TyroBlog

More Redistribution Experiments

2008-10-27T07:40:00.002-06:00

Try this the next time you are at a restaurant (well, only if you waiter is voting for Obama).

How Accurate Will Exit Polls Be?

2008-10-23T15:32:00.002-06:00

If there is such a large turnout for early voting, how accurate will the November 4th exit polls be? Of course, they are never very accurate, but they may be even further off this year. As stated in the link above, no matter how early you vote, you only get one vote, and these votes haven't even been counted yet.

These Guys Are Actually Funny

2008-10-17T08:07:00.003-06:00

McCain and Obama - why don't they use this stuff in the debates instead of the lame policy talk:

...McCain brought down the house, lighting up faces and shedding a room full of tears with a speech that put a fun touch on countless issues that have been leading the news over the last few weeks.

The Arizona senator touched on his age, wealth, the media, voter registration and, of course, his opponent, Obama.

"This is a very distinguished and influential audience and as good a place as any to make a major announcement," McCain said. "Events are moving fast in my campaign. And, yes, it is true that this morning I dismissed my entire team of senior advisors. All of their positions will now be held by a man named 'Joe The Plumber.'

"Already my friends, my opponents have been subjecting Joe to their vicious attack machine. His voracity has been questioned by Barack Obama's running mate, 'Joe The 6-Term Senator.' He claims that this honest, hard working small business man could not possibly have enough income to face a tax increase under the Obama plan. What they don't know is Joe The Plumber recently signed a very lucrative contract with a wealthy couple to handle all the work on all seven of their houses."

It didn't take long for McCain to bring Obama into the mix, and considering what the two have said about each other over the last 20 months, Thursday night seemed like a good time for some comic relief.

"This campaign needed the common touch of the working man. After all, it began so long ago with the heralded arrival of the man known to Oprah Winfrey as 'The One.' Being a friend and colleague of Barack I just called him 'That One,'" McCain said in reference to his bully-like tactics in the second presidential debate. "He doesn't mind at all. In fact, he even has a pet name for me: 'George Bush...'"

"...It's been that kind of contest and I come here tonight to the Al Smith Dinner knowing I'm the underdog in these final weeks, but if you know where to look there are signs of hope, even in the most unexpected of places, even in the room filled with proud Manhattan Democrats. I can't shake that feeling that some people here are pulling for me.

"I'm delighted to see you here tonight, Hillary."

McCain also took playful shots at former President Bill Clinton and had some fun with MSNBC's Chris Matthews, host of "Hardball."

"I told him, maverick I can do, but messiah is above my pay grade," McCain said. "It's going to be a long, long night at MSNBC if I manage to pull this thing off."

He then launched into a point of contention in the Obama camp – voter registration.

"So, you know I have fun with the media. We all know that the press is really an independent, civic-minded and non-partisan group … like ACORN.

"In case you haven't been following my opponent's 'Get Out The Vote' campaign, ACORN is helping to register groups that were previously excluded, overlooked and under-served – second-graders, the deceased, Disney characters."

While many believe McCain and Obama don't like each other personally, it would be hard to prove as such after listening to McCain's heartfelt comments on his opponent.

"I don't want it getting out of this room, but my opponent is an impressive fellow in many ways," McCain said. "Political opponents can have a little trouble seeing the best in each other. But I've had a few glimpses of this man at his best and I admire his great skill, energy and determination. It's not for nothing, but he's inspired many folks in his own party and beyond. Senator Obama talks about making history and he's made quite a bit of it already. There was a time when the mere invitation of an African-American citizen to dine at the White House was taken as an outrage and an insult. Today is a world away from the cruelty and prideful bigotry of that time – and good riddance.

"I can't wish my opponent luck, but I do wish him well."

Obama later took the podium and said he's not necessarily "the chosen one," but could in fact be a superhero.

"For the last few weeks John has been out on the campaign trail asking this question: Who is Barack Obama? I have to admit I was a little surprised by this question. The answer is right there on my Facebook page," Obama said. "But look, I don't want to be coy about this. We're a couple weeks away from an important election. Americans have a big choice to make, and if anyone feels like they don't know me by now, let me give them some answers ...

"Who is Barack Obama? Contrary to the rumors you may have heard, I was not born in a manger. I was actually born on Krypton and sent here by my father, Jor-El, to save the planet Earth."

He then launched into the genealogy of his birth name.

"Many of you know I got my name, Barack, from my father," Obama said. "It's actually Swahili for 'That One.'

"And I got my middle name, obviously, from someone who never thought I'd be running for president."

Both McCain and Obama will be back out on the campaign trail on Friday, likely with gloves off once again.

But for one night they showed that even the two most recognizable people on the planet, vying for the most important job there is, have a human side."

Don't Question The Messiah

2008-10-17T07:52:00.003-06:00

Apparently, if you ask Obama a tough question, this is what happens to you. Maybe that's why the press has given him a pass for the last 20 months.

It doesn't matter that Joe isn't a licensed plumber or that he has tax liens. The point was Obama's answer, which was "spread the wealth." He can make up the 95% number and back into it anyway he wants, but his response to Joe's question plainly describes his approach to taxes: take money from people who have it and give it to those who don't.

UPDATE: Betsy's Page explains this in far more detail than I.

Real Stories of "Wealthy" Americans

2008-10-16T12:20:00.004-06:00

Following the meteoric rise of Joe the Plumber, stories about all those horrible rich people in America that need to be taxed more (From The Corner):

Joe The Lawyer:

I’m Joe the Lawyer.

After dropping out of high school and spending 4 years in the USMC (1963- 1967), I met the woman of my dreams, married, borrowed $500 to buy our first house, did college and law school at night while working full time, had 3 children, educated all of my kids through college (total cost $340,000…none tax deductible), started my own law practice with $25,000 of borrowed funds 32 years ago, have consistently employed between 2 and 11 employees the entire time, never missed a payroll and have earned about 175,000 to $250,000 per year over the last 10 years.

The American Dream, right?

Well, not having worked for a big corporation or a state or federal govt entity, I’ve had only my own savings to accumulate in a 401K for my retirement. I’m now 64, have a mortgage of about $750K (refinanced for college expenses) and can’t retire on my 401K (especially now with the recent market downturn) unless I sell my house (if I can find someone who will buy it) and severely reduce my standard of living.

So, my strategy (assuming my health continues good) is to work until I’m 70, earn as much as I can (this year I’ve worked an average of 60 to 65 hours per week), pay down my mortgage as much as possible and save, save, save. Sure, I’ll make more that $250,000 this year but I’m working the equivalent of 2 jobs.

Not sure where I went wrong here. Started with nothing; married 40 years; 3 kids grown, educated and off my payroll; and can’t retire until earliest age 70. Obama wants to tax me some more, further extending my working life.

$250,000 per year seems like a lot until you look behind the number. Thinking of letting my 6 person staff go, keeping only my secretary and cutting back on all expenses. Then, even if my taxes go up, I ought to be able to save more.

Of course, 6 jobs will be lost.

Mark The Trucker:

I am married to Mark the Trucker. He owns a small transportation business (approx 15 employees). He started with one truck in 1978. I'm pretty proud of him. He was also my high school sweetheart and still a hunk.

Anyway, the point I want to make is that small businesses are usually S-Corps or LLCs, and that means what they cannot deduct as business expenses is taxed as personal income. That puts most small business in a higher tax bracket than the one they would qualify for if only their real earnings were taxed. Also, this predicament disqualifies their children from receiving financial aid for college—we are "wealthy" by FAFSA standards.

In the transport industry an owner has to keep sinking-fund, so to speak. Engines blow up, accidents happen, and the price of replacing an 18 wheel tractor or a specialty trailer is very expensive. My husband is taxed a higher rate on income that is really not income. He puts a large percentage of it back into his business, as I know most entrepreneurs do. We live on a modest percentage of what appears "wealth" to Senator Obama.

My husband's employees understand that. They see how we live and they respect their boss because he pays a fair wage and does provide health care and contribute to their 401ks. He's not a Fat Cat or Robber Baron.

They recognize every time they pass through the toll booth and the EZ Pass registers that their boss is being taxed. They see more taxes when they fuel his rigs. They know that Interstate permits are more taxes. He pays Unemployment and Workman's Comp, as well as half of their Social Security taxes. They recognize this.

And ... they all vote Republican.

TyroBlogger's own story:
My parents both worked for the state of Colorado for almost their entire working lives. They are both retired now and in their 60's. My mom was an elementary school teacher. My dad worked for the Department of Corrections. He was a teacher during most of that time. He taught inmates so that they could pass their GEDs and hopefully get a job when they got out of prison. I can't imagine teaching kids let alone adults who act like kids, but he did it everyday for 30 years. Paid his share of taxes for 30 years. Paid into social security for 30 years.

My parents built the house I was born in. They still live there today. It is a modest 3 bed, 2 bath house that they have updated over the years, but there have never been luxury purchases (besides a hot tub that rarely worked). They put my sister and me through college. We were always provided for, but my parents have never been what one should consider "wealthy."

Earlier this week, I was talking to my dad and he said he had to go to a meeting about Medicare (he'll be 65 next year). He said that his Social Security check will just about cover his Medicare premiums. I asked how much his Social Security check was, he said about $105/month.

After 30 years of paying into Social Security he gets $105/month. You know why? Because he has a pension from the state and Ted Kennedy added something to the Social Security laws that classify my dad as receiving a "windfall" from his pension, so his benefits get reduced.

Yes he can live on his pension and no he doesn't make more than $250,000 per year, but in some government bureaucrat's mind, he is too wealthy to receive what he put into the system. Someone else, someone who probably has contributed less, will get his share. The point is that whenever you give anything to the government, you are unlikely to get it back.

These are real stories about the horrible fat cats in America who should redistribute or "share" their wealth under Obama's tax plan and the Democrats view of "fairness". People like Joe The Plumber, Joe The Lawyer, Mark The Trucker, and my dad.

More Biden

2008-10-16T12:14:00.002-06:00

He doesn't know history or how to count

Again, imagine if Sarah Palin had done this?

Simple Explanation of Taxes in the U.S.

2008-10-10T07:53:00.002-06:00

I've always appreciated this story for the way that it explains how the U.S. tax system works. It is clear and makes the point perfectly (HT: Sound Politics)

Bar Stool Economics

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until on day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20."Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20,"declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man," but he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"

"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics
University of Georgia

For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

Economic Armageddon or Darwinism

2008-09-30T07:56:00.002-06:00

After yesterday's market drop and this morning's headlines, I expected to see soup lines on the way to work this morning. Instead it was a nice, normal commute.

Yesterday's 777 point drop, while the biggest single day point drop, represented a 7% decline in market value. While that hurt, it was no where close to the 22.6% drop in 1987. This is another example of how to lie with numbers. Pick the one that suits your argument and leave out the rest of the perspective. In 1987, the Dow lost about 500 points; however, it was only around 2600 when this happened.

This is the same as saying that someone who makes $100,000 gets a $7000 speeding ticket. That, again, hurts. However, this person isn't going to go bankrupt over it. Take someone who makes $26,000 a year gets a $5000 speeding ticket and it's going to be hard to make it through. For the former, the ticket represents less than 1 month of gross income. For the latter, the ticket represents more than 2 months of gross income. Which is worse?

We may see the market go down as far as it did in 1987 or 1929. Who knows? Right now, I am not sure anyone knows. As of 10:09 AM Eastern time today, the market is up 240 points.

What I do know is that we are witnessing Economic Darwinism. The strong are devouring the weak. BOA, Citigroup, and JP Morgan Chase obviously have some cash and are buying up the Countrywides, the Wachovias and the WaMUs. I'm sure there will be more culling of the herd, but this is what should happen and it should happen without government interference.

This article, by a Harvard economist, explains what needs to happen. It will be painful and continue to hurt, but we can get through it, just like we did in 1929, just like we did in 1987, and just like we did in 2001.

The question for each individual American is: Will you be one of the strong or one of the weak?

Who Blew The Bailout

2008-09-29T21:13:00.002-06:00

MSM will tell you that it was the Republicans, but last I checked the Democrats held the majority in the House. All they needed was 218 votes to pass this bill. The Democrats currently hold 235 seats in the House. If they vote as a party, it passes.

They didn't

95 Democrats votes against this bill. When that many Democrats vote against it, you know it is a bad bill. When the press tells you that the looming economic earthquake is the fault of the Republicans, you know they are lying.

Joe Biden

2008-09-29T16:20:00.003-06:00

In the run-up to the Vice Presidential debate this week, let's look at the Democratic VP Candidate, Joe Biden.

Sarah Palin has gotten most of the press coverage and criticism for either not being able to answer questions or not giving the right answer.

Check out this clip of Joe Biden in his interview with Katie Couric and listen very carefully to his first sentence.

Now that you have watched it, here's a couple of points:

1. In 1929, FDR was not president
2. Television had not been invented yet

FDR did get on the radio and give his fireside chats after 1932. The best part of this whole thing is Biden's lead in sentence: "Part of what a leader does is to install confidence and demonstrate that he or she knows what they are talking about." Then we get into the FDR comment.

What is really interesting is that according to Joe Biden's Wikipedia page, he was a double major at the University of Delaware in political science and history. Maybe it wasn't U.S. history.

Now ask yourself this:
1. Did you see this played over and over on CBS, NBC, or ABC?
2. If Sarah Palin had said this, do you think they would have questioned her qualifications to be VP?
3. Why do you think this is?

Weary

2008-09-26T11:17:00.002-06:00

That's how I feel about the election. That's how I feel about watching the news. That's how I feel about talking to anyone about it.

I'm going to vote. I'll be voting for McCain. I'll be doing what I can to help get him elected here in Colorado. But I am tired of watching polls. I am tired of watching the news. I'm tired of arguing about people with why McCain should win.

To a certain point, I am resigned to whatever happens. This is Obama's election to lose. He should win. We have an unpopular President, an unstable economy, and people just want something different. However, the polls are close, but the only poll that matters is the one on November 4th. So I am not going to worry about them until them.

As far as the economy, all I can do is just take care of my own matters and do my best to be employed, to manage my finances, and provide for my family.

I'm just going to worry about what I can control and thrive regardless of the world situation.

That's it, I'm out.

That Makes Sense

2008-09-01T17:25:00.002-06:00

Part of the left-wing blogosphere's claim that Sarah Palin faked her pregnancy was based on her daughter missing school and people at the school saying the daughter was pregnant. It turns out that she (the daughter) is pregnant. It also appears that this was known by the McCain team and that it didn't matter. Obama has come out and told everyone that families are off limits. That's a good move for him and I don't think the pregnancy will have a big negative effect on the campaign.

On the subject of families off limits, I think that kids are definitely off limits. Spouses too, unless they make political statements about the other side, then they are fair game. Endorsing your spouse and talking about them as a spouse - off limits. Attacking your opponents - game on.

The Next Email You Will Get From Your Liberal Friends

2008-08-31T11:00:00.003-06:00

Will be about Sarah Palin not being the mother of her son, Trig. The Kossacks are already circulating claims that the baby is the son of her 16 year-old daughter, Bristol. In interviews with People Magazine and USA Today, Palin discusses finding out that Trig had Downs Syndrome and how she prepared herself for it. In both stories, she talks about her doctor giving her the news and in one story, she talks about the amniocenteses used to diagnose the baby. So this should be a relatively easy story to debunk - give access to the test results and to the doctor.

This will also be a relatively easy thing for the McCain campaign to fumble by saying these results and conversations are covered by patient confidentiality, which will make it look like they are hiding something.

If this is an issue, just get it over now, deal with it and select someone else. If it is not an issue, save it, let the pressure build up, let the Obama campaign embrace it, and in October, release the results, show that the kid is hers and then hammer away on the left wing nutjobs who started the rumor and the Obama campaign that ran with it.

