<$BlogRSDURL$>

Thursday, March 31, 2005

NYT and Schiavo

Money quote:
"The legal fight provoked a great national discussion, with polls showing most people did not believe politicians should be involved in personal issues of one family trying to decide whether a family member should be kept alive. But it also provoked a great outcry among an ad hoc coalition of Catholic and evangelical lobbyists, street organizers and legal advisers, some of whom demonstrated outside the hospice in recent days, and picketed outside the homes of Mr. Schiavo and Judge George W. Greer of Pinellas-Pasco Circuit Court, who originally ordered the tube removed."

I fully expect to see the NYT run a more complete coverage that includes the timing of Michael Schiavo's recollection of his wife's wish to die - after the malpractice case came in much lower than he expected - and that advocates for the disabled were also on Teri Schiavo's side - something the secularist MSM consistently ignored.

The rewriting history will very soon begin to include the above details.

One thing I will not feel is shame for my country. I am embarassed there are fellow Americans who do not feel shame for taking the side of a de facto bigamist though.

Wednesday, March 30, 2005

Former Senator Bill bradley Almost Gets It

The Senator is right on about the Democrats chasing Kennedy.

Where he falls short is the inability to say the obvious - the Democrats are the Establishment. They control the mainstream media (WaPo, NYT, LAT, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, Meet the Press, This Week with George Stephanopoulus, Face the Nation, and academia.)

Without attacking the problem from the correct vantage point, they only flail around and try to repeat what the Republicans needed to do - establish think tanks, try out alternative ideas, find alternative outlets for dissemination of those ideas.

How do Democrats think of new ideas when there ideas are the ones being discredited?

What also needs to be recognized is the fact that when it comes to basic human understanding, they have been greiviously wrong. Communism/Socialism/Collectivism are not congruent with free will. The Democrats side with Castro, USSR, the despots of the Middle East. Any party that does this begins with the flawed view of the world, and ultimately, will always fail.

Tuesday, March 22, 2005

Power Line: March 2005 Archives

If the memo turns out to be a fake, I am ready to conclude that fake documentation is SOP.

Add in the CFR deception by Pew and we're looking at an explosion of McCarthy-like recriminations.

The Red Scare will be back.

Monday, March 21, 2005

Everything is Assumptions

Mr Luskin does a fine job picking the Schiller paper apart.

As with Sen. Schumer's Social Security calculator, the deception lies in the assumptions.


Saturday, March 19, 2005

The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: The Do-Nothing Conspiracy

Looks like governement will be limited by entitlements. This means the Democrats will cease to exist as they are the one of expanding government, and the Republicans will no longer be the lower taxes party.

The parties will align along those willing to pare government programs and those unwilling to see this is neceassary.


Friday, March 18, 2005

Victor Davis Hanson on National Review Online

Wow. Extremely well-said, and a must-read for anyone whose rhetorical repetoire includes Hilterian references.

Thursday, March 17, 2005

New York Post Online Edition: postopinion

I thought the conspiratorial theme of State of Fear was fiction.

Check the comments section for Ryan Sager's explosive news on Campaign Finance Reform.

Wednesday, March 16, 2005

Article of Left Faith


If the Dems can't prevent drilling in ANWR, how do they expect to thwart the
investor class?

(John Zogby's WSJ op-ed in Comments)?

The New York Times > Opinion > Editorial: And Now, the Counterfeit News

Sometimes I truly believe the NYT is a flat-out propaganda machine with the intergrity of a Communist governement.

This editorial is spurned by thier own report which said this type of activity occurred during the Clinton years!

Yet it chides and warns about the Bush administration!

Tuesday, March 15, 2005

To Trump Bush on Taxes (washingtonpost.com)

If the payroll tax of 12.4% is insufficient to meet the projected benefits, how does eliminating half of it (6.2%) make this insufficiency disappear?

"The vast majority of households with incomes under $200,000...a tax cut in the neighborhood of $600...or more."

Aren't the vast majority of households under $200,00 anyhow? Why choose $200,000 threshhold?


