest, and Kuwait is the ninth largest exporter of oil to the US. That, I'm sure, was unexpected news!

Actually, the United States imports the most oil from none other than our North American neighbors to the north and south -- Canada (1.616 million barrels/day in 2004) and Mexico (1.598 million barrels/day). Another stunner is the fact that we have more to worry about from mixed relations with Hugo Chavez and the dicey situation in Nigeria, because Venezuela and Nigeria are fourth and fifth on the list of oil exporters to the US and account for another quarter of total exports from the top fifteen nations.

My conclusion from this information is simply this; the United States and its oil consumers have very little to fear from OPEC and other unfriendly oil exporting nations. There lies, several hundred miles north of the Canadian border, one of the largest oil deposits in the world and perhaps the largest in the Western Hemisphere! Furthermore there is plenty of untapped wilderness in Alaska where we have the ability to release ANWR's potential on the marketplace if only Congress would ignore the environmentalists and their cries against the proposition.

The area already accounts for 25% of our approximately 6 million barrels/day output and has the ability to provide much more. If we consume around 20-21 million barrels of oil every day in America in years to come, we could produce half of that domestically. In the entire 2004 calendar year, the United States exported only 9 million barrels of oil, all of which went to either Canada or China. Increased domestic oil production and decreased oil consumption could eventually lead to increased exportation and decreased importation of oil as well as stronger relationships with our trading partners and a decreased trade gap.

I will only say this once because it hardly bears mentioning; the United States will never be independent of oil. The most environmentally conscious and alternatively minded nations don't consume more than 10% alternative energy versus total energy consumption. Worldwide alternative energy consumption is estimated to stick to about 8% of worldwide energy consumption while oil will decrease slightly from 39% to 38% over the next few decades. Half of worldwide energy consumption comes from natural gas and coal, which each account for about a quarter.

The graph of world energy consumption by fuel type shows that apart from nuclear energy, renewable energy use is increasing at the slowest rate of all. Even with a massive boost in consumption of renewables, it could never eclipse a 10% share of world energy consumption because it simply doesn't have the ability for mass production in the way that oil, natural gas, coal and nuclear power do.

Strong words from the leader of the free world will not change this fact. As much as we would like to move towards "energy independence", there is a good reason why the term is an oxymoron. No nation will ever be entirely independent in its consumption of a product. This bears the name of "protectionism" and always leads to severely decreased economic freedom (see North Korea and the former Soviet Union). The United States wandered into its realm while rolling, at increasing speed, toward the Great Depression when Congress passed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act that placed a 60% tariff rate on imported goods. Foreign nations were discouraged from doing business and as a result, American consumers were most directly harmed. Indirectly, businesses at home were hurt because their customers had less money to buy with and thus the cycle kept churning as more people became unemployed and the nation sunk deeper into the valley of recession.

There is, of course, a moral to be learned here -- never seek to be completely independent. Whether in life or business, one's needs will always be met with outside help or not at all.

USSR Redux?

2006-02-19T21:02:00.000-06:00

The country is run by a former KGB spy who once said, "the collapse of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century." The country is in the bottom quarter of the Heritage Foundation's 2006 Index of Economic Freedom (IEF) and has hardly improved its standing in the index's twelve-year existence. Now Russia is taking for granted its only area of economic freedom: government intervention.

According to an Online Journal (subscription required) article today, the Russian government has seized control of a plant run by Russia's biggest automaker, OAO Avtovaz. The company has been taking part in a joint venture with General Motors valued at $340 million to locally produce GM products for use in Russia like the Chevrolet Niva and Viva. The article states that the move appears to be an attempt by the Kremlin to "revive Russia's ailing auto industry through direct state intervention."

We have already seen time and again what happens when this route is sought as a means to escape what looks to be inevitable. Unfortunately there is often an unexplored route in socialist/communist nation's that involves full private control. Unprofitable venutres such as the GM/Avtovaz partnership ("unprofitable" may be a speculative term) often need to go through cost-cutting measures as well as design changes to make an unwanted product more desirable in the domestic marketplace.

Russia, according to the IEF, is doing relatively well in the areas of fiscal burden and government intervention in recent years but are still suffering large inflation rates and low net foreign investment. Several cases of anti-democratic policies, including a $1 billion tax bill against BP's Russian joint venture partner TNK and friendliness toward other autocratic regimes (Venezuela and Syria come to mind), point to a future return to the days of yore when the hammer and sickle plagued the nightmares of those under Soviet rule.

The worst thing the Kremlin could do right now is to strong-arm General Motors out of the Russian automobile industry and take control of the marketplace. While it may not be the proverbial straw to break the camel's back, it would certainly be a big step in the wrong direction and part of a series of mistakes that could lead to a revived Soviet Union by decade's end ...

The New Face of Intimidation

2006-02-18T11:55:00.000-06:00

Try not to laugh, but in all seriousness, this is the new face of China's virtual police force tasked with patrolling the internet in Shenzhen, a Southern metropolis.

It may seem like a bad joke at the commies' expense, but there is no one laughing in the Far East. Here is the justification given by the director of the 'Shenzhen City Public Security Bureau's Internet Surveillance Centre',

“All around the world there are internet police, but they always operate backstage... No other internet police have stepped to the front of the stage,” she says. “We really feel that this is a historic breakthrough.”

Oh that's rich ... 'it's not bad, we're just doing what everyone else does, but we're revolutionary in that it's all out in the open.' So if an American blogger said "down with America" or "impeach Bush", they would be censored? I thought not. There would be NO far-left bloggers if that were truly the case.

The Chinese are indeed making leaps and bounds towards freedom, but only in certain districts and provinces. There are places in the country experiencing double-digit GDP growth while the mainland and boomtown cities are stuck at 2% due to heavy government influence in the marketplace. Sooner or later the people will be able to gather enough capital to force the government to adopt policies that bring the country closer to economic freedom.

Freedom cannot be suppressed, we witnessed this during the Cold War and we saw it in the faces of the students at Tiananmen Square seventeen years ago. We will see freedom in China one day, but it's up to the people to determine when and how ...

Open Letter to Alec Baldwin ...

2006-02-17T19:03:00.000-06:00

In my humble opinion, Mr. Baldwin, shut the f**k up.

This is an excerpt from his article on the Huffington Post today:

Will Cheney pay him off, preemptively? Will they go to court? I would imagine if a guy with a few beers in him shoots you in the face on a hunting trip, how could you turn down that opportunity?

What gives this colossal waste of space the authority to comment so speculatively? Was he there? Or is he just taking talking points from the Daily Kos? There's a reason Baldwin is the "Head FAG" in Team America: World Police.

Only on the left can you blatantly lie and get praise for it. If Clint Eastwood were to write an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal that said something along the lines of, "Why did Clinton pardon all of those people in the waning hours of his presidency? Was he payed off, preemptively? I would imagine if a guy had sex with an intern in the Oval Office he would be held accountable," he would be excoriated by every liberal media outlet -- obscure and mainstream. These are two occasions where a sitting President indubitably engaged in highly questionable behavior yet is still held in high esteem.

VP Cheney was involved in a simple hunting accident. There is NOTHING MORE TO IT! There's no cloak-and-dagger conspiracy that is being covered up. No matter how much these punks at the Daily Kos and the brainless celebrities in Hollywood speculate, it won't change the factual events of that day. So Cheney had a beer at lunch. Does that mean he broke the rules by hunting three hours later? It does if you're a vicious lefty who wants nothing more than to see this administration engrossed in a scandal like their hero Bill Clinton was.

The Trade Deficit and Its Root Causes

2006-02-17T13:24:00.000-06:00

According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the latest trade numbers boosted the deficit another $65.7 billion to a total of $725.8 billion. Our strong service sector had a trade surplus of $56.3 billion, but the export of goods trailed imports by $782.1 billion. Using the total trade deficit, I was able to calculate that 60% of the entire deficit is due to a $433.7 billion deficit in automobiles and consumer goods. These two end-use categories are one-third of the six categories listed and together account for 38.6% of total imports and 23.9% of exports.

I conclude that the trade deficit will be long-standing and will not slow for quite some time. American-made vehicles are beginning to lose market share at home and have never fared well against foreign competitors. However, is this deficit even such a bad thing? What we are losing in the trade deficit is being negated by Net Foreign Investment thanks to Chinese buy-up of U.S. bonds, among other things. The worst thing that can be done is the blocking of free trade by protectionist legislators like Chuck (Smoot) Schumer and Lindsey (Hawley) Graham (Smoot-Hawley tariff of 1930 threw us deeper into the despair of the Great Depression by cutting off foreign investment and halting imports dead in their tracks) -- (nicknames c/o Larry Kudlow).

Free trade and continued foreign investment will make the trade deficit a non-issue. Protectionism will make the deficit a problem and once we start down that road, it'll be hard to find our way out of the woods ...

Why Iran Can't Have Nukes

2006-02-17T12:46:00.000-06:00

This piece from Victor David Hansen on National Review Online covers six points why Iran should never be allowed to have nuclear weapons:

How many times have we heard the following whining and yet received no specific answers from our leaders?

"Israel has nuclear weapons, so why single out Iran?"
"Pakistan got nukes and we lived with it."

"Who is to say the United States or Russia should have the bomb and not other countries?"

"Iran has promised to use its reactors for peaceful purposes, so why demonize the regime?"

In fact, the United States has a perfectly sound rationale for singling out Iran to halt its nuclear proliferation. At least six good reasons come to mind, not counting the more obvious objection over Iran's violation of U.N. non-proliferation protocols. It is past time that we spell them out to the world at large.

First, we cannot excuse Iran by acknowledging that the Soviet Union, Communist China, North Korea, and Pakistan obtained nuclear weapons. In each case of acquisition, Western foreign-policy makers went into a crisis mode, as anti-liberal regimes gained stature and advantage by the ability to destroy Western cities.

A tragic lapse is not corrected by yet another similar mistake, especially since one should learn from the errors of the past. The logic of "They did it, so why can't I?" would lead to a nuclearized globe in which our daily multifarious wars, from Darfur to the Middle East, would all assume the potential to go nuclear. In contrast, the fewer the nuclear players, the more likely deterrence can play some role. There is no such thing as abstract hypocrisy when it is a matter of Armageddon.

Second, it is a fact that full-fledged democracies are less likely to attack one another. Although they are prone to fighting — imperial Athens and republican Venice both were in some sort of war about three out of four years during the 5th century B.C. and the 16th century respectively — consensual governments are not so ready to fight like kind. In contemporary terms that means that there is no chance whatsoever that an anti-American France and an increasingly anti-French America would, as nuclear democracies, attack each other. Russia, following the fall of Communism, and its partial evolution to democracy, poses less threat to the United States than when it was a totalitarian state.

It would be regrettable should Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, or Germany go nuclear — but not the catastrophe of a nuclear Pakistan that, with impunity de facto, offers sanctuary to bin Laden and the planners of 9/11. The former governments operate under a free press, open elections, and free speech, and thus their war-making is subject to a series of checks and balances. Pakistan is a strongman's heartbeat away from an Islamic theocracy. And while India has volatile relations with its Islamic neighbor, the world is not nearly as worried about its arsenal as it is about autocratic Pakistan's.

Third, there are a number of rogue regimes that belong in a special category: North Korea, Iran, Syria, and Cuba, unfree states whose leaders have sought global attention and stature through sponsoring insurrection and terrorism beyond their borders. If it is scary that Russia, China, and Pakistan are now nuclear, it is terrifying that Kim Jong Il has the bomb, or that President Ahmadinejad might. Islamic fundamentalism or North Korean Stalinism might be antithetical to scientific advancement, but it is actually conducive to nuclear politics. When such renegade regimes go nuclear they gain the added lunatic edge: "We are either crazy or have nothing to lose or both — but you aren't." In nuclear poker, the appearance of derangement is an apparent advantage.

Fourth, there are all sorts of scary combinations — petrodollars, nukes, terrorism, and fanaticism. But Iran is a uniquely fivefold danger. It has enough cash to buy influence and exemption; nuclear weapons to threaten civilization; oil reserves to blackmail a petroleum hungry world; terrorists to either find sanctuary under a nuclear umbrella or to be armed with dirty bombs; and it has a leader who wishes either to take his entire country into paradise, or at least back to the eighth century amid the ashes of the Middle East.

Just imagine the present controversy over the cartoons in the context of President Ahmadinejad with his finger on a half-dozen nuclear missiles pointed at Copenhagen.

Fifth, any country that seeks "peaceful" nuclear power and is completely self-sufficient in energy production is de facto suspect. Iran has enough natural gas to meet its clean electrical generation needs for centuries. The only possible rationale for its multi-billion-dollar program of building nuclear reactors, and spending billions more to hide and decentralize them, is to obtain weapons, and thus to gain clout and attention in a manner that otherwise is not warranted by either Iranian conventional forces, cultural influence, or economic achievement.

Sixth, the West is right to take on a certain responsibility to discourage nuclear proliferation. The technology for such weapons grew entirely out of Western science and technology. In fact, the story of nuclear proliferation is exclusively one of espionage, stealthy commerce, or American and European-trained native engineers using their foreign-acquired expertise. Pakistan, North Korea, and Iran have no ability themselves to create such weapons, in the same manner that Russia, China, and India learned or stole a craft established only from the knowledge of European-American physics and industrial engineering. Any country that cannot itself create such weapons is probably not going to ensure the necessary protocols to guard against their misuse or theft.

We can argue all we want over the solution — it is either immoral to use military force or immoral not to use it; air strikes are feasible or will be an operational disaster; dissidents will rise up or have already mostly been killed or exiled; Russia and China will help solve or will instead enjoy our dilemma; Europe is now on board or is already triangulating; the U.N. will at last step in, or is more likely to damn the United States than Teheran.

Yet where all parties agree is that a poker-faced United States seems hesitant to act until moments before the missiles are armed, and is certainly not behaving like the hegemon or imperialist power so caricatured by Michael Moore and an array of post-September 11 university-press books. Until there is firm evidence that Iran has the warheads ready, the administration apparently does not wish to relive the nightmare of the past three years in which striking Iran will conjure up all the old Iraqi-style hysteria about unilateralism, preemption, incomplete or cooked intelligence, imperialism, and purported hostility toward a Muslim country.

In the greatest irony of all, the Left (who must understand well the nightmarish scenario of a fascist Iran with nuclear weapons) is suddenly bewildered by George Bush's apparent multilateral caution. The Senate Democrats don't know whether to attack the administration now for its nonchalance or to wait and second-guess them once the bombs begin to fall.

Either way, no one should doubt that a nuclear Iran would end the entire notion of global adjudication of nuclear proliferation — as well as remain a recurrent nightmare to civilization itself.

Iran is a theocratic menace to democratic societies. Iran, unlike Israel, has threatened its enemies and proclaimed their wishes to "wipe them off the map". A nuclear Iran wouldn't be simply another nation trying to protect itself from the evil imperialists, it would BE the evil imperialists. Fear of nuclear retaliation would be great, but does anyone doubt that Iran would just sell to the highest Islamofascist bidder? I sure don't, and that's what separates Iran from other nuclear nations.