Eat This Ahmadinejad!!!

2008-08-31T10:14:00.003-06:00

WOW! Color Me Impressed

2008-08-29T12:41:00.002-06:00

McCain picks Sarah Palin as his VP. Not many people saw that coming, but in a game where your goal is to be the leader of the free world, sometimes you gotta throw it deep. I watched her speech and can't find a lot wrong (the glass ceiling comment was brilliant - give that speech writer a raise). I like the pick and she makes a good first impression. Hopefully, the vetting process was thorough. The Hillary forums are all abuzz. Lots of people thanking John McCain. 67 days to the election and this one just became more historic that it was last night.

Protest Blogging

2008-08-25T09:53:00.002-06:00

Before last week, I pretty much expected to avoid any contact with the DNC. However, I realized last week that my office in the Tech Center is right across the street from many hotels where the delegates may be staying. Then I heard that the protesters were planning to block the delegates from leaving the hotels. All of a sudden, I thought, "Maybe I can get some good footage of riot police and tear gas." I brought my camera and video camera to work hoping to see something you don't see everyday. Of course, this morning, when I got to work, nothing. No protests, no riot police, no tear gas. Based on the numbers from the protesters downtown this weekend, I guess I should have known that this will be no Chicago '68. Even the people in my office that live north of downtown and had to drive past the "Secure area" said that traffic was lighted than normal this morning. We'll see how the week progresses, but it looks to be a fairly tame start to the DNC.

Just priceless

2008-08-22T12:57:00.000-06:00

The One

Another Reason to Elect John McCain

2008-06-25T11:01:00.002-06:00

Court rejects death penalty for raping children

"In a 5-4 vote, the court said the Louisiana law allowing the death penalty to be imposed in such cases violates the Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

"The death penalty is not a proportional punishment for the rape of a child," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in his majority opinion. His four liberal colleagues joined him, while the four more conservative justices dissented."

Not sure most parents would agree with the court on this one. Note that liberal justices (the ones Obama would likely appoint) were the majority and the conservative justices (the ones McCain has stated he would appoint) were the minority.

My Favorite Campaign Ad (so far)

2008-06-24T13:51:00.003-06:00

One of my wife's friends made this video. He was a Hillary supporter and says he's voting for McCain now. This is one of the best campaign ads I've ever seen and the McCain campaign should pick this up and use it:

Hugh and Me

2008-06-24T13:48:00.003-06:00

I met Hugh Hewitt last weekend at the T.A.P.S. dinner and concert. Here's the pic (I'm the one on the left) :

Been A Long Time

2008-06-24T13:46:00.001-06:00

Since I blogged. There's too many reasons to cite why I haven't been posting, but instead of going through them, I think I'll just start again.

The Victory Caucus

2007-07-26T07:53:00.000-06:00

The Victory Caucus has been re-launched. I've added the link of the right. If you really want to know what is going on in the Iraq and the War on Terror, check it out!

Talent Shortage

2007-06-28T07:36:00.000-06:00

In one of my posts from February, I predicted that Baby Boomers aren't going to be retiring any time soon. In my current job, I work with a lot of people who are fretting over the coming talent shortage because of the retirement of the older generation. I think that there is a demographic problem in terms of too many older workers and not enough younger workers to backfill, but I don't think that it will be as drastic as the current forecast, which is based on the outdated concept that people retire when they hit 65.

The reason I think this is that most Baby Boomers haven't saved enough for retirement and the government-backed social security system won't give them enough cash each month to support their current lifestyles. Sure, they may change jobs or work part-time, but the talent drain will be mitigated by a shifting view of talent management which deploys older workers into roles they can fill. This may take these roles from younger workers, but they will be re-deployed into the roles that the older workers can't do.

The point of this post is that I opened up the newspaper this morning and there was a story backing up what I predicted: Most boomers not ready to retire.

"...A new Rose Community Foundation study of Denver metro-area residents ranging from 55 to 65 years old suggests that Klein's services will remain in demand. Of the 1,021 people surveyed, only 39 percent plan to retire, with most planning to work either part or full time.

Inadequate retirement savings, stagnating pension benefits and cuts in retirement health benefits will make it necessary for some of them to continue working. Others want to stay active, working in a flexible environment that leaves them time for travel, attending classes and leisure activities. Some want to start their own businesses....

...But the study found that many employers are not recruiting or hiring people in this age group. "Ageism reigns fiercely," the study said..."

The company's that find a place for boomers will be the ones that are able to overcome any talent shortages that might be looming.

Virtual Congress

2007-06-25T12:48:00.000-06:00

I've recently decided that the 535 individuals that make up the Congress are collectively the most incompetent group of people on the planet. Most Americans agree with me on this one. I bet I could pick 535 people off the street and find more competence in them as a collective group.

Note that I am not talking about individual incompetence. I believe there are many intelligent, competent members of congress, but as a group, they are useless.

I think a lot of it comes from being in Washington, D.C. Spending all your time with colleagues who are continually congratulating themselves on being Masters of their Universe and with aides who tell you exactly what you want to hear. I've never worked in D.C. so I am only imaging what sort of things must go on in order to cultivate such a group of incompetents.

So I was thinking that Congress should no longer meet in D.C. They should meet virtually, from their home offices in their home states. Instead of having lunches with lobbyists, they can have lunches with constituents everyday before they go to vote on bills. Yeah, the lobbyists will still have access to them, but at least they will have to fan out across the country to get access. The media will have to fan out as well, but it's much more likely that the local paper will be willing to write the story of the local congressman having lunch with the national lobbyist.

Apparently, I am not the first to come up with this idea. I Googled "Virtual Congress" and got this result: Virtual Congress’ Would Weaken Deliberative Process. The Dirksen Congressional Center thinks that this would keep congressmen and women from building the relationships necessary to pass bills.

"Congress could not and should not be at the cutting edge of technology application. The fact that technology can be used for various applications certainly doesn’t mean that it should. That corporate boards may permit meetings or voting via video conference, or that college students may take classes over the Internet, does not mean that these same technologies can be translated into use by Congress — a far different entity in structure, purpose and importance to the very foundation of our form of governance.

As an organization, Congress functions in large part because of the regular and personal interactions among Members as they work to build consensus on issues ranging from procedural matters to the budget and appropriations legislation. This structure varies widely from the military and corporate arenas where action below is taken based on orders from above. In these environments technology is easily applied as an effective method of communication, information sharing, and command and control. In Congress, however, the loss of real, person-to-person interaction among Members, with all its involved emotions that cannot be reproduced via technology, no matter the clarity of the speakerphone or the resolution of the video display, would hit at the very heart of the institution and threaten its very ability to function as a body — the very opposite of what proponents of a “virtual Congress” would argue.

One recent procedural change in the House of Representatives provides an excellent example of the importance and value of personal relationships among Members. Over the past few sessions of Congress, the House has formalized the practice of “rolling votes,” where following debate on a piece of legislation, the actual vote on it is delayed. At a later time, a series of back-to-back votes are held on it and similarly “rolled” items.

Although on its face this practice would seem to weaken the legislative process by divorcing the vote on a bill from floor debate on the item, in reality it serves to provide Members with large amounts of time together on the floor to discuss matters, bargain on issues and build consensus. The practice has been widely praised by Members for providing the “quality time” needed to help develop personal relationships with their colleagues."

So according to these guys, congressmen need "quality time" with each other to get things done. I think they need quality time with their constituents. Building close relationships with each other only serves to draw them away from serving the interests of those who elected them.

Don't tell me that the technology cannot allow these guys to collaborate. Of course, we'd need much more tech savvy congressmen (maybe a litmus test, "Do you know what the "e" in "email" stands for"), but it seems that we could do it.

After all, didn't a U.S. Senator invent the internet?

The Future of Vice

2007-06-25T12:31:00.000-06:00

Michael Yon's latest dispatch demonstrates the kind of world we would live in if Al Qaeda was able to spread Sharia Law.

"On the evening of the 24th I spoke with a local Iraqi official, Colonel Faik, who said the Muftis would order the severance of the two fingers used to hold a cigarette for any Iraqis caught smoking. Other reports, from here in Diyala and also in Anbar, allege that smokers are murdered by AQI. Most Iraqis smoke and this particular prohibition appeared to have earned the ire of many locals. After an American unit cleared an apartment complex on the 23rd, LTC Smiley, the battalion commander, reported that residents didn’t ask for food and water, but cigarettes. In other parts of Baqubah, people have been celebrating the routing of AQI by lighting up and smoking cigarettes.

Other AQI edicts included beatings for men who refused to grow beards, and corporal punishments for obscene sexual suggestiveness, defined by such “loose” behavior as carrying tomatoes and cucumbers in the same bag. These fatwas were not eagerly embraced by most Iraqis, and the taint traveled back to the Muftis who sat in supreme judgment. Locals, who are increasingly helpful in pointing out and celebrating the downfall of AQI here, said that during the initial Arrowhead Ripper attack the morning of the 19th, AQI murdered five men. Townsend’s men found the buried corpses behind an AQI prison, exactly where they’d been told to look for the group grave. Locals also directed Townsend’s men to a torture house. Peering through a window, American soldiers saw knives, swords, bindings and drills. AQI is well-known for its macabre eagerness to drill into kneecaps, elbows, ribs, skulls, and other parts of victims."

No smoking or they cut your fingers off. Kind of makes the prohibition of smoking in restaurants look like child's play. Also, you can't carry a cucumber and 2 tomatoes in the same shopping bag because of its sexual suggestiveness. Can you imagine the carnage Al Qaeda would have pursued had they seen something like this at PrideFest?

That's what I don't get. The same people who criticize the U.S. when it is trying to stop the tyranny that is propagating this type of oppression are the exact people that will be systematically killed should Al Qaeda and its fanatics be allowed to live. As Mark Steyn points out in America Alone, if the Islamists take over the world, those of us who are conservatives will pretty much just grow our beards and have a few more wives, but the groups of people backing liberal causes will be the first ones persecuted. The liberal voices speaking out on the war should be the ones decrying the enemy's brutality and oppression.

Of course, we can't imagine Islamists taking over the world. Just like we couldn't imagine 2 airplanes flying into the WTC on September 10th.

Supporting The War

2007-06-20T07:44:00.001-06:00

If you can't tell by reading my posts, I support the Iraq War, the troops, and all the reasons we went to war. I support staying until we win and leaving Iraq a better place than it was under Saddam.

However, I often feel a little hypocritical because I am not in the military. The other day, I was listening to Dennis Prager and a caller asked this exact question: How can I say I support the war if I am not in the military?

The answer exhibited Dennis's moral clarity. He said (paraphrased, of course), "Do you support putting out fires? Are you a firefighter? It's possible to support a cause without being a direct fighter for the cause."

It's the same for policemen. I support the law and the enforcement of it by police officers, but that doesn't mean I have to be a police officer.

It did get me thinking. This war is not in jeopardy of being lost in Baghdad. It is in jeopardy of being lost in Washington, D.C. The way I can support the cause is to make more people aware of the mission and the importance of finishing the job.

That's how I copntribute to victory in the Iraq War.

Where I Have Been Blogging

2007-06-20T07:41:00.000-06:00

I've started another blog called Employee Engagement and Retention. It's on a topic that is the focus of my current job. I actually really enjoy my job and get to try to help my company help its employees enjoy their jobs.

That's why I haven't been posting here as much lately.

Our Incredible Soldiers

2007-05-31T11:40:00.000-06:00

I've written before about Michael Yon and the work he is doing in Iraq. Here's a link to a recent post about 1 American soldier and the actions he took to save many lives. It's not a story about heroism in the face of enemy fire; rather, it is a story about quick thinking and incredible savvy during the detainment of a corrupt leader in Anbar.

I'd just like to ask John Kerry: "Does this soldier seem uneducated to you?"

Why We Are Still Fighting This War

2007-05-25T12:03:00.000-06:00

I recently finished reading Thomas P.M. Barnett's The Pentagon's New Map

It was a great explanation of the current political, military, and economic forces at work in the world today and why we need to continue to exercise our military muscles in places like Afghanistan and Iraq.

One of the main premises of the book is that there is a Core of countries we will never fight a war with, and there is a Gap in which regions of the world are disconnected from the rest of us. It is in this Gap that most of the violence and terror in the world is grown. In the Gap, a small group of people seek to control the rest of the population through fear, intimidation, and keeping them disconnected.

Today, I saw a great example of who these thugs are and how they try to keep the Gap disconnected from the world. The Al-Qaeda torture manual found in Iraq really illustrates the enemy in the GWOT and why they need to be defeated. If we don't have the courage to fight, what you see in these pictures will be more than just drawings in a book.

Fred's Franks in the Boston Globe

2007-05-25T11:41:00.000-06:00

For regular readers, you'll remember that my brohter-in-law sells hot dogs off the highway in Massachusetts. The Boston Globe recently did an article on him for their food section.

He saw a 50% increase in sales the day after the article ran.

You've gotta love the free advertising.

He was also on a regional show called The Phantom Gourmet. I've never seen the show, but they did a list of the top hot dog stands in New England. While he didn't make the list, he was featured as an up and comer and definitely worth the visit.

Tax Cuts For The Wealthy Will Balance The Budget

2007-04-27T12:52:00.000-06:00

Obviously, I don't think that the Bush tax cuts are only for the wealthiest Americans. However, if you insist that they are, you have to consider that tax receipts have been growing since they went into effect. In addition, non-withheld tax receipts (or taxes paid on capital gains and not on wages) are at an all time high. That means, that more people are investing their money and then paying capital gains tax on it. Since the capital gains rates have been reduced to 15% (due to the Bush tax cuts), people have more incentive to invest their money, which causes companies to grow, which means more taxable income, which means more tax receipts. So, cut tax rates, collect more money. Seems counterintuitve and since we don't emphasize financial acumen for our youth, most people in the U.S. won't understand it, which is why Democrats will try to roll back the cuts if they win in 2008.

It's best summed up in this exchange between Larry Kudlow, Art Laffer (of Laffer Curve fame), and Liz MacDonald (HT: TheCorner):

KUDLOW: Here's another one for the record books. Get this: US tax nonwithheld receipts from individuals hit a record one day $48.7 billion increase on April 24th. The prior record was a year ago at $36.4 billion. This reflects, almost always, capital gains tax receipts from the bullish market at the record low 15 percent marginal tax rate on investment. Did someone say Laffer curve?

This is big stuff. It's been playing at the top of the Drudge Report all day. $48.7 billion dollars for the April 24th tax date. That is the largest in history, Arthur, the largest in history. It's almost all from cap gains, nonwithheld.

I did a little math, Art. Since the Bush tax cuts of mid-'03, the fiscal years '04, '05, '06 and we're almost halfway through '07, nonwithheld tax receipts up $144 billion, or 59 percent. Now, Art, I know you take a lot of flak in government accounting circles. They say lower tax rates lose revenues. This says lower tax rates increase revenues. Could you comment for us? Could you teach us something here?

LAFFER: Well, I just love these numbers, Larry. And, frankly, the one area where you can really expect to see this type of response is in capital gains, in the nonwithheld areas. I mean, the size of this one day receipt is so much larger than the next largest day's receipt, it's amazing. If you look all around this country, I don't see how people can think that you really should let these tax cuts expire. We're almost in balanced budget right now. It's coming very close. Just let this thing keep going. Don't stop it. I don't know why these people want to stop it, Larry.

KUDLOW: Liz, I just want to ask you. Last night we ran a segment, Goldilocks and the three bears. Goldilocks being the Bush tax cuts, the three bears potentially being Hillary, Obama and Edwards, who want to reverse the tax cuts. What's your thought? What Arthur is saying about the cap gains revenue yield, does that link to this bull market in stocks?