Monday, March 14, 2005

The New York Times > Books > Books of the Times | 'State of Fear': Beware! Tree-Huggers Plot Evil to Save World

This book was more akin to the Da Vinci Code - lots of theories tied into one novel and it did read quickly, too.

I did notice the reveiw stayed away from any of the theories presented.

It'd have fit right into the storyline!

The New York Times > Technology > Liberal Bloggers Reaching Out to Major Media

The worst thing that could occur to the MSM is to begin listening to the Left-wing bloggers. It would only exacerbate the already present problem of liberal bias.

Gas on the fire seems appropriate.

The New York Times > Business > Media & Advertising > Can Papers End the Free Ride Online?

One of my considerations in cancelling the NYT was the fact that the content is free on-line. What had kept me from cancelling earlier was the fact the crossword was not free. However, after completing the Sunday one each week, I decided there was nothing else to gain by completing it each week, so I cancelled the paper.

I do admit that I found the coverage to be increasingly slanted to the Left. That is what spurred the initial reduction in my subscription from daily to weekend-only.

Additionally, the paper costs more to be delivered than buying it on the newsstand.

If the NYT went to an on-line subscription basis, I'd likely stop reading it unless the fee was so low that it wouldn't matter ($5 a month.)

(The crosswords are $4.95 a month or $34.95 per year and I won't do that.)

Saturday, March 12, 2005

The New York Times > National > Orlando Mayor Is Indicted in Absentee Ballot Case

Obviously, when the party affiliation was not mentioned the first time Mayor Dyer is named in the article (1st three words), I knew he ws a Democrat. However, the byline is by Abby Goodnough, a reporter who has a generally positive reputation in my book, and this caused me to question my rule-of-thumb in determining party affiliation - if none mentioned, then it is a Democrat.

Then the intimidating eldery black people incident from the last Presidential electionw as mentioned and the efforts by Democrats to implicate GW was introduced, and my rule-of-thumb was looking like it may have encountered....its exception that proves the rule.

While still awaiting "official" naming of Dyer as a Republican, the special prosecutor's party affiliation was designated as was the interim mayor's - both Republicans.

At this point, I sensed my rule of thumb would hold. And it did. In the 10th paragrapgh, Mayor Dyer's party affiliation was revealed! He's a Democrat and my rule-of-thumb remains!

Wednesday, March 09, 2005

The Right Questions on Social Security (washingtonpost.com)

"Pozen is a registered Democrat....doesn't see personal Social Security accounts as an end in themselves -- "I'm not a big believer in the ownership society," he says...."

The columnist is a likely Democrat as inferred from this statement, "Most of all, he approaches the Social Security debate asking the right questions: What can be done to put the system on a more solvent footing, and how can that be accomplished in a way that reflects the differing roles that Social Security plays among different income groups? Specifically, the one-fifth of Americans for whom Social Security is the sole source of income ought to be treated differently from those for whom Social Security benefits are merely the icing on a retirement cake composed mostly of savings and pensions."

(The implications being the Bush Administration is asking the wrong questions, and retirees whose cake whole is full of income derived from personall savings and genourous corporate savings!)

She goes on "It's tempting to describe the Pozen approach as Bush Lite...Perhaps a better phrase would be Bush Smart: Pozen's plan is less radical and more compassionate than the president's. It would let workers put 2 percentage points of the money they pay toward Social Security into private accounts.."

Are the Left so blinded by hate that they don't believe President Bush asked for 4% with the idea of compromising for something less? (Truly, the Left does not consist of the smarter half of the country.)

"(1)His argument against the alternative -- having the government take advantage of the equity premium by investing in the market itself -- does not show the usual mystical attachment to personal ownership or abhorrence of government influence over the markets. (2)Rather, he expresses the pragmatic fear that pressure to eschew certain politically incorrect stocks and invest in others would yield diminished returns."

Again, if the writer weren't so ideologically blind, she'd see that sentence (2) flows from sentence(1).

And Mr. Prozen suggest altering the wage index formula! A very good solution as this assumption has a large effect on projecting benefits into the future on the numerator side. (I was going to predict in this post that Bush would get this too, but I am too humbled by the difficulty in predicting the future.)