Let It Snow

2006-02-16T09:55:00.000-06:00

*** UPDATE: Here's what the snow bomb looked like ... ***

Ladies and gentlemen, it is a full blown snow bomb.

Last week's Nor-easter has been closely followed by this Mid-wester (insert punchline here) ...

According to the Weather Channel, only 6-10 inches expected. I disagree ... I think that much has fallen ALREADY! Oh well, I don't have to drive ...

All This Cheney Buzz is Giving Me a Headache

2006-02-15T20:18:00.000-06:00

As Rush said on Monday, "I'd rather go hunting with Dick Cheney than drive in a car with Ted Kennedy." All this hype over the story of the Vice President's hunting accident (and I intentionally stress "accident") is simply outrageous. Several points have been brought up concerning the events throughout the past few days and they are all miles from sane judgment.

For instance, a caller to the Sean Hannity show today said his college professor opened class by discussing the incident, and said that the shot they claim the VP was using wouldn't be able to penetrate into his heart, therefore he must have been up close and trying to hit him. This analysis sounds like something out of a crack addict because of its obvious inaccuracies. First, the victim acknowledges that it was an accident, something he wouldn't have said if he saw the VP come up and shoot him. Second, there's the whole issue of Secret Service witnesses. Third, the doctors specifically noted that the bird shot migrated to his heart; it wasn't there from the start (excuse the rhyme).

Some more examples include the left-wing blogosphere's claims that 1) Cheney was drunk, so that's why he waited 18 hours to notify the local sheriff, and 2) Cheney wanted to send "Scooter" Libby a message that he would be taken out if he ratted. The Daily Kos jumped on news that Cheney "had a beer" at lunch, even though that one drink came five hours before the incident. Kos tries to nitpick at his words and twist them into saying that he didn't drink even though he says they didn't drink. He admittedly had ONE beer at lunch and didn't go out hunting for three hours. Then they claim that he must be taking a load of drugs for his heart condition that can't go well with alcohol. Okay so does that mean he's either not taking his drugs or that he didn't drunk? You decide, but either way the socialist scum over at DK blew yet another one. So did the rest of the left wing ...

Why Government Should Be Run Like a Business

2006-02-14T16:57:00.000-06:00

Just this week, an audit (PDF file) of FEMA's allocation of aid money for Katrina victims revealed millions of dollars of wasted funds, including handing out $2,000 debit cards to recipients who gave phony Social Security numbers (yet another reason why we need a National ID card, but that's neither here nor there) and paying for beachfront condos and $400/night hotel suites in New York. The GAO audit of FEMA also shows that 62.8% of the debit card funds were filed under the title "ATM/Cash", implying that the money was either put in a bank account or converted into cash to avoid having their transactions monitored.

Some people who didn't go this route made some very odd purchases with taxpayer money, including:

.45 caliber pistol - $1,300
Gentlemen’s club - $1,200
Diamond engagement ring - $1,100
7 ATM withdrawals within one day at a gambling institution - $1,000
Tattoo on arm - $450
Massage parlor - $400
Alcohol beverages - $200
Adult erotica products - $150

This brings me to my point, which is simply this: the government, or state, is and always has been inefficiently run no matter who has been in charge. Businesses, conversely, survive only by maximizing efficiency and minimizing costs. These principles helped entrepreneurs of the late 19th and early 20th centuries become rich beyond a magnitude ever before accomplished.

By providing products at lower prices than their competitors and in greater quantities, tycoons like John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, and Cornelius Vanderbilt revolutionized their respective industries. One century hence, their methods are still supremely misunderstood, and their impacts highly understated.

Back to my point, where businesses fail, government thrives. By overextending itself, government expands its influence and becomes more powerful. When a business runs losses (like a government runs deficits), it is weeded out of the marketplace by more profitable and efficient companies. When a government does the same, it simply tweaks the tax code and bolsters revenue. Does this not sound like what happens when a producer raises prices? In this situation, however, there is no competitor to force a government to run efficiently. Where there is no competition, there is no incentive.

To understand the solution to this problem of consistent inefficiency, we must study the similarities between government and business, and mold the actions of the former to meet the latter. To make it easiest to follow along, I will take a top to bottom approach. Starting at the top, we have the chairman/CEO and his/her board of directors. This is the business equivalent to the United States government's President and his cabinet. The main priority of this business body is to maximize shareholder value (aka profit). The means of accomplishing this vary, but the mission remains constant. (For a short account on the social responsibility of business, see Milton Friedman's 1970 essay on the subject.)

Profit, or a budget surplus, allows a business to expand and have a greater influence on the marketplace. Through greater capital investment, improved production methods, and labor expansion, businesses are able to lower market prices and increase supply of goods and services. A profitable government would be able to either cut taxes, give tax refunds, increase spending on specific areas, or any combination of these. But an unprofitable government can do the third at will because the first two are not compulsory. You see, while government officials can hide their disgustingly contemptuous actions behind a facade of good will. Businesses that fail to lower prices have and always will be run out of business by competitors who will do anything to achieve maximum market share and profitability through lower prices and increased efficiency.

I hope that by now you've realized the reoccurring theme in this message: lower market prices and increased efficiency allow for increased profits and market share that improve the lives of consumers and producers alike. Government, on the other hand, rarely increases efficiency, but rather creates realms of influence that either could be handled better by the private sector or SHOULD be handled by the private sector. The Department of Transportation builds roads and controls traffic lights because these actions do not generate revenue and cannot be handled profitably by the private sector. NASA explores space because, again, there is no profit in the action though it does satisfy our quench for discovery.

The similarities, however, are easy to see if one chooses to look for them. For instance, a business offers a good or service to consumers for a price. It pays wages to laborers who produce this product, and it pays executives to expedite the entire process seamlessly. The government offers goods and services in the form of public utilities and national defense in exchange for tax dollars. It pays civil service workers to perform tasks similar to that of the workers in a corporation, and it pays the three branches of government to ensure that the government's investment is protected and kept in good shape.

Here I present a solution, one that seems pretty common sense, but to the politicians it is a threat to the status quo and it scares them like nothing else. Apart from millions of pages of reforms that can be implemented in different sections of the massive federal bureaucracy, there is one action, above all, that can fix the crisis in Washington. It goes by the street name "FairTax" and the Hill name "H.R. 25; The FairTax Act". It is, simply put, a national tax on consumption of goods and services, similar to the ones implemented in Texas and Florida (the world's 10th and 15th largest economies, respectively -- h/t FairTax Book).

In what twisted way does an income tax (flat, lump sum, progressive, regressive, etc.) make sense? Would you, as a CEO of a large corporation, suggest to your board a new business model that included taking a portion of your workers' paychecks and using it to buy capital or to provide for these same workers? All the while, mind you, there would still be prices on the goods and services you are selling. Under our current tax system, apart from the tens and hundreds of billions of dollars gathered from business (i.e. capital gains), investment (i.e. dividends) and payroll taxes (i.e. Social Security and Medicare), the income tax is by far the most Marxist federal law on the books. In fact, according to The FairTax Book, the income tax system in America satisfies one-fifth of Marx's goals from The Communist Manifesto.

Unlike this system, which ultimately penalizes hard work and rewards laziness, the FairTax destroys the current system and brings forth from the ashes a truly voluntary system of taxation. In the form of a truly profitable business, the government would tax only goods and services in order to generate revenue. Workers would be free to take home 100% of their paychecks and businesses would be free to lower prices thanks to a huge tax break since their forced matching of payroll taxes and forfeiture of corporate taxes would be no more.

Here is a great reason why the various taxes we are currently subject to need to be abolished. The income tax is obvious; it penalizes labor and hard work while the welfare state gives this money to those who choose not to work. Payroll taxes contribute to the elderly who should've been working and investing for over 40-50 years by the time they began receiving Social Security checks. Corporate taxes simply add costs to a business and eventually are converted into higher market prices. Investment taxes dissuade people from investing, if only slightly it is still a negative. And lastly, the estate (or "death") tax, which takes around 40% (the United States has the second highest estate tax rate in the world) of a moderately to filthy rich person's estate when they die and attempt to bequeath their assets to the next generation (there is a spousal exemption under current law).

Can you imagine what gains could be made with an additional (for the sake of simplicity) 25% on our paychecks? Here is a simple example to show what could be earned. Take a middle-management type in a typical private sector corporation. This person earns a decent wage that results in a yearly salary of around $75,000 after taxes. With two weeks of vacation, this person works 50 weeks in a year, therefore earning $1,500 every week. Let's say this person gets a paycheck every other Friday that amounts to roughly $3,000. If the FairTax is implemented, this person immediately sees his paycheck rise from $3,000 to $4,000. Perhaps this person is a savvy investor and takes this extra $1,000 and puts it into a diversified mutual fund account earning 15% every year. After the first year under the new tax system, all the money this person once forfeited in withholding to various taxes is now earning 15%. The total value of this person's account after one year (50 weeks) is $28,750 for a gain of $3,750. That's $3,750 that nobody would have ever seen under the prior tax system, and $25,000 more that this person never would have seen thanks to the withholding system.

Taxation is currently one of the most inefficient ways of generating revenue. The current tax system wastes over $500 billion which is lost in simply complying with the massive tax code (which is a pretty heft piece of work). The FairTax Act is about 125 pages long in PDF format and covers just about every angle. Now I'm sure it's not perfect, but then again, is there anything in Washington that is? This mindset doesn't bode well with the idealists in society, but what society ever became great by going from bad to perfect, evil to angelic? There are always steps to be taken, short strides that bring improvement while leaving room to go further.

One who would try to make the world perfect would inevitably hasten its downfall. Stalin and Hitler tried to go this route and became known as two of the most evil men of the 20th century. Small-scale central planners, like Robert Owen with his vision for New Harmony, always saw their utopian societies "inexplicably" crumble like a house of cards. The reason for this is simple; when the foundation is weak, a structure is easily brought down. Utopian societies may be healthy to all outside appearances, but like a festering disease boiling under the skin, it could burst into chaos at any moment from the simplest of triggers. In New Harmony's case it was man's innate desire to be independent, and so it is in all societies.

In summation, there is one way to fix government's inbred problems more so than others, and that is through the destruction of the most horrendously inefficient government agency this nation has ever seen: the IRS. It won't bring an end to all problems, but it will make the road to their solutions much less arduous.

Freedom has been, is, and will remain to be the best way to improve a troubled society. In our case, freedom must be given a chance in the tax system. Until the day when that system arrives, we will be forever bound to a tyrannical government that drains our lifeblood and gives us a line-item detailed view how, right there on our pay stub.

A Joke With Your Morning Coffee

2006-02-14T01:03:00.000-06:00

Hat Tip: Kudlow's Money Politics

A woman in a hot air balloon realized she was lost.

She lowered her altitude and spotted a man in a boat below. She shouted to him, "Excuse me, can you help me? I promised a friend I would meet him an hour ago, but I don't know where I am."

The sailor consulted his portable GPS and replied, "You're in a hot air balloon, approximately 30 feet above a ground elevation of 2346 feet above sea level. You are at 31 degrees, 14.97 minutes north latitude and 100 degrees, 49.09 minutes west longitude."

She rolled her eyes and yelled down, "You must be a Republican."

"I am," replied the man. "How did you know?"

"Well," answered the balloonist, "everything you told me is technically correct, but I have no idea what to do with your information, and I'm still lost. Frankly, you've been no help to me."

The man smiled and responded, "Then you must be a Democrat."

"I am," replied the balloonist. "How did you know?"

"Well," said the man, "you don't know where you are or where you're going. You've risen to where you are, due to a large quantity of hot air. You made a promise that you have no idea how to keep, and you expect me to solve your problem. You're in exactly the same position you were in before we met, but, somehow, now it's my fault."

Cox and Forkum Strike Gold in Political Cartoon

2006-02-14T00:52:00.000-06:00

They say a picture is worth a thousand words ... well perhaps they meant a political cartoon. This image sums up perfectly what hundreds of bloggers and pundits have been saying for over a week.

Just a Quick Note

2006-02-13T23:34:00.000-06:00

After a long day of getting everything in order from my trip to DC, I'm going to just write a little response to the heinous reporting of the Cheney incident.

Just this past weekend, Vice President Cheney was involved in an unfortunate accident while hunting quail in Texas. Turning to shoot one, he caught his hunting companion, an Austin lawyer, with some buckshot. Apparently, this accident is one of those happenings that warrants immediate media alerts so that they can overanalyze every detail and say how they believe the lawyer had done something to offend the Veep, and that Cheney was "out to get him" and then would proceed to go cannabalize his children (or whatever it is that Cheney is accused of eating these days).

Apart from this whopper of a news flash, former Vice President Al Gore visited the Middle East on his "America Bashing Tour 2006". Stopping by that beacon of religious, racial, and gender tolerance Saudi Arabia, "Algore" (as El Rushbo so affectionately calls him) decided to take the opportunity to criticize his homeland yet again by accusing the United States of committing "terrible atrocities" after 9/11. Has any news agency apart from Fox News said anything remotely close to a condemnation.

It is just too funny to listen to pundits and analysts from the left trying to say with a straight face that the "liberal media" is simply an invention of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. Too bad for them that whenever they say this, their friends at CNN or MSNBC come out and make our case for us with startling ease.

Tomorrow I will be comparing the government to a business and arguing for why it should be run more like one. Stay tuned ...

CPAC 2006, The Wrap-up

2006-02-12T23:51:00.000-06:00

Well, I'm home now, safe and sound. Not even a foot of snow could stop me, but it very nearly did. I sympathize with those trying to make it to or out of the Northeast. News reports have said that the three major New York airports have been shut down as are airports throughout New England. I can't imagine what they must be going through tonight.

Yesterday was the end of CPAC 2006 after three days of excitement. The lineup of speakers included Pulitzer Prize winning columnist George Will and Texas Governor Rick Perry. The topics discussed ranged from immigration reform to energy reform, drug policy to government spending. Groups representing libertarians and conservatives were on hand to advocate issues like privacy, limited government, and tax reform. Radio Row, Blogger Row, and Internet Row were among the most popular stops for many of the conference attendees. Luncheons offered students and activists free food, free books, and free advice from some of the foremost conservatives in the game today, including Michelle Malkin and Kellyanne Conway.

In the final installment of my CPAC series (Part 1 ... 2 ... 3 ... 4), I will cover the happenings of the final day of CPAC 2006 as well as some interesting tidbits from the night before and night after. Starting on Friday night, a trip to DuPont Circle was preceded by a run-in with former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay in front of the hotel. On his way to the Diamond Reception where Ambassador John Bolton was honored at the Ronald Reagan Banquet, Mr. DeLay was gracious enough to take some time for pictures with a few eager fans. Thanks to "The Hammer" for his generosity.

The next morning was an early rise that I will not regret. After arriving at 8am, and following a 30-minute wait in the banquet hall, I was treated to an outstanding address by Indiana Rep. Mike Pence. The man who some believe to be "Reagan reincarnate" delivered what I believe was among the three best speeches of the weekend. The chairman of the Republican Study Committee, the largest House caucus, led off by stressing the continued hypocrisy of so-called "limited government Republicans".