LIZ MacDONALD: Absolutely, and I think the world of Art Laffer. I privately call him Saint Art Laffer. Because God bless him, because he's really shown the way here. And here's the deal: the capital gains tax is a voluntary tax. In other words, people will sit on it and not pay it if the tax rates are high. When they go low, they will unlock those assets, right? And this is the best noninflationary liquidity that you can bring into the market. So yes, I am worried about the Democratic Congress coming in and removing these very powerful forces that are driving the stock market forward.

Before You Accuse Me, Take A Look At Yourself

2007-04-20T07:21:00.000-06:00

No, it's not a post about Eric Clapton, but about the "gun culture" in the United States versus the rest of the world. I think you will find the results very interesting:

From TCS Daily

'Only in America'? Gunning Down a Claim

In response to the horrible mass shooting at Virginia Tech on Monday, overseas leaders as well as many Americans have condemned the "gun culture" of the United States. Perhaps these overseas leaders and American citizens would be less hard on our country if we discuss what has been happening in other countries.

Major news outlets reported on April 18 about the shooting deaths of at least 19 gang members in Rio de Janeiro by rival gangs and police. These shootouts occurred despite Brazil's strict gun control laws.

Also in Wednesday's newspapers are reports about Tuesday's shooting death of the mayor of Nagasaki, Japan. Japan has some of the strictest anti-gun laws in the industrialized world.

In Scotland authorities are enacting knife control policies because violent crime has continued to climb (with knives as a weapon of choice) in the wake of the nation's gun bans. Should Americans speak contemptuously of Scotland's "blade and booze" culture?

Last November in Emsdetten, Germany, a teenager shot and wounded more than a dozen persons before killing himself. In 2002 in a school in Erfurt, Germany, a gunman killed 17 people and himself.

Five years ago I did research for an article on mass shootings. Here are a few of the headlines I came across:

"8 slain at council meeting"
"Teen wounds 5 in tech school"
"Suspected gang shooting leaves 4 dead, 2 injured"
"Man kills ex-bosses, principal, himself"
"Gunman kills self, 7 others"

The incidents these headlines describe occurred in France, the Netherlands, Japan, Germany and Italy, respectively. In the five years since that research, crime rates have continued to climb in many other countries with far stricter gun control laws than those in the United States.

In 1996 in Port Arthur, Australia, a crazed man shot and killed more than 30 people. After learning of the mass shooting at Virginia Tech, Australian Prime Minister John Howard told reporters this about his nation's response to the Port Arthur horror: "We took action to limit the availability of guns and we showed a national resolve that the gun culture that is such a negative in the United States would never become a negative in our country."

Prime Minister Howard neglected to say anything about the "culture" in Australia that prompted a man to commit a mass shooting. He also neglected to mention Australian government figures that show five years after the Port Arthur-inspired gun crackdowns, homicides had climbed 3.2 percent, assaults had gone up 8.6 percent, and, astoundingly, armed robberies had soared 45 percent. Crime rates remain high in Australia despite the confiscation of hundreds of thousands of firearms, and gun bans.

On September 28, 2001, in peaceful Switzerland, a man shot and killed 14 people, including 11 members of a local canton council.

In the 2002 presidential election in France, many political observers cited soaring crime as the Number 1 issue. Nationwide strikes by thousands of France's police officers a few months before the election heightened the issue. The strikes came in response to what police said are growing dangers from gun-wielding criminals. They had strong evidence to cite, including the recent shooting deaths of two police officers during an armed robbery in a Paris suburb.

I've heard people say "only in America" in the aftermath of the Virginia Tech shootings. Clearly, though, it's not only in America. Terrible incidents like these have occurred and are occurring in countries across the world, including countries that severely restrict or ban the private ownership of firearms, and countries with a reputation of peace and harmony.

Steve Stanek is a freelance writer and editor in McHenry, Ill., and research fellow at The Heartland Institute in Chicago.

Michael Yon

2007-03-30T07:14:00.000-06:00

If you don't already read Michael Yon, you need to. If you want to know what it is really like in Iraq, read his dispatches. He calls it like he sees it and from the soldier's perspective. He is the true modern day Ernie Pyle.

How to Win

2007-03-30T07:11:00.000-06:00

A great article in the OpinionJournal about How to Win in Iraq and How to Lose. The article walks through historical events that show we can win in Iraq, as long as the Cowards of the Congress can be limited in the damage they will do.

Local Humor on Global Warming

2007-03-29T07:52:00.000-06:00

Along with today's early spring snowstorm, I saw a blog entry from the local YourHub weekly paper. It's from Average Joe. Not. and proves the existence of global warming.

What I Think

2007-03-22T09:16:00.000-06:00

My wife made the comment to one of her friends yesterday, "If you want to know what he thinks, read his blog." I couldn't have said it better myself.

Today I think I agree with Debra Saunders and Iain Murray in their stories on the Bush Lied and Global Warming memes.

Bush Lied is the Big Lie

AL'S WARMING LIES
& THE REAL 'INCONVENIENT TRUTH'

Hat tip: RCP

I know it is a little lame to just link to someone else's stories, but these writers make the exact points I would make, and they do so more eloquently and have the time to do the research.

The purpose of my blog is to link to these stories and provide them to the handful of friends and family who might not read them otherwise.

Global Warming Debate

2007-02-02T16:25:00.000-07:00

Just so you know, I happen to think the global warming alarmism of the early 21st century will be referred to as junk science by later generations.

Neal Boortz has some great reasons why he doesn't believe in the "sky-is-falling" news from the U.N:

WHY AM I SKEPTICAL ABOUT MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING?
A 21-page report from something called the "Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change" has been released today...in Paris, no less...and as expected, it's predictions are dire. According to the report: "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global mean sea level."

Yeah right...we've heard all this before.But the biggest bombshell here is this one: no matter what we do, global warming will not be reversed. It will go on for centuries, according to this report. The sea levels will continue to rise as polar ice caps melt. So I guess if Al Gore wins his Nobel Peace Prize, we'll still experience global warming. So much for riding to work everyday in your hybrid car...it's not doing a thing. The situation is futile, according to this report.

But really, it makes sense that the global warming crowd would come to this conclusion. After all, global warming is a religion. The anti-capitalist enviro-nazis don't ever want the problem to be solved. After all, if global warming were to be solved tomorrow, what would they blame the United States for? They'd have to find some other reason.

Sorry .. I'm still a skeptic. In no particular order here are just a few of the reasons why I'm not buying this man-made global warming scare:

The United Nations is anti-American and anti-Capitalist. In short .. I don't trust them. Not a bit.

The UN would eagerly engage in any enterprise that would weaken capitalist economies around the world.

Because after the fall of the Soviet Union and worldwide Communism many in the anti-capitalist movement moved to the environmental movement to continue pursuing their anti-free enterprise goals. Many of the loudest proponents of man-made global warming today are confirmed anti-capitalists.

Because the sun is warmer .. and all of these scientists don't seem to be willing to credit a warmer sun with any of the blame for global warming.

The polar ice caps on Mars are melting. How did our CO2 emissions get all the way to Mars?

It was warmer in the 1930s across the globe than it is right now.

It wasn't all that long ago that these very same scientists were warning us about "global cooling" and another approaching ice age?

How much has the earth warmed up in the last 100 years? One degree. Now that's frightening.

Because that famous "hockey stick" graph that purports to show a sudden warming of the earth in the last few decades is a fraud. It ignored previous warming periods ... left them off the graph altogether.

The infamous Kyoto accords exempt some of the world's biggest CO2 polluters, including China and India.

The Kyoto accords can easily be seen as nothing less than an attempt to hamstring the world's dominant capitalist economies.

Because many of these scientists who are sounding the global warming scare depend on grant money for their livelihood, and they know the grant money dries up when they stop preaching the global warming sermon.

Because global warming "activists" and scientists seek to punish those who have different viewpoints. If you are sure of your science you have no need to shout down or seek to punish those who disagree.

What happened to the Medieval Warm Period? In 1996 the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a chart showing climatic change over a period of 1000 years. This graph showed a Medieval warming period in which global temperatures were higher than they are today. In 2001 the IPCC issued another 1000 year graph in which the Medieval warming period was missing. Why?

Why has one scientist promoting the cause of man-made global warming been quoted as saying "we have to get rid of the medieval warming period?"

Why is the ice cap on the Antarctic getting thicker if the earth is getting warmer?

In the United State, the one country with the most accurate temperature measuring and reporting records, temperatures have risen by 0.3 degrees centigrade over the past 100 years. The UN estimate is twice that.

There are about 160,000 glaciers around the world. Most have never been visited or measured by man. The great majority of these glaciers are growing, not melting.

Side-looking radar interferometry shows that the ise mass in the West Antarctic is growing at a rate of over 26 gigatons a year. This reverses a melting trend that had persisted for the previous 6,000 years.

Rising sea levels? The sea levels have been rising since the last ice age ended. That was 12,000 years ago. Estimates are that in that time the sea level has risen by over 300 feet. The rise in our sea levels has been going on long before man started creating anything but natural CO2 emissions.

Like Antarctica, the interior of Greenland is gaining ice mass.

Over the past 3,000 years there have been five different extended periods when the earth was measurably warmer than it is today.

During the last 20 years -- a period of the highest carbon dioxide levels -- global temperatures have actually decreased. That's right ... decreased.

Why did a reporter from National Public Radio refuse to interview David Deming, an associate professor at the University of Oklahoma studying global warming, after his testimony to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee unless Deming would state that global warming was being caused by man?

Why are global warming proponents insisting that the matter is settled and that no further scientific research is needed? Why are they afraid of additional information?

On July 24, 1974 Time Magazine published an article entitled "Another Ice Age?" Here's the first paragraph:
"As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age."

Hey ... I could go on. There's much more where that came from. But I need to get ready to go on the air. Just know that many of the strongest proponents of this "man-made" global warming stuff are dedicated opponents to capitalism and don't feel all that warm and fuzzy about the United States.

Personal Savings Rates - Worst Since the Depression - Or Are They?

2007-02-01T07:17:00.000-07:00

UPDATED: A much more in depth look at this story is linked here

Every few months, we get this story from the AP:

2006 Personal Savings Drop to 74-Yr. Low

The gist is that no one in America has any money saved. To be fair, I think that too many people are spending too much of their income on things they don't need or houses that are too big. However, I don't think that this story is the harbinger of impending doom that they make it out to be.

In the story, they describe how they determine that no one is saving money:

"The savings rate is computed by taking the amount of personal income left after taxes are paid, an amount known as disposable income and subtracting the amount of spending. Since the figure has dipped into negative territory, it means consumers are spending all of disposable income and then some."

Just using my personal circumstances, I can tell you that some of my savings occurs pre-tax, meaning that none of it would be included using this calculation. Also, this figure assumes that money that comes out of my after-tax amount doesn't go into savings, just that it was spent on something with no return.

I define savings as money that is taken from today's pile and put into a pile reserved for a later date. Without giving total numbers (because it is none of your business what I make), here are my savings vehicles:

1. 401K - my contribution
2. 401K - employers contribution, not really my money, but I had to contribute to get matching funds and I get to keep the money later.
3. Roth IRAs - one each for my wife and myself
4. 529 plan - one for each of my kids
5. Health Savings Account

When the monthly amounts for each of these are totaled and expressed as a percentage of my after-tax income, my savings rate is 24%.

24% of the money I make in a given month - after taxes - goes toward future needs. While I know that not every American is taking all of these steps to save, these savings vehicles are not even considered in the calculation of personal savings as defined in the article from the AP.

Future of Savings and Retirement:
Lately, I have been making predictions. Here's another one: Baby boomers won't be retiring any time soon. While 78 million may be approaching retirement age, they simply won't be able to afford to retire. While the Commerce Department's calculation for personal savings may not show the whole picture, I believe that there are a lot of boomers who don't have the required savings to retire. Instead, they will have to work longer either at their current jobs or at other jobs.

But that's okay. It's okay because HR professionals have been fretting over the lack of workers that the baby boomer retirements would cause. If the boomers haven't got the money to retire, and still have to work, their isn't a labor shortage - problem solved!

I don't think it will work out that neat and easy, but I do believe that Americans' views of retirement, savings, and working will be dramatically altered in the next decade.

Don't Let The Republicans Go Wobbly On Iraq

2007-01-25T07:43:00.001-07:00

Sign the Pledge

Other Predictions

2007-01-24T11:29:00.000-07:00

As a result of the multiple snow storms over the past month in the Colorado Front Range region, we have had to endure multiple stories about snow removal - lack of readiness for our cities and towns, lack of responsiveness which required residents to, *GASP*, dig themselves out, and lack of budget for anymore snow removal this winter.

Here's what the local story will be for the next few months: Potholes.

I hate potholes. They do a number on my Toyota Corolla. But you won't find me blaming anyone in the local government for the huge number of potholes on the road this spring.

If you have ever lived in Chicago or Minneapolis, you know there are 2 seasons in the year: Winter and Road Construction. It is cold and snowy all winter and the road crews spend the spring and the summer fixing the roads that the plows destroyed removing snow and ice. It can't be helped. It just is.

It's not the mayor's fault, although I'm sure that in a bid to boost his popularity, Hickenlooper will offer to pay for flattened tires as a result of the potholes. It's not the state or federal government's fault - although I am sure some Bush-haters will find a way to link it back to the President, probably through global warming.

It just is.

So this is a preemptive shush or zip it to all of those in our region with nothing better to do than write to the newspapers, or go on the news, or just generally complain about potholes.

Just be thankful that you are dodging potholes and not IEDs.

Perspective, people. Get some.

Budget Projections/Predictions

2007-01-24T11:16:00.000-07:00

The CBO has it's latest budget projections available here. If you look Page 8, table 1-3, you see how the budget deficit/surplus might look in the coming years:

2006 = Deficit of $248 Billion
2007 = Deficit of $172 Billion
2008 = Deficit of $98 Billion
2009 = Deficit of $116 Billion
2010 = Deficit of $137 Billion
2011 = Deficit of $12 Billion
2012 = Surplus of $170 Billion
2013 = Surplus of $159 Billion
2014 = Surplus of $185 Billion
2015 = Surplus of $208 Billion
2016 = Surplus of $192 Billion

A couple of thoughts on this:

1. Since the Deficit in 2004 was $413 Billion and it is projected to be $172 Billion this year, it looks like President Bush will more than meet his goal of cutting the deficit in half. If you don't hear anything about this story, you will know he met his goal. Some more good news: the deficit is under 2% of the GDP. Keep that in mind when you hear stories of historically high deficits.

2. In 2008, there will still be a deficit, which will most likely become a theme in the Presidential elections. Assuming these projections stay close, there will be projected increases in the deficit in 2009 and 2010 which can work for or against the Republicans, depending on where the blame can go - the Democrat Congress or the President.

3. If a Democrat wins the White House in 2008 and these projections stay the same, going into the 2012 campaign, the incumbent can point to a projected surplus in coming years and say, "See what I did."

Of course, a Republican President can say the same thing, which is why it is so important to have the Presidency in 2008.

Getting Caught Up

2006-12-29T11:18:00.000-07:00

With the holidays just about over, it's time to get caught up:

1. Biggest News: Our daughter, Gabrielle Margaret Rex Roche, arrived on Christmas Day. Mom and baby are doing great.

2. Holidays: Other than the Biggest News, the holidays were busy and hectic. Holiday parties and lots of shopping to do. Usually by the time Christmas arrives, I am just ready for it to be over. I did spend some time volunteering this holiday season at Warren Village and with Denver Rescue Mission. These experiences helped me remember the reason for the season.

I also decided that I know what I want to do with my life: I want to make tons of money so that I can give it to those who are less fortunate. Call it a voluntary re-distribution of wealth.

3. Aggies: Football team bombed in the bowl game. Unimaginative play calling, drive killing penalties, no pressure from the front 7, and a zero yard punt. I never thought I would say it, but bring on Aggie Basketball.

