View from the Center

Torts Case Appears in Miers Battle

2005-10-04T08:42:00.000-04:00

A case from our Torts class (Fisher v. Carroussel Motor Hotel, 414 S.W.2d 774 (Tex. Civ. App. 1967)) has appeared in the debate over the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. It seems Justice-designate Miers wrote a law review note on the subject.

Some Domestic Issues...

2004-11-05T13:48:00.000-05:00

There are some domestic issues I do agree with.

1. Social Security Reform -- I don't know how to fix it. I wish I did. The simple fact is that the current system is not sustainable. I'm not planning on ever seeing the money from my checks again, because I know the system has to change. My dad draws a social security check and it's critical to my parents financial state. However, I recognize that with the retiring boomers the system just doesn't work. It's been morphed from a system for keeping the very old among us from living in poverty to trying to provide a retirement for all of us. When the retirement age was set, it was longer than the average life expectancy. We have to come up with a plan. The short-term costs will likely be large and painful, but long-term something has to be done. We can't just pretend it will get better.

2. Tax Reform -- I tend to think the tax system is broken. I'm not sure how to fix it either (I don't pretend to have all the answers or even most of them). I do think that loopholes do need to be closed. I do think that the tax code needs to encourage savings and investment. I do think the tax code needs to be progressive, but must not reduce incentives for innovation, hard work and earnings.

Long time no post... catching up.

2004-11-05T13:33:00.000-05:00

It's been some time since my last post. I'm glad Bush won the election. I voted for him despite my state and county's overwhelming support for Kerry. I appreciate the calls for unity from both Bush and Kerry. Both the victory and concession speeches were good I thought. I do hope that Bush and his team don't misread this victory. I supported Bush because I think the war on terror is the most important issue facing us and I think he's right on it. However, I don't agree with all of his positions and policies. I think that is probably the case with a lot of voters. I've always felt comfortable being a Republican because I felt the party made room for those like me. Groups like the Republican Youth Majority (http://www.rym.org -- it's a terrible site) have reinforced that belief. I hope that Republicans recognize this and do not make an effort to squeeze moderates out of the party.

The recent conservative outrage over Arlen Spector's comments make me more concerned about this. Fifty-nine million Americans did not endorse the Republican party platform, but we picked the issue most important to each of us and cast a vote for Bush on that issue. I am comfortable with my vote as I'm sure most of my fellow Bush voters are with theirs. However, I have a deep respect for much the left stands for, even if I often think their specific policies are wrongheaded or misguided. I think the vast majority of Americans probably fall somewhere near me on the political scale. If Republicans choose a moral crusade based on their victory and what I feel are likely extremely flawed exit poll information, they may drive me and millions more like me away. The statements of some elected Republicans, such as Jim Demint and Coburn worry me. I find intolerance in the name of religion to twist the purpose of the Bible. I hope that they moderate their tone. I hope that as a moderate, I can continue to be comfortable with my Republican label.

Good Job Growth Numbers

2004-11-05T09:54:00.000-05:00

Payroll jobs jumped by 337,000 in October... which is great news. With revisions, we now count 450,000 more jobs than were initially reported in September. With the benchmark revisions due out in February, it looks like all of the jobs lost during the recession and stagnant economic period following will have been regained by the time Bush leaves office. I'd expect some more revisions over the next couple months that will make the numbers look even better--similiar to GWB's father.

WMD Missing? Is it a big deal?

2004-10-07T09:59:00.000-04:00

The press is making much of the new report from the U.S.'s chief weapons inspector in Iraq, which determined that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction and had not attempted to produce any since 1991. Meanwhile, WorldNetDaily has an article with photos of what they believe to have been a mobile bio-weapons lab that was found in Iraq. The story contains a breakdown of the components in the trailer and details the facts relating to how unlikely any use other than bio-weapons would have been for such equipment.

Regardless, I think the press is burying or missing the bigger issue. The report also states that the sanction regime on Iraq was "unsustainable." Further, the report concluded that Saddam intended to pursue WMD once the sanctions were lifted. The argument that the Bush administration took their collective eye off the ball to go after Iraq is necessarily weak. A continued deployment in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other countries designed to contain Saddam might have avoided an immediate war, but it would have also continued to tie up troops that would be needed for engagements in either Korea or Iran.

Also, I find it ironic that Hans Blix has determined that with a couple more months the weapons inspectors could have determined that Saddam had no WMD. Inspectors for 12 years (including, of course, the years that Saddam blatantly disregarded UN sanctions requiring his cooperation and the presence of inspectors) were unable to determine conclusively that Iraq did not posses WMD. Furthermore, his position ignores the fact that his last report to the UN prior to the UN invasion stated that Iraq was not fully cooperating.

