RCox wrote a very interesting account of being a credentialed blogger at CPAC. As far as I know this is one of the first events when bloggers were officially recognized and credentialed, but as RCox indicates, whatever colored "tag" bloggers are given by the credentialing people (green at CPAC), we are still not treated as media when it comes to access to newsmakers. This seems particularly distrubing, since as RCox indicated Unlike when I am sitting in my pajamas plotting the downfall of yet another news anchor, at CPAC I had to wear pants and everything. Gee, you would have thought that by wearing pants, it would have been easier for him to be able to interview people. <grin>
At least the CPAC bloggers had their own laptops. John Fund, highly respected Wall Street Journal columnist, apparently did not have his own, and did not want to wait in line in the media center to use one of the machines TownHall.com provided for the press, so he went into blogger's corner and took over a blogger's laptop twice.
Tuesday, March 01, 2005
Crossing Over
Mission based on love
Dems have been fighting President Bush's Faith Based Initiative because they oppose anything related to faith. Today in his speech:
to the Faith-Based Agenda at Leadership Conference, President Bush said Government has got to find ways to empower those whose mission is based upon love in order to help those who need love find love in society.
The Dems are opposed to expressions of faith. I wonder if they are also opppsed to expressions of "love", and helping those who need love find love in society.
World's greatest argument against raising the wage cap
Hat tip to Social Security Choice for noticing the World's greatest argument against raising the wage cap.
Paul Krugman wrote an article Just Say No in which he said "As a result, an increase in the payroll tax maximum would make it much harder to pass other tax increases"
I have always assumed that passing other tax increases was the main objective of Democrats, but I want to thank Paul for confirming that for me.
Paul indicated that some Republicans are reported to be talking about a compromise in which they would agree to some kind of tax increase, probably a rise in the maximum level of earnings subject to the payroll tax. They would offer to use the revenue from that tax increase, rather than borrowed funds, to establish private accounts, thereby assuaging fears about the huge debt buildup that would take place under the administration's plan.
That part is consistent with the Dems opposition to doing anything about creating private accounts in Social Security, but Paul is so opposed to it that he goes on and says "They might even agree to make private accounts an add-on to traditional benefits, not a replacement. But it would still be a bad deal. Creating private accounts in the current environment, no matter how they are financed, would be a mistake."
Even the AARP encourages people to have their own private investment accouts, they just back the Democrats in opposing them within in Social Security.
Hat tip to Social Security Choice
TCS leaders and their spouses
In the past six months the Tulsa Computer Society lost a former President Bruce Carson and the spouse of another former President Ruby McKee
The Making Of A 9/11 Republican
SFgate.com ran an opinion piece by Cinnamon Stillwell entitled The Making Of A 9/11 Republican.
Having been indoctrinated in the postcolonialist, self-loathing school of multiculturalism, I thought America was the root of all evil in the world...... So, what happened to change all that? In a nutshell, 9/11. The terrorist attacks on this country were not only an act of war but also a crime against humanity. It seemed glaringly obvious to me at the time, and it still does today. But the reaction of my former comrades on the left bespoke a different perspective. The day after the attacks, I dragged myself into work, still in a state of shock, and the first thing I heard was one of my co-workers bellowing triumphantly, "Bush got his war!" There was little sympathy for the victims of this horrific attack, only an irrational hatred for their own country.
Thoroughly disgusted by the behavior of those on the left, I began to look elsewhere for support. To my astonishment, I found that the only voices that seemed to me to be intellectually and morally honest were on the right. Suddenly, I was listening to conservative talk-show hosts on the radio and reading conservative columnists, and they were making sense. When I actually met conservatives, I discovered that they did not at all embody the stereotypes with which I'd been inculcated as a liberal.....
So I became what's now commonly known as a "9/11 Republican." Living in a time of war, disenchanted with the left and disappointed with the obstructionism and lack of vision of the Democratic Party, I threw in my hat with the only party that seemed to be offering solutions, rather than simply tearing away at our country. I went from voting for Ralph Nader in 2000 to proudly casting my ballot for George W. Bush in 2004.
See other writings by Cinnamon Stillwell
Hat tip to LittleGreenFootballs
Monday, February 28, 2005
Lieberman Can Still Think For Himself
ThinkProgress is upset, because it appears that Joe Lieberman can still think for himself on the issue of Social Security.