4. Miscellaneous: The 2008 Presidential race seems to have kicked off with candidates declaring their intent to run. It seems like the election is like the Christmas season, every time around it starts earlier and earlier. It's just too early to get interested.

For right now, I am focusing on my recently enlarged family, new job responsibilities, and other entrepreneurial opportunities.

Blogging will remain light.

AGS WIN!!!!

2006-11-24T14:09:00.000-07:00

Gig'em Aggies!!! WHOOP!!!

Life's Not Fair!

2006-11-22T11:35:00.000-07:00

How often have you said that to your kids? My son is only 3 and already has heard this from me.

I'm sure this is what US Airways, in effect, said to the imams who were asked to leave the plane in Minneapolis the other day. While I guess you could technically call this discrimination, let me tell you how I feel about it:

Good for US Airways! If I even see a group of Middle Eastern men boarding an aircraft, I get nervous. Why? Because there is a history of groups of Middle Eastern men flying airplanes into buildings. Is that painting with a broad brush? Absolutely! Americans will continue to paint with this broad brush until Middle Eastern men get their fellow Middle Eastern men to stop threatening to blow us up.

If a group of Evangelical Christians held hands in a circle and started praying before a flight, I wouldn't care at all because they don't have a history of flying planes into buildings. If a group of Hasidic Jews were praying before a flight, I wouldn't care - same reason.

I'm sure that to some minorities, I get branded as "whitey" or "the man" because I am a white male. I can choose to reinforce that stereotype and act in the way that is expected or do my personal best to overcome that stereotype.

I would think that Middle Eastern men would make an effort to do the same.

More on the whole story here.

Violence in Iraq: A Data-Driven Approach

2006-11-22T11:29:00.000-07:00

It's easy to watch the news and think that Iraq is in chaos with people being killed everyday. I've always wondered how the number of dead compares with other hotspots in the world, say Washington D.C. and Detroit.

Fortunately, I don't have to do all the research. Someone has done it for me:

I've written previously on the level of violence in Iraq, comparing it to murder rates in other times and places and to death rates that have been experienced in actual civil wars. See here and here, for example. My impression has been that violence in Iraq has skyrocketed since July, when I found that the murder rate in Iraq was 140 per 100,000 (the usual way in which murder rates are expressed). I was surprised, therefore, to learn this morning that rate of violence has increased only slightly:

The United Nations said Wednesday that 3,709 Iraqi civilians were killed in October, the highest monthly toll since the March 2003 U.S. invasion and another sign of the severity of Iraq's sectarian bloodbath.

That compares to an estimated 3,500 killed in July. If 3,709 people were murdered in October, that translates to a rate of 171 per 100,000. That is a high rate of violent death. But, for purposes of comparison, the murder rate in Washington, D.C. in 1991 was 80 per 100,000. So the rate of violence in Iraq today is just over double the rate in the District during the first Bush administration. I don't recall anyone describing conditions in Washington in the early 90s as a "bloodbath."

I wrote in June that based on the data at that time, the murder rate in Iraq outside of Baghdad is about the same as American cities like Chicago, Philadelphia and Milwaukee. With the current numbers, it looks like that would still be true.

A consensus seems to have developed that Iraq is a disaster because of out-of-control sectarian violence. That consensus is driving proposals to change our policy in Iraq, perhaps in the direction of a pull-out that could lead to truly cataclysmic violence. So I think it makes sense to step back and get a more realistic picture of the level of what is happening in Iraq: violent? Yes. A disaster comparable to a civil war? No.

My Response to Michael Moore

2006-11-14T07:44:00.000-07:00

Michael Moore, who was conspicuously quiet before this election, sent out an email about what he and his liberal buddies were going to do with their "newfound power." It sounds very acceptable to anyone not paying attention for the past 40 years or so.

Here's his letter, with my comments added in italics:

A Liberal's Pledge to Disheartened Conservatives
November 14th, 2006

To My Conservative Brothers and Sisters,

I know you are dismayed and disheartened at the results of last week's election. You're worried that the country is heading toward a very bad place you don't want it to go. Your 12-year Republican Revolution has ended with so much yet to do, so many promises left unfulfilled. You are in a funk, and I understand. (I knew that Moore and his buddies would be as poor winners as they were losers)

Well, cheer up, my friends! Do not despair. I have good news for you. I, and the millions of others who are now in charge with our Democratic Congress, have a pledge we would like to make to you, a list of promises that we offer you because we value you as our fellow Americans. You deserve to know what we plan to do with our newfound power -- and, to be specific, what we will do to you and for you. (All this talk of power sounds like the kind of abuses that Moore has railed against for the last 6 years)

Thus, here is our Liberal's Pledge to Disheartened Conservatives:

Dear Conservatives and Republicans,
I, and my fellow signatories, hereby make these promises to you:

1. We will always respect you for your conservative beliefs. We will never, ever, call you "unpatriotic" simply because you disagree with us. In fact, we encourage you to dissent and disagree with us. (But you will call us bigots or racists when we don’t share your liberal beliefs)

2. We will let you marry whomever you want, even when some of us consider your behavior to be "different" or "immoral." Who you marry is none of our business. Love and be in love -- it's a wonderful gift. (Unless you want to marry multiple women, in which case you will be considered a backwards religious zealot from Utah. Not that I condone polygamy, but if you are going to stay out of the bedroom, then stay out of the bedroom).

3. We will not spend your grandchildren's money on our personal whims or to enrich our friends. It's your checkbook, too, and we will balance it for you. (Unless it means that we get to give your grandchildren’s money to someone else grandchildren because we deem them to be disadvantaged and in need of the government’s help).

4. When we soon bring our sons and daughters home from Iraq, we will bring your sons and daughters home, too. They deserve to live. We promise never to send your kids off to war based on either a mistake or a lie. (Which means that we will never fight another war in another country. Instead, we will fight this war on our own soil and watch more sons and daughters die because the threat overseas was allowed to grow. But at least no one was sent to war…)

5. When we make America the last Western democracy to have universal health coverage, and all Americans are able to get help when they fall ill, we promise that you, too, will be able to see a doctor, regardless of your ability to pay. And when stem cell research delivers treatments and cures for diseases that affect you and your loved ones, we'll make sure those advances are available to you and your family, too. (When the use of adult stem cells for treatment bears the fruits that embryonic stem cells have not, you can go see a doctor to get treatment, but you will have to wait six months to get an appointment, after which time you will be beyond the point of being treated for your disease)

6. Even though you have opposed environmental regulation, when we clean up our air and water, we, the Democratic majority, will let you, too, breathe the cleaner air and drink the purer water. (On this one, I am all for protecting the environment, I just don’t usually approve of the means to the end).

7. Should a mass murderer ever kill 3,000 people on our soil, we will devote every single resource to tracking him down and bringing him to justice. Immediately. We will protect you. (By sending the federal government to arrest the evil man in some sort of law enforcement action? Forgive me for my skepticism, but your way of arresting evil men, a la Waco, wasn’t that effective, and that was on U.S. soil)

8. We will never stick our nose in your bedroom or your womb. What you do there as consenting adults is your business. We will continue to count your age from the moment you were born, not the moment you were conceived. (As a father and former embryo, I bristle at the idea of killing a baby any time before full term. If you are extending your gracious hand to all Americans, include the most innocent and defenseless as well)

9. We will not take away your hunting guns. If you need an automatic weapon or a handgun to kill a bird or a deer, then you really aren't much of a hunter and you should, perhaps, pick up another sport. We will make our streets and schools as free as we can from these weapons and we will protect your children just as we would protect ours. (Nobody wants children harmed in the name of the right to bear arms, but this is the same form of logic that you use to oppose a ban on partial birth abortion. You say that if they ban this form of abortion, what is next? Gun rights people say the same thing about banning assault weapons. Both are brutal and unnecessary but banning them is a step in the wrong direction for their respective sides)

10. When we raise the minimum wage, we will pay you -- and your employees -- that new wage, too. When women are finally paid what men make, we will pay conservative women that wage, too. (And both liberal and conservative employees will feel the effects of the layoffs as employers try to perform the same work with fewer employees so that payroll doesn’t actually increase. We also all get to share in the increased cost of goods at home. For the record, I think that the minimum wage is too low and should be raised, but I definitely don’t want to put Francophiles in charge of determining where the appropriate level should be)

11. We will respect your religious beliefs, even when you don't put those beliefs into practice. In fact, we will actively seek to promote your most radical religious beliefs ("Blessed are the poor," "Blessed are the peacemakers," "Love your enemies," "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God," and "Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me."). We will let people in other countries know that God doesn't just bless America, he blesses everyone. We will discourage religious intolerance and fanaticism -- starting with the fanaticism here at home, thus setting a good example for the rest of the world. (Really? How about a documentary about the growing influence of fanatic Islam in the U.S.? How about denouncing the subjugation of women in that religion. Point #10 talked about a fair wage for women so please tell me when your film about Islam and Women is coming out).

12. We will not tolerate politicians who are corrupt and who are bought and paid for by the rich. We will go after any elected leader who puts him or herself ahead of the people. And we promise you we will go after the corrupt politicians on our side FIRST. If we fail to do this, we need you to call us on it. Simply because we are in power does not give us the right to turn our heads the other way when our party goes astray. Please perform this important duty as the loyal opposition. (You got it! I wholeheartedly agree – cue the Apocalypse – however, I doubt your sentiment. I doubt that the investigative reporting section of the NY Times, the Washington Post, or the LA Times is going to get a lot of work for the next couple of years. It’s probably going to be downright boring there. I suppose they can always continue their probe into the mystery of the Middle America voter in Jesusland)

I promise all of the above to you because this is your country, too. You are every bit as American as we are. We are all in this together. We sink or swim as one. Thank you for your years of service to this country and for giving us the opportunity to see if we can make things a bit better for our 300 million fellow Americans -- and for the rest of the world.

Signed,
Michael Moore
P.S. Please feel free to pass this on. (but only if you include my rebuttals in your forward).

Back in the Saddle

2006-11-10T07:52:00.000-07:00

TyroBlog is back!

I changed the layout of the blog, but stayed with Blogger because, frankly, I have no time to go out and do a lot of design work. I like this layout better and the transition was very easy.

I've also added Google AdSense to the top of the blog. I don't plan on getting rich, but it's free so the only cost to me is my soul.

I've been out of action for a number of reasons, which I won't elaborate on, but I am back and ready to fire up my opinion for all who will listen.

Updates

Personal: Mrs. TyroBlogger and I are expecting our second child at the end of December. I'm just hoping it happens in December - added tax deduction and child tax credit for 2006.

Professional: Got a new job with same company in the last few months with the prospect of new opportunities in the coming months. Right now, I am a corporate recruiter (hold your resumes please) with the potential to move into a role focusing on retaining our top employees.

Political: What can I say, other than Tuesday was a disappointment. There's all sorts of Monday-morning quarterbacking going on, so I won't add to that. I guess you win some and lose some, but as I've said here before, elections have consequences. As conservatives, we'll have to get past it. One thing is for sure, with Democrats is control of Congress, finding topics to blog about just got a whole lot easier.

It's good to be back!

If You Don't Believe Kim Jong Il is a Nutjob....

2006-07-06T08:44:00.000-06:00

Read this:

"Pyongyang media say North Korean leader Kim Jong-Il enjoys golf, having shot multiple holes-in-one during his first try at the game. He reportedly aced five holes and finished 38 under par on the golf course. The "Great Leader" routinely shoots three or four holes-in-one per round, the government-controlled media reported."

Anyone who plays golf will agree that a player who lies this much about his game is mentally unstable.

Hat-tip: Bill Bennett

Kim Jong Il

President Bush and 1776

2006-07-05T08:12:00.000-06:00

Diane Carman is so clever. It's been awhile since she wrote anything worth commenting on. She used her 4th of July column to help us remember why the Founders declared independence from King George and England. A reminder would be great, except that the column is really about President Bush and Carman's grievances with him.

I wonder how long she has been waiting to write this column and how convenient it must have been for her that our president shares a common first name with the King of England in 1776?

Now, you might say, "C'mon, you're paranoid and reading too much into it." But her use of modern terms - national security, cut and run, flip-flop, suspected terrorists, activist judges - brings the historical events into parallel with current liberal rhetoric.

The problem with her whole argument is that today's political world is completely different from 1776. Without even considering 2000, George Bush was re-elected in 2004. His party added to its congressional majorities in 2002 and 2004. These elections were referendums on his presidency. If the country is so fed up and tired of his abuses, why wasn't he beaten in 2004? Why haven't the democrats won enough contests to get majorities in the House and Senate to move forward with impeachment?

In 1776, the colonists were dealing with an unelected King and had no possibility of removing him or his policies, except through declaration of independence and open war. The result of which was a republic where we elect our leaders and remove them, through elections, when the majority disagrees with them.

When the minority wants to do things differently, they can try to leave the Union. However, the majority will most likely try to preserve the Union as President Lincoln did during the Civil War. Maybe the Civil War would be a more appropriate conflict from which Carman could draw a parallel to her dissatisfaction.

UPDATE: Along the same lines, see why GWB is NOT a dictator, from the Boston Globe.

Diane Carman
King George
Declaration of Independence

Apples and Oranges

2006-06-19T08:14:00.000-06:00

In case you missed this, which unless you live in Parker, CO and read the Parker Chronicle you probably did, Pat Nagorka thinks that the assassinations of Zarqawi and JFK were equivalent:

"The killing of al-Zarqawi is certainly news, but is the news good or bad? Judging from the past, this just means there will be a new leader to take his place, the violence will not stop, in fact will probably increase for a while at least, and nothing will change.

It reminds me of the assignation of President John F Kennedy. It was tragic, the nation mourned, but the country went on. It was a temporary disruption not to be forgotten, but it didn't bring down the country. This will be the same with al-Zarqawi dead - it will not change the backers of the al-Qaida movement."

This is a great example of Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS). Nagorka's BDS is so severe that she is willing to put the death of an American president (and hero of the Democrat party) on par with the death of a terrorist in order to downplay a victory for the Bush Administration.

Of course the country moved on when JFK died. That's what living in a stable democracy with elected officials will produce: A clear succession plan to preserve the republic in the event of such a loss.

A leader of a terrorist organization that isn't even native to the country in which it is fighting is not nearly the same.

So long, farewell, auf Wiedersehen, good night!

2006-06-08T07:51:00.000-06:00

I got in my car to go to work this morning and heard the news:

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi Killed in Bombing Raid

What a great day! I remember the Sunday morning when they announced the capture of Saddam. I'll remember this day, too. Soon, I hope we'll have another day to remember when we get Osama.

Here's a great roundup of blog posts at PajamasMedia.

Also, at FreeRepublic, there is a thread to caption the picture of Hell's newest resident. Some of my favorites so far:

Why do all these virgins look like Helen Thomas and Hillary Clinton?

Do you guys hear something?

Hello Adolph. Would you like to pitch or catch?

Uday! Qusay! What are you guys doing here? Wait a second...

Adolph, when do I bend over to pick up the soap?

Abu Musab this is Satan. Satan this Abu Musab. You two have fun now...

Vasalam Ala Man Ataba’al hoda

2006-05-26T08:21:00.000-06:00

This phrase is a warning, which should be heeded, from Iran's supreme nutjob Ahmadinejad. Most of the non-Islamic world has ignored this phrase, which was the closing sentence of his letter to President Bush.

It means: Peace only unto those who follow the true path.

The reason to take it seriously is summed up in this NY Sun editorial:

"It is a phrase with historical significance in Islam, for, according to Islamic tradition, in year six of the Hejira - the late 620s - the prophet Mohammad sent letters to the Byzantine emperor and the Sassanid emperor telling them to convert to the true faith of Islam or be conquered. The letters included the same phrase that President Ahmadinejad used to conclude his letter to Mr. Bush. For Mohammad, the letters were a prelude to a Muslim offensive, a war launched for the purpose of imposing Islamic rule over infidels."