Additionally, the media (and Hans Blix) are ignoring the requirements of the cease-fire agreement that ended the first Gulf War and the subsequent resolutions. They required Saddam to prove that Iraq had disarmed. All of the requirements were placed upon him, none of them required the U.S., the UN or any other nation or body to prove that he did possess them. His actions which concealed this apparent reality and his failure to fully cooperate with the inspections regime left him in violation of these UN resolutions. The UN's failure to act on Saddam's flaunting of the UN resolutions and its recent inability to even provide sanctions against Sudan for its murderous actions in Darfur only reinforce the belief that the UN is a toothless body.

The media’s attempt to blame the Bush administration for this failure of intelligence seems ridiculous. The intelligence services of Britain, France, Spain, Germany, the United States and other nations all agreed that Saddam was harboring WMD. The difference is that President Bush, Spain’s PM Aznar, Tony Blair, John Howard, and our other allies in Iraq had the courage and conviction to act against what most nations agreed was a cruel dictator who possessed weapons capable of killing thousands or millions of his own citizens or citizens in neighboring countries.

One can’t help but wonder if the unwillingness of France and Russia to act on their own intelligence relates to the oil-for-food program corruption. Saddam was able to siphon off over $11 billion intended to feed Iraqi families for use in smuggling weapons components into Iraq—including weapons systems. Coalition troops have found missiles in Iraq with ranges in excess of those allowed by UN sanctions.

Further, arguments that Iraq weakens our position with North Korea are superfluous at best. U.S. intelligence believes that North Korea developed its first nuclear weapons prior to Bush taking office. This makes any form of military engagement in the Korean peninsula highly undesirable. North Korea has the ability to deliver weapons, conventional and otherwise, into major cities, such as Seoul and Tokyo. Casualties among civilians and U.S. military forces in the area would dwarf those in Iraq. The key to success in dealing with North Korea is China. As North Korea’s primary ally, they are in a unique position to force North Korea’s hand. It is essential that the U.S. continue to insist that China play its role in resolving the crisis on the Korean Peninsula.

The choice presented to the U.S. and our allies was to remove a threat to world order or to maintain a status quo system that was “unsustainable,” though partly effective. To allow a cruel tyrant, whose regime murdered thousands or more of its citizens, who murdered tyrants, who used chemical and biological weapons in the past, or to remove him and move on to a new front in the war on terror? Today, we are still in a battle for the future of Iraq—fighting alongside freedom loving Iraqis and soldiers from other nations. It has always been the U.S. role to serve as a beacon of freedom to the world, a symbol of the power of self-governance and rule by the people. When has the United States ever measured what is right and just by the number of lives or the money it takes to achieve those goals.

I, for one, am proud to see the United States stand up for the freedom of repressed people. I, for one, am emboldened that we take the security of those burdened by the terrorist actions of others as seriously as our own security. I, for one, am sure in my belief that freedom will win over fear.

P.O. Box not real?

2004-09-10T16:02:00.000-04:00

The address on the letterhead from the Bush Guard memos is:

P.O. Box 34567
Houston, Texas 77034

However, according to the U.S.P.S., P.O. Box 34567 in Houston Texas is in zip code 77234. You can enter the P.O. Box and City, State here yourself and see what you get...

There is a possibility that the Zip Code has changed since 1972, but this is also on the U.S.P.S. Site:

ZIP Codes for PO Boxes usually do not change, though the ZIP+4® will likely
include a code in the plus four that designates the actual PO Box. For further information regarding this, contact the local Post Office™ will have that information.

Not to mention the strange sequential numbers...

UPDATE: It appears that others have confirmed that this is the actual address used for the Air National Guard at that time. It appears a zip code realignment occurred in Houston changing the zip codes.

Oh, Really?

2004-09-10T14:37:00.000-04:00

This from a chat today with WashingtonPost.com Chief Political Correspondent:

Terry Neal: This is a fascinating story. I have to confess, it's not a something that I've been working on, one way or another. So I don't have any insider information that I can offer you on the question of the authenticity of the documents. If the documents are proven to be fake, I'm sure it will play right into the hands of people who believe there is a vast left-wing conspiracy in the media to bring down the president--this despite the fact that the media was also who raised the issue about the documents' veracity in the first place. (see the front-page story in the Washington Post today by Michael Dobbs and Mike Allen) I don't know what's going to happen. But if the documents do prove to be forged, it will demonstrate more than anything else that even good journalists can be fooled too.