Pence said, "It's quite another thing to continue that course when half the crew and passengers are pointing out that nothing looks familiar ... not to mention the tens of millions of Americans lining the shoreline screaming, 'You're going the wrong way!'"

Don't get him wrong, he knows of the good being done on Capitol Hill. Pence acknowledges that Republican accomplishments include "dismantling and scattering the network of terrorists within our United States ... liberating nations from oppressive, murderous regimes ... cutting taxes ...", attempting to halt the spread of judicial activism with the appointments of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito to the Supreme Court, as well as dozens of outstanding federal court appointees, and finally, "stopping the horror of partial-birth abortions."

Irregardless, the good in all this starts to become overshadowed when the party of limited government and fiscal sanity edges closer to the perilous cliff known as Big Government. More than a slippery slope, the allure of compassionate conservatism is leading to the negation of increased tax revenues through monumental increases in government spending. Rep. Pence shines the spotlight on the aforementioned hypocrisy that looks more like the work of a "Democrat majority" in the following instances:

The first new entitlement in 40 years;
National testing and a 50 percent increase in the federal department of education;
Record deficits, and;
An $8 trillion national debt

In a transition to pork barrel spending, Pence reacts to the "more than 15,000 earmarks" by saying, "Our ship is running out of fuel, our crew is running out of patience, and we are running out of time." He does not advocate throwing in the towel; he stresses that "[I]t's time for a major course correction." With an ever-so-optimistic tone, Pence argued that "[W]e will find our way to Morning in America. But first, we must go back to the future--back to doing the hard thing because it's the right thing."

Rep. Pence proceeded with a deeply touching story about an Indiana soldier killed in Iraq in late 2004. He used the story of this man's courage in the face of certain death to argue, "Their [soldiers'] courage is not shaken by the whine of a bullet. Shall Republicans cower at the whine of liberal democrats or special interests?" I couldn't have put it any better, and few can.

Rep. Pence concluded by addressing everyone in the crowd with a simple statement of faith, telling us, "Each of you is armed with unique strengths, talents and skills, but most of all, conviction -- the strength of knowing that our cause is just and our cause is right. And that the American cause is mankind's cause for it is in the hearts of all people to be free."

Following the speech, Rep. Pence was given an early birthday present from the NRA: the Charlton Heston "Courage Under Fire" Award. After the award presentation, Pence joined a group of bloggers and activists for a short discussion and Q&A, which I will discuss on a separate occasion.

The next session I attended was a short panel on judicial activism, featuring Arizona Rep. Trent Franks and former federal judge Charles Pickering. The panel discussed at length the increasing activism of federal judges that choose to interpret a "living Constitution" as opposed to the one written by the Framers (for a great reference and analysis of the Constitution, see The Heritage Guide to the Constitution). In summing up what is needed of conservative activists in the coming years, Judge Pickering paraphrased Winston Churchill's acclaimed commencement speech saying, "We must never never never give up."

After two great panels on campus activism, the final speech of the conference came in the form of former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. In what sounded much like a campaign speech, or at the very least pointed to a presidential run in the near future, Gingrich spoke about a return to conservative principles and fighting for the ideals of his Contract With America. The former Speaker received several standing ovations and numerous applauses while condemning the runaway spenders of the current Congress and arguing for several reforms that would bring an end to the massive deficits of the past few years.

In what represented a close to the conference, after many jockeyed for pictures with Newt, the results of a straw poll were released that showed 64% of attendees believing the Democrats would nominate Hillary and around one-fifth believing that our nominee would be Virginia Senator and former VA Governor George Allen.

After the straw poll results, the Draft Pence grassroots movement had a get-together with a couple dozen supporters that I will discuss along with the blogger session attended by Rep. Pence that morning.

Now, as you all should know by now, Saturday night and the following morning were quite the adventure. Beginning Saturday afternoon, a blizzard that had a much larger effect further north hit the Washington D.C. area. By the time I left for Union Station at 9:30 Sunday morning, there was nearly a foot of snow on the ground. I was lucky enough to get a ride to the station from a family on their way to church, but nonetheless I waited over three hours to board a train for Baltimore and a flight home.

The three hours at Union Station were just abyssmal, and they included cancellation of my original train, the call for me to board one train, then another, then to get off, then to reboard, and finally departure. On the way up to the airport, the train was stopped several times due to excess snow coverage of the train tracks, but after over 75 minutes, the train arrived near Baltimore/Washington International Airport, and I was able to make my way to the gate where my 2:45 flight had, by the grace of God, been delayed until 4:00, allowing me to make the flight I would have normally missed (since I arrived at BWI at 2:40 and got to the gate nearly twenty minutes later).

After a part was replaced on our plane, I was able to make it to O'Hare Airport without incident or delay and arrived back at school at 8:45 this evening. The trip, even with a cancelled flight (to BWI), a cancelled train, a rainstorm (morning) and blizzard (night), a flight change (from 12:45 to 2:45), and a flight delay, was all that I could've hoped for. I look forward to next year's conference, and I strongly encourage anyone with an interest in conservative activism to attend as well.

Live From CPAC, Part 4

2006-02-11T11:57:00.000-06:00

This is just a short lead-in for my later post on Indiana Rep. Mike Pence's speech this morning. The first event of the day, Rep. Pence gave a stirring 20+ minute talk on the need for conservatives to take back the House from runaway Republicans. I was able to join a group of bloggers at a follow-up session after his speech and gained further insight into the mind of a conservative genious. The coverage of this morning's session will be available in the next few hours.

Pence Buzz:

The authors of the new book Getting America Right believe Pence's words were "like finding a wellspring in the center of the desert."
Troy Donte, a CPAC attendee, has a short summary of the speech at GST Online.
The Hertiage Policy Blog has a choice quote from the speech.
Human Events Online has summaries of the speech and the blogger session.
The American Spectator Blog thinks it is a "cryin' shame" that CPAC scheduled Rep. Pence for 8:30AM on Saturday morning.
Carroll Andrew Morse from Anchor Rising covers Pence's views on United Nations reform.

Stay tuned for further updates ...

Live From CPAC, Part 3

2006-02-11T09:45:00.000-06:00

With each update comes an increased sense of satisfaction, and with each new day I am more and more glad that I decided to make the trip to D.C. for CPAC. After the morning speeches by Texas Governor Rick Perry and Kentucky Senior Senator Mitch McConnell, I made my way to the Young America's Foundation luncheon featuring pollster Kellyanne Conway, co-author of the new book What Women Really Want.

As I had about four hours of sleep coming into the lunch, I nodded off a few times after the delicious grilled salmon and vegetables. From what I did catch, however, Mrs. Conway seemed to stress above all the need for observers to seek the original polling data before quoting statistics from a news source. She said that the mainstream media outlets tend to cherry pick only two or three poll questions from a list of several dozens to a hundred. When you look at the full data on the poll site or the media outlet's site, it becomes easier to identify the biases apparent in the polling and poll reporting processes.

Following the luncheon, I roamed the conference grounds for some book deals and literature. I had a nice conversation with the FairTax.org people about Georgia Rep. John Linder's H.R. 25, the FairTax Act. See my archives for a dissertation (that got me a 100% as a political science paper) on the proposal, or check out Neal Boortz and Rep. Linder's recent book, The FairTax Book.

After a few talks with presenters from conservative organizations, I ran over to get a seat in the ballroom for the Ann Coulter speech. Even though I arrived over an hour prior to her scheduled appearance, I was greeted by a nearly full room with empty seats in short supply. After finding a spot in the second row during a mini-debate on drug policy (ugh, what could be more useless than that debate?), I was moved back due to the front rows being reserved for "Diamond" members (the people who pay $400 to see all the VIP banquets and such). After an hour long talk on abortion (much of the same I have heard in the past, but nonetheless very useful and informative), Ann's cadre arrived and the room was abuzz with discussion. I looked around the room to find every seat occupied and an equal number of people standing versus sitting.

Let me tell you, for those of you unfortunate enough to not have heard Ms. Coulter speak in person, everything we have heard about her being an empty-headed talking head is totally false. She has a commanding presence at the podium and demands respect from the right while inciting seething hatred from the left. For instance, she made a reference to popular liberal women like Senator Clinton and former presidential nominee (and LOSER) John Kerry. The woman has the wit of a comedian with the mind of a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. If you ever have the chance, I strongly urge you to make it to one of her college lectures.

With that, I leave you. I will return later following several panels and a speech by NRA President Wayne LaPierre, who has a new book scheduled for a spring release. I have much to say about this morning's speech by Indiana Rep. Mike Pence and the subsequent discussion with a group of bloggers and writers. Stay tuned ...

Live From CPAC, Part 2

2006-02-10T08:17:00.000-06:00

What a great start to the second day of CPAC 2006, the day started with an excellent call to action from conservative Governor Rick Perry of Texas. In a voice resembling that of our great president, he discussed the role of conservatives in today's political world and their need to stick to the principles that they were elected on: limited government, fiscal responsibility, and security on the borders and in the marketplace.

Gov. Perry also covered education reform, two themes in general: school choice, and performance pay. On performance pay, he stated that "we need to get more education for our money ..." and not the other way around. He also noted that the unions are dead-set against this reform, but when it comes to those teachers who would receive the bonuses, they say the money will be taken graciously. My view is, if you aren't willing to take money from mediocrity in exchange for excellence, then the quality of education will sink to abhorrent levels.

Finally, Gov. Perry talked quite a bit about border security, telling the story of how armed "drug smugglers" in Mexican Army uniforms with armed Humvees removed drugs from an abandoned truck that had crossed the border and set it on fire. The Mexican government said that either they were just drug smugglers, or, more preposterously, they could have been American smugglers taking drugs TO Mexico. Yeah, and Osama bin Laden likes Western culture ...

Yesterday afternoon, Lt. Col. Oliver North (ret.) gave the best speech I have heard during the entire conference as of yet. Recounting the efforts overseas of our armed forces and the topic of NSA surveillance, North gave a stirring account of a time in the 1980s when the leader of a foreign country ordered an attack to be carried out on an American military officer and his family. This information was intercepted and relayed to the authorities, and the officer, along with his family, was moved to a safe location. Subsequently, the attacker was caught and charged. The officer was Col. North, and he argued that had it not been for nearly the same tactic we are using today, he and his family might have been killed.

I have seen a few other bloggers at the conference thus far, including Brandon from GOP3, and Grant from PatriotBlog. Brandon has coverage of the Sarbane-Oxley panel yesterday afternoon as well as a recount of the Presidential Banquet with VP Dick Cheney and VA Sen. George Allen. Stay tuned for further updates, as Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky is scheduled to speak in just over an hour ...

Live From CPAC, Part 1

2006-02-09T11:44:00.000-06:00

Good afternoon from CPAC, here in Washington D.C. The weather is chilly but the atmosphere is energizing inside the Omni Shoreham Hotel and Convention Center in Woodley Park. The morning speaker list included conservative luminaries George Will and Phyllis Schlafly as well as conservative representatives J.D. Hayworth of Arizona and Tom Tancredo of Colorado, and Senator John Cornyn of Texas. Rounding off the list was leader of the Minutemen Civil Defense Corps, Chris Simcox.

Pulitzer Prize winning columnist George Will spent the duration of his speech discussing topics dear to every conservative: freedom and liberty. Much of his time dwelt on the subject of limited government, where he said that "the Constitution guarantees us the pursuit of happiness while the government tries to guarantee happiness." While I may not agree with his take on the NSA surveillance issue, much of his discussion echoed my sentiments, but in his typically flawless rhetoric.

Following Will were several panel discussions on immigration policy sandwiched between House and Senate reports on current policy initiatives. Rep. Tom Tancredo led off with his "no holds barred" style by attacking weak policies while putting forth common-sense solutions to a problem that threatens our national security through the establishment of a new front in the global War on Terror.

Immediately following the Congressman were two panels of which I was only able to catch the earlier. This panel included Rep. J.D. Hayworth, Chris Simcox, Pedro Celis (head of the Republican National Hispanic Assembly) and Angela Maria Kelley. The first two members of this distinguished panel were for what Rep. Hayworth called the "Enforcement First" approach. This involves the immediate inforcement of current law towards immigration, followed by an in-depth look into common-sense reform policies. The latter two varied, but ultimately favored a more lax approach to dealing with the influx and population of illegal immigrants in the United States. As can be expected, the panel members were highly respectful of the others' views, even when in disagreement.

The final panel, I unfortunately was unable to attend, but am told by Drake student Danielle Sturgis that Phyllis Schlafly was "excellent". As for Senator Cornyn, he echoed what Rep. Tancredo had mentioned earlier, that the legislature is starting to take a more hands-on approach to immigration reform.

Stay tuned for further updates as the conference progresses ... it is sure to get more exciting as the weekend rolls on.

CPAC 2006

2006-02-07T13:23:00.000-06:00

Tomorrow I am flying out to the nation's capital for the 2006 Conservative Political Action Conference, the largest gathering of conservatives in the country. I will be blogging the conference from Blog Row, so rest assured anyone unfortunate enough to be unable to attend will be kept up to date. My laptop will not be making the trip with me so don't expect a post tomorrow. Thursday, however, will be chock full of excitement, so stay tuned ...

The Jackass in the Elephant Suit

2006-02-07T00:22:00.000-06:00

The newest National Review Online editorial, out yesterday, takes up the case against the most liberal Republican in Congress: Senator Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island. He is the lone Republican to oppose Justice Alito's confirmation to the SCOTUS, and he is an opponent of nearly every right-minded proposal in the legislature. He is a jackass in an elephant suit, a liberal Democrat disguised as a Republican.

There is hope, however, for the good people of Rhode Island. It comes in the form of Chafee's conservative 2006 primary opponent, Steven Laffey. Currently the mayor of Cranston, Rhode Island, Laffey is a "dyed in the wool" conservative who supports tax cuts and the war, is pro-life, and opposes corporate welfare. According to the NRO editorial, Laffey's only visible foible is to blast "Big Oil" is his early advertising campaigns. As they say, "it's difficult to be a Republican in Rhode Island." Ain't that the truth!

Laffey's underdog campaign is raising many eyebrows, but the MSM is being surprisingly hush-hush (given their propensity to blather on incessantly). Only the LA Times has any mention of Laffey's bid against Senator Chafee, and the article is from five months ago. The Wall Street Journal printed a commentary by Club for Growth president Pat Toomey in December, but since then there hasn't been a single mention of the campaign in major papers across the United States. (information from LexisNexis)

I hope to hear more about this campaign as the time to election day turns from months to weeks. Hopefully, there will be plenty of hype before then, but I'm not holding my breath. Interestingly enough, as a side note, the National Republican Senatorial Committee is supporting Chafee for whatever reason. Here is the video of their advertisement running in Rhode Island media markets.

The ad takes a swipe at Laffey regarding his views on the oil companies, but is this sole issue enough to overshadow Chafee's obviously left-wing agenda? I think not, and hopefully neither will the voters of Rhode Island come November.