Iran intends to start a worldwide jihad against non-Muslims. Will we take action to stop them, or revert to the ways of 1938 and let the dictator make the first move?

Hati-tip: Hugh

Just Like The Holocaust

2006-05-10T10:19:00.000-06:00

Iran: Worry Over Nuke Program 'A Big Lie'

There seems to be a lot of people out there perpetuating myths and lies.

Somebody get this guy a tin foil hat.

What a maroon!

A Fate Worse Than Death?

2006-05-04T08:51:00.000-06:00

It looks like Moussaoui will be spending the rest of his days in Colorado. For most people, that would be considered a dream, unless the part of Colorado that you get to live in is a 7x12 foot concrete cell in Florence.

I've never visited the Supermax facility (very few innocents or non-correctional workers have), but I did get to tour the Colorado maximum security prison in Canon City before it was opened in the mid-90's. While this prison is not a famous as Supermax, which is for federal prisoners, it had a lot of the same features - 23 hour lockdown, concrete furniture, pods so that even if you get out of your cell you are still locked down, medical care inside the pods so that if you hurt yourself, you are still locked down, an exercise room with a stool and a bar on the wall. Even the windows were set up so that once in your cell, there is no direct line of sight to another inmate. Of course, this prison was set up to hold the worst in the state, but to eventually move them out to lower security if they showed signs of improvement.

I'm sure that Supermax is all these things and more, so it may not be long before Moussaoui starts wishing that the jury gave him death so he could move on to his 72 virgins. Hopefully, for the families of the 9/11 victims, they can take some comfort in the knowledge that he is rotting away on the high plains of Colorado.

UPDATE: Apparently, his mama agrees:
"adding that the life sentence imposed for his role in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks was worse than the death penalty.

"Now he is going to die in little doses," she said. "He is going to live like a rat in a hole. What for? They are so cruel, they were wrong to want his head. They should have gone all the way to the end if they were capable.""

C-SPAN On A Saturday Night

2006-05-01T07:53:00.000-06:00

Saturday night was a date night for me and my wife. We went to see The Sentinel (not bad, but probably better for a DVD rental). When we got home, I was flipping through the channels and managed to catch the White House Correspondents Association Dinner on C-SPAN. Fortunately, I got to see Steve Bridges doing an amazing impression of the President, while standing next to the President. HotAir has a roundup of the whole evening.

Honestly, this guy was hilarious. Colbert was rather lame, but that's to be expected from the Comedy Central political crew.

I'm keeping the unofficial countdown clock for how long it takes a columnist in the WaPo or NYT to criticize President Bush for making jokes about some of today's issues, a la looking under his couch for the WMDs.

How to Save GM

2006-04-28T13:07:00.000-06:00

Auto-industry insiders have been asking: Can GM Be Saved?

I believe that the solution for saving GM has been found over at Michelle Malkin. I know that this post appears to be about whiny members of the press corps, but read the email at the end of the post from a GM employee for a way to boost morale.

GM
Fox News
Michelle Malkin

It Pains Them to Say It

2006-04-28T08:00:00.000-06:00

You know that, for the authors of this article in the NYT, writing it was like rubbing the soles of their feet with cheese graters and then plopping them in a vat of lemon juice:

"Gas prices are rising, as are mortgage rates. House prices in many once-hot markets have started slipping. The American automobile industry shows no sign of recovery. And the paychecks of most workers have not even kept up with inflation over the last four years.

Yet the national economy continues to speed ahead, with families and businesses spending money at an impressive pace. Forecasters expect the Commerce Department to report this morning that the economy grew at a rate of around 5 percent in the first quarter, the biggest increase since 2003."

Actually, the authors, after the lead, wrote a pretty fair and balanced (I didn't think it possible at the NYT) piece.

U.S. Economy
GDP
New York Times

We've Got What's Been Going Around

2006-04-27T09:34:00.000-06:00

Apparently this one is going around again:

Participating in a boycott of selected oil companies will lower gasoline prices.

According to Snopes, this one has been around since 2001.

Why do people think that information in a chain letter is credible? And why do people think that the person who sent the chain letter has thought of something that no one else has thought of before? Just because the reader has never looked at that way doesn't mean it's never been conceived of before.

Simple rule of everything in life: If it seems too good to be true, it probably is. Before you forward something to your email address book, do ten minutes of research and you'll probably just end up deleting it.

Amen, Thomas Sowell

2006-04-27T08:54:00.000-06:00

I can't tell you how much I agree with Thomas Sowell. This guy gets it so right and explains it so simply. Here he is talking about oil and gas prices:

Oily Politicians

Courtesy of RealClearPolitics

If there is anything worse than partisan demagoguery, it is bipartisan demagoguery. Republican leaders have now joined the Democrats in blaming the oil companies for the fact that prices rise when demand expands more than supply.

Prices have been rising under these conditions for thousands of years, long before there were any oil companies. This has happened with everything from food to furs and it has happened among people in every part of the world.

What has also happened in recent times has been that higher gasoline prices bring outraged charges of "gouging" by Big Oil. Some of the most emotionally powerful political words and phrases are wholly undefined -- "exploitation," "greed," "social justice" and the perennial favorite, "gouging."

Are the oil companies charging all that the traffic will bear? No doubt. But they were probably charging all that the traffic would bear when the price of gasoline was half of what it is today.

Even businesses that are losing money are charging all that the traffic will bear. Otherwise they could raise their prices and stop losing money.

Most of the people who are making this claim are charging all that the traffic will bear for their own labor or the use of their own products. Dressing up the plain fact that we all usually prefer more to less in political rhetoric about "gouging" explains nothing. Something that is true all the time cannot explain drastic changes.

Is it rocket science that, when oil prices hit new highs, gasoline prices also hit new highs? Do you think the price of wheat could double without the price of bread going up? Would we have politicians running around spouting off about "gouging" by Big Wheat?

No matter how big American oil companies are, there are other oil companies around the world and the price of oil is determined in international markets. As for investigating Big Oil, that has been done time and again already, with nothing to show for it.

Is it rocket science that, when huge countries like India and China have rapidly growing economies, their demand for oil goes up by leaps and bounds? Is it rocket science that, when demand shoots up but supply doesn't go up as much, prices rise?

Prices are a symptom of an underlying reality. Politicians can seize on the symptom and even pass laws dealing with it, without changing the underlying reality.

Prices are like a thermometer reading. When someone has a fever, it is not going to do any good to put the thermometer in ice water to bring down the reading. If you think the fever is gone, it may not be long before the patient is gone, if you don't do something about what is causing the fever.

Ironically, the people who are making the most noise about the high price of gasoline are the very people who have for years blocked every attempt to increase our own oil supply. They have opposed drilling for oil off the Atlantic coast, off the Pacific coast, or in Alaska. They have prevented the building of any new oil refineries anywhere for decades.

They have fought against the building of hydroelectric dams or nuclear power plants to generate electricity without the use of oil. They love to talk about their own pet "alternative energy sources," without the slightest attention to what these would cost in terms of money, jobs, or our national standard of living.

Even when one of their pet "alternative energy sources" -- windmills -- is proposed to be built near them, suddenly it is not right to spoil their view.

Politicians have indulged these spoiled brats for generations. Now, when the chickens come home to roost, they are screaming about high prices and Big Oil. That is world class chutzpa.

Liberal politicians have played this game for years. With the help of the liberal media, they have so demonized oil producers and so replaced economics with demagoguery that now Republicans are running scared, which seems to be their favorite exercise.

Republicans have apparently decided that, if you can't lick 'em, join 'em.

Republican "leaders" have apparently decided to give up on trying to talk sense to the public. So we end up with bipartisan demagoguery.

Thomas Sowell
Big Oil

My Friend And Jessica Simpson

2006-04-04T11:25:00.000-06:00

Here's a picture of my friend Michael with Jessica Simpson on the set of her new movie Employee of the Month:

It's a long story how he ended up on the set, but the bottom line is he's standing next to Jessica Simpson. I just got a whole lot closer to the world in the Six Degrees of Separation game.

New Cellphone Study - Don't Believe the Hype

2006-03-31T13:32:00.000-07:00

I've posted here before about the cellphone-causes-brain-tumors studies. It seems the Swedes have a new study that establishes a link between the two.

Who to believe? As I've posted before, my brother-in-law is one of the world's leading researchers on radiation and cancer. I asked him what he thought of this Swedish study. Here's his reply:

"This group from Sweden is the only group in the world that finds associations between mobile phones and brain cancer. This is just another in a string of methodologically poor studies. A few years ago, the Swedish govt asked me to review the literature and we severely criticized this paticular group for conducting biased and misleading studies: http://www.ssi.se/ssi_rapporter/pdf/ssi_rapp_2002_16.pdf

The main problem is how they obtain information on mobile phone use ...they ask leading questions to persons with brain tumors and are less interested in obtaining accurate responses from the controls without brain cancer. This can be seen in their studies where the risk from "cordless phones" is often as high or higher than the risk from mobile phones.

The RF energy levels are 100 times lower!

Studies by solid Swedish investigators do not find these associations.

Some of the investigators of this article have been involved in litigation in the US ... guess which side."

I'll take that opinion over one from Reuters any day.

cellphones
brain tumors

They Just Don't Get It

2006-03-22T07:44:00.000-07:00

This morning's DP contained an editorial from Marie Cocco about the unreliability of blogs and their ability to deliver news.

Some snippets in italics with my comments:

In blogs we don't trust...

Of course you don't, then you'd be out of a job.

The blog fetish may have reached its height during Rathergate, the imbroglio over the airing in September 2004 of a "60 Minutes II" story purporting to show that President Bush got preferential treatment when he landed a coveted spot in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War. The trashing of CBS News anchorman Dan Rather and his subsequent hasty retirement were seen as the ultimate triumph of the bloggers, predominantly on the political right, who gleefully proclaimed that the documents "60 Minutes II" relied upon for the special-treatment allegation were forged.

In truth, an exhaustive investigation led by former Attorney General Dick Thornburgh, a Republican, and former Associated Press president Lou Boccardi found that no definitive conclusion could be reached about whether the documents were authentic or not.

The fact is that there was no conclusion that they were real. Without the bloggers, no one watching this would have given a second thought to the fact they might be fake. As Marie points out later, Americans trust traditional news sources, but this little incident illustrates that maybe they shouldn't be so trusting.

But never mind. The power of the blogs was confirmed, a development that stunned the mainstream press and impressed the political left - which of course decided that it, too, had to embrace the blogs or be undone by them...

I guess Marie wasn't talking to fellow lefty Chris Bowers who recently proclaimed, "The right-wing blogosphere is dead. Long live the progressive blogosphere."

Blogs are, in fact, the least trusted news source, according to data compiled by Consumer Reports and published in the latest study of the news media conducted by the Project for Excellence in Journalism. Only 12 percent of those surveyed about trust in various media outlets said they believe what they read in blogs all or most of the time.

I tried to find the demographic data for this survey, but was unable to. It may be there, but I didn't have the time. I am a little suspicious of a survey defending traditional journalism done by an organization that promotes traditional journalism.

Like all of us in this business, the journalism project is trying to figure out why the newspaper industry is declining, and why no one seems to care much anymore about the difference between original reporting and the mere rehashing - with a passionately partisan spin - that passes for journalism in the blogs and often on cable television. It turns out that, just as the people are often way ahead of politicians in their thinking, so are consumers of news way ahead of a journalistic chattering class newly obsessed with competing on a playing field - the blogosphere - that perhaps it shouldn't set its fact-checking foot upon.
Yes, people increasingly are reading their news on the Internet.

The newspaper business is declining because, regardless of what your survey says, they are tired of hearing the same "journalistic chattering class" chattering from the same DNC talking points.

Bloggers provide the watchdog for the press, just as the press proclaims itself the watchdog of the government. They check the checkers.

But few pajama-clad bloggers were seen wading through hip-deep water in New Orleans to cover the perils wrought by Hurricane Katrina in the way that mainstream reporters and camera crews did. They generally aren't eager to be bivouacked in Baghdad, either.

I admit that I do no reporting when I blog. I only comment on what I see in the press and try to aggregate several sources to back-up my opinion.

However, to say that there are no bloggers going where reporters dare to tread is blatantly false. Josh Britton blogged live during Katrina from the disaster area. Michael Yon showed us what it was like to be in a firefight in Mosul, Iraq.

The mainstream media may have lost some of the trust it enjoyed in years past. But imitating those who are trusted even less surely won't earn it back.

The trust gets lost when the NYT has to correct inaccuracies like this one and this one.

One blog alone may not have all the accurate information, but it is the collection of information and opinion in the free market of ideas that gives us a clearer view of the truth than through traditional news sources alone.

Three Years in Iraq - By The Numbers

2006-03-20T08:07:00.000-07:00

In three years in Iraq, the official death toll is 2,317. In the worst month for U.S. losses in Vietnam, May 1968, the death toll was 2,316.

It's taken us three years to surpass the worst single month in Vietnam, lending even less support to the Iraq-is-the-next-Vietnam/quagmire argument.

Every life that is lost is tragic; however, to put this into perspective, the United State Department of Transportation estimates that 42,884 people were killed in auto accidents in 2003. 42,636 were killed in 2004. Given that these numbers are close, it is safe to say about 42,000 people were killed in auto accidents in 2005.

Over roughly the same three year period, about 125,000 people died on U.S roads.

Maybe John Murtha should propose a ban on driving in the U.S.

More numbers on the Iraq War here.

Courtesy of Instapundit.

Rovian Plot - Part Two

2006-03-15T07:34:00.000-07:00

Honestly, can there be any other explanantion for the Feingold-Censure Vote-Gift that the Republicans have received:

Democratic senators, filing in for their weekly caucus lunch yesterday, looked as if they'd seen a ghost.

"I haven't read it," demurred Barack Obama (Ill.).

"I just don't have enough information," protested Ben Nelson (Neb.). "I really can't right now," John Kerry (Mass.) said as he hurried past a knot of reporters -- an excuse that fell apart when Kerry was forced into an awkward wait as Capitol Police stopped an aide at the magnetometer.

Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) brushed past the press pack, shaking her head and waving her hand over her shoulder. When an errant food cart blocked her entrance to the meeting room, she tried to hide from reporters behind the 4-foot-11 Barbara Mikulski (Md.).

"Ask her after lunch," offered Clinton's spokesman, Philippe Reines. But Clinton, with most of her colleagues, fled the lunch out a back door as if escaping a fire.

In a sense, they were. The cause of so much evasion was S. Res. 398, the resolution proposed Monday by Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) calling for the censure of President Bush for his warrantless wiretapping program. At a time when Democrats had Bush on the ropes over Iraq, the budget and port security, Feingold single-handedly turned the debate back to an issue where Bush has the advantage -- and drove another wedge through his party.

So nonplused were Democrats that even Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.), known for his near-daily news conferences, made history by declaring, "I'm not going to comment." Would he have a comment later? "I dunno," the suddenly shy senator said.

Republicans were grateful for the gift.

The guy has to be a plant. I'm thinking to myself: "There's no way a person could be that out of touch." But now I remember a recent car ride home from work...

I was listening to AM 760 (only for the entertainment value, mind you) and heard a "progressive" radio talk host and a caller talking about how they wished Feingold would run for president because he was the only Democrat with any guts to confront the President.

At the time, I got a warm, tingly feeling because I knew that no matter how badly the Republicans seemed to be screwing up the mid-term election, there were crackpots on the other side who would ensure that the Republicans stay in the majority through even more serious missteps. It's the football equivalent of intercepting the pass and fumbling it back to the other team on the run back.