I'm sure the folks over at Free Republic, Powerline, Little Green Footballs, INDC Journal and Instapundit would be shocked to know that media uncovered the forgeries. Who knew? Certainly, not the Chicago Sun-Times. The word has gone out... circle the wagons, defend the fort, the Blogs are coming, the Blogs are coming!

AP Shocked People Notice Bogus Story; Big Media on the Case

2004-09-07T16:55:00.000-04:00

OK, maybe it's not big media... but at least someone who shows up as News on Google is looking into the AP booing claim... It looks like at least one reporter from MichNews.com is working to get to the bottom of the AP booing scandal... it's good to see there are some good reporters still out there. If only the AP cared about journalistic credibility and integrity as much... Also noticed, the piece points out that the Knight-Ridder wire carried a similar phony account...

UPDATE: Richard Roeper at the Sun-Times also notes the correction.

UPDATE: The Modesto Bee saw fit to publish a correction.

Washington Post in Denial?

2004-09-04T14:27:00.000-04:00

According to the Washington Post, the speech failed to sway undecided voters, but it looks like it swayed not only undecided, but also Kerry voters according to the latest Newsweek and Time polls. Futher, an MSNBC focus group found 13 of 21 undecided voters went for Bush after the speech. Not to mention the two liberal suberban dwellers Allah cites at AllahPundit.

Clearly every undecided won't be swayed, but to pretend that none were seems just plain ridiculous. Maybe they are living in the world where everything goes their way. The fact that their front page seems to not mention either the Time or Newsweek poll is very interesting and seems to support this belief.

UPDATE: I thought maybe they only report Washington Post-ABCNews Polls, but a Google search of Washington Post new stories found stories mentioning Zogby polls, CBS polls, and CNN/USA Today/Gallop polls. It's even more interesting when you consider that The Washington Post Company owns Newsweek.

UPDATE: Beldar notes that the LA Times has a completely different take than the Washington Post... "Convention Helps Bush Gain Undecided Voters" The media seems confused.

11 Points It Is...

2004-09-04T14:06:00.000-04:00

A two day poll by Princeton Survey Research Associates International for Newsweek seems to confirm the Time Bounce... 52% - 41%. This is just registered voters and not likely voters, but it's a big jump from the poll at the end of July which was 49%-42% for Kerry.

It looks like America agrees that Bush's speech was good... He received a 5 point bump between the two days of the poll from 49% - 43% for Bush on 9/2 to 54% - 38% on 9/3 after the speech. That's a whopping 16 point advantage after the speech! Very importantly, the poll found Bush leading among Independents, 45% - 40%. He also leads among women (50% - 43%). He leads in every age bracket, except those 18-29, where he is tied (45% - 45%).

Even without Nader in the mix, Bush still holds an 11-point lead (54% - 43%). 53 % said they want to see Bush reelected... the HIGHEST PERCENTAGE ever in the poll (since November 2002).

This lead probably won't hold up through the two months left until election day. However, this has to have the Kerry camp terrified.

More Media Bias (at the AP)

2004-09-03T22:07:00.000-04:00

A scandal is (or should be) brewing over at the AP over a report run on their wire that the crowd at a Bush rally booed when President Bush said former President Clinton were in their thoughts and prayers. The report went on to say Bush did nothing to stop it. After complaints from some who were at the rally, that there was no booing. The AP retracted the story and ran an almost identical version without the claim of booing. Glenn Reynolds has picked up this scandal and has the wire story and corrected story on InstaPundit. It looks like this isn't the first time this reporter has had problems.

The problem with the AP story is that as of 10:15 PM Google News had 44 stories citing the crowd booing. I see one story from an NBC affiliate in Chicago saying:

"The Associated Press originally reported that the mention of Clinton's name brought boos from the crowd, but the AP retracted the report citing uncertainties about how to characterize the crowd's reaction."

This is only half a correction--the fact is the reporter made it up. This reporter is the only addition I hope we see to the unemployment rolls next month. This level of bias is unacceptable and much more rare than the bias usually present in the media (slightly tilted stories, misleading labels, unfair coverage levels, and ignoring stories that challenge the liberal view).

UPDATE: Reynolds has a letter from a reader whose neighbors attended the rally and said that "there was no way to mistake their cheers for boos." The reader continued, "This AP story is one of the most blatant examples of press bias I have seen..." I couldn't agree more.