Cartoon Response Shows Muslims as Crybabies

2006-02-05T16:07:00.000-06:00

I have nothing against Muslims. They are religious and have good moral sense in much the same respect that Christians do. True, there are some fanatical Islamofascists, but then look at Pastor Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas. This man and his disgraceful church are unrepresentative of the entire Christian faith in the same manner that the Imams of the Middle East preching destruction and murder of everything and anything Western are unrepresentative of the Muslim faith.

Nevertheless, when I saw and heard the response of many thousands of Muslims worldwide to the Danish cartoon editorial featuring the Prophet Muhammed, I had to stop and think. Are these people representative of their faith as a whole? I truly hope not, because if they are then it means the Muslim faith is full of whining little crybabies. It is not as if Muslims are a tiny faith like the Wiccans; there are over a billion Muslims worldwide, making it the second most widely practiced religion behind Christianity (there are even more Muslims than there are Roman Catholics).

Also, both Christians and Muslims have been around for over a millenia, so it isn't as if Muslims just arrived and are being picked on like the new kid in school. This leads me to my point -- God is continuously and unapologetically ridiculed in cartoons (print and broadcast media) as is Jesus Christ. For example, the show Family Guy often makes jest of God as does Seth McFarlane's newest show, American Dad. Furthermore, a piece of artwork by Chris Ofili that was displayed in New York portrayed the Virgin Mary covered in dung.

Don't let the public outcry against the latter instance fool you, this case is entirely justified. If, perhaps, someone in America or elsewhere had taken a highly popular figurehead (apart from Muhammed) from the Muslim faith and desecrated its image in public and received praise for their work, I would totally support the Muslims in their cries against this unholy act of intolerance. However, the difference between the two religions is that Christians rarely display worldwide contempt for any isolated event of hatred equal to that of the Danish cartoon. Has anyone ever heard of a group of Christian fundmanetalists threatening to kill Muslims or Hindus (or atheists for that matter) simply because they made a religious faux pas?

The conservative magazine, Human Events, has a great article by scholar Robert Spencer (author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam) concerning worldwide cases of rage toward the Danish incident. Also, there is a crusade to support Denmark's fight for free speech. I say they need all the help they can get; not to support the cartoons, but to support their right to print them.

Book Review: 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America

2006-02-04T19:00:00.000-06:00

Imagine this scenario … You are riding on the bus (or subway or train) during rush hour. A businessman is talking loudly on his cell phone, just loud enough for everyone to hear of course. In the middle of the conversation, this seemingly intelligent, well-spoken man belts out the phrase, “What the f**k is that about?” A quick glance this way and that reveals none of the expected commotion—especially when there are parents riding with their small children.

The fact is, through many of the most important people in business, entertainment and academia, this great nation has become desensitized to obscene talk and material alike. What was considered taboo forty years ago is now as common as rap music and beer pong. This comprises the main argument of Bernard Goldberg’s latest book, “100 People Who Are Screwing Up America (And Al Franken is #37)”. The best summary of this argument comes in the introduction, where Goldberg states, “’You’re so judgmental’ became a major-league put-down in Anything Goes America—as if being judgmental of crap in the culture is a bad thing.”

The recurring theme of the book that arises time and again is that everything is acceptable, because to disapprove or to cast judgment might hurt someone’s precious feelings. For instance, in schools around the nation it has become “taboo” to correct grammar if a student uses slang, or perhaps to give every student a gold star as opposed to the best to avoid damaging a student’s self-esteem. It is “protected” speech to burn an American flag, to desecrate the Virgin Mary, and to call 9/11 victims “little Eichmanns”, yet an increasing number of college campuses are creating “free speech zones” and cleansing their grounds of “destructive” or “hateful” speech. Finally, we move to the “victimology” movement. Here we have the people who do some of the stupidest stunts imaginable and then somehow believe it is not their fault, and sue! Take, for example, a case Goldberg cites in New York, where a woman tried to commit suicide by laying on the subway tracks and waiting for a train. When she was hit by the train and suffered serious injuries, she sued the city of New York and won $14.1 million. Unfortunately for our “victim”, the jury cut her award to a mere $9.9 million.

The three points above are represented by several people on Goldberg’s list. A few of those names include:

James Wolcott, Vanity Fair columnist who said on Election Day 2004 that if Bush won he would offer a philosophical resignation saying, “Good, Go Ahead, America, Choke on Your Own Vomit, You Deserve to Die.”
Scott Harshbarger, who used his role as district attorney of Middlesex County (Massachusetts>) to launch a child abuse case against the Amirault family, which ran a day-care center in the town of Malden. An expert hired by 20/20 noted how during the investigation, children repeatedly denied the allegations until the interrogator finally got a sufficient answer. Seventy-two year old Violet Amirault spent over a decade in jail with her daughter and her son was released eight years afterward, all three being fully exonerated.
Ted Rall, editorial cartoonist who drew a cartoon after the death of Pat Tillman, the NFL-player turned soldier, with Tillman saying to the Army recruiter, “Never mind the fine print … Will I get to kill Arabs?” This coming from the man who calls himself “America’s B.S. Detector”.

These three cases are simply the tip of a much larger iceberg, evidence of the malice that is ruining our culture. Goldberg recalls the liberal argument that we are much better off now that blacks and women have more rights and are considered equal to white men. Keeping in mind that both of these are excellent social improvements, is the “anything goes” culture of today better than the level of decency evident fifty years ago? Bernie Goldberg thinks we can do much better, and his list shows many areas of society that need improvement.

New Standard in Weaponry

2006-02-04T01:19:00.000-06:00

Behold, the Dillon Aero M134D, the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory's brand new layer of protection. This six-barreled gatling gun fires at a rate of 3,000 rounds per minute and is fed from a 3,000 or 4,400 round chain magazine. Weighing in at a mere 57 pounds, the weapon itself is five times lighter than the ammunition that it fires (4,400 round magazine and crate)!

According to the manufacturer, the guns are being outfitted onto Army and Navy vehicles such as helicopters. I can say with no trace of doubt that I would feel safe behind a couple of those babies ...

TALLYHO!!!!

Global Warming or Global Boring ...

2006-02-03T11:44:00.000-06:00

Is this world truly that boring -- so boring that we must invent doomsday scenarios to alter people's habits and get them concerned about something? I remember my impressionable days as a young 4th-grader taking part in the Earth Day activities trying to clean up the environment and yada, yada, yada. Too bad nobody told me then that the environment has enough protection and that global warming is just another scare-tactic.

Yesterday's Wisconsin State "Urinal" has a nice community op-ed about global warming aptly titled, "Warming Warning". Thank goodness they were there to give me that warning, I don't know if I would have ever known what this "warming" thing is had it not been for them. Moving on, the question our beloved (in "planet Madison") Wisconsin State "Urinal" asks is, "What can we do about global warming?"

GREAT QUESTION!? I thought nobody would ever ask, but now that they have, here is my advice: NOTHING! That's right, to all the "Gulfstream environmentalists" and the ELFs (Earth Liberation Front, eco-terrorists) and especially the "Hollywood blowhards" (as Bernard Goldberg calls them in his new book), there is no such thing as global warming. Oh it's nice that you cute little celebrities have your cute little cause to fight for, at least it keeps you occupied and out of trouble. But please, leave the argument to people who a) are in college, or b) have graduated college. I wouldn't want you dropouts to strain a muscle trying to remember your script from the Stop Global Warming gang.

Just in case it hasn't been repeated to you ad naseum already, here's a nice succinct background of global warming from the "Urinal" article:

The Earth's surface temperature has risen by about 1 degree Fahrenheit in the past century, says the National Academy of Sciences. Warming has increased in the past two decades. Scientists say emissions from cars, industrial plants and common household appliances have altered the chemical composition of the atmosphere through the buildup of greenhouse gases - primarily carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide.

Here's a stunner: it is ALL true. But don't worry, that is where they get you. See, here's the thing. Indeed, the surface temperature has risen by about 1 degree Fahrenheit in the past century. What they don't tell you is that for around thirty-five years in the middle of that span, the earth cooled, just as it did before 1900. Just in case you haven't heard of it, global cooling is "a theory positing an overall cooling of the Earth and perhaps the commencement of glaciation or even an ice age." And then there's the theory that composed the plot of the colossal cinematic failure, The Day After Tomorrow.

Why, you may wonder, are there so many contradicting theories that become incorporated into the more popular theory? Well, as long as they leave their theories vague and generalized, the global warming crowd can say just about anything they want to without lying, while still getting their point across. If the world starts cooling again, they can just say that's because of global warming or they can revert to the global cooling theory and say the next ice age is upon us. If it keeps warming ... well you know what that means.

The truth remains that the biggest attempt to fight global warming, the Kyoto Protocol, is and always has been a triumphant piece of crap. In order to successfully curb the "trend" of global warming, scientists have said that greenhouse gas emissions must be cut by 40%. The Kyoto countries, however, are only being mandated to cut these emissions around 8-10% and nearly all of them are missing their quotas.

As far back as 2003, studies started showing that the ozone layer was beginning to fix itself. Not surprisingly, the news has been completely avoided by major news sources. Further news, from over five years ago, suggests that the Antarctic ice caps are in fact expanding along the edges, the area that is supposed to be melting and raising the level of the ocean.

I could go on for quite some time explaining why in fact the world is not going to end in ten years (as the old pontificator Al Gore has noted recently), but instead I'll keep it short and sweet. The world's climate is in fact quite cyclical, experiencing trends of several decades of warming followed by cooling (rinse and repeat). A recent climate discovery known as Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) has shown that there is a quasi-cyclic behavior in the Pacific Ocean that lasts around 50 to 70 years going from positive to negative and back and forth continuously (the PDO has been reconstructed all the way back to the 10th century A.D.)

So, there is no need to worry. I say, warm away ... I'm not a fan of this cold weather crap. Then again, we are due for a climate change soon, damn.

The Al Gore Doomsday Countdown (courtesy of El Rushbo)

Employment Outlook Preview: January 2006

2006-02-03T08:56:00.000-06:00

That's right, folks. It's already time for the first month's employment numbers. I received the email from the Labor Department an hour ago and have looked over the numbers ... they couldn't be better. Well, perhaps unless you think like former Labor Secretary Robert Reich who believes this is one of the worst economies since the Great Depression.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics's January 2006 Employment Situation (PDF file):

Nonfarm payroll employment: +197,000
Unemployment rate: 4.7% (-0.2%)
Average hourly earnings: $16.41 (+$0.07)

Bloomberg is already reporting that the Fed may raise interest rates due to the response of Treasury notes in the early hours ... No surprise here, UPI is reporting the numbers as "less than expected" even though the past two months of figures have been revised up (108,000 to 140,000 for November and 305,000 to 354,000 in December).

Stay tuned for more updates and analysis ...

Time For Change

2006-02-02T12:35:00.000-06:00

*** UPDATE at 15:35 PM CST *** --- Club for Growth President Pat Toomey has this statement regarding Rep. John Boehner's victory over Rep. Roy Blunt, 122-109 ...

*** UPDATE at 12:45 PM CST *** --- Club for Growth says, "I’m being told by a reliable source that the first ballot for House Majority Leader was invalid. Too many people voted. Stay tuned…" Let the games begin ...

The House will convene today to vote for a new House Majority Leader. Casting secret votes, the members will choose between acting Majority Leader Roy Blunt, Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, and Rep. John Shadegg of Arizona.

My two cents are simple; the only true reformer and non-K-Streeter is John Shadegg. He has gotten key, vital support from House conservatives on the Republican Study Committee, which he used to run. He also received support from Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

In the intellectual community, the ballots are in quite favorably for Shadegg. Larry Kudlow has given his full support, and so have the Townhall.com editors. The Club For Growth is also in the ring of Shadegg backers.

The race will be very tight, no doubt. Let's hope the best man comes out on top. Stay tuned for updates ...

Live Blogging: 2006 State of the Union

2006-01-31T19:55:00.000-06:00

*** Watching live coverage on Fox News Channel ***

More coverage at Blogs For Bush ...
Full Script via RNC (as prepared for delivery) ... h/t Suitably Flip

7:58 PM CST: Ceremonial procedures for joint session of Congress underway.
7:59 PM CST: First Lady enters her private box, no word as to who will be accompanying her.
8:01 PM CST: Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court introduced.
8:02 PM CST: President's Cabinet introduced.
8:04 PM CST: Note -- Cindy Sheehan taken out of the gallery in the House chambers. Detained, not arrested, police sources say. She was trying to unroll a banner she had concealed in her lap. Guest of Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), FNC sources say.
8:08 PM CST: Sergeant at Arms introduces the President of the United States to the Speaker of the House followed by standing ovation.
8:09 PM CST: Note -- Hume: "I can't remember photographers playing so prominent a role in the foreground in past years."
8:10 PM CST: President Bush takes his place at the podium and Speaker Hastert bangs the gavel. He then introduces the President followed by standing ovation.
8:12 PM CST: Bush begins by commemorating the death of Coretta Scott King. "We are grateful for the good life of Coretta Scott King." - followed by standing ovation. "Our differences cannot be allowed to harden into anger ... Tonight the state of our Union is strong, and we will make it stronger ... the road of isolationism may seem open and inviting, but it ends in decline." - applause -

8:15 PM CST: War on Terror. "Democracies replace resentment with hope ..." - applause - " ... undemocratic nations like Syria, Burma, Zimbabwe, North Korea, Iran will not be forgotten ... " - applause - "But they [terrorists] have miscalculated, we love our freedom, and we will fight to keep it." - standing ovation - "If we were to leave these vicious attackers alone, they would not leave us alone, they would simply move the battle to our shores. There is no honor in retreat ... we will never surrender to evil." - slight standing ovation, Rep. Rangel seated, Sen. Kerry stands - "We are proud to be their [Iraqis] allies in the cause of freedom." - applause - "Fellow citizens, we are in this fight to win, and we are winning!" - standing ovation - "The road of victory is the road that will bring our troops home ... those decisions will be made by our military commanders, not by politicians in Washington, D.C." - applause - "Hindsight alone is not wisdom, and second-guessing is not strategy." - Republican applause - "We must stand behind our army in this vital mission." - standing ovation - "Marine SSgt Dan Clay, killed in Fallujah wrote, 'I know what honor is; it has been an honor to protect and serve all of you. I faced death with the secure knowledge that you would not have to. Never falter; don't hesitate to support those of us who have the honor of protecting that which is worth protecting.'" - standing ovation to recognize SSgt Clay's family - "Let us never forget the sacrifices of America's military families." - standing ovation - Egyptian elections, Palestinian elections - standing ovation - "Democracies in the Middle East will not reflect our own, because they will reflect the traditions of their own citizens." - applause - "That [Iranian oppression] must come to an end." - applause - "We must not allow that regime to get nuclear weapons." - standing ovation - "America respects you and we respect your country. -to Iranians" - applause -

8:31 PM EST: Compassion abroad. "I urge members of Congress to serve the interests of America by showing the compassion of America."