Thinking about this, I realize that Feingold isn't out of touch with his constituents; rather, his constituents are out of touch with reality.

I'm getting that warm, tingly feeling again.

Rovian Plot

2006-02-28T08:14:00.000-07:00

If I was going to write a political conspiracy story about the UAE port deal, it would go something like this:

Port security in the U.S. is generally perceived as weak, but it's not enough of a hot-button issue to get Congress to approve funding to improve it. The company that is running 6 U.S. ports is being acquired by a Middle Eastern company that is more moderate than most, but still an Arab nation influenced by Islam.

In an effort to bend Washington politics to the administration's will, a deal giving control of operations to the UAE company is fast-tracked through the cabinet and, just prior to it being final, leaked to the press. Almost every congressman and senator, including those in the administration's own party, condemn the deal citing national security concerns. In addition, the mainstream and alternative media unite to question the deal. America's anti-Arab passions are exposed with even the most tolerant lefties saying that the Arab company is held to a different standard.

The Arab company delays the deal and in the following 45 days, a senator from a Southwestern state with presidential ambitions and a congressman from that same state propose a multi-billion dollar spending package that will provide the security that all U.S. ports need. With their comments about the importance of security on the record, most congressmen and senators have no choice but to vote for the bill, which the president quickly signs into law.

In the aftermath of the port security bill, the Arab company is quietly given the contract, port security is increased, and the Arab street becomes more fully aware of America's anti-Islamic attitudes.

Too bad it's all just fiction...

Rove
Ports
UAE

My Brother-in-Law Supports Denmark

2006-02-24T16:03:00.000-07:00

My brother-in-law turned out for a peaceful demonstration in support of Denmark today. He's in the seventh picture from the top of the post.

His email said that this was the first time he's demonstrated since the 60's (he's much older than me).

Ain't That the Truth

2006-02-23T13:21:00.000-07:00

Americans work more, seem to accomplish less

Here's some money quotes:
"We never concentrate on one task anymore. You take a little chip out of it, and then you're on to the next thing," Challenger said on Wednesday. "It's harder to feel like you're accomplishing something."

"The irony is the very expectation of getting more done is getting in the way of getting more done," he said. "People are stressed out."

"There's a sense that no matter how much I do, it's never enough," he said.

Dilbert's Wisdom for New Grads

2006-02-20T08:07:00.000-07:00

Dilbert is like a support group for office slaves. At least we can feel as though we aren't alone. For those of you who have never worked in an office environment, here's a taste.

All You Really Need to Know About Radical Islam

2006-02-20T08:00:00.000-07:00

Is right here.

Courtesy of Powerline.

I Know You Are But What Am I?

2006-02-07T12:15:00.000-07:00

In a throwback to schoolyard days, an Iranian paper is going to solicit tasteless cartoons about the Holocaust in an attempt to goad the West into hypocrisy.

My prediction: It won't work. Come on Persia, the Jews have been persecuted for centuries. Do you really think they are gullible enough to fall for this little ploy. Sensible heads, more of which exist in the West than in the Middle East, will call this childish and crude, but no embassies will be burned or cartoonists threatened.

If you are offended by someone's depiction of your religion, protest, peacefully, and boycott and make your displeasure known. This is how the fanatical Christians in the U.S. do it. No one stormed the offices of NBC or threatened the producers of Will and Grace with death. Instead, they applied the economic and political pressure and got something they wanted.

Sure, there was a time when Christians burned heretics (real or otherwise) at the stake for saying or writing things considered to be blasphemy, but we've grown up and understand that the best way to validate a belief is to challenge it. If it stands up for 2000 years, it's probably a pretty solid belief.

Whether this was the right thing to do for NBC is a separate debate, but it shows a nice contrast of how Christianity is about 700 years ahead of Islam in terms of a civilized religion.

Alito's In

2006-01-30T17:30:00.000-07:00

And it wasn't even close. Of course, this is just the cloture vote, but he should be confirmed just in time for the SOTU tomorrow night.

It's Not So Bad

2006-01-25T10:37:00.000-07:00

Even though yesterday was considered the most depressing day of the year, I don't think it's that bad right now.

For example, I Googled "good news" and got 1.39 billion results. The ones at the top had to do mostly with the Christian faith.

On the other hand, I Googled "bad news" and got 446 million results.

It looks like the good news outweighs the bad 3 to 1.

Not surprisingly, the #1 result for bad news: Noam Chomsky's website

good news
bad news

Bloggers' Statement to House Leadership

2006-01-13T15:37:00.000-07:00

This is why the center right controls the Presidency, the Congress, and soon the Supreme Court - rationale demands from the base and not radical ideas from the fever-swamp fringe.

Below is a statement, signed by numerous influential bloggers, to the Republicans in the House as they approach their leadership elections:

"We are bloggers with boatloads of opinions, and none of us come close to agreeing with any other one of us all of the time. But we do agree on this: The new leadership in the House of Representatives needs to be thoroughly and transparently free of the taint of the Jack Abramoff scandals, and beyond that, of undue influence of K Street.

We are not naive about lobbying, and we know it can and has in fact advanced crucial issues and has often served to inform rather than simply influence Members.

But we are certain that the public is disgusted with excess and with privilege. We hope the Hastert-Dreier effort leads to sweeping reforms including the end of subsidized travel and other obvious influence operations. Just as importantly, we call for major changes to increase openness, transparency and accountability in Congressional operations and in the appropriations process.

As for the Republican leadership elections, we hope to see more candidates who will support these goals, and we therefore welcome the entry of Congressman John Shadegg to the race for Majority Leader. We hope every Congressman who is committed to ethical and transparent conduct supports a reform agenda and a reform candidate. And we hope all would-be members of the leadership make themselves available to new media to answer questions now and on a regular basis in the future."

Signed,

N.Z. Bear, The Truth Laid Bear
Hugh Hewitt, HughHewitt.com
Glenn Reynolds, Instapundit.com
Kevin Aylward, Wizbang!
La Shawn Barber, La Shawn Barber's Corner
Lorie Byrd / DJ Drummond , Polipundit
Beth Cleaver, MY Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
Jeff Goldstein, Protein Wisdom
Stephen Green, Vodkapundit
John Hawkins, Right Wing News
John Hinderaker, Power Line
Jon Henke / McQ / Dale Franks, QandO
James Joyner, Outside The Beltway
Mike Krempasky, Redstate.org
Michelle Malkin, MichelleMalkin.com
Ed Morrissey, Captain's Quarters
Scott Ott, Scrappleface
The Anchoress, The Anchoress
John Donovan / Bill Tuttle, Castle Argghhh!!!

Updates to Blogroll

2006-01-13T07:24:00.000-07:00

I've added DilbertBlog to my BlogRoll on the left. I've started reading this blog regularly and found it to be highly amusing. I hope you agree.

More Income, Lower Expenses

2006-01-13T07:12:00.000-07:00

As I try to balance my personal budget, I always try to reduce my expenses, while increasing my income. It's a tough thing to do, but I look for trends to determine if I am going in the right direction.

Similarly, it looks like the federal government is doing the same thing:

"The federal government posted the first budget surplus for December in three years as corporate tax payments hit an all-time high, helping offset a record level for spending, the Treasury Department reported Thursday.

The department said in its monthly budget report that government receipts surpassed spending by $10.98 billion last month. A year ago, the government ran a deficit of $2.85 billion in December.

The improvement reflected the fact that government receipts were up 12.1 percent from a year ago to $241.88 billion while government spending rose by a slower 5.6 percent to $230.9 billion. The figure for outlays still represented an all-time high for spending for any month."

While spending is still high and needs to come down, revenues are up and expenses seem to be slowing. Hopefully, they will start to shrink instead of rising slower.

A budget surplus is definitely a step in the right direction.

I blame the Bush tax cuts.

Budget deficit
Bush tax cuts

Jumping the Gun

2005-12-30T07:58:00.000-07:00

It looks like someone's written a story before it actually happened. This article (courtesy of Drudge) by Michael J. Martinez trumpets the final trading day losses of the Dow Jones Industrial Index (DJIA).

Here's the lead: "Wall Street started its last trading day of 2005 Friday with stocks sliding as investors gave up on the dwindling fourth-quarter rally and consolidated what profits they made this year. With little news to spur buying, the Dow Jones industrial average threatened to close the year with a loss for the first time since though other major indexes were expected to post modest gains for 2005."

Doom and gloom or simply stating the facts?

In the story, Martinez writes, "In the first hour of trading, the Dow fell 37.86, or 0.35 percent, to 10,746.96. The Dow would need to close above 10,783.01 for a positive 2005."

But look at the time the story was posted. The time stamp is 9:39AM Eastern Time. The market opens at 9:30 AM Eastern Time. In just 9 minutes of trading, Martinez assessed the situation, wrote 482 words (hastily I might add, as the lead itself is missing a date in the last sentence between "since" and "though"), submitted it for review by an editor (or maybe not considering the previously identified error), and posted it to the website. Now that is efficiency. I don't think I'll finish this blog post in 9 minutes.

I know that there are futures and that most of it was probably written prior to the open of the market and that he just waited to see if it panned out, but doesn't that seem like making a judgement on the news before it happens?

Doesn't it seem like we should wait for the close to assess the year in total? Most likely, the Dow will close with a slight loss for the year (as I write this, it is trading lower) if you measure it from the close of 2004, which was 10,783.01 and seems to be what Martinez used. However, if you use the open of 2005, the Dow would end the year lower than it started if it reaches below 10,729.43. It depends on where you start measuring, which is really pretty subjective, isn't it?

Of course, anyone with any financial knowledge will also point out that the DJIA, while widely watched and reported, is an index of only 30 stocks.

The S&P 500 ended 2004 at 1211.92 and looks like it will end 2005 above 1250. The Wilshire 5000, which provides one of the most complete looks as the total market, looks like it ended 2004 at 11,968.10 and will end 2005 around 12,600.

The bottom line: Stocks were up in 2005, even if the DJIA ends today with a loss.

What's the point? With an extra half hour of research and the help of Yahoo Finance, I believe I pointed out an incident of creating news rather than reporting it and wrote a more valid assessment of the markets performance in 2005 than Martinez. It was slightly less timely, but only by about 40 minutes.

Dow Jones
Media Bias
MSM

Update on The Airing of Grievances

2005-12-27T08:15:00.000-07:00

I posted here about the trials and tribulations with my bank.

Later that day, my wife went in to the same branch I had been at earlier. She talked to a gentleman named Brant. This was a different person than I talked to earlier. He may have been the branch manager, but we aren't sure. He sat down and called phone numbers at Bank of America (originating bank of the check that was being held) until he found someone who could find the check. Once he found it and verified it, he lifted the hold and we got our money. This process took almost an hour and a half, during which time the line at the bank grew longer. Brant went back and forth helping other customers while he helped my wife.

Why did this one Chase employee do this, when several others had been so unhelpful. Aside from the fact that my wife turned on the waterworks and told him that her husband's Christmas would be ruined worrying about the check, I think that we found the one employee who understood his purpose at his job. Especially in banking, the routine (withdrawals, deposits, transfers) should be automated and the exceptions (holds on checks) should be humanized. Dealing with people's problems is all that bank employees in branches should concern themselves with.

By taking the time to solve our problem, Brant saved a customer for Chase. We'll stay with this bank, most likely for a long time.

The Airing of Grievances

2005-12-23T11:30:00.000-07:00

In the spirit of Festivus, I am going to air my grievances today. The particular target of my discontent is my bank, Chase.

Background: I received a large check from a brokerage account and deposited it via the drive-up ATM on Monday night. I generally use only the drive up ATM for all withdrawals and deposits because 1) the bank hours are not convenient for me to get into see a teller, and 2) because I like as little human interaction in my financial transactions as possible. It's not that I don't like tellers or bankers (I do the same for all my travel planning and anything else that can be done online), it's just that it's quicker to get in and out on my time schedule without having them ask for my ID and all the questions that go along with it. I also have found most of them to have a below average aptitude for customer service. I do as much of my banking online as I possibly can. I have never been overdrawn on my account - ever, in my life.

The next day (Tuesday), my online balance reflected the deposit, but was not yet available. No problem, I assumed that it would take a business day to clear. The next day (Wednesday) the total amount of the deposit plus the existing amount in the account showed up as available. I proceeded to pay off 2 loans, pay a large chunk of another loan balance, pay off my credit card, and open a new savings account to hold the amount of my medical deductible for next year. If you haven't yet guessed, I am overly sensitive about my finances and take all precautions to ensure their stability.

The next day (Thursday), my available balance showed negative. I thought there must be some mistake and sent an email to customer care to inquire. I also called the toll free number but was placed on hold and hung up, as I have better things to do than wait on hold.

Today (Friday), I opened my account online and saw that not only was it still showing negative, but that I now had 2 insufficient fund fees of $60 apiece. In addition, there will 3 more of these fees added as other scheduled payments will continue to bounce. I had a message in response to my email stating that the deposit had been placed on hold and wouldn't be released until 12/29/05, which means I will be overdrawn until then. I called customer care and the women, who was very helpful, tried to call the ATM division, but was placed on hold and could never get through. She advised me to go to a branch office. I did this and they could only tell me, again helpfully, that I had to go to the branch where I deposited the check because they might have a copy of the check and could get it released.

By now, I am not happy. Aren't these branches connected? Can't they communicate with each other? Why do I have to run all over town to get this resolved? Needless to say, I did go to the branch by my house. I was given a seat and a gentleman took my information. He told me, "You should assume that a large deposit will trigger a hold." I retorted, "In the future I will, but it's not my job as the customer to know this. It is your job as a provider of a service, and an expert in your industry, to tell me. I had no indication when I made the deposit that there would be a hold. I had no notification by email that there was a hold. I knew nothing of this problem, until I called you."

He slumped off to investigate and returned to inform me they had no image of the check and that they couldn't do anything for me. I would just have to wait until the hold was removed. He said they would reverse any NSF fees if it cleared. He also had the stones to give me a booklet of disclosures and informed me that if I had read it, I would have seen that deposits are subject to holds. I asked him if he had ever read it. He said yes. I asked if he had read every disclosure he had ever received on every credit card and account he had opened. He dodged it by saying that it wasn't his responsibility to make sure I read it. While that may be true in a legal sense, it's not customer-friendly. The second anyone who I am paying for a service tells me that something is not their responsibility, I am history.

I am not quibbling with the hold policy, but with the fact I had no notice of the hold and was told there was nothing they could do. As a person who works in a customer service industry, I know that you should never say no without saying yes.

Regardless of how this ends and no matter what Chase does to reverse fees, I am moving to a new bank.

Any suggestions?

Happy Festivus - Let the feats of strength commence!

Impeachment: Clinton vs. Bush

2005-12-22T09:53:00.000-07:00

The I-word has been thrown around lately, mostly by the far-left fever swamps. Let's look at the difference between the actions that led Clinton to be impeached and the actions that have spurred the calls for Bush's impeachment:

Clinton: Committed his indiscretion, then lied to the American people and lied under oath. Pretty straight-forward. If I lied under oath, I'd be charged with a crime too.

Bush: Did something that is most likely within his powers as President, then went before the American people, told them exactly what he did, why he did it, and why it was okay. No lying, no cover-up, he just came out and said, "Thanks for leaking a classified operation, NYT, after I told you not to, but since you did, I'll tell the country about it instead of denying it ever happened or splitting hairs over the definitions."

Now, I know my lefty readers will say, "Yeah, but he didn't tell us for 4 years that he was doing this." And my response is, "Of course, you can't tell the bad guys you are listening to them and expect to get any sort of intelligence that would protect Americans."

Not surprisingly, I don't lose a lot of sleep at night worrying about the NSA monitoring me. I think I would sleep a lot less knowing that the NSA wasn't monitoring people who were talking to terrorists.