11 Points?

2004-09-03T18:49:00.000-04:00

Clearly the President is seeing some sort of bounce... All the convention polls show some sort of shift to Bush. Rasmussen now has Bush with the largest lead he's had in months-- 49% vs 45%. A MSNBC focus group in Ohio seemed to go for Bush. Allah notes two liberal Cleveland suburb dwellers are sounding a lot like Bush voters as well. I think this goes back to my statement that voters will choose security come election day.

Of course, the big bounce comes from the Time Poll. It shows Bush leading 52% - 41%. Now, I hope it holds, but part of me thinks this is some sort of anomally in the data. It seems AWFULLY strong for Bush. The other numbers are interesting too... Bush leads Kerry on the economy by 2 points (49%-47%), Iraq by 12 (53%-41%), terrorism by 21 (57%-36%), taxes by 9 (49%-40%), and commanding the armed forces by 15 (54%-39%). This has got to have the Kerry camp scared.

Be sure to read this article in the SF Chronicle. Allah points out that this may be the ebst postscript to the conventions. I have to agree... This piece hits the nail on the head in a lot of ways.

My Take on the President's Speech

2004-09-03T16:35:00.000-04:00

I know that no one has been waiting with baited breath for my analysis of the President's speech, but I'm going to give it anyway. I wanted to give it some time to sink in, before I posted, so I could contrast my initial reaction with a more measured one.

Initially, I felt the President made a strong case for a second term and made me feel better about casting a vote for him. His speech touched on many important (and politically astute) issues, before moving into a stirring speech on America's role in the world and closing strongly with an emotional segment that served to humanize him. Overall, he seemed more confident and comfortable in his presentation than I've ever seen him, except, possibly, immediately after 9/11.

My reaction a day later, is pretty much the same. I felt his presentation had more depth than Kerry's acceptance speech and did a much better job of laying out the goals of a second Bush term than Kerry did the goals of a first Kerry term. The petulent response of Kerry to the speech later that night only served to underline this belief.

The Speech

Bush starts with a brief tribute to the heros of 9/11. It was a nice intro given the video tribute on Bush and his reaction to 9/11 that was skillfully narrated by Fred Thompson.

Bush rolled through his family, pointing out what I think only helps him with women--the women around him. Laura is very popular with all the women I know and the Bush twins, I think, remind a lot of women of who they were (or wanted to be) in their 20s. Barbara was always more popular than George H.W. Bush.

A quick reference to Reagan, clearly a hero of the party and we're off to the future.

Bush presents a laundry list of domestic programs under the theme of reorienting government to help people achieve individual greatness.

"I believe this nation wants steady, consistent, principled leadership. And that is why, with your help, we will win this election. " -- Come election day, I think this could be prophetic. I think this is very true for a lot voters. These voters may not like Bush a lot, but when it comes times to pull the lever, push the button, check the box, or punch (completely) through the chad... they will be voting for the candidate who they think most represents someone terrorists will be afraid of.

The section on reorganizing work rules is one I know a bit about and Bush hit the right issues. Many of the problems today are from old work rules that unions work to protect, but that hold back workers in the changed dynamic of today's workforce. Kerry seems willing to promise that old industrial jobs will come back... Bush recognized the truth that these jobs are gone forever and that government must help those workers and the workplace adjust to a new reality that will be more prosperous than the one we left behind. The flex-time issue is extremely popular--especially with women. Politically astute policy. Stephen Green seems to agree.

The section on trade sounds very free-trade, but is balanced with the use of 'fair,' a word passed about by those advocating a return to economic protectionism. I think Bush is a free-trader at heart. If I was a cynic, I might suggest the steel tarrifs were a very well calculated move to try to steal steelworker votes. Bush and his advisors most likely knew the WTO would make them withdraw the tarrifs, but he gained political capital by trying.

Everyone hates paying taxes... every one hates the paperwork...

The speech seems to be optimistic on most things...

"I know that with the right skills, American workers can compete with anyone, anywhere in the world. "

Partial privatization of social security for young workers... probably not a bad political move... I wonder who picks up the bill when they lose everything with bad investments... but, regardless, I think with a lot of young individuals controlling the money they see disappear from their paycheck is probably popular.

"Soft bigotry of low expectations." -- Great line. This reminds me of my high school golf coach would argued against affirmative action by telling African-America students that he believed they were as smart as white students and that they could do just as well and achieve just as much. He would tell them that Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton didn't think they could--parents didn't like that very much.

Speaking in Spanish--one line, but clearly more important the languages rattled off by THK at the D convention. This one was of more substance (arguably) and in a much more important language than French or Portuegese in terms of votes.