In 1998 he realized I think in the end that individual control of part of the retirement/Social Security funds has to happen
In 2000 he backtracked and said For a while I was drilling into this idea of privatization of Social Security. It requires taking as much as a trillion dollars out of the Social Security fund. The independent analysts have said that would put the fund out of money in 2023, or if it’s not out of money, benefits will have to be cut by over 50%. That’s just not worth doing.
In 2005 he started thinking for himself again Some of these centrists, such as Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., have been meeting with Republican colleagues to discuss whether there is a middle ground.
Lebanese ministers resign office
BBC News reports Lebanese ministers resign office
Lebanon's Prime Minister Omar Karimi has announced he and his government are resigning, two weeks after the murder of former PM Rafik Hariri.
The move comes as crowds protest in Beirut, calling for Syrian troops to leave the country.
Hat tip to Drudge
Yahoo ran a Reuter's report from 42 minutes ago
As PowerLine said "It seems that Middle Easterners may not be so different from everyone else after all: when they see an opportunity to live normal lives, they seize it. Next stop, Iran?"
As Andrew Sullivan said: I think even the fiercest critics of president Bush's handling of the post-liberation phase in Iraq will still be thrilled at what appears to me to be glacial but important shifts in the right direction in the region. The Iraq elections may not be the end of the Middle East Berlin Wall, but they certainly demonstrate its crumbling. The uprising against Syria's occupation of Lebanon is extremely encouraging; Syria's attempt to buy off some good will by coughing up Saddam's half-brother is also a good sign; ditto Mubarak's attempt to make his own dictatorship look more democratic. Add all of that to the emergence of Abbas and a subtle shift in the Arab media and you are beginning to see the start of a real and fundamental change. Almost all of this was accomplished by the liberation of Iraq. Nothing else would have persuaded the thugs and mafia bosses who run so many Arab nations that the West is serious about democracy. The hard thing for liberals - and I don't mean that term in a pejorative sense - will be to acknowledge this president's critical role in moving this region toward democracy. In my view, 9/11 demanded nothing less. We are tackling the problem at the surface - by wiping out the institutional core of al Qaeda - and in the depths - by tackling the autocracy that makes Islamo-fascism more attractive to the younger generation. This is what we owed to the victims of 9/11. And we are keeping that trust.
The dominos are falling
Battle beween lefties
The Washington Examiner printed a very funny exchange of emails between University of Southern California professor Susan Estrich and Michael Kinsley, opinion and editorial editor at the L.A. Times.
Hat tip to Andrew Sullivan
Update 3/7/05:
As Pete The Elder noted, Deacon at Powerline suggests the Susan Estrich start a blog, but as Junk Yard Blog reports she already tried that.
JunkYardDog indicated LATimesBias at one time appeared to be Susan Estrich's blog (it is no longer a blog), and as B. Preston said If "Stop the Bias" is Susan Estrich's blog, it would explain quite a bit. On the blog she writes in all caps, often, a sign that she cannot make her points without resorting to the internet equivalent of yelling at the top of her lungs. Her sentences go nowhere and often make no sense. She can't carry an argument past the first clause in a sentence, let alone sustain it for an entire post. There is no logic to any of the posts there other than a kind of "I am woman, here me roar" schtick that wore old circa 1978. So if "Stop the Bias" is Susan Estrich's blog, the mystery of why the LA Times doesn't publish her editorials is solved: The Times doesn't publish Susan Estrich because she is a lousy writer. Period.
Immigration
Michaelle Malkin referred to a post by PoliPundit which she says is a simple, humane, effective plan. It was based on some questions from The Hedgehog Blog.
What is your plan, and how will you get it enacted?
PolPundit wants to crack down on employeers who don't check social security numbers by using a pilot program for an Internet-based Social Security number verification service that can verify up to 10 SSNs instantaneously.
Gee that sounds nice. Fake document producers will have an ability to run 10 numbers through the system to find one that will check out, and then they can make up a false social security card for an illegal.
Clearly this will not work until we get identification cards that are not so easy to forge.
Do you really think the American public has the stomach to see 10 million people deported, many of whom have been here all their lives?