8:33 PM CST: Law enforcement, national security. "These men and women [law enforcement] are dedicating their lives and protecting us all, and they deserve our thanks." - standing ovation - "I urge you to extend the PATRIOT Act." - Republican applause - "If there are people inside our country who are talking to Al Qaeda we want to know about it because we will not sit back and wait to be hit again!" - Republican standing ovation - "The only alternative to American leadership is a dramatically more dangerous world ... Together let us protect our country, support the men and women who defend us, and lead this world toward freedom." - standing ovation -

8:37 PM CST: Economy. "In the last two and a half jobs, America has created 4.6 million new jobs, more than Japan and the EU combined." - applause - "The American economy is preeminent, but we cannot afford to be complacent ... Protectionists want to escape competition, pretending we can keep our high standard of living by walling off our economy." - standing ovation for immigration comment - "Keeping America competitive starts with keeping our economy growing ... the tax relief you passed has left $880 billion in the hands of American workers, investors, small businesses, and families, and they have used it to produce more than four years of uninterrupted economic growth." - applause - "We need more than temporary tax relief. I urge the Congress to act responsibly and make the tax cuts permanent." - Republican standing ovation -

8:41 PM CST: Economy. "By passing these reforms, we will save the American taxpayer another $14 billion next year and stay on track to cut the deficit in half by 2009." - applause - "And we can tackle this problem [earmarks] together if you pass the line-item veto." - applause - "The retirement of the baby boom generation will put unprecedented strains on the federal government ... "Congress did not act last year on my proposal to save Social Security." - sarcastic Democrat standing ovation - "Yet the rising cost of entitlements is a problem that is not going away." - standing ovation - "We need to put aside partisan politics and get this problem solved." - standing ovation - "With open markets and a level playing field, no one can outproduce or outcompete the American worker." - standing ovation -

8:45 PM CST: Immigration. "Our nation needs orderly and secure borders." - applause - "And we must have a rational, humane guest worker program that rejects amnesty, allows temporary jobs for those who seek them legally, and reduces smuggling and crime at the border." - applause -

8:46 PM CST: Medical care. "Keeping America competitive requires affordable healthcare." - standing ovation - "We will strengthen health savings accounts making sure individuals and small business employees can buy insurance with the same advantages that people working for big businesses now get." - Republican standing ovation - "And because lawsuits are driving many good doctors out of practice, leaving women in nearly 1,500 counties without an OB/GYN, I ask the Congress to pass medical liability reform this year." - standing ovation -

8:48 PM CST: Energy. "America is addicted to oil ... the best way to break this addiction is through technology. Since 2001, we have spent nearly $10 billion to develop cleaner, cheaper and more reliable alternative energy sources. So tonight I announce the advance energy initiative, a 22% increase in clean energy research at the Dept. of Energy to push for breakthroughs in two vital areas." - zero-emission coal and nuclear energy, standing ovation - "Our goal is to make this new kind of ethanol practical within six years." - standing ovation - "By applying the talent and technology of America, this country can dramatically improve our environment, move beyond a petroleum-based economy, and make our dependence on Middle Eastern oil a thing of the past." - standing ovation -

8:50 PM CST: Education. "Tonight I announce an American Competitiveness Initiative to encourage innovation throughout the economy and give our nation's children a firm grounding in math and science." - standing ovation - "With more research in both the public and private sectors, we will improve our quality of life and ensure that America will lead the world in opportunity and innovation in decades to come." - standing ovation - "If we ensure that America's children succeed in life, they will ensure that America succeeds in the world." - standing ovation -

8:53 PM CST: Conclusion. "America's a great force for fredom and prosperity, yet our greatness is not measured in power or luxuries, but by who we are and how we treat one another ... the number of children born to teenage mothers has been falling for a dozen years now." - applause - "As we look at these challenges we must never give in to the belief that America is in decline, or that our culture is doomed to unravel. The American people know better than that. We have proven the pessimists wrong before, and we'll do it again." - applause - "The Supreme Court now has two superb new members on its bench: Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Sam Alito." - standing ovation - "I will continue to nominate men and women who understand that judges must be servants of the law and not legislate from the bench." - applause - "Today marks the official retirement of a very special American. For twenty-four years of faithful service to our nation, the United States is grateful to Justice Sandra Day O'Connor." - standing ovation - "Human life is a gift from our creator, and that gift should never be discarded, devalued, or put up for sale." - standing ovation, Democrats reluctant - "Each of us has made a pledge to be worthy of public responsibility, and that is a pledge we must never forget, never dismiss, and never betray." - standing ovation - "Through the Helping America's Youth Initiative, we are encouraging caring adults to get involved in life of a child, and this good work is being led by our First Lady, Laura Bush." - standing ovation - "The answer is not only temporary relief, but schools that teach every child, and job skills that bring upward mobility and more opportunities to own a home and start a business. As we recover from a disaster, let us also work for the day when all Americans are protected by justice, equal in hope and rich in opportunity." - standing ovation - "I ask Congress to reform and reauthorize the Ryan White Act and provide new funding to states so we end the waiting list for AIDS medicine in America." - standing ovation - "Sometimes it can seem that history is turning in a wide arc toward an unknown shore, yet the destination of history is determined by human action and every great movement comes to a point of choosing ... before history is written in books, it is written in courage ... and so we move forward, optimistic about our country, faithful to its cause, and confident of the victories to come. May God Bless America." - standing ovation -

*** 9:03 PM CST --- END, 51 minutes long ***

Note: 61 interruptions for applause, same as last year, but format is similar so it's not a surprise.

Thank You, Mr. Greenspan

2006-01-31T18:02:00.000-06:00

Well, this is as good a day as any to get back to blogging. Samuel Alito is now Justice Alito, President Bush will give his fifth State of the Union Address in just a few hours, and Alan Greenspan retires today as the most celebrated "head of the Fed" ever. His 18-year leadership of the Federal Reserve came to a close with today's meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee and his successor, Dr. Ben Bernanke, took over his post at the meeting's close.

First off, Samuel A. Alito's nomination to the United States Supreme Court finally made it to a full Senate confirmation vote today, and the former Appeals Court judge has been confirmed by a 58-42 vote. All Republicans but one (RI's Chafee), and four Democrats (WV's Byrd, ND's Conrad, SD's Johnson, and NB's Nelson) voted to confirm Alito. The Alito nomination had been hotly contested for three months since President Bush named him to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on October 31, 2005.

A simple analysis reveals how politically charged the confirmation process has become in certain cases. For instance, Antonin Scalia was unanimously confirmed (98-0) in 1986 and Ruth Bader Ginsburg received 96 of 99 votes for confirmation in 1993. That's right, the most conservative and most liberal justices, respectively, were both confirmed with more than 95 votes. Meanwhile, a far less conservative (according to his Segal-Cover score) justice, Clarence Thomas, was nearly "borked" (coined from the rejection of Judge Robert Bork in 1987) in 1990 when he received only 52 votes.

The main topic of judicial debate in the early 1990s was abortion, as it is again today. An important fighter for civil rights in the Reagan administration, Thomas's nomination was opposed because of his views on affirmative action and abortion. Let me get this straight, a black man opposes a process of racial preferencing and he's not qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice? Even though he received a "well-qualified" rating from the American Bar Association (referred to as the "gold standard" in 2001 by Senators Leahy and Schumer)?

The political litmus test for the Supreme Court is a travesty that betrays the Senate's constitutionally-guaranteed right to approve the president's nominations. Politicians have no place in analyzing the rulings of career litigators with an unsurpassed expertise in constitutional law. They do have a place in judging their qualifications, but when senators reverse their beliefs on a candidate (Alito was confirmed unanimously to the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in 1990) they are playing games with a qualified nominee's career. Is a judge good enough for the Appeals Court but not the Supreme Court? Come on ...

State of the Union live blogging will begin at 7:55pm CST ...

On to Alan Greenspan. Some say he was a failure, including Republican Senator Jim Bunning. However, about 99% of the economic community agrees that he has been the best "Fed head" to date. His 18-year career spanned several recessions and a stock market collapse in 1987. His policies prevented an economic recession that would've created the "Great Depression: Redux".

Greenspan has received worldwide praise and recognition for his efforts as the Federal Reserve Chairman. The Swiss claim that his handling of the United States economy did good for the rest of the world, namely "bringing down the long-term cost of debt", according to swissinfo. Greenspan has been bestowed the title of "Knight Commander of the British Empire", usually referred to as "being knighted", but is not called "Sir Alan" because he is not a subject of the Queen of England. He has also been awarded the "Commander of the Legion of Honor" by France.

The Detroit Free-Press says:

Alan Greenspan is like a rock star. He plays it cool, no matter how crazy the world around him. He speaks in code few can understand. If you listen to him long enough, your head will pound.

An accurate summation of a man noted for confusing the economic community in his cryptic speeches and lectures. One time, he said in a speech, "I guess I should warn you, if I turn out to be particularly clear, you've probably misunderstood what I said."

The end of an era is upon us. Tomorrow is Dr. Ben Bernanke's first day as the Chairman of the United States Federal Reserve. One can only hope he has an impact resembling that of Greenspan over the last 18 years.

Concealed Carry Shot Down by 2 Votes

2006-01-31T15:22:00.000-06:00

*** UPDATE (4:25 PM): SB403 was defeated in the Assembly by a 64-32 vote, coming two votes shy of the required 66. Well, as this is an election year we can simply wait for Green or Walker to kick the turtle out the Capitol and a REAL concealed carry bill can be passed next year. ***

Sorry folks, I've had a hectic week since I last posted. I had to run home this weekend and attend my grandfather's funeral, then I had to get back to school and get cracking on loads of homework so I could have the rest of the week free to do what I love: BLOG!

I may not be much for local news, but this is pretty newsworthy. The Wisconsin State Assembly is deliberating as I write on the most hotly-debated piece of legislation since Doyle took office in 2002. The issue is concealed carry, and the piece of legislation is SB403 (PDF file). It has been presented in consecutive years, I believe, since 2003 or 2004. In either case, it has been vetoed every time by Governor Doyle and an override has been just outside the grasp of the Assembly (one vote, in fact, a few years ago).

This time around, however, the Republicans in the legislature have taken it upon themselves to all but ensure a passage on this occassion by offering several concessions to weary, fence-sitting, Democrats. Of the thirty-nine Democratic Assemblymen, around thirty are vehemently opposed to said legislation, believing the bill would put more guns on the streets and more innocents in bodybags. This foolish observation has been disproved time and again in liberal states as well as conservative.

Florida, the first state to pass any form of concealed carry legislation, has seen its violent crime rate drop over 23% since 1992 (the year concealed carry was passed). According to the Florida Statistical Analysis Center, total violent crimes have dropped from 161,137 to 123,697 between 1992 and 2004. Also, the violent crime rate per 100,000 inhabitants has dropped from 1200.3 to 706.2, which equates to a drop of almost 41%. Even more astonishing, with thirty-eight states passing some form of "Right to Carry" (RTC) legislation, the number of violent crimes nationwide has dropped nearly 30% and the rate per 100,000 inhabitants is down 38.5% (both figures are 1992-2004).

Nevertheless, gun control advocates blame concealed carry for everything under the sun, meanwhile crime rates go down. Sooner or later, the twelve states yet to pass RTC laws will come to their senses. Wisconsin, today, could join the thirty-eight or remain one of the twelve anti-gunners left. Let's hope the fence-sitters fall on the right side ...

Troop Bashing at its Most Degrading

2006-01-25T13:14:00.000-06:00

Unfortunately for the Los Angeles Times, a once prominent news-filled periodical, people across America are no longer tuning into to their consistent mind-numbing dribble. Circulation is in the tank (down 6.5% from 3/2004 to 3/2005 according to former Times writer Ken Reich), as it is with the New York Times, but nonetheless the faithful hard-left is still plugged into the hate-machine. Circulation may have dropped by nearly 100,000 -- but that still leaves 900,000 daily subscribers.

And many of them read stories like yesterday's column by Joel Stein, entitled Warriors and Wusses, without so much as raising an eyebrow. The faithful readers of anti-America peddlers like the LA Times, the New York Times, the Boston Globe, and the Washington Post have been programmed to accept news that portrays this country so horribly. So as you can imagine, a story that calls out our nation's bravest men and women as being "tricked into fighting in Iraq" is nothing short of normalcy.

Let's take a short time to dissect the gutter-slop that this column represents. The first sentence, "I DON'T SUPPORT (sic) our troops" is just the tip of the putrid iceberg. It is the car-sized block of ice hiding the skyscraper-sized mass beneath. For a few sentences later, Stein continues with:

If you're wandering into a recruiter's office and signing up for eight years of unknown danger, I want to hang with you in Vegas.

He portrays the recruits as aimlessly signing up for danger they don't know lies ahead, and eight years of it! Well it's odd because most recruits to the armed forces rarely serve more than a few years tops. And most recruits signed up with the full knowledge that war was inevitable. They've taken high-school level United States History; they know what wars are like. Except that the "danger" he speaks of is volumes less than, say, the paratroopers landing in France on D-Day encountered. Or perhaps the dangers faced by the soldiers in Vietnam, the ones with a lifespan of a couple weeks.

No, many of these "wandering recruits" know what they're signing up for. Furthermore, while they are in Iraq, they gain an appreciation for why they're fighting. As we repeatedly hear from obscure conservative sources because the MSM is busy peddling the negative news of suicide bombings (that kill mostly Iraqis, police and army recruits primarily), soldiers support the war and their commander-in-chief, President Bush.

Moving on down the iceberg, Stein continues with this lovely bit of degradation:

The real purpose of those ribbons is to ease some of the guilt we feel for voting to send them to war and then making absolutely no sacrifices.

First off, I would like to point out that the "we" doesn't mean he's part of my demographic. I don't associate with arrogant, pompous pricks of his ilk. Nevertheless, he seems to be forgetting the sacrifices of the many thousands, perhaps millions, of relatives our soldiers left behind. Many of them want nothing more than to see their loved ones again, but they understand why they have to answer their country's call. It reminds me of a story my dentist told me at my last appointment.

She's a Democrat who detests Bush and the war. However, her family supports both. Her 19 year old son supported the cause so much so that he signed up to fight in 2003 during the heat of the Iraq War. Are you telling me, Mr. Stein, that this woman who is wholeheartedly against the war has made no sacrifices? If so, maybe you should pull your head out of the toilet and take a look at reality.

Following his rant of the typical liberal response to the war, Stein adds this gem of ignorance:

But when you volunteer for the U.S. military, you pretty much know you're not going to be fending off invasions from Mexico and Canada. So you're willingly signing up to be a fighting tool of American imperialism, for better or worse. Sometimes you get lucky and get to fight ethnic genocide in Kosovo, but other times it's Vietnam.
And sometimes, for reasons I don't understand, you get to just hang out in Germany.

Let us not forget that about half of our standing army is fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Had we taken the First Gulf War plan of strength over speed, there'd be over half a million soldiers on the ground in the Middle East and our military budget would be much higher. Thanks to the ingenuity of former Centcom director Gen. Tommy Franks (ret.) the plan needed half the force for twice the speed and efficiency.