Students do need more education. The Employment Policy Foundation has a lot of evidence that America is heading toward a skilled labor shortage because of lower numbers of college graduates in the younger generation. Even a two-year degree means significantly lower unemployment rates and higher pay.

Bush used humor effectively in his speech. Particularly at the end. The line here about Kerry was funny...

"He's proposed more than $2 trillion in new federal spending so far, and that's a lot, even for a senator from Massachusetts."

Bush and his speechwriters make a brilliant maneuver to gloss over some of his most contentious (and least compassionate) sections.... abortion and gay marriage. I'm glad he doesn't dwell on them, because they are weak positions that are difficult to defend. To a certain extent, it is the judiciary's job to be activist. They have always been the branch that protects the minority at the expense of the majority. Claiming they are legislating from the bench is disingenious in this historical light.

Bush segues nicely into foreign policy.

Overall, Bush reminds us of what we have gone through and makes a fairly effective case for his response to the threats he feels we've faced. He makes the decision to go to war with Iraq seem a heavy one, answering critics who complain he rushed to war. He also effectively reminds us of the decade of sanctions Saddam had defied before the action. The case for ward was made much more strongly in this speech than in earlier ones by being more honest about the benefits of an established democracy in the Middle East.

Bush quickly mentioned some of the successes his administration has had... Pakistan is now a stronger ally of the United States, though we still have disagreements. Relations with Libya have warmed as a result of the calculated decision to declare and disband their nuclear weapons program. Afghanistan has been pulled out from underneath Al Qaeda as a training ground.

The foreign policy theme places off of the domestic theme--increased freedom and liberty. He harkens to America's historic role as a beacon of freedom spreading liberty around the world. Pope John Paul VI in 1967 challenged Christians, "If you want peace, work for justice." True justice can only be had in countries where sovereignty rests with the people and not the government. Bush is outlining an ambitious goal of promoting peace through the spread of liberty and democracy. Bush: "Because of you, the world is more just and will be more peaceful."

Bush blasts Kerry over his vote against funding the $87 billion appropriations bill for military spending. Kerry's nack for putting his foot in his mouth hurts him here.

Bush pays tribute to the allies helping in Iraq and Afghanistan. He takes Kerry to task for referring to our allies as a "coalition of the coerced and the bribed." It is important that Americans realize that while we shoulder the majority of the burden, particularly in Iraq, many countries are providing support or troops that are important to our efforts there. The U.S. effort in Iraq can not possibly be accurately described as "unilateral." Bush's ability to make this personal by thanking the soldiers personally makes his point even stronger.

Bush presents his sweeping vision of the U.S. as a bringer of liberty. He speaks in inspiring tones about the power of liberty. He mentions specifically Palestinians, Israel, the citizens of Afghanistan and Iraq. He emphasizes equality and justice as part of liberty.

America has done this kind of work before, and there have always been
doubters. In 1946, 18 months after the fall of Berlin to allied forces, a
journalist wrote in the New York Times wrote this: "Germany is a land in an
acute stage of economic, political and moral crisis. European capitals are
frightened. In every military headquarters, one meets alarmed officials
doing their utmost to deal with the consequences of the occupation policy that
they admit has failed," end quote.

Maybe that same person is still around, writing editorials.

Brilliant. The Times isn't going to endorse him anyway. Some people (and papers) insist that the glass is half empty and can never see the half that is full.

Bush warns that achieving his vision will not be easy. He notes that
America has always been willing to sacrafice for the freedom of others.

This moment in the life of our country will be remembered. Generations will
know if we kept our faith and kept our word. Generations will know if we seized
this moment and used it to build a future of safety and peace. The freedom
of many and the future security of our nation now depend on us.

And tonight, my fellow Americans, I ask you to stand with me.

I thought the speech was done as this point and it wouldn't have been bad if it was. Bush goes on to a bit that admits his weaknesses--bluntness, swagger, and his verbal gaffes. I think this is good--it's hard not to forgive someone for the faults they recognize. Plus, bluntness and swagger (confidence) may not be seen as big faults by many. I'm not the only one who thinks this self-deprecating humor was effective.

The rest of the speech was an emotional comment on 9/11. This sort of brings the speech full circle, without spending the entire speech dwelling on the tragedy. The end of the speech is soaring--"our tested and confident nation can achieve anything."

Like generations before us, we have a calling from beyond the stars to stand for
freedom. This is the everlasting dream of America. And tonight, in this
place, that dream is renewed.