We are making a mistake if we worry about whether we should kick out illegals or whether we should let them stay. We need a system with an ID card that is difficult, if not impossible, to forge, and then make sure employeers check for that ID card. I really don't care whether we provide them that card here in the US for an illegal that has been here all his life, or whether he has to get it at the border coming in. He should not be able to get a job without it, and it should indicate whether he is a citizen or not, and if he is not a citizen we should be able to track him.
If the public is not ready to do that, are you prepared to see the Republican Party spend the political capital necessary to convince them?
I really do not care whether we deport the 10 million that are here now and make them come through the border again to get a secure ID card, or whether we provide it here in the country.
I have no problem with Bush's Guest Worker program. But whether the workers for that program are here already or come over to fill a need, they should have an unforgable ID card that says whether they are citizens or not.
Sunday, February 27, 2005
13 States to Raise High School Standards
As GOP Bloggers indicated "13 States to Raise High School Standards"
This is very good news, and it ties in with Bush's Education Initiative
For recent news items related to Education see my site
The education system has been going downhill for years. I am 62, and when my Mother was in college she was called in by the Dean of the College of Education and chewed out for cutting classes. She told him she never cut any of the important classes; the only classes she cut were the Education classes. He was not amused, but my mother realized that the garbage they taught in the Education classes was just not worth while.
We need to test teachers for what they know about the subject they are to teach, and ignore the garbage about HOW to teach.
Terri Schiavo
Most of the bloggers on this subject, including Michael Bates and Powerpundit and Discarded Lies seem to question Michael Schiavo's right to say that Terri would not want to be kept alive in her situation. I agree with Blogs for Bush it is unfortunate that she did not put her desires down in a Living Will, and hopefully her situation will prompt people to make one out, regardless of whether you would want to be kept alive in a situation like Terri's or whether you would want to be allowed to die.
But I wonder two things.
- Since February 1990 when Terri collapsed in her home and has been kept alive despite her husband's statement she would not want to be kept alive under circumstances like this, how many babies have been killed by doctors just because that was their mother's CHOICE, without anone considering what the baby's choice might be
- How much money has been spent on hospital and doctors charges keeping Terri alive since February 1990, and how many people who are conscious and who clearly say they want to live but who die anyway could have been kept alive with that money
Encouraging Signs
As BatesLine says in The dash (to the right) of Cinnamon there are encouraging signs as the Democrats' vacillating response to Islamofascism are driving otherwise liberal voters to become "9/11 Republicans".
Friday, February 25, 2005
David Frum on Social Security
As PBS Watch noted, David Frum at National Review online gets it exactly right on the Social Security "Trust Fund." As David said on Feb. 22: Nobody is denying that the bonds and notes in the Social Security Trust Fund are valid. Of course they are. But when Democrats make this point, they are turning what is really an economic question into a legal one. Yes, yes, yes, the bonds are a binding obligation of the United States government. But the Dems want us to believe that they are also a valuable resource for the United States government - and that is hooey.
Yes, if you or I owned a big bunch of US government bonds, we'd feel pretty comfortable. We could cash them and retire to enjoy our claim on the future labor of others. But it does not do the US government much good to own a big bunch of its own bonds.
The Trust Fund is and always has been a dodge, in this sense: the economic problem of Social Security would be precisely the same if the Trust Fund had never been invented in the first place. It will not make the job of finding the money to pay the promised benefits even an iota easier after 2018 that the US government engages in a preliminary round of bond-cashing. It will still have to raise other taxes or cut other spending, just as if the Fund did not exist.
And as David said on Feb 23: Franklin Roosevelt separated Social Security from general revenues to create the illusion that this redistributive pension system was instead an individual saving plan. Because individuals were led to believe that they were getting back only what they had paid in, plus interest of course, they were persuaded to feel a stronger entitlement than they might have felt had they realized that some were getting back a whole lot more than they paid in and others rather less.
For that reason, Democrats have historically resisted what might seem like the obvious left-wing fix to the system: ie, scrap the whole thing, abolish the regressive payroll tax, raise income taxes, and fund pensions out of general revenues. That fix would have let the cat out of the bag. And so Democrats rejected Moynihan's tactically cunning solution as ultimately strategically unwise - and instead went along with a payroll tax increase that may have injured the people the Democrats claimed as their constituents, but nonetheless preserved what many Democrats regarded as an essential illusion.