So this "fighting tool of American imperialism" you speak of, why have I the suspicion that this is a liberal invention? Maybe because it is just that -- a figment of the left's active imagination. The reference to the army as an "occupying force" pays lip-service to this belief of imperialism, even though it's hogwash.

Did we leave Germany after WWII ended? No. Did we leave Korea after the North was repelled back across the 38th parallel? No. We have outfits maintaining key bases in both Germany and South Korea this very day. Would we characterize either of those instances as "occupying forces"? No! Germany is run by the new chancellor, Angela Merkel. South Korea has its own leader as well. The United States is simply protecting its investment and ensuring readiness in case North Korea attacks again or a rogue state starts a conflict in Eastern Europe.

And Kosovo, don't even get me started on that. That wasn't a war so much as it was a bombing campaign. Guess who Clinton gave a contract to for rebuilding their infrastructure afterward. No idea? Halliburton was awarded a $77-billion contract to rebuild, virtually identical to the one they received in Iraq. Why? It's called "capability". In a capitalist market system, the most capable companies have the ability to perform required tasks most efficiently. Had another company been given the contracts, the costs would've been much greater and the job finished much later.

The final quote I have is quite the apt admission of arrogance:

I know this is all easy to say for a guy who grew up with money, did well in school and hasn't so much as served on jury duty for his country.

And therein lies the problem. Rich, spoiled, leftist brats who think the ability to write a few words in line with liberal rhetoric qualifies them to be journalists in charge of getting the news to the rest of the nation. I have a proposition for columnists like Mr. Stein: write a book and let those who want to read your crap buy it instead of forcing it down the throats of the readers of the LA Times. Or just shut up, decent Americans have no use for your hatred of this country and its values.

Canadians Ready to Say, "That's Enough, eh"

2006-01-23T15:15:00.000-06:00

I, for one, say that it's about time! Canadian liberals, after being in control for the last 12 years, will be faced tomorrow with possibly one of the worst showings in any federal election since independence in 1867. Reuters reports:

Canadian political leaders on Sunday made one last cross-country dash on the eve of an election expected to oust the ruling Liberals, move Canada to the right and improve ties with the United States.
With polls showing a steady lead of 7 to 12 percentage points, the Conservatives sounded increasingly confident, though it looked like they would fall short of a majority in Parliament and have to depend on other parties.
"After 13 years and four failed mandates, the era of Liberal arrogance is ending," local candidate Michael Smith told a Winnipeg rally as he introduced Conservative leader Stephen Harper, who made stops in Ontario, Manitoba and British Columbia on Sunday.
...
"Only a new government can turn the page on the past 13 years of scandal and inaction and get on with addressing the real concerns of ordinary working people," Harper said. "We have an opportunity with a new government, and only a new government, to bring together East and West, English and French, city and country, new and old Canadians."
Some polls suggest the Liberals will get their lowest percentage of votes in any election since independence in 1867, even lower than the 28 percent they collected in 1984.
If Harper wins, it will be his reward for uniting Canada's two fractious right-wing parties at the end of 2003 and creating the Conservative Party.
Harper would be the first prime minister to have spent most of his life in the conservative Western province of Alberta. He promises to lower taxes, clamp down on crime, clean up government, cut health waiting times and return some power from the federal government to Canada's 10 provinces.

Malkin has this breakdown of tomorrow's elections ...

Anti-Conservative Party blogger Hyphenated Canadian reports on how the Toronto Star "compares Conservatives to terrorist group Hamas" ...

Happy Elections, Canada. Show those Liberals that they're out of the mainstream! Most importantly, help the Conservatives usher in a new era of prosperity in the North.

Cry Me a Gay River ...

2006-01-21T18:13:00.000-06:00

The gay community is so dramatic, but is it surprising? In their latest hissyfit, they're charging the American Idol show with becoming "increasingly homophobic", according to Contactmusic.

Officials at the Gay And Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) were appalled by homophobic remarks made by judges SIMON COWELL and RANDY JACKSON on the first show of the new season, which aired in America on Tuesday (17JAN06).

On the programme, Brit Cowell told one effeminate wannabe to "shave off your beard and wear a dress," while Jackson asked another audition hopeful, "Are you a girl?" Both contestants were rejected.

Now GLAAD bosses are fighting back, demanding an audience with Idol bosses.

A spokesman tells entertainment news website TMZ.com, "GLAAD is reaching out to the show's producers to discuss our concerns and the concerns of community members and allies, who have contacted us about this matter."

Let's put this into perspective, shall we? Is it not perfectly reasonable to tell a man who acts like a woman to look more like one? Are we so sure that these contestants were offended by the remarks, or is GLAAD just jumping the gun on this one? Here's a nice comparison, one liberals wouldn't accept as logical soon as calling day 'night' and light 'dark'. Jane Smiley, in a piece written for Slate online magazine immediately following the election, says the following:

The election results reflect the decision of the right wing to cultivate and exploit ignorance in the citizenry. I suppose the good news is that 55 million Americans have evaded the ignorance-inducing machine. But 58 million have not.

In fact, she admits that most of her family voted for Bush, but were not ignorant, just "greedy and full of classic Republican feelings of superiority." However, her statement regarding her family represents a rare absence of the word "ignorant" being used to define a conservative. Smiley uses the words "ignorant" or "ignorance" twelve times in a 1000+ word essay. That's nearly 1.2% of the article devoted to a single term in various forms.

It sure is a good thing she's teaching impressionable college students at the University of Iowa. Perhaps she could've consulted a thesaurus and used some synonyms for the word. There are plenty of them, including but not limited to: uneducated, primitive, and oblivious, to name but a few. Plenty of terms a distinguished author of Ms. Smiley's standing would have no trouble comprehending. Apparently common sense isn't a prerequisite for receiving the Pulitzer Prize (1992 for A Thousand Acres).

An accomplished author and university instructor labels conservatives "ignorant" a dozen times in a single sitting and the she is embraced by the liberal community. Notoriously sarcastic and brutally honest reality-show host tells an effeminate man to "shave off [your] beard and wear a dress" and the gay community is up in arms. The double standards are endless from the not-so-honorable opposition.

Whether it is campus "free-speech zones" or hypocrisy in what constitutes "hateful speech", radical leftists will never admit that their speech crosses any lines of decency. But hey, it's the reactionary right-wing of the Republican Party that is hateful, intolerant, and bigoted.

And don't you forget it!

New Polling Function

2006-01-20T20:17:00.000-06:00

If you take a gander at the sidebar, you will notice a brand new addition to my blog: polling. Every week I will add a new poll about something in the political arena. This week's question, "Should Congress pass the tax cut extension?", represents one of the most important issues in front of Congress as the new year gets into full gear.

Rising oil prices are threatening to kill the Dow's rally just shy of that elusive 11,000 mark. It eclipsed the mark for a few days two weeks ago but once oil blasted past the $60/barrel mark, it's been a downhill march. However, the slump could be turned back into a new rally with the tax cut extension. I need not explain (since I already have several times) how much the 2003 tax cuts helped a struggling economy get back on track, but inaction on the part of Congress is threatening to end the superb economic recovery of the past few years.

The GDP growth rate (Excel file) since May 2003 is nearly 4.1% and the Dow Jones has rallied from a low of 8,389.68 that same month to its recent high of 11,070.10, a jump of close to 32% in under three years. Furthermore, the unemployment rate has dropped 1.2% to hit sub-5% for the third time in 2005 and the first time since pre-9/11. Last, but not least, the economy has added 4.6 million new jobs since May 2003, increasing the labor force by nearly 3.6% (unemployment rate and job numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, former from "A" tables, latter from "B" tables -- nonfarm employment).

And with that I rest my case. Decide for yourself whether or not Congress should extend the tax cuts and vote on the poll.

Traiterous Bastard ...

2006-01-19T18:51:00.000-06:00

Remember the good ol' days when traitors were hung or shot? Too bad we have to worry about "human rights" these days ...

Can you imagine what the reaction would be today if an American military officer was shot for insubordination? Well that's exactly what the punishment was in WWII. How else do you command the full loyalty of your NCOs?

The Ultimate Hypocrisy

2006-01-19T17:28:00.000-06:00

Today, in a speech at the Elysee Palace, France's President Jacques Chirac said the following:

"The leaders of states who would use terrorist means against us, as well as those who would consider using in one way or another weapons of mass destruction, must understand that they would lay themselves open to a firm and adapted response on our part."

Reuters reports that "[I]t was the first time he had so clearly linked the threat of a nuclear response to a terrorist attack." So let me get this straight, Jack. You are against a U.S.-led war to depose Saddam Hussein and bring freedom to Iraq, but it's quite alright for you to respond to a terrorist attack in much the same fashion, possibly even resorting to a nuclear reply. It doesn't work both ways, i.e. you can't respond to a terrorist attack if you don't know where your attackers are from and what nations are helping them.

Perhaps Afghanistan's Taliban regime was the sole abettor of Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda forces, but where does that leave other Islamo-fascists like Hamas? Iraq posed a threat to its own citizens and surely would soon have posed a threat to Israel and other free nations. So what's to stop Saddam's brutal regime from fostering terrorist groups? Can we take the chance of attacking one bad egg while leaving another alone to grow into something much worse?

Just to show Chirac's uber-hypocrisy, here are some juicy quotes from his reactions to the War in Iraq:

"To a certain extent Saddam Hussein's departure was a positive thing," Mr. Chirac said in an interview broadcast on the BBC Newsnight television program. "But it also provoked reactions, such as the mobilization in a number of countries of men and women of Islam, which has made the world more dangerous." (source)

Reacting to the onset of war despite French efforts to prevent it, Chirac last Thursday expressed his "regret at the actions being undertaken without the authorisation of the United Nations", saying that France "had made every effort to argue that the necessary disarmament of Iraq could be obtained by peaceful means". (source)

Not that any of this comes as a surprise, but European hypocrisy is still a dangerous thing. Remember that our beloved United States only represents one-fifth of the United Nations Security Council, and three-fifths of that body are far from being U.S.-friendly. Luckily we have a new ally in Germany's new chancellor, Angela Merkel. Even in the worst case, she's much better than Schroeder.

Nevertheless, Chirac's comments today are disturbingly similar to Bush's hard-line stance on terrorism. Could this shift have something to do with an impending presidential election in early 2007 that his party hopes to perform well in? Although Chirac will probably not run for a third term, his latest term has been highly unpopular, and if the French people go to the polls upset with him, they could very well take it out on his party.

Whatever the case, I still find Chirac's comments to be highly perplexing ...

2005 Economic Wrap-up

2006-01-18T23:13:00.000-06:00

Last week I wrote a short summary of December's Employment Situation following its release by the Labor Department. This post will elaborate and include a look back at the performance of the domestic job market as well as the newly released CPI and Real Earnings (PDF file) numbers. I will conclude with a full economic wrap-up along with an outlook into this year.

The aforementioned December Employment Situation was yet another case of job growth and decreasing unemployment. Payroll employment jumped 108,000 in December bringing the year's total to an increase of 1.9 million, an average of 158,000 per month. Furthermore, the economy has added 4.6 million new jobs since the 2003 tax cuts at a monthly rate of 149,000. Nevertheless, the 2005 calendar year is continually portrayed as a terrible year for the American economy.

Clinton certainly was blessed with a thriving economy during his presidency, but any sane economist will attribute much of that growth to the "I.T. Revolution". The ensuing "dot-com bust" of 2001 has weighed down the Bush economy, which is only now seeing itself grow at its full potential. According to the historical prices of the Dow Jones Index, the main U.S. stock market peaked during the week of May 21st, 2001 at 11,436.42 and bottomed out less than four months later at 7926.93 during the week of September 10th. This represents an astronomical drop of 44.3% in a market that's relatively stable when compared with other worldwide indices like Japan's Nikkei (which has dropped nearly 10% in the last two days and is notorious for bursts upwards and cliff-dives downward).

When a stock's price plummets, profits usually turn to losses and workers tend to be laid off in droves. Following the stock market crash in September 2001, the job market lost 1.7 million jobs over the next 21 months until Bush's supply-side tax cuts halted the drop in May 2003. After an average loss of 82,000 jobs per month during that 21-month span, the job market has not suffered a single loss since, even through the Katrina crisis. The market recently eclipsed 11,000 for the first time in nearly five years, and after bottoming out below 8,000 again in April 2003, the stock market hasn't looked back since the tax cuts, gaining 3,000 points to get itself back into familiar (five-digit) territory.

And now, onto the newest numbers: CPI and Real Earnings. The Labor Department released both publications this morning, and both offered predictably positive numbers. The Consumer Price Index shedded another tenth of a percent following the largest CPI plunge in nearly half a century. Also, real average weekly earnings (real meaning adjusted for inflation) rose for the third straight month, this time one tenth of a percent. Neglecting the Katrina-affected September drop of 1%, real earnings jumped by nearly the same rate. Nevertheless, the full story remains that earnings kept pace with inflating consumer prices while liberal pundits lied their filthy butts off day in and day out saying workers were seeing real wages drop.

The typical response from lefties is that even if wages keep up with inflating prices, benefits don't. This is true ... of pensions! Taxpayer-funded benefits are a far cry from a 401K plan which returns about 10% for most workers. My 401K saw a 10% ROI (return on investment) in 2004 and a 9% ROI this past year. I haven't even cracked the two-decade mark and yet I've stocked up $6,000 for retirement. Imagine what a blue-collar worker, making $50,000/year, could accumulate simply by investing 10% of their paycheck in a retirement plan. $5,000/year with a 10% ROI over thirty years comes out to a cool $165,000. Add in the typical employer-matching option (most companies match worker contributions into 401K plans) and the figure doubles to $330,000. But don't expect liberals to like that approach, after all that's "risky" (if you take their response to Social Security reform, for example).

Back to the CPI, December's drop puts the 2005 increase at a high, but acceptable, 3.4%. Remember, core inflation only increased at 2.2% over the year. The extra 1.2% is made up almost entirely by a 17% burst in energy prices over the year. Not to worry, especially if ANWR drilling is approved and with the discovery of massive oil stores in Canada (the oil sands project).

However, don't expect the hypocritical Democrats to go anywhere near ANWR approval. As much as they moan and groan about moving toward "energy independence" (even thought that is an oxymoron, we will always need foreign sources for some percentage of our energy needs), liberals would never vote for something so "detrimental to the environment". Which is exactly why there hasn't been a nuclear power plant built in 25 years. After all, just look at Three Mile Island! Oh, never mind, nothing happened. Meltdown? Nope. Dangerous radioactive gases leaked? Nope. The entire incident was controlled with no external damage to the surrounding environment.

With 4th-quarter GDP numbers scheduled for a January 27th release by the Commerce Department, some are worried about the effect a slowdown would have on 2006 GDP growth. Many economists are predicting somewhere between 3.0 and 3.5% GDP growth this year with a minority of forecasters saying GDP growth will fall to 2.5% and unemployment will rise to 5.5%. Well if we are to believe in a "business cycle", the latter wouldn't be a big surprise. Following an expansion like we have seen in recent years, businesses tend to contract, resulting in higher unemployment. I will only even begin to approach the low GDP growth outlook if Congress fails to extend the tax cuts past 2008. Even though a rejection of the extension doesn't mean that rates will go back up, the bad news will send investors in a frenzy to get out of an impending bear market.