That's my take... overall a very strong speech and terrific speech for Bush. We will see how the rest of the country takes it. Instapundit thinks it was good, but not great (though great for Bush). Libertarian Stephen Green thinks he's more comfortable in Bush's America than Kerry's...despite Bush's faults. Professor Bainbridge described parts of it as "almost Reagan-esque" and "Probably the best speech I've heard a Republican presidential candidate give since Reagan's prime." Allah says "four points, no more, no less."

Media Bias on the CBO Tax Report

2004-08-20T16:40:00.000-04:00

"THE 2004 CAMPAIGN: ECONOMIC POLICY; Report Finds Tax Cuts Heavily Favor The Wealthy" -- New York Times
"Tax Burden Shifts to the Middle" -- Washington Post
"Tax burden shifts toward middle-class families" -- Takoma News Tribune
"Middle class feeling pinch from tax cuts, government study says" -- Seattle Times
"Middle class moving backward financially" -- The Witchita Eagle
"Bush tax cuts tilted to rich - CBO report" -- MSNBC
"Tax burden shifts to the middle" -- MSNBC

"Today's report reinforces what middle-class families across the country already knew about George Bush. His tax breaks have forced them to pay a bigger share of America's tax burden forcing them to bear the brunt of his failed economic policies." -- John Kerry Press Release

That's what the media (and John Kerry) said on the recently released report from the Congressional Budget Office examining the Bush tax cuts. But, let's look at what the report actually says (page 13 of the report/page 21 of the file)...

The Top 20 % of tax payers will pay a larger share of total federal tax liabilities under the Bush tax cut in every year the report projects except for 2004. That's right, the total share for the top 20 % is 0.6 percent lower in 2004 and then 0.1 to 0.8 percent higher in every year after.

How about the middle class who are being "squeezed" and "shouldering" the burden... The Middle 20 % pays a 0.2 percent larger share in 2004 and then 0.1 to 0.2 smaller share in every year after that CBO projectes...

Of course, the media also didn't point out that the share for everyone in the bottom 40 % of income earners will pay a smaller share of the taxes in every year including 2004! Doesn't sound like a middle or lower class squeeze...

Also missed by the press... effective income tax rates are decreased by the Bush tax cuts for all income groups... The middle class squeeze is a tax cut! In every year projected by the CBO, those in the middle income groups (and lower and upper income groups) will pay less in taxes than without the Bush tax cuts... I could use some more squeezing like that!

Media Bias

2004-08-20T14:32:00.000-04:00

I've experienced media bias first hand in my job, but Michelle Malkin's experience on Hardball is beyond belief... it would be hilarious, if it wasn't such a sorry indictment of the media's failure to report the news in a balanced way...

This is pretty blatant, but the bigger story of media bias is becoming more evident in this campaign cycle. The media bias comes through in the stories they do not report. For example, the Washington Post covered the SwiftVets accusations on page 19, but then attempt to discredit a member of the group on page 1. Still other important, counter-view stories aren't covered at all. This is particularly true on stories that counter the media viewpoint. They compare the number of jobs lost under the recession under Bush to the number under previous presidents completely ignoring the increase in the number of working individuals. The unemployment rate during the last recessionary cycle was nowhere near as high as it was during the previous two recessions, but the media doesn't mention that.

Much more than coloring the news (which the NYT & WP do clearly in some of their 'news' stories) ignoring news counter to their worldview is one reasons blogs are so important...

Does this count as a flip flop?

2004-08-20T14:17:00.000-04:00

"...I think we can significantly change the deployment of troops, not just there but elsewhere in the world. In the Korean peninsula perhaps, in Europe perhaps."

-- John Kerry on ABCNews' This Week, Aug. 1, 2004

"Why are we unilaterally withdrawing 12,000 troops from the Korean Peninsula at the very time we are negotiating with North Korea?"

"Let's be clear -- the president's vaguely stated plan does not strengthen our hand in the war against terror."

"And in no way relieves the strain on our overextended military personnel...This hastily announced plan raises more doubts about our intentions and our commitments than it provides real answers."

-- John Kerry on Bush's plan for troop realignment in mid-August 2004

On my way into the office today, I read Charles Krauthammer defense of Bush's plan in today's Washington Post. He makes a pretty convincing argument.