As PBS Watch said the Social Security "Trust Fund" bonds are not in the same category as other Treasury bonds. If the government failed to pay on any ordinary treasury bonds, all treasury bond holders would immediately get the word and an economic panic of global proportions would ensue. However, there is only one holder of Social Security "Trust Fund" bonds, the U.S. government itself, which need not panic if Social Security is modified. If Congress decides to reduce, delay, or otherwise modify Social Security benefits, that amounts to a default on the "Trust Fund" bonds, no other type of default is available. But no panic need necessarily ensue, depending on how the change is handled politically. Any panic resulting from a "Trust Fund" default will be a politically engineered panic. Holders of real Treasury bonds should in fact be reassured by any move that takes the pressure of "Trust Fund" bonds. Their holdings would be incrementally more secure as a result.
GOPBlogers described Paul O'Neil's Retirement Plan which proposed that the federal government invest $2,000 for every newborn American, adding $2,000/year for each year until the child reaches age 18. Without adding a single cent beyond compounding after the child turns 18, he or she would retire at age 65 with $1,013,326 in the account, O'Neill reckons.
I don't know that I agree with Paul O'Neil's plan but it does show why the Democrats are so opposed to any form of privatization:
- They would not be able to spend that part of the SSI tax that the government put into the private plans. Since the primary purpose of the Democrats is to raise as much money in taxes that it can, and then spend that money to keep themselves in power, they are horrified at the thought that they might lose 30% of the SSI income stream and that those funds might be placed outside of their reach. They don't understand that it is the taxpayer's money; they view it as the government's money and they want it all.
- Once someone had enough in their private plan that could support them in retirement, they would not worry about what the government might or might not do with social insecurity so the Dems could not scare them on this topic.
- If a person owned his own retirement plan, and not the government, the Democrats fear they might become Republicans
Thursday, February 24, 2005
Who the Hell Do You Think You Bloggers Are?
PowerPundit referred to a post by IMAO which asked Who the Hell Do You Think You Bloggers Are?
- Who the hell do you think you are?
I am a citizen of the United States of America, and I vote in every major election. Before I became disabled, I voted in every election, but now that I have to have someone help me to the polls, I sometimes skip minor elections. - So, other than blogging, what's your job? Do you work at some fast food joint, dumbass?
I am disabled so I no longer have a job, but when I did I was a computer programmer, systems analyst, systems programmer, and consultant. - Do you have like any experience in journalism, idiot?
I am literate, i.e. I am able to both read and write (something I am not sure schools today teach the students). - Do you even read newspapers?
I certainly read the Tulsa Tribune when it existed. Now Tulsa just has the Tulsa World so I just read the online websites of many newspapers, including New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, and many others. - Do you watch any other news than FOX News propaganda, you ignorant fool?
Every Sunday I watch some of the Sunday Morning News Shows by the broadcast channels and CNN, just to see what the extreme left wing is saying - I bet you're some moron talk radio listener too, huh?
I seldom listen to the radio - So, do you get a fax from the GOP each day for what to say, you @#$% Republican parrot?
I do not have a fax machine, and I am capable of thinking for myself. Do you rely on daily faxes from the Dems? - Why do you and your blogger friends want to silence and fire everyone who disagrees with you, fascist?
I don't. I certainly read some conservative blogs, but I also read several left wing blogs, and I attempt to engage them in reasoned discussions. I find that most of them are incapable of reasoned discussions, however. - Are you completely ignorant of other countries, or do you actually own a passport?
It has now expired, but I certainly did have one before I became disabled. - Have you even been to another country, you dumb hick?
I have physically been to Mexico, Britain, Netherlands, Italy, Greece, Israel, and Kenya and I work on refurbishing computers which have been sent to a number of additional countries. What about you? - If you're so keen on the war, why haven't you signed up, chickenhawk?
I am 62 years old and disabled - Do you have any idea of the horrors of war? Have you ever reached into a pile of goo that was your best friend's face?
No - Have you ever reached into any pile of goo?
You seem preocupied with goo. You need to stop reading Daily Kos and Atrios - Once again, who the hell do you think you are?!