Posts I Have Read Recently

2005-12-14T16:06:00.000-07:00

I laughed hard at this post over at GirlinRight. I could completely relate to all of the doings of a 2 year old boy.

I've also recently starting reading The Dilbert Blog. Definitely gets me through the workday (read during my lunch break, of course).

Nothing really to comment about on these posts, other than I liked them and thought I would share them.

Michael Yon - Photo of the Year

2005-12-14T15:35:00.000-07:00

Michael Yon has been on the ground in Iraq sending back pictures and reports of the day to day struggle for democracy.

One of his photos is up for TIME Magazine's photo of the year. The photo is on his website.

This photo is truly heartbreaking, but at the same time uplifting in that it shows the compassion that our troops have for those they are trying to help. As a father, I can't help but shed tears for the child who was the victim of the suicide bomber, thinking that this girl has a father or mother who must have been overcome with grief at the loss of a daughter. At the same time, I feel tremendous pride in the actions of this soldier and the care with which he is protecting the body of the little girl. This photo is the embodiment of our noble goal in Iraq: to fight for those who can't fight for themselves and to bring light to a world of darkness.

God Bless America!

The Purple Revolution Is On!

2005-12-14T15:31:00.000-07:00

On December 15th, ink your finger purple to show support for democracy.

Honestly, I wasn't sure this would catch on, but the blogosphere has shown its reach once again.

You Go, Betty!!!!

2005-12-14T15:27:00.000-07:00

An Iraqi Voter named Betty voted today for her country's election. Sporting her purple finger, she told us how she felt about those who disparage our efforts in Iraq:

"Anybody who doesn’t appreciate what America has done and President Bush, let them go to hell"

Political Teen has the video.

For Those Who Said We Don't Have a Plan...

2005-11-30T08:03:00.000-07:00

You can't get much more comprehensive than this:

Executive Summary

OUR NATIONAL STRATEGY FOR VICTORY IN IRAQ:
Helping the Iraqi People Defeat the Terrorists and Build an Inclusive Democratic State

Victory in Iraq is Defined in Stages

Short term, Iraq is making steady progress in fighting terrorists, meeting political milestones, building democratic institutions, and standing up security forces.

Medium term, Iraq is in the lead defeating terrorists and providing its own security, with a fully constitutional government in place, and on its way to achieving its economic potential.

Longer term, Iraq is peaceful, united, stable, and secure, well integrated into the international community, and a full partner in the global war on terrorism.

Victory in Iraq is a Vital U.S. Interest

Iraq is the central front in the global war on terror. Failure in Iraq will embolden terrorists and expand their reach; success in Iraq will deal them a decisive and crippling blow.

The fate of the greater Middle East -- which will have a profound and lasting impact on American security -- hangs in the balance.

Failure is Not an Option

Iraq would become a safe haven from which terrorists could plan attacks against America, American interests abroad, and our allies.

Middle East reformers would never again fully trust American assurances of support for democracy and human rights in the region -- a historic opportunity lost.
The resultant tribal and sectarian chaos would have major consequences for American security and interests in the region.

The Enemy Is Diffuse and Sophisticated

The enemy is a combination of rejectionists, Saddamists, and terrorists affiliated with or inspired by Al Qaida. Distinct but integrated strategies are required to defeat each element.

Each element shares a common short-term objective -- to intimidate, terrorize, and tear down -- but has separate and incompatible long-term goals.
Exploiting these differences within the enemy is a key element of our strategy.

Our Strategy for Victory is Clear

We will help the Iraqi people build a new Iraq with a constitutional, representative government that respects civil rights and has security forces sufficient to maintain domestic order and keep Iraq from becoming a safe haven for terrorists. To achieve this end, we are pursuing an integrated strategy along three broad tracks, which together incorporate the efforts of the Iraqi government, the Coalition, cooperative countries in the region, the international community, and the United Nations.

The Political Track involves working to forge a broadly supported national compact for democratic governance by helping the Iraqi government:

Isolate enemy elements from those who can be won over to the political process by countering false propaganda and demonstrating to all Iraqis that they have a stake in a democratic Iraq;

Engage those outside the political process and invite in those willing to turn away from violence through ever-expanding avenues of participation; and

Build stable, pluralistic, and effective national institutions that can protect the interests of all Iraqis, and facilitate Iraq's full integration into the international community.

The Security Track involves carrying out a campaign to defeat the terrorists and neutralize the insurgency, developing Iraqi security forces, and helping the Iraqi government:

Clear areas of enemy control by remaining on the offensive, killing and capturing enemy fighters and denying them safe-haven;

Hold areas freed from enemy influence by ensuring that they remain under the control of the Iraqi government with an adequate Iraqi security force presence; and

Build Iraqi Security Forces and the capacity of local institutions to deliver services, advance the rule of law, and nurture civil society.

The Economic Track involves setting the foundation for a sound and self-sustaining economy by helping the Iraqi government:

Restore Iraq's infrastructure to meet increasing demand and the needs of a growing economy;

Reform Iraq's economy, which in the past has been shaped by war, dictatorship, and sanctions, so that it can be self-sustaining in the future; and

Build the capacity of Iraqi institutions to maintain infrastructure, rejoin the international economic community, and improve the general welfare of all Iraqis.

This Strategy is Integrated and its Elements are Mutually Reinforcing

Progress in each of the political, security, and economic tracks reinforces progress in the other tracks.

For instance, as the political process has moved forward, terrorists have become more isolated, leading to more intelligence on security threats from Iraqi citizens, which has led to better security in previously violent areas, a more stable infrastructure, the prospect of economic progress, and expanding political participation.

Victory Will Take Time

Our strategy is working: Much has been accomplished in Iraq, including the removal of Saddam's tyranny, negotiation of an interim constitution, restoration of full sovereignty, holding of free national elections, formation of an elected government, drafting of a permanent constitution, ratification of that constitution, introduction of a sound currency, gradual restoration of neglected infrastructure, the ongoing training and equipping of Iraqi security forces, and the increasing capability of those forces to take on the terrorists and secure their nation.

Yet many challenges remain: Iraq is overcoming decades of a vicious tyranny, where governmental authority stemmed solely from fear, terror, and brutality.
It is not realistic to expect a fully functioning democracy, able to defeat its enemies and peacefully reconcile generational grievances, to be in place less than three years after Saddam was finally removed from power.

Our comprehensive strategy will help Iraqis overcome remaining challenges, but defeating the multi-headed enemy in Iraq -- and ensuring that it cannot threaten Iraq's democratic gains once we leave -- requires persistent effort across many fronts.

Our Victory Strategy Is (and Must Be) Conditions Based

With resolve, victory will be achieved, although not by a date certain.

No war has ever been won on a timetable and neither will this one.

But lack of a timetable does not mean our posture in Iraq (both military and civilian) will remain static over time. As conditions change, our posture will change.

We expect, but cannot guarantee, that our force posture will change over the next year, as the political process advances and Iraqi security forces grow and gain experience.

While our military presence may become less visible, it will remain lethal and decisive, able to confront the enemy wherever it may organize.

Our mission in Iraq is to win the war. Our troops will return home when that mission is complete.

This is just the executive summary. The rest of the plan is much more detailed, without revealing anything that would be advantageous to our enemies.

I hope to see the President work through the holidays. While Congress is at home, he would be able to dominate the news cycle and continue to deliver this message.

Twelve Words

2005-11-18T07:54:00.000-07:00

Being a Republican in Congress should be easier than they are making it out to be. Hugh Hewitt suggests twelve words for guiding any discussion or vote:

Win the war.
Confirm the judges.
Cut the taxes.
Control the spending.

I wish my job were this easy.

Debunking the Bush Lied Lie

2005-11-10T13:39:00.000-07:00

Read this, bookmark it, and bring it out everytime your liberal buddies start throwing around the Bush Lied rant:

"Among the many distortions, misrepresentations, and outright falsifications that have emerged from the debate over Iraq, one in particular stands out above all others. This is the charge that George W. Bush misled us into an immoral and/or unnecessary war in Iraq by telling a series of lies that have now been definitively exposed.

What makes this charge so special is the amazing success it has enjoyed in getting itself established as a self-evident truth even though it has been refuted and discredited over and over again by evidence and argument alike. In this it resembles nothing so much as those animated cartoon characters who, after being flattened, blown up, or pushed over a cliff, always spring back to life with their bodies perfectly intact. Perhaps, like those cartoon characters, this allegation simply cannot be killed off, no matter what...."

The Big Oil Scapegoat

2005-11-10T13:37:00.000-07:00

There was quite a bit of press on this week's Senate hearings on the price of gas. I found this article, which had a good take on the whole thing. It also provided some prediction of the next industry that will get dragged in before the sound byte-centric group of bloviating politicians:

"You know you're at the hangover stage in any financial bender when the witch-hunters in Congress begin hauling in the victims for grilling. This is the situation on Capitol Hill this week as Congress vents its spleen on the captains of ExxonMobil (NYSE: XOM), Chevron (NYSE: CVX), BP (NYSE: BP), and others for the high crimes of financial success...

...It's pretty easy to point out the hypocrisy in Washington. You just need to wait for a senator to start speaking. But the underlying roots of this situation became clearer to me yesterday, after I read a fantastical discussion of the melodrama written by my old friend and fellow Fool Rob Aronen. In it, he asked our Senatorial witch-hunters a rhetorical question. Homebuilders like DR Horton (NYSE: DHI) and Toll Brothers (NYSE: TOL) have been making healthy, if not record profits lately. (Banks and other lenders, I might add, have been doing pretty well, too.) His question: Why aren't they being dragged into the Star Chamber for their deeds...?

...Despite the lessons of the '70s and '80s, when gas got cheap in the '90s, we spent money on giant cars. When bank money got cheap in the noughts, we demanded the 4,000-square-foot estate; 50 miles from work.

It's only when the bills start coming in above our expectations that we begin to demand legislative answers. But as always, real solutions are right in front of our eyes for those who are Foolish enough to embrace them. Plan for the unexpected. Assume that your household expenses will rise. Live below your means. Change your behavior to avoid overexposing yourself to violent swings in gas, heating fuel, and interest expense. If you live in the free market through good and bad, then you're not likely to be a victim of its occasional swings."

I See A Theme Here

2005-11-03T10:11:00.000-07:00

I've been posting about the calls for oil companies to "donate" or pay windfall taxes on their profits.

It seems to me that this:

...(Senator Charles) Grassley (R- IA, the chairman of Senate Finance Committee) is now on record as wanting (the rhetorical equivalent of “demanding”) that oil companies “donate” 10 percent of their profits to help poor Americans pay their heating bills. Grassley sent letters to oil companies outlining his request; letters he claims to have sent to “embarrass” the oil companies into contributing to the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). Embarrass? I don’t think so. The right word here would be “intimidate.” Grassley says “It’s not unreasonable to expect corporations with 50, 75 or 100 percent growth in earnings this quarter to contribute a mere 10 percent of those profits to fund programs that supplement LIHEAP. In those letters Grassley also asked that these oil companies report to him on their recent charitable contributions...

will lead to this:

...Twenty-five years ago, with gasoline prices at record highs and company profits "unconscionable" according to some, like-minded critics won the day in Congress and enacted a windfall profits tax. It was a disaster.

· It did not allow companies to charge world market prices for "old oil." So they could not spend money to rework oilfields; domestic production dwindled rapidly.
· It allowed them to charge market prices only for "new oil" from new areas. Companies had to bypass oilfields that they had discovered but not yet developed, and search (wildcat) in less likely places. Again, domestic production suffered.
· It allowed them to charge world market prices for imported oil. So the companies began to explore more in highly promising places overseas. Domestic production suffered; overseas exploration and development boomed.
· Critics complained that the companies were abandoning the US. One oil executive responded, "We're not moving out of the US; we're being thrown out."

Every subsequent study, including from the US Congress now entertaining the tax, showed that the era's price controls and windfall profits tax contributed greatly to our nation's increased reliance on foreign oil. Those policies did exactly the opposite of what they were intended to do. But without institutional memory, critics seem again ready to fall back on the old, failed policies and "do something" no matter what the result may be...

Read all of both of these articles.

A Summary of Iraq War Revisionist History

2005-11-03T07:31:00.000-07:00

Today's OpinionJournal (registration required) has an excellent summary of the revisions the Democrats are trying to make of the events leading up to the war in Iraq:

...The indictment by Patrick Fitzgerald of Vice Presidential aide I. Lewis Libby has become their latest opening to promote this fiction, notwithstanding the mountains of contrary evidence. To wit:

In July 2004, the Senate Intelligence Committee released a bipartisan 500-page report that found numerous failures of intelligence gathering and analysis. As for the Bush Administration's role, "The Committee did not find any evidence that Administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction," (our emphasis).

The Butler Report, published by the British in July 2004, similarly found no evidence of "deliberate distortion," although it too found much to criticize in the quality of prewar intelligence.

The March 2005 Robb-Silberman report on WMD intelligence was equally categorical, finding "no evidence of political pressure to influence the Intelligence Community's pre-war assessments of Iraq's weapons programs. . . .analysts universally asserted that in no instance did political pressure cause them to skew or alter any of their analytical judgments. We conclude that it was the paucity of intelligence and poor analytical tradecraft, rather than political pressure, that produced the inaccurate pre-war intelligence assessments."

Finally, last Friday, there was Mr. Fitzgerald: "This indictment's not about the propriety of the war, and people who believe fervently in the war effort, people who oppose it, people who are--have mixed feelings about it should not look to this indictment for any resolution of how they feel or any vindication of how they feel."

In short, everyone who has looked into the question of whether the Bush Administration lied about intelligence, distorted intelligence, or pressured intelligence agencies to produce assessments that would support a supposedly pre-baked decision to invade Iraq has come up with the same answer: No, no, no and no.

...Everyone, that is, except Joseph Wilson IV. He first became the Democrats' darling in July 2003, when he published an op-ed claiming he'd debunked Mr. Bush's "16 words" on Iraqi attempts to purchase African yellowcake and that the Administration had distorted the evidence about Saddam's weapons programs to fit its agenda. This Wilson tale fit the "lied us into war" narrative so well that he was adopted by the John Kerry presidential campaign.

Only to be dropped faster than a Paris Hilton boyfriend after the Senate Intelligence and Butler reports were published. Those reports clearly showed that, while Saddam had probably not purchased yellowcake from Niger, the dictator had almost certainly tried--and that Mr. Wilson's own briefing of the CIA after his mission supported that conclusion. Mr. Wilson somehow omitted that fact from his public accounts at the time.

He also omitted to explain why the CIA had sent him to Niger: His wife, who worked at the CIA, had suggested his name for the trip, a fact Mr. Wilson also denied, but which has also since been proven. In other words, the only real support there has ever been for the "Bush lied" storyline came from a man who is himself a demonstrable liar. If we were Nick Kristof and the other writers who reported Mr. Wilson's facts as gospel, we'd be apologizing to our readers.

Yet, incredibly, Mr. Wilson has once again become the Democrats' favorite mascot because they want him as a prop for their "lied us into war" revival campaign. They must think the media are stupid, because so many Democrats are themselves on the record in the pre-Iraq War period as declaring that Saddam had WMD. Here is Al Gore from September 23, 2002, amid the Congressional debate over going to war: "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

Or Hillary Rodham Clinton, from October 10, 2002: "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. . . ."

Or Senator Jay Rockefeller, the Democratic Vice Chairman of the Intelligence Committee, who is now leading the "Bush lied" brigades (from October 10, 2002): "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. . . .We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." If Mr. Bush is a liar, what does the use of the phrase "unmistakable evidence" make Mr. Rockefeller? A fool?

The scandal here isn't what happened before the war. The scandal is that the same Democrats who saw the same intelligence that Mr. Bush saw, who drew the same conclusions, and who voted to go to war are now using the difficulties we've encountered in that conflict as an excuse to rewrite history. Are Republicans really going to let them get away with it?