"The move is long overdue. The U.S. military presence in Germany was
meant to anchor an American commitment to defend Europe against Soviet invasion.
The Soviet Union disappeared 13 years ago. What in God's name are two heavy
divisions still doing there?
...
John Kerry adviser Wesley Clark protested vigorously: "As we face a global war on terror with Al Qaeda active in more than 60 countries, now is not the time to pull-back our forces."
He cannot be serious. How exactly are the 72,000 American troops in Germany fighting al Qaeda? A lot of good they did in uncovering the al Qaeda cell in Hamburg that carried out the Sept. 11 attacks. This hugely expensive deployment -- with its large logistics tail and tens of thousands of dependents added to the bill -- could be put to infinitely better use elsewhere. "

More on Moore v. O'Reilly

2004-07-29T16:37:00.000-04:00

Michele has a great response to Moore's fallacious question to O'Reilly on sacraficing his children. She picks up the same theme that I did, just a bit more effectively...

Alabama Sex Toy Law

2004-07-29T12:04:00.000-04:00

Ok, as I said before, I usually disagree with the ACLU. However, this is one case where I think they've got it right and the courts have it wrong. Quite frankly, I see no problem with people purchasing or using sex toys in the privacy of their own home. What people do in their own bedroom (for the most part) is up to them. No one is being hurt by their use (assuming it is consensual) and the adults involved are enjoying themselves. I don't think children need to be exposed to these things and I expect people to keep what they do in their bedrooms private.

This follows a case being dropped involving a similarly dumb law in Texas a couple days back. A woman was arrested for selling a sex toy at a "sex toy" party and telling an undercover police officer how it is used. Apparently, Texas law only allows them to be sold as "novelties" and not for use. Who are they kidding?

However, I do think the teacher in New Mexico demonstrating the use of condoms went way over the line. I think the State Department of Health messed it up badly. I wouldn't want my teenage daughter being exposed to this. I don't support abstinence-only education, but I do support abstinence as a first choice. I don't mind schools telling students about condoms and even talking about how they are used, but encouraging students to touch them and taste them? That's just too much.

THK's Speech

2004-07-29T10:48:00.000-04:00

I think this is a interesting comment on THK's speech, I think he hit the nail on the head... Andrew Sullivan (The New Republic)

I'll tackle just a few passages of its self-congratulatory pablum.

Start with this piece of grandstanding:

Y a todos los Hispanos, y los Latinos; a tous les Franco Americains, a tutti Italiani; a toda a familia Portugesa e Brazileria; and to all the continental Africans living in this country, and to all the new Americans in our country: I invite you to join in our conversation, and together with us work towards the noblest purpose of all: a free, good, and democratic society.

Now there are many languages spoken in the United States. French isn't one of the more common ones. Neither is Portuguese. THK was saying nothing here, it seems to me, except, "I can speak lots of languages." Good for her. But the point? That her opponents don't care to appeal to new immigrants? Or that new immigrants have a special claim on the Democrats? As one myself, I'd like to think so, but I'd also like not to be set apart. The opening of her speech was simply an exercise in exhibitionist cosmopolitanism. She's not the Pope; and her audience is American, not French. I don't get it. Neither, I suspect, did many others.

Also funny, Sullivan's article is titled "Heir Rant"

Computer Problems on the Border

2004-07-29T10:24:00.000-04:00

It looks like a dilligent agent may have been responsible for the arrest of a South African Woman who apparently entered the United States illegally. They found she had illegally removed pages from her passport and had no entry or exit stamps on her passport. However, if not for their dillegence in checking databases other than their own, she may not have been detained.

From the Houston Chronicle:
But the ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Readiness, U.S. Rep. Solomon Ortiz, D-Corpus Christi, said he is concerned about how much effort it took to identify her.

Ortiz said federal government officials told him that the first time the Border Patrol agents fed Ahmed's name into their agency's computer database, they got no matches.

But the agent tried again, this time accessing databases of other government agencies, and found Ahmed was on a watch list of those suspected of having terrorist connections.

It seems clear that the database the Border Patrol uses the first time should have come up with a hit. Border patrol agents shouldn't have to check several sources to find out if someone is on a terrorism watch list. These databases need to be integrated now.

Obama's Speech

2004-07-29T10:14:00.000-04:00

Jacob Levy has an interesting take on Obama's speech. He notes the different state he places a "United" United States in. Obama places it in the present, where the other Dems at the convention place it in the future. He also notes something I've felt that was exclusive about the Democratic Rhetoric:

Relatedly, there's something offensive in the "Take America back"/ "Let America be America again" stuff. It's something I fully expect to keep hearing; it's something I remember loathing about the first Clinton inauguration. It's the necessary implication that Republicans, and Republican government, aren't really American, that Democratic rule is not only preferable (of course Democrats think that) but the natural order of things, an order that must be restored (notice the restoration theme in both "take back" and "be America again"). Obama didn't imply any of that, either.