I am a citizen of the United States of America, a taxpayer, and a voter. Who are you to ask?
Tuesday, February 22, 2005
Graham Says Bush Will Build Support for Social Security Plan
Bloomberg said Graham indicated he would present a plan within the next couple of weeks that provides the outline for a compromise with Democrats that would allow workers who earn under $30,000 to receive the same benefit increases they're entitled to under current law. Workers earning more than $30,000 would have their increases tied to inflation, which would reduce their overall benefits, he said. ``You're putting that benefit burden on people who can afford it the most.''
TalkingPointsMemo indicated the group consists of Baucus (D), Carper (D), Collins (R), Conrad (D), Feinstein (D), Graham (R), Grassley (R), Gregg (R), Lieberman (D), Lincoln (D), Ben Nelson (D), and Bill Nelson (D).
Social Security Myth #3: Social Security Generates "Returns"
This post from GOP Bloggers identifies the real problem with Social Security: Social Security provides absolutely no "return" at all for people who pay payroll taxes all their lives.
The word "return" implies that there is a linkage between what you put in and what you take out. What you receive in Social Security benefits has nothing to do with what you contribute. Congress dictates benefits, which, therefore, can change at any time. We are each at the mercy of politicians who can alter what the system pays out.
The allure of private accounts is that what you pay in is yours and directly impacts your nest egg upon retirement. Congress cannot touch it and you will not have to plan you retirement based on the whims of politicians to dole out monthly allowances at levels they can change whenever they want. The ultmiate question is this: whom do you trust to manage your retirement money, yourself or Congress?
Are the PRAs that government workers and Congress risky schemes?
If so, why does Congress not change it?
And if not, why would they be risky for everyone else?
Two Families, Two Views on Social Security
This article seems to clarify things without the extremes that many are saying about Bush's Social Security proposal.
As I said in a comment on that blog, Reality lies somewhere between the Greenans and the Swackhamers, and the solution also lies between the extremes. Right now the Democrats, who supported Clinton's claim that there was a crisis that needed to be fixed, now scream there is no crisis, because they want to delay things until they can get someone in the White House to push for a solution that only involves a tax increase (their solution to everything).
If Social Security is to be fixed the Republicans must draw enough Democrats over with the offer to raise the cap (which is a tax on the rich that would not hurt the middle and lower incomes), and at the same time direct 30% of SSI taxes to Private Accounts.
BatesLine: On death row
BatesLine said: The judge has denied all stays of execution, and it may be beyond the Governor's powers to grant clemency. Today at 1 p.m. Eastern time, the attorney of Terri Schiavo's estranged husband will order the removal of Terri's feeding tube and allow her to starve to death in a Clearwater, Florida, hospice.
As I posted in a comment on his site: I hope and pray that if I am ever in a situation like Terri Schiavo, and if I have a loved one that understands I would not want to be kept alive in such a situation and is willing to let me go, that we will not find special interest groups and bloggers uniting to try to push for legislation or government action to force me to be maintained in such a terrible state and prevent me from Going Home to be with Jesus.
One of the other bloggers referred to this site and said the Second District's opinion in the first appeal in this case explains: By mid 1996, the CAT scans of her brain showed a severely abnormal structure. At this point, much of her cerebral cortex is simply gone and has been replaced by cerebral spinal fluid. Medicine cannot cure this condition. Unless an act of God, a true miracle, were to recreate her brain, Theresa will always remain in an unconscious, reflexive state, totally dependent upon others to feed her and care for her most private needs. and in a later opinion in the same case, the Second District further explained:"Although the physicians are not in complete agreement concerning the extent of Mrs. Schiavo's brain damage, they all agree that the brain scans show extensive permanent damage to her brain. The only debate between the doctors is whether she has a small amount of isolated living tissue in her cerebral cortex or whether she has no living tissue in her cerebral cortex."
If I am ever in such a state, or anything like it, please don't force me to stay here, but allow me to Go Home to be with Jesus.
Monday, February 21, 2005
Baathist Surrender In Works?
As PowerLine indicated This could come to nothing but it could also be the best news from Iraq in a long time.
It is beginning to look as though the election was even more of a turning point than we realized at the time.