Hat-tip: RealClearPolitics

I'm Not The Only One...

2005-11-01T08:11:00.000-07:00

...Wondering about hubbub surrounding oil company profits.

Over at Knowledge Problem, this post goes into more detail on why we should not tax windfall profits for oil companies.

For the Economically Illiterate

2005-10-31T16:28:00.000-07:00

Since when did it become a major ethical violation to benefit from the law of supply and demand? I continue to hear griping about the cost of gas and that it is the fault of the big bad oil companies.

Today's Denver Post Business section contains a story that starts out about gas prices going down. I was surprised to see this since you frequently see stories about the price of gas going up, but seldom see the story about it going down.

As I continued into the article, I noticed it was simply an opportunity for the Post to rehash a previous story they did on oil company profits:

"A Denver Post investigation last month found that record high gasoline prices were driven by oil refiner profit margins that had more than tripled in the past year. The nation's top five oil companies - Exxon Mobil, BP, Royal Dutch Shell, Chevron and ConocoPhillips - own 42 percent of U.S. refining capacity. "

My thinking today, as it was when I first read the story was, "So what?" Do I like paying more for gas? No. Am I going to blame the oil companies because I am so dependent on my car? No. That's like blaming the tobacco companies for making me smoke (I don't smoke by the way, but if I did, that is what it would be like).

I posted here about the rising cost of gas a couple months ago. Of course, it's all supply and demand. There is more demand than supply so the price goes up. That's it. But before you blame our dependence on foreign oil, keep in mind that there hasn't been a refinery built in the U.S. since the 1970s, which means that even if we took over the whole middle east and pumped all we could out of the ground, we wouldn't have the refining capacity to make it into gasoline. NIMBY attitudes have made it so difficult to build new refineries that the oil companies went ahead and made the ones they had more efficient and more profitable.

Can you blame them? There were years when oil was $10/barrel and they weren't making a whole lot of money. No one was sympathizing with them then.

Back to the article in the Post. My biggest concern is the fundamental lack of understanding that the people quoted in the story have about this topic:

"I know they're making record profits. Didn't Shell Oil make something like $9 billion in profits in the most recent quarter?" asked Dan Charogoff, 40, who was driving his employer's Chess Inc. truck. "As long as we have an oilman in the White House, oil companies will make big profits."

Actually Dan, it wouldn't matter who was in the White House right now, the situation would be the same. Actually, I take that back, with John Kerry in the White House, we probably would have had price caps leading to shortages and lines at the pump. I'm sure Dan would have liked that.

Chris Gallegos, 38, who owns Mr. Lucky's sandwich shop in Denver, said he didn't accept the explanation that gasoline prices rose after recent hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico damaged equipment and pipelines.

"You notice they're not raising prices after this current hurricane. People were outraged before," Gallegos said.

Chris, the last hurricane went from west to east through the Caribbean and across Florida. The oil platforms and refineries are on the north and west sides of the Gulf of Mexico, so naturally, they weren't impacted.

Another driver said she has changed her driving habits in recent weeks.

"It's frustrating that oil companies are taking advantage of the situation," said Paulene Meyer, 31, sitting in her Toyota Rav-4. "I haven't gone hiking a couple of times because I'm out by Lowry, and it's a good drive to get to the foothills."

Waaaaahhhhhh!!!! I can't go hiking because gas prices are too high and its the oil companies fault because instead of walking near my home, I have to drive for a pretty hike. Give me a break Pauline!

Does the Post go Jay (Leno) walking to find the biggest morons in town or are we as a society just that gullible to the crap that is spit out by the newspapers and the talking heads.

Knowledge is power!

Staying on Message

2005-10-07T08:26:00.000-06:00

Yesterday's speech by President Bush is the speech that he should have been giving everyday for the past three years. It is the also the speech that he should give everyday for the rest of his administration. If you haven't heard it, read it.

A few tidbits:
...Recently our country observed the fourth anniversary of a great evil, and looked back on a great turning point in our history. We still remember a proud city covered in smoke and ashes, a fire across the Potomac, and passengers who spent their final moments on Earth fighting the enemy. We still remember the men who rejoiced in every death, and Americans in uniform rising to duty. And we remember the calling that came to us on that day, and continues to this hour: We will confront this mortal danger to all humanity. We will not tire, or rest, until the war on terror is won...

...Some call this evil Islamic radicalism; others, militant Jihadism; still others, Islamo-fascism. Whatever it's called, this ideology is very different from the religion of Islam. This form of radicalism exploits Islam to serve a violent, political vision: the establishment, by terrorism and subversion and insurgency, of a totalitarian empire that denies all political and religious freedom. These extremists distort the idea of jihad into a call for terrorist murder against Christians and Jews and Hindus -- and also against Muslims from other traditions, who they regard as heretics...

...With the rise of a deadly enemy and the unfolding of a global ideological struggle, our time in history will be remembered for new challenges and unprecedented dangers. And yet the fight we have joined is also the current expression of an ancient struggle, between those who put their faith in dictators, and those who put their faith in the people. Throughout history, tyrants and would-be tyrants have always claimed that murder is justified to serve their grand vision -- and they end up alienating decent people across the globe. Tyrants and would-be tyrants have always claimed that regimented societies are strong and pure -- until those societies collapse in corruption and decay. Tyrants and would-be tyrants have always claimed that free men and women are weak and decadent -- until the day that free men and women defeat them...

...We don't know the course of our own struggle -- the course our own struggle will take -- or the sacrifices that might lie ahead. We do know, however, that the defense of freedom is worth our sacrifice. We do know the love of freedom is the mightiest force of history. And we do know the cause of freedom will once again prevail.

May God bless you.

Strategery

2005-10-05T08:37:00.000-06:00

Over at RealClearPolitics.com, Thomas Lifson comments on conservatives who can't see the strategy of nominating Harriett Miers:

President Bush is a politician trained in strategic thinking at Harvard Business School, and schooled in tactics by experience and advice, including the experience and advice of his father, whose most lasting political mistake was the nomination of David Souter. The nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court shows that he has learned his lessons well. Regrettably, a large contingent of conservative commentators does not yet grasp the strategy and tactics at work in this excellent nomination...

...These critics are playing the Democrats’ game. The GOP is not the party which idolizes Ivy League acceptability as the criterion of intellectual and mental fitness. Nor does the Supreme Court ideally consist of the nine greatest legal scholars of an era. Like any small group, it is better off being able to draw on abilities of more than one type of personality. The Houston lawyer who blogs under the name of Beldar wisely points out that practicing high level law in the real world and rising to co-managing partner of a major law firm not only demonstrates a proficient mind, it provides a necessary and valuable perspective for a Supreme Court Justice, one which has sorely been lacking...

Who Do You Trust?

2005-10-04T08:10:00.000-06:00

Reactions from all over the political spectrum are rolling in on President Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

There were initial reactions and then second-thought reactions, like this one and this one at Polipundit.

The talk radio waves were blowing up yesterday with the lament that an opportunity had been lost.

But Hugh Hewitt asked the question: Do you trust him? and Do you trust them?

In the first post, he calls on conservatives to trust the President, and although we don't know much about Miers, he does.

In the second post, he has a round-up of the endorsements for Miers, which include James Dobson.

The Wall Street Journal has an article this morning called, Faith-Based Nominee:

With the nomination yesterday of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, President Bush has fulfilled his promise to appoint Justices in the mold of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Or has he? The only person who can say for sure seems to be the President himself, who has known Ms. Miers for 20 years as his personal attorney and White House adviser.

For the rest of us, the nominee is mostly a Texas mystery. The 60-year-old has had a worthy career--any woman of that era who rose to lead a Dallas law firm, was elected to head the Texas Bar Association and became White House Counsel is no legal slouch. But when it comes to the judicial philosophy that she would bring to the Supreme Court, she is a blank public slate. Mr. Bush is asking the Senate, his supporters especially, to trust him on this one.

The President, who knows infinitely more about these matters than most Americans, including the pundits, has a plan.

Sure it is easy to question and second guess because we don't have to live with the legacy of being wrong. Back in 1991, when Clarence Thomas was nominated, National Review stated:

Truth be told, however, his public record on issues other than civil rights is still more Souteresque than Borkian. Hat-tip: Drudge

I doubt the folks at National Review would agree with this statement today.

Since I know little about the Supreme Court or con law, I will defer to the President. I will trust that he knows what he is doing and that he will represent the interests that I elected him to represent.

Porkbusters

2005-09-21T09:13:00.000-06:00

Ah, the blogosphere is swarming again, but this time it is to cut the fat in the federal government spending. Instapundit has the details on media attention.

Here's the Porkbusters website.

Check it out and ask your local congressmen and women to CUT THE FAT!!!

Technorati tag: porkbusters

UPDATE: Surely, you can't be serious! As of 12:30 PM Easter Time today, the only congressperson who has committed to cuts is Nancy Pelosi! Now, it's based on a statement on CNN so there may be others that haven't updated the site at TTLB, but come on Rebublicans, step up!

UPDATE #2: As you can see in my comments below, there is another site tackling this issue called Porkopolis which contains a spreadsheet showing specific pork earmarks for each state.

Broncoblogging

2005-09-19T08:38:00.000-06:00

After yesterday's 20-17 win over the Chargers, I reflected on the Broncos prospects for the season:

1. Offense is struggling, especially in the red zone, the same place as last year.

2. Special teams looked a little better, but honestly fellas, could the point after team stay on the sidelines until after the touchdown is called? There's no reason to hurry onto the field to kick the point after.

3. Defense was great, in the second half. However, I am sure the next opponent will employ all sorts of misdirection and play action to catch them off guard.

4. The biggest change the Broncos need to make is to get a new photo of Jake Plummer to CBS. This one makes him look like Jeff Foxworthy or a '70s porn star. Really, the 'stache just won't cut it.

Buffoon Quotient

2005-09-14T09:04:00.000-06:00

In my earlier post, I cited Hugh Hewitt's reference to Lilek's Buffoon Quotient. Now here's a real live example courtesy of Diane Feinstein:

"FEINTSTEIN: In a September 26th, 1983 memo to Fred Fielding, you rejected an alternative proposed constitutional amendment guaranteeing equal rights to women.

In 1982, you wrote a memo to then attorney general in which refer to the task force which was to conduct a government-wide review to determine those laws which discriminate on the basis of gender as the ladies' task force.

I mention these examples to highlight what appears to be either a very acerbic pen or else you really thought that way. Did you really think that way, and do you think that way today?

ROBERTS: Senator, I have always supported and support today equal rights for women, particularly in the workplace. I was very pleased when I saw, for example, the report of the National Association of Women Lawyers, who went out and talked and interviewed with women lawyers who have worked with me, who have appeared before me.

And the conclusion was that I not only always treated women lawyers with respect and equal dignity, but that I had made special accommodations for life/work issues to ensure that women could continue to progress, for example, at my law firm, and had always treated women who appeared before me in a perfectly professional way.

FEINSTEIN: Then why say those things?

ROBERTS: Well, let's take the first one you mentioned.

I'm -- it is to me, obvious, in the memo that I wrote to Fred Fielding that it was about whether or not it's good to have more lawyers. Whether they were from homemakers, from plumbers, from artists or truck drivers had nothing to do with it.

The point was, is it good to have more lawyers? That's the way I intended it, and I'm sure that's the way...

FEINSTEIN: And you don't think it was good to have more lawyers?

ROBERTS: I think there were probably -- the point that Mr. Fielding and I had commented on, on many occasions, was that in many areas there were too many lawyers.

And that's a common joke that goes back to Shakespeare. It has nothing to do with homemakers.

The notion that that was my view is totally inconsistent and rebutted by my life.

I married a lawyer. I was raised with three sisters who work outside the home. I have a daughter for whom I will insist at every turn that she has equal citizenship rights with her brother.

FEINSTEIN: I don't want to belabor it.

I'm just trying to understand how you think, because you appear -- you know, you speak about modesty and humility, and yet none of these comments are modest or humble.

ROBERTS: Well, those comments were in the nature of the tone that was encouraged in our office.

It was a small office. They expected return projects around very quickly. We were expected to be candid. And if making a joke about lawyers would make for a more enjoyable day on the part of the people in the office, that's what we did.

FEINSTEIN: So it's fair to say you don't think that way? Is that correct?

ROBERTS: Well, I don't think in any way that is based on anything other than full equal citizenship rights on the basis of gender.

I might tell a lawyer's joke that there are too many lawyers today, but that's all it was back then."

Obviously, Feinstein has no sense of humor.

Ready, Break!

2005-09-14T08:18:00.000-06:00

I got a good chuckle out of Hugh Hewitt's morning post as he paints the picture of what the Democrats will say in their morning huddle before the Roberts' confirmation hearings:

"When Senator Leahy pulls the Judiciary Committee Democrats together this morning, do you think he might say something like, 'Alright, folks, let's try and not make complete asses of ourselves again. That goes double for you Joe. Stay away from sports analogies and Schumer, for goodness sakes, leave the twenty-year old references to amigos out of it. I'll try and not slur my words if you'll let him finish a sentence Ted. Alright, go out there and show the world that at least one of us knows what we are talking about!'

Probably not, but he should. Long ago Lileks remarked on Senatitus, a peculiar condition affecting members of the 'greatest deliberative body in the world' that leaves them wholly unaware of their buffoon quotient, which is high even when in recess, and never higher than when preening on national television.

I confess, I am addicted to Slow Joe Biden. If he comes on the tube, I have to stop and stare, like every driver crawling past an overturned semi with ambulances and firetrucks and stretchers everywhere. Biden is quite simply the only cartoon with flesh I have ever seen, a wholly ridiculous fellow, but one who is completely unaware of his own absurdity."

Hurricane Katrina Predictions

2005-09-09T13:47:00.000-06:00

Polipundit has some predictions from an army reservist who has been helping with the Katrina clean-up. This is king of what I thought too:

1. Mayor Ray Nagin (D) estimated that fatalities would be as high as 10,000. While it is conceivable that area wide fatalities could in theory approach 3,000, I strongly believe that fatalities in NOLA, directly attributed to Katrina will be less than one thousand, (1,000).

2. Pat O’Brien’s will be serving “Hurricanes” again before Thanksgiving of this year.

3. The Mardi Gras Carnival Parade will go on “as scheduled” for February 28, 2006.

4. Within thirty days, electricity will be restored to a majority of NOLA.

5. Within thirty days, 90% of the city will by dry enough to access by civilian SUV.

6. Dependent on the restoration of water/sewer service, of which I have no first hand knowledge to comment, large numbers of NOLA residents will be going home by Thanksgiving.

7. Ninety percent, or more, of the residents that were displaced in NOLA will eventually return to the city in search of the now greatly expanded employment prospects in construction. However, the small percentage that does not return will change Louisiana politics permanently. Louisiana will join the rest of the “South” as a solid Republican State.

8. The funds allocated by Congress will not be completely used.

Especially the death toll, I think it will be shockingly lower than everyone expected, as evidenced by these early observations.

A Different View of Price Gouging

2005-09-07T11:50:00.000-06:00

From the "I-never-looked-at-it-that-way-before" departmentJohn Stossel's article about price gouging makes you stop and think:

"The people the softheaded politicians think are cruelest are doing the most to help. Assuming the demand for bottled water was going to go up, they bought a lot of it, planning to resell it at a steep profit. If they hadn't done that, that water would not have been available for the people who need it the most."

Some of these softheads include Senator Clinton, who has demanded an inquiry into the oil companies. I say go ahead and do your inquiry. As a taxpayer, I'll support it. On the condition that after the inquiry is conducted and the results show that there is no evidence to support the charge of price gouging, Senator Clinton goes on the record aplogizing and saying, "I was wrong."

Hey, I can dream can't I?