I predict, with relative uncertainty, that GDP growth will eclipse 3% if the tax cuts are extended and will fall below the mark if they are not. Also, I do believe unemployment will crawl back over the 5% mark soon enough. As the natural rate usually lies somewhere around that number, the cycle of expansion and contraction should bring it back above it for a short period, but only slightly. I see unemployment peaking at around 5.1% or 5.2% during the next 12 months. For historical proof, look at the past 25 years of monthly unemployment rates. It peaked in 1982 at 10.8% and proceeded to a low of 5.2% between 1989 and 1990. Then it jumped back up to 7.8% in 1992 and fell back down to 3.8% in 2000. After the stock market crash, unemployment rose to 6.3% in 2003 and fell back down to its current rate of 4.9%.

While the 1970's and 1980's were volatile times economically, the current economy is more stable, therefore a rise above the natural rate from the current rate of 4.9% shouldn't be very high. Otherwise there is still wiggle room in the mid-4% range.

I remain optimistic for a prosperous 2006 and expect the Dow to approach 12,000, perhaps eclipsing the mark for the first time ever (it peaked at 11,980.34 in July 2000). Remember conservatives, pessimism is for liberals! However, don't meddle in optimism without a dash of realism as well. A purely optimistic view would put the American economy in hyperspeed along current trends, but realistically the economy must slow down sooner or later. I hope it turns out to be later, but only time will tell.

Happy 300th Ben Franklin

2006-01-17T14:59:00.000-06:00

First things first -- Happy Birthday to one of this nation's foremost forefathers, Benjamin Franklin. Today is his tercentenary, and many fitting tributes are being organized on the Beltway and in his hometown of Philadelphia. A year-long celebration is taking place in Philly and a luncheon at the Cato Institute featuring Dr. Mark Skousen will be held on Thursday, among other events.

Rich Karlgaard commemorates Franklin at Digital Rules, as does Dr. Mark Skousen at Investment U.

In other news, the Labor Department is set to release its year-ending CPI and Real Earnings publications at 8:30AM EST tomorrow. Since I have been busy with vacation and moving back into school, as well as starting the new semester, I will combine my overdue analysis of the year-ending Employment Situation with tomorrow's releases. Expect good news (like there was any doubt) ...

Satirical Political Beliefs Assessment Test

2006-01-13T22:34:00.000-06:00

THE SATIRICAL POLITICAL BELIEFS ASSESSMENT TEST: A Humorous Political Party Quiz to Test If You're an Archconservative, Leftwing Wacko, Antigovernment Libertine or a Commie Sympathizer -- by Don Hagen

http://www.geocities.com/donaldjhagen/humoroustest.html

Five Sample Test Questions Follow

=====

Key to abbreviations in test questions that follow:

CONS: Conservative (Archconservative)

LIBL: Liberal (Leftwing Wacko)

LBRT: Libertarian (Antigovernment Libertine

COMM: Communist (Commie Sympathizer)

=====

1: Government's practice of stealing from the rich to give to the poor is...

CONS: a crime.

LIBL: a brave, generous and heroic deed.

LBRT: a foolish, misguided attempt at social engineering.

COMM: an inspiration to us all.

=====

7: The Center for Public-Health Dietary Self Control releases a study that says eating just one jelly donut is as harmful to human health as smoking 10,000,000 cartons of cigarettes. Do you...

CONS: keep eating jelly donuts.

LIBL: demand that jelly donuts be removed from vending machines, and public school cafeterias.

LBRT: hoard jelly donuts before they are regulated off grocer's shelves.

COMM: hoard jelly donuts so you can sell them on the black market.

=====

10: What techniques are best for maintaining discipline in the classroom?

CONS: If just one student misbehaves, severely punish the entire class.

LIBL: Force boys who refuse to settle down to take psychotropic drugs, such as Ritalin and Prozac.

LBRT: Anyone who doesn't want to be in class can leave.

COMM: Anyone who doesn't want to be in class can be made an example of.

=====

20: What's the best way to stop people from illegally crossing our borders?

CONS: Seal the borders so no one can get in.

LIBL: Do nothing to beef up security at the borders, and offer illegal aliens a wide array of free services.

LBRT: Allow unrestricted passage across the borders.

COMM: Seal the borders so no one can get out.

=====

21: How would you define the word "profit"?

CONS: What business owners earn by selling a quality product at a competitive price.

LIBL: What business owners RIP-OFF from their customers.

LBRT: What business owners are rewarded with for risking the loss of their own money.

COMM: What business owners RIP-OFF from their employees.

=====

Alito Confirmation Hearings: Leahy's "Slip-Up"

2006-01-09T11:19:00.000-06:00

Only fifteen minutes into the Senate Judiciary Committee's hearing on Samuel Alito's nomination to the United States Supreme Court, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) used the beginning of his opening statement to say the following, "President Bush did not help his case in the withdrawal of Harriet Miers's nomination ..."

I wonder how many people watching the live broadcast would catch the subtle implications of that statement, but hopefully somebody will. The implication of Senator Leahy's statement is this; Harriet Miers withdrew her OWN nomination. To say otherwise is a direct accusation of the president in having a role in causing Ms. Miers to withdraw. True or untrue, this comment is irresponsible for one of the oldest and most respected (deservedly or not) lawmakers in the United States. However, it is sad to note that it isn't unexpected.

Stay tuned to the live coverage of Samuel Alito's confirmation hearings on Fox News (among other cable news stations) and let's try to keep these proceedings honest and expeditious.

Employment Situation Preview: December 2005

2006-01-06T23:34:00.000-06:00

Greetings from Atlanta! I am still on vacation until Tuesday, but I thought I'd check in to share the wonderful (yet unreported) news from the Labor Department (PDF file). It goes to the tune of a drop in unemployment, a rise in employment, and 108,000 new jobs. Also, average hourly earnings jumped five cents to $16.34, an increase of 0.3% for the month and a quarterly (three-month average) increase of 0.8% between the third and fourth quarters of 2005.

Meanwhile, the MSM is keeping the good news on the DL (down low, not D.L. Hughley). The NYT chimed in with their typical naysaying, harping that the pace of growth is slowing and the job creation missed expectations. Nearly every month of 2005 showed forecasters overshooting the mark for job creation, and all the while major newspapers overhyped this point to death.

Sadly, you'll all have to wait until I return from my trip for the complete analysis. Keep an eye out for the year ending Consumer Price Index news in the upcoming weeks as the media prepares to spin yet another piece of good news into a dire outlook for 2006.

One Week Hiatas

2006-01-04T00:21:00.000-06:00

HAPPY NEW YEAR! Indeed, it has been a few days for me, but I've made it back for one last post before I hop a plane to Atlanta for a nice vacation from the dreariness of Southeastern Wisconsin. In fact, I don't believe I've seen the sun all year! Well now that I've gotten my lame attempt at humor out of the way, on to business ...

I will be taking a break from blogging, unless the urge is too much and I'm forced to write a quick post from my aunt and uncle's house in Georgia. Nevertheless, I will hopefully get out everything that needs to be said in this post, but who knows if something super important comes up while I'm gone that just needs to be discussed.

The subject tonight is taken from a Bloomberg report that says a top economic forecaster from UNC-Chapel Hill is predicting a recession in 2006, a view that is at odds with his colleagues. Bloomberg conducts a survey of 66 economists every January for annual predictions and while the median forecast has '06 growth at 3.4%, James F. Smith is predicting GDP losses over at least two quarters (constituting a recession) this year.

As the only negative news out from an expert in the economic field, expect the MSM to pick up on this tidbit and plop it on Page 1. The Seattle Times has already copied this story and put it out, representing the first major newspaper to publish the story. I think it's safe to assume the big wigs at NYT and the Washington Post are crafting their own versions of the story for tomorrow morning's run.

It's never a surprise, nor is it difficult to predict, when leftist media outlets will run with a story simply to paint a negative picture of a Republican administration during an economic boom. To tell the truth, they need something big and they need it now. President Bush's approval ratings have jumped from a career-low of 35% in a CBS News poll at the end of October and in the heat of the Libby indictment to an average of 46% and a high of 50% over the past few weeks.

All polling aside (can we ever take a 1,000 person poll to be the nation's true feeling?), I have said it before and I'll continue to say it as long as there are still naysayers in high places; the economy is running smoothly and will continue to do so as long as Congress doesn't back off of the tax-rate cut extensions and stays away from any kind of protectionism. Economic growth, as well as productivity growth, are at rates nearing five-year highs. The economy since the tax-rate cuts were passed in 2003 has grown at an average of 4.1%, which is one of the best 30-month periods in the past century.

The main thing to remember is to never take anything the MSM has to say very seriously. For clarity's sake, never take their ANALYSIS very seriously. If they say something happened, there's a pretty good chance they didn't make it up. But when they say why it happened or what will result from it's occurance, let the warning flags go up!

New Year's Resolutions

2005-12-31T15:14:00.000-06:00

Following are several resolutions that the politicians in Washington would be wise in keeping to as the New Year dawns upon Congress. When the recess is over and the men and women of Capitol Hill return to their work, perhaps they should quit the incessant bickering that resembles playground arguments of our kindergarten days and do something useful for this country.

Congressmen Mike Pence (R-IN) and James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) have been working hard from their posts at the helm of important groups (Pence and the conservative caucus, the Republican Study Committee (RSC), Sensenbrenner and the House Judiciary Committee). The former gathered his group of some one hundred-plus conservatives in the House and put together the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, which was added to S. 1932 in mid-November by Rep. Jim Nussle (R-IA), a member of the RSC and chairman of the House Budget Committee.

The latter, Rep. Sensenbrenner, has been one of the busiest men on Capitol Hill throughout calendar year 2005, introducting 55 pieces of legislation which include four resolutions and twelve amendments. Two of these include the Children's Safety Act of 2005 and the Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2005. Both bills sped through the House in a couple months, received 370-plus votes, and got stuck in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Meanwhile, that committee's chairman, Arlen Specter (R-PA) is trying to get buildings named after himself.

The former bill would reform the system that tracks and punishes sexual offenders while the latter would alleviate public concern over the Kelo decision in the U.S. Supreme Court this summer. As a result of the Senate's inaction, communities across the nation continue to abuse their new "right" to steal private property from their residents, and sexual offenders continue to live near children and roam the streets with little monitoring.

Instead of fighting for their constituents, many in Congress continue to fight for their own selfish interests. They continuously argue about when Bush should call back troops, or if he should use a timetable. They whine about the rights of terrorists and illegal immigrants even though the monikers they carry should dissuade anyone from helping them in the first place. The former wants nothing more than to destroy our way of life, and the latter is in this country illegally, hence they are criminals. Nevertheless, politicians argue that they have rights too and simply want a place to work and live. Well if that's the case, boot them the hell out and tell them to become LEGAL immigrants! It's a simple concept, really.

Therefore, I propose a few resolutions for Congress to follow when they reconvene in a few weeks:

Stop arguing and do something. The more you argue about Iraq, the less you accomplish. In the months since debate has reached a boiling point, has President Bush given Democrats anything they've asked for? No, and he will not budge no matter what they say or do. So I propose that they give it up and get down to business.
Pass the tax-rate cut extension in the Senate. The pro-growth tax-rate cuts have boosted the economy into regions of prosperity foreign to even the economic genious, Bill Clinton. Furthermore, in the two and a half years since Bush signed them into law, the tax-rate cuts have increased tax revenues fiscal year after fiscal year. This proves that according to the Laffer Curve, we should be concerned about lowering them even more. But first things first; extend the current plan.
Confirm Samuel Alito as the next Justice of the Supreme Court. As long as deliberations continue in the Senate, that notorious fence-sitter Sandra Day O'Connor will continue to sit in the seat she gave up in July. There is nothing to fear from Alito. He will not single-handedly reverse Roe v. Wade just because he once said wives should notify husbands if they want to abort their kids (mind you it's NOTIFY, not GET PERMISSION, and only if it is the husband's child).
Support the war or not, whichever you prefer. However, support the troops by not calling them terrorists and saying they will fail. The troops need to know that they aren't fighting for a lost cause as was the case in Vietnam. Oh don't get me wrong, Vietnam wasn't lost by the troops, it was lost by the politicians. If the Democrats controlled Congress, we would be losing or not even be in Iraq. The troops need encouragement and they need to hear that we believe they're doing a great job, not that they are myrmidons for an evil administration bent on imperialism.
Confront the growing crises that are Medicare and Social Security. Hell, in a perfect world they wouldn't exist. But this isn't such a place, so we must do our best to reform these crippled entitlement programs. Both will, if left alone, drain the economy of trillions (not billions) of dollars in mere decades. The situation resembles a crack in a dam. At first the problem isn't so bad, a little water seeps out now and then. However as time passes, more cracks appear as the integrity of the structure is compromised. Soon, water is constantly pouring out of holes all over the dam, and ultimately the entire structure will cave from within. The dam represents this economy, and the crack represents the problems we face with Medicare and Social Security. If we don't fix them soon, America will become what China is and may not be for long: developing.
Abandon protectionism. If Senator Schumer's (D-NY) tariff on Chinese goods goes through, consumer prices will skyrocket. There's a reason free trade works in a market economy. Competition is at its best when there are no impediments. If you take away cheap Chinese goods, the average price for consumer products will skyrocket. It's like trying to benefit American carmakers by putting a tariff on cheap Korean-made cars like Kia. Passing DR-CAFTA this summer was one of the biggest accomplishments this session. With Costa Rica representing the only party yet to agree to the treaty, it represents a big step for free trade in the region.

There are probably many more things that Congress could do, but the six listed above are vitally important to maintaining the strength and prosperity of this nation.

That said, I wish everyone the happiest of New Years. Enjoy the night, but most importantly, be safe and be respectful.

Vegetarianizing Congress: The Removal of Pork

2005-12-29T01:49:00.000-06:00

"Safire's New Political Dictionary" defines pork barrel as:

Wasteful and unnecessary projects that politicians secure for their local districts, usually to gain favor with local voters. The term dates from the days when salted pork was occasionally handed out to slaves from large barrels. An observer once wrote that the mad rush of politicians to get their district's share of treasury funds looked like slaves rushing to the pork barrel. (source)

Your ma and pa's Congress was no different; the late Senator William Proxmire (D-WI) campaigned against wasteful spending, particularly in the military, with his "Golden Fleece Awards" in the fifties and sixties before he was sued for defamation by one of the award's recipients. Apparently that's one thing that hasn't changed over the years: politicians can't stand when their motives are questioned.