While the the calculations do not wipe-out the projected deficit, it does lessen it. As I accept the imperfection of projecting anything 75 years into the future, reducing the projected deficit by 50% allows more wiggle room for margin-of-error mistakes on the downside.

Graham Says GOP Erred By Focusing on Accounts (washingtonpost.com)

Another criticism is that the advocates have not made clear the fact that my SS benefits will consist of two streams of income - the "guaranteed" (in quotes as Congress can change it capriciously) one and the one from private accounts.

This is minor, as is Sen. Graham's colorful characterization ("...we're off in a ditch over a sideshow..."), compared to the much larger success of a serious national discussion over Social Security.

Looks as if the MSM misses the forest for the trees. (Sort of like missing democracy in the ME for the sake of terrorist murderin', huh?)

Tuesday, March 08, 2005

MTP - Transcript for March 6

The writing's on the wall - Bush will get private accounts.

Joe Klein, a member of the MSM, has signed-on to private accounts. To quote,"...I think private accounts a terrific policy..." And this he said to Paul Krugman, the voice of economics for the Left.

Also "The Democrats have for the last 10 or 15 years blatantly, shamelessly demagogued this issue. They've offered nothing positive on Social Security or on Medicare or on Medicaid..."

Amazingly, this isn't all over the press. Joe Klein is a ubiquitous Democratic talking head. I suspect various Democratic politicans and their various proxies will be sucked into the logic of privatization.


Monday, March 07, 2005

White House: Italian Journalist's Comments 'Absurd' (washingtonpost.com)

A kidnapped journalist for an anti-American newspaper is freed after a ransom was paid which is hush-hush.

Her story doesn't match the story of the American forces.

Who do you tend to believe? Want to bet your party affiliation and strenth of ideological conviction is a perfect predictor of your belief on this episode?

Here's a hint for mine. I can't help but wonder if the kidnapping was staged as the Communist paper would be allied with the Ba-athist government and could see this as a great way to get funds to further oppose democracy.

Children's Village

The move to de-institutionalize delinquents should move cautiously. The de-institutionalization movement for the mentally ill made the mistake of believing all mentally ill people are better off in the outside world.

That was wrong, and I suspect it will prove to be the same situation with juvies.

Friday, March 04, 2005

The New York Times > Opinion > Editorial: Greenspan Talks Tax Increases

As I read this during lunch, I was stunned how awful it was. Was it cut-and-pasted from some far-left blog?

The deficit is largely due to tax cuts? Huh? Ever hear of Afghanistan and Iraq? Ever hear of a bubble economy?

Do the dufuses at the NYT recognize that the tax increases Greenspan mentioned were VATs and national sales taxes, ones that effect everyone and not just the reviled "rich"? Did their tinfoil hat shortcuit and not receive the "progressive message" from the Mothership?

Strength of anti-tax fixation? Didn't we just have an election where "anti-tax fixation" won? The utter inanity is dumbfounding (or should I say "inducing of like mind with the NYT"?)

And then......LEAP from Greenspanese to the clarity that must be apparent to "anyone concerned about healing the economy" - no new tax cuts and no new life for old ones!

In its "concern for the economy" (Sounds an awful lot like the familar Lefty refrain of "Do it for the children."), NYT agitates for the expiration of prior tax cuts as if this will help the economy. (There are better-versed tax experts that can tackle this de facto tax increase. Here and here but not here.)

"Rich" clearly means those making more than $100,000 as there is immorality in allowing them to have "bigger write-offs for dependents". (I had not seen what this actually is, so I conclude the evils of the NYT has distorted something more benign into an ideological weapon.)

This segues into private accounts and a statement of utter honesty "....Congress may well do the right thing by raising taxes," Here it is! The Left's solution! "and then do the wrong thing with the money."

And what is the wrong thing? Private accounts! But the prevaricators at the NYT do not mention what the right thing is.

And it is here that the Left demonstrates the complete lack of intellectual vibrancy.

I am grateful for my ability to control my gag reflex or I'd have lost my lunch! (A large BK Big Fish value meal thank you!)

Social Security Breakdown - WaPo Editorial

A very good analysis from a liberal POV.