I agree. We can disagree without making the otherside un-American. America is still America even if you disagree with some of the policies of the other side. Obama's speech was much more inclusive. Speeches like his are what the Democrats need if they hope to capture the center. Many in the center agree with some of Bush's policies and disagree with others (myself included). We don't want to be demonized for believing in the policies we do. The statements by Dean and the like make us feel alienated, wondering where that "big tent" that Al Sharpton claims houses the Democratic party really is.

Offshoring Debate

2004-07-28T22:52:00.000-04:00

Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm during her convention speech referred to offshoring as a problem Kerry will fix. But a new report from the non-partisan Annenberg FactCheck.org released today shows that offshoring isn't a problem... it's a benefit.

First, few jobs are lost due to outsourcing according to the report and little evidence exists to suggest it is a widespread phenomenon.

Second, according to Democratic economist Charles Schultze (former LBJ Budget Director, chairman Carter's Council of Economic Advisors, Senior Fellow Emeritus at Brookings), outsourcing "in the short run, an increase in offshoring reduces U.S. job growth. But in the long run it improves the standard of living, increases real wages and increases the country's economic growth. "

Third, even if it was a problem, most economists say Kerry's proposal would do NOTHING to stop companies from outsourcing.

See the report at: http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=225

A terrorist entry?

2004-07-28T22:45:00.000-04:00

From CNN...

Authorities have detained a woman who had six pages ripped from her passport and are investigating whether she has ties to terrorist organizations, government officials said Wednesday.

Authorities arrested the woman, who identified herself as Farida Goolam Mohamed Ahmed, on July 19 in Texas, and are trying to confirm her identity and nationality.

Government officials said that name is on an FBI watch list and that it was put on the list after it surfaced during an investigation of an overseas terrorist incident...

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/07/28/texas.border.arrest/index.html

How many Americas are there?

2004-07-28T22:33:00.000-04:00

From Barack Obama's Tuesday night speech:
Well, I say to them tonight, there's not a liberal America and a conservative America -- there is the United States of America.

There's not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America -- there is the United States of America.

The pundits, the pundits like to slice and dice our country into red states and blue states; red states for Republicans, blue states for Democrats. But I've got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the blue states, and we don't like federal agents poking around our libraries in the red states.

We coach Little League in the blue states and have gay friends in the red states.

There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and patriots who supported it.

We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America.

From John Edward's Wednesday night speech:
Because the truth is, we still live in two different Americas: one for people who have lived the American Dream and don't have to worry, and another for most Americans who work hard and still struggle to make ends meet.

It doesn't have to be that way. We can build one America.

We can build one America where we no longer have two healthcare systems. One for people who get the best healthcare money can buy and then one for everybody else, rationed out by insurance companies, drug companies, and HMOs- millions of Americans who don't have any health insurance at all.

And he goes on...

Surely, I'm not the only one who finds this an ironic disconnect between two speakers, two nights in a row... Are we one or two? Perhaps, by tomorrow, we'll have three.
It doesn't have to be that way.

RNC Video

2004-07-28T22:28:00.000-04:00

This is an interesting video from the RNC that looks at John Kerry's position on Iraq.

http://media1.stream2you.com/rnc/072304v2.wmv
Some key Kerry quotes:
"[I]t is something that we know-for instance, Saddam Hussein has used weapons of mass destruction against his own people, and there is some evidence of their efforts to try to secure these kinds of weapons and even test them." 9/23/2001

"I think we ought to put the heat on Saddam Hussein. I’ve said that for a number of years, Bill. I criticized the Clinton administration for backing off of the inspections when Ambassador Butler was giving us strong evidence that we needed to continue. I think we need to put the pressure on no matter what the evidence is about September 11." 12/11/2001

Chris Matthews: "Do you think that the problem we have with Iraq is real and it can be reduced to a diplomatic problem? Can-can we get this guy to accept inspections of those weapons of mass destruction potentially and get past a possible war with him?" Kerry: Outside chance, Chris. Could it be done? The answer is yes. But he would view himself only as buying time and playing a game, in my judgment. Do we have to go through that process? The answer is yes. We’re precisely doing that. And I think that’s what Colin Powell did today." 2/5/2002

"I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq ..." 7/29/2002

"I would disagree with John McCain that it’s the actual weapons of mass destruction he may use against us, it’s what he may do in another invasion of Kuwait or in a miscalculation about the Kurds or a miscalculation about Iran or particularly Israel. Those are the things that - that I think present the greatest danger. He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat." 9/15/2002