I am referring, of course, to the antics of one Ted Stevens (R-AK) back in October when in response to Senator Tom Coburn's (R-OK) amendment to revoke funds for the "Bridge to Nowhere" and another Alaska bridge project and divert them to the rebuilding of I-10 in New Orleans, the senator lashed out saying:

I will put the Senate on notice—and I don’t kid people—if the Senate decides to discriminate against our state, to take money only from our state, I’ll resign from this body. (source)

To confront this particular instance would do a grave injustice to the equally heinous actions of tens and hundreds of others like Senator Stevens. The fact of the matter is that pork barrel projects are a scourge on the economy and an entirely inefficient use of taxpayer money.

I hereby propose a simple solution to this problem. Any appropriation of funds to a particular state must pass the following criteria:

Is the project beneficial to a wide number of Americans as opposed to a small group of that state's residents? (If no, tell your respective state government to fund it.)
Is the project making the most efficient use of taxpayer dollars? (As we are currently experiencing a deficit, the most important thing is to allocate funds more efficiently.)
Will the project's benefits exceed its costs? (For example, would a $250 million bridge serving 8,000 Alaskans have benefits exceeding several billion dollars, accounting for maintenance costs, etc.)

These are all simple concepts that men and women of above average intelligence levels should be able to comprehend their purposes. It is patently preposterous that anyone, much less 82 out of 100 senators, would oppose rebuilding a bridge in a sprawling metropolis that saw extensive damage over a bridge serving several thousand remote residents of Alaska.

How many millions of cars traveled across the I-10 bridge in New Orleans before its destruction at the hands of Katrina? Now, how many thousands, nay hundreds!, of cars would traffic the "Bridge to Nowhere on even the busiest days? A small airstrip isn't exactly a daily commuting point in the way thousands of houses and tens of thousands of offices are to New Orleans residents.

The fact remains, unnecessary and unefficient projects equal tens of billions of dollars, if not more, of the entire budget every fiscal year. Each ten billion is only around half of one percent, but every year the number of projects increases and so does their stake in the budget.

For example, President Reagan vetoed a transportation bill in 1987 with 121 earmarks only to have it overridden by a spend-happy Congress. His classic humor is apparent in his comment, "I haven't seen this much lard since I handed out blue ribbons at the Iowa State Fair.” This year's bill included a massive 4,128 earmarks at a whopping value of $12.4 billion, which equates to over .5% of the entire federal budget. ONE BILL ALONE has this much pork. (source)

According to Citizens Against Government Waste, 2005 was another record year for pork barrel projects. An astounding 13,997 projects weighed in at a value of $27.3 billion, increases of 31 and 19 percent, respectively, over last year's totals. The national debt increased 8.8% and the federal deficit 9.1% between 2003 and 2004 (national debt increased 7.5% between 2004 and 2005, 2005 numbers n/a for federal deficit).

Unfortunately, an end to pork barrel projects (or at least entrance into an era of pork control) wouldn't halt the deficit and debt in their tracks. However, a shift to a more fiscally responsble government would cause a ripple effect as politicians look at spending projects with a new understanding of fiscal control and its economic impacts. Remember these key points:

the tax rate cut led to a tax revenue increase, thus according to the Laffer Curve, there's still wiggle room on the bottom-end.
fiscal responsibility will lead to budget surpluses, not tax rate hikes and increased welfare spending coupled with decreased defense spending.

Banning Fireplaces: Environmentalists Strike Indoors

2005-12-27T23:38:00.000-06:00

Recent news reports (and on talk shows) show a disturbing trend in an increasingly "environmentally conscious" America. Now that much of what supposedly harms the environment is controlled out of doors, the environmentalist whackos are trying to prevent us from burning wood in our indoor fireplaces. The bans are preventing fireplaces from being installed in new homes and would undoubtedly lead to a natural gas monopoly of the home-heating market.

The differences between wood and propane/natural gas heating are relatively simple: the former is cost-efficient but requires a little extra work while the latter is costly, but requires little work and pollutes slightly less.

In the industrialized and simplified society of the 21st century, where cell phones, computers, and the remote control dominate hundreds of millions (perhaps billions) of lives worldwide, people simply want things to work but care not how it works and who makes it work.

In this case, they'd rather just tap the LCD-panel a few times to heat or cool their home as opposed to lugging around those heavy (sarcasm) logs and stacking them. That is such a tiresome and menial task which went out of style long ago.

I wouldn't be surprised to see a pack of rabid lobbyists swarming city halls across America demanding that fireplaces be banned in their respective cities, perhaps even state or nationwide. Why not? The removal of the fireplace option in new homes as a complement or replacement to central heating would provide the propane/natural gas companies with quite a hefty increase in profits.

In a market-driven economy, where competition reigns, this is entirely unacceptable and patently absurd. If a product is harmful or any number of bad things, consumers replace it with something else that serves a similar purpose. If they don't like Coke, they drink Pepsi. If they don't like a Ford, they drive a Toyota. If they look at data or hear reports that firewood pollutes more than natural gas and decide they don't want to use it anymore, it is their prerogative to seek other means of heating their homes. It is not the place of local, state, or national government to decide whether or not fireplaces are acceptable.

Barriers to economic freedom are popping up more and more in the U.S. and they never fail to harm the people more than they help. Perhaps a small benefit is found as a result of banning smoking in bars and restaurants. However, the costs far exceed that benefit, namely the loss of patronage at these establishments because smokers decide to either go out of town or just go home instead of spending an hour or two at the bar with their pals.

To ban fireplaces would simply insert another roadblock, albeit a small one, in the American marketplace that further impairs consumer freedom.

Thank a Vet ...

2005-12-27T22:47:00.000-06:00

The holiday season is a time of joy and celebration. However, in giving thanks for what we have, we often forgot why we have it. Everything we have and hold dear from our lives to our freedoms we owe to the brave men and women who fought for this country. Many of them lie buried on distant shores and battlefields, but there are many thousands still serving valuable role in society and even more that feel the icy grip of death pulling their lives from them. Before they go, they must know that we appreciate what they've done for us. Without them, where would this country be? Would it yet exist? Thankfully, these questions need not be answered.

As you pray for your loved ones and friends this holiday season, say a prayer for the veterans among us. Furthermore, if you encounter one, please take the time to thank them for everything they've done.

I've come across a touching song, storyline, and photo essay via email that really puts this into perspective. The song and photo essay can be found here. The story behind the song is as follows:

The elderly parking lot attendant wasn't in a good mood!
Neither was Sam Bierstock. It was around 1 a.m., and Bierstock, a Delray Beach, Fla., eye doctor, business consultant, corporate speaker and musician, was bone tired after appearing at an event.
He pulled up in his car, and the parking attendant began to speak. "I took two bullets for this country and look what I'm doing," he said bitterly.
At first, Bierstock didn't know what to say to the World War II veteran. But he rolled down his window and told the man, "Really, from the bottom of my heart, I want to thank you."
Then the old soldier began to cry.
"That really got to me," Bierstock says.
Cut to today.
Bierstock, 58, and John Melnick, 54, of Pompano Beach - a member of Bierstock's band, Dr. Sam and the Managed Care Band - have written a song inspired by that old soldier in the airport parking lot. The mournful "Before You Go" does more than salute those who fought in WWII. It encourages people to go out of their way to thank the aging warriors before they die.
"If we had lost that particular war, our whole way of life would have been shot," says Bierstock, who plays harmonica. "The WWII soldiers are now dying at the rate of about 2,000 every day. I thought we needed to thank them."
The song is striking a chord. Within four days of Bierstock placing it on the Web, the song and accompanying photo essay have bounced around nine countries, producing tears and heartfelt thanks from veterans, their sons and daughters and grandchildren.
"It made me cry," wrote one veteran's son. Another sent an e-mail saying that only after his father consumed several glasses of wine would he discuss "the unspeakable horrors" he and other soldiers had witnessed in places such as Anzio, Iwo Jima, Bataan and Omaha Beach. "I can never thank them enough," the son wrote. "Thank you for thinking about them."
Bierstock and Melnick thought about shipping it off to a professional singer, maybe a Lee Greenwood type, but because time was running out for so many veterans, they decided it was best to release it quickly, for free, on the Web. They've sent the song to Sen. John McCain and others in Washington. Already they have been invited to perform it in Houston for a Veterans Day tribute - this after just a few days on the Web. They hope every veteran in America gets a chance to hear it.

God Bless the veterans that served this country in the wars of the 20th century. They offered their lives as collateral for ours, and many of them were sadly taken up on it. Nevertheless, those that survived are owed the utmost affection and gratitude we can offer them for their services.

To the veterans, from the bottom of my heart, THANK YOU! May you never be forgotten ...

Hope You All Had a Merry Christmas

2005-12-27T01:29:00.000-06:00

Hope you all had a Merry Christmas and are getting ready for another year in the blogosphere.
(pardon the rhyming)

... picture taken with my new camera lens, the Lensbaby 2.0 ...
if you have a Digital SLR, buy one!

Merry Christmas

2005-12-24T14:15:00.000-06:00

Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, and Happy Holidays to all!

I will be taking the day off tomorrow, so everyone have a wonderful day and be safe!

The War on Christmas

2005-12-21T22:31:00.000-06:00

*** Milestone: 150th Post ***

There is a sentiment in the far-left media and the liberal blogosphere that the War on Christmas is 1) overhyped, 2) a scam and 3) being made into a big deal by Bill O'Reilly. Well sorry folks, it is as real as the holiday's namesake, and as serious as a heartattack. Unless, of course, Bill O'Reilly's influence caused a Lutheran church in my area to post signs noting that they are "Putting Christ Back in Christmas".

To understand the situation, we must first understand the true meaning of "respecting an establishment of religion". These five words essentially pertained to the case of the Church of England in the 17th century. When the persecuted set sail from European shores and headed for America, they were fleeing oppressive state-sponsored religious institutions. These churches, even the Catholic Church of the Middle Ages, had no tolerance for deviation from a strict normalcy, as witnessed in the case of the Knights Templar in the 14th century.

The Framers understood the threat to religious minorities posed by a powerful religious body held in high esteem by the governing bodies of a nation. Nevertheless, leave it to the crowd that believes in the "living and evolving Constitution" to interpret this phrase as frowning upon any public display of religiosity. Whether it's a manger display or simply the utterance of "Merry Christmas", public and private institutions alike have begun to shy from and even discourage this behavior. Cities and towns have banned nativities (here - policy reversed), or sanitized them of religious connotation (here). Private organizations like Target, Home Depot, and Best Buy have banned the Salvation Army from soliciting donations in front of their thousands of nationwide stores. The Target Corporation says its policy applies to all types of solicitation and refers to it as "a distraction".

In justifying their policy, Target says they give $2 million a week to communities. Well excuse me if I'm not appeased. For one, I most definitely will not be buying any shares in the Target Corporation anytime soon. As Milton Friedman notes in his 1970 essay on the social responsibility of businesses (PDF file), the social responsibility of business is to maximize profits. Once this is achieved, and the multi-million dollar salaries are doled out to executives, they can do with it what they please. Until then, the revenues of a corporation belong to its shareholders, and it is their decision whether the profits are donated or not.

The truth is, full-time charities are the most efficient at allocating donated funds to the most needy as much as a corporation is the most efficient at acquiring capital and producing a product that will maximize potential profits. By disallowing one of the nation's foremost philanthropic groups prime collecting property, i.e. heated or shaded areas protecting from the elements, these corporations are effectually hurting their ability to provide charity. They are forced to take up spots on the street where people walking by are trying to keep warm or simply don't have time to stop and take out the money to donate that would be close at hand when leaving a store with a handful or pocketful of change due to an in-store purchase.

Another touchy subject is the utterance of "Merry Christmas" by pretty much everyone, from governments to private corporations and private citizens. They suggest the safe alternative, "Happy Holidays", instead. What's the harm in combining the two, especially when less than five percent of the public is offended by the words "Merry Christmas" alone. According to a Fox News poll (take this with a grain of salt, for I don't care much for polls), only five percent of Americans celebrate Hanukkah and only two percent celebrate Kwanzaa. This means about fifteen percent of the nation celebrates a holiday they have no religious ties to, since about eighty percent of Americans identify as Christians.

The implication here is that of those celebrating the holidays, nearly all celebrate Christmas this time of year, and for some of them it's just a time to give presents (these people would more readily identify Santa Clause as the primary symbol of the holiday as opposed to Jesus Christ). When a Gallup poll shows 62% of Americans saying "that generic greetings -- such as "Happy Holidays" and "Season's Greetings" -- are a "change for the worse", wouldn't it seem logical to default with "Merry Christmas" and fall back on, or include, "Happy Holidays" simply to protect profits?

The fact of the matter is that the ACLU and its buddies have instilled fear of the "fascist right-wing" in many Americans. This leads some to pause when contemplating the "Merry Christmas" or "Season's Greetings" greeting card set for friends and family this Christmas season. I encourage everyone out there, especially God-fearing Christians, to not hesitate when saying Merry Christmas. However, just in case your conscience gets the better of you, add a "Happy Holidays" to ease your worries. You wouldn't want to offend someone, would you?

Club For Growth Scorecard: 109th Congress, 1st Session

2005-12-20T13:41:00.000-06:00

Attention all you pro-growth conservatives! The Club For Growth has released their newest Congressional scorecards for each house of the Congress. The House version covers twelve growth-related votes and the Senate version covers six. See how your Representative and Senator scored here.

The McCarthy Series: Volume II

2005-12-20T00:41:00.000-06:00

Loyal readers may recall a few days ago I wrote a post in defense of Senator Joseph McCarthy. His actions, while indeed wild and not always following the most ethical paths, were ultimately vital to the uncovering and closing of vast underground conspiracies by traiterous American Communists. The subject is indeed a touchy one, and many on both ends of the spectrum would rather it be buried and forgotten.

Well trust me folks, any attempts to do so will be for naught. Furthermore, the McCarthy days hold many valuable lessons for current and future politicians, as well as their critics. For example, in a press conference at Key West on March 30, 1950, President Harry S Truman reacted to Senator McCarthy's demands for him to act in response to his list of "disloyal" State Department employees. The following is taken from the transcript of the interview:

Q. Do you think that Senator McCarthy can show any disloyalty exists in the State Department?

The President. I think the greatest asset that the Kremlin has is Senator McCarthy.

[... later in the conference ...]

The President. With a little bit of intelligence they [Republicans] could find an issue at home without a bit of trouble!

Q. What would it be, Mr. President?

The President. Anything in the domestic line. I will meet them on any subject they want, but to try to sabotage the foreign policy of the United States, in the face of the situation with which we are faced, is just as bad as trying to cut the Army in time of war. [emphasis added]

This is quite an interesting comment. Not only does Truman leave unanswered the question of the truthfulness of McCarthy's allegations, but he accuses McCarthy of playing political games with State Dept. employees' careers. Then, in the emphasized portion, Truman basically declares foolish any criticism of American foreign policy. Boy, to see the look on liberals' faces if Bush said anything remotely similar to the press!

This is true as much today as it has been in past times; when confronted with damning evidence, confront it head on, but DO NOT skirt the issue. Senator McCarthy simply played the hand he was dealt, and as a member of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, that meant investigating the government. In return he was vilified and investigated. However, due process wasn't used in his case. Rather, his office was bugged and spies were placed in his midst. Is this what an innocent government does to its own?!