However, I do not agree that Democrats will have short-term gain if they scuttle SS reform at least if short-term extends beyond a week or two of triumphalism the Democrats will have bestowed upon them by the MSM.

As the entitlement problem is inevitiable, the Dems will be seen, rightly so, as irresponsible in tackling problems that call for "leadership."

Also, the Clinton Healthcare plan would have been the Medicare "reform" if it had passed.

Thursday, March 03, 2005

WSJ.com - More Proposals Surface to Mend Social Security

How about reinstating the estate tax and setting the assessment at a much higher level, indexing it to wages and cutting the rate?

This gives the Democrats what they want - higher taxes- and adds "revenue" in future years.

Carve-outs are the way to go if your intrepretation of Greenspanese is correct, which concurs with my post yesterday.

"Social Security revenues currently exceed benefits by about $150 billion a year. That surplus is lent to the government, and Social Security receives Treasury bonds in return. As baby boomers retire, that surplus will evaporate. A commission led by then-private citizen Greenspan in 1983 created those surpluses by advocating tax increases and benefit cuts. But yesterday Mr. Greenspan suggested those surpluses did more harm than good because, rather than lift national saving, they "have served primarily to facilitate larger deficits in the rest of the budget."

Read: Given politicans more money to spend on essentially permanent governement programs.


Wednesday, March 02, 2005

Social Security Vote May Be Delayed (washingtonpost.com)

There does not seem to be the political stomach to offering personal accounts.

While the media is already acsribing defeat to President Bush as a result, in the longer run it may be best not to pass right now.

Here is why.

If it passes, it will do so with, at a minimum, de facto tax increases - an increase in the payroll tax cap and/or an add-on account.

If these taxes go into effect concurrently with the accounts' first deposits, then there would be no additional taxes for the oleaginous politicians to spend.

But if my descriptor for politicians holds true, they will attempt to use those additional taxes to pay for current spending. This would raise the baseline budgets in future years and make the impending entitlement crisis more difficult.

For this reason, I am willing to scrap any reform that gives politicans more options to spend thriftlessly. We'd be better off just raising taxes year after year by the minimal amount needed to close a gap. (Of course, those people will offer overstated estimates of the gap in order to raise taxes higher and use the "surplus" on other spending programs.)

Social Security Vote May Be Delayed (washingtonpost.com)

There does not seem to be the politcal stomach to offering personal accounts.

While the media is already acsribing defeat to President Bush as a result, in the longer run it may be best not to pass right now.

Here is why.

If it passes, it will do so with, at a minimum, de facto tax increases - an increase in the payroll tax cap and/or an add-on account.

If these taxes go into effect concurrently with the accounts' first deposits, then there would be no additional taxes for the oleaginous politicians to spend.

But if my descriptor for politicians holds true, they will attempt to use those additional taxes to pay for current spending. This would raise the baseline budgets in future years and make fiscal policy more difficult.

For this reason, I am willing to scrap any reform that gives politicans more options to spend thriftlessly. We'd be tter off just raising taxes year after year by the minimal amount needed to close a gap. (Of course, the oleaginous will offer overstated estimates of the gap in order to raise taxes higher and use the "surplus" on other spending programs.)

Tuesday, March 01, 2005

The New York Times > National > Speculators Seeing Gold in a Boom in the Prices for Homes

This easy money scheme along with the firing of a prominent Wall Street REIT bear and the Saturday op-ed by LAT editor Michael Kinsley leads to the conclusion it is 1999 all over again.

Also, in Port Chester, NY, a condo development went up but isn't selling . This is a signal that the market is glutted and soon the music will stop.


The New York Times > Opinion > Editorial: Mideast Climate Change

First the Valerie Plame nonsense and now the NYT rowbacks its hysterical opposition to democracy in the Middle East.

A serious intellectual endeavor needs to be partaken to understand what it is about the Left that makes them wrong on everything.

The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: To Have and to Hold, for Richer for Poorer

The column seems benign, but I wonder if the extremists on the Left who worship at the feet of the NYT op-ed page enjoy such common sensical refutation of the "liberating" effects a wife has from having her own checking account.

While the left loves Communism, it does not adore communal property except for same-sex couples.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?