politics
Veto the line-item veto
I'm sure, like Jeff and Mark Alexander, I fall in to a distinct minority of conservative-minded folks in that I do not approve of the line-item veto. Jeff gives a great example of the sort of situation fiscal conservatives point to as their case for the line-item veto:
Congress has embraced the notion of passing ten-thousand-page omnibus bills that provide an appropriation for buying missiles, invest taxpayer dollars in education, reform the health-insurance, and by the way also fund half a dozen wasteful squanderings of the federal treasury. And if the President wants to veto it, he has to veto it all. Nuts, right? As Jeff goes on to say, yes, it is nuts. But members of Congress need to stand up and defend their reasons for why they want these "wasteful squanderings" included along with the legitimate items in such bills. (Though I will quibble that the government has no business in the health insurance business, either.) Equally so, the President--and this is any president, not just the current one--should get the message out to the American people why he's vetoing the entire bill, despite all of its good and legitimate items. More communication is the key. As Jeff puts it, the American people need to be made smarter as to the machinations of their government. The two parties seem to enjoy playing politics, so why not extend that to budgetary items? If Congress sends you a spending bill with bridges to nowhere in it, you veto it, tell the American people you vetoed it because of the bridges to nowhere, and mention you'd be happy to sign it when it comes back without the bridges to nowhere within. Likewise, if Congress sends a spending bill without any largesse--stop laughing, this is a hypothetical after all--and the President still vetoes it, Congress has that handy two-thirds majority thingy from the Constitution. Like net "neutrality" legislation, I think the line-item veto is a mountain that's actually a molehill. We have more important areas to concentrate on, like keeping those who wish to kill us outside of our borders.
About those WMDs in Iraq
Oh, by the way, there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. A lesser man might say something like, "Suck it, mouth-foamers", but I'll refrain from engaging in such childish behavior.
It's not my kid, so it must be okay
At journalism conferences, the question is often brought up whether a journalist should see himself as an American first or a journalist first. Often the consensus is that they are journalists first.
I wonder how many of them would report a story if it would mean the death of their own child. And would any of those reporters who would be journalists first in even that appalling instant cheerfully mis-report a story in order to cause the death of their child? I suspect virtually none would.
If only they loved their country's young and willing warriors as much as they loved their own children.
But the journalists today are too swept up in their own dance macabre to even notice the murderous consequences of their own malfeasance -- or to hear the demands of simple decency.
Weblogs, Pamphlets and Public Citizens: Changing Modern Media
Speaking of Tom, he's authored a great paper as part of the Master's program he's enrolled in. Titled "Weblogs, Pamphlets and Public Citizens: Changing Modern Media", in which he compares the citizen journalists of today's blogosphere to the pamphleteers of pre-Revolutionary War America. I got a sneak peek during the drafting and editing phase, and I think it's really good. Some choice quotes:
The effects of blogs in a new media environment are twofold: Weblogs cover stories that their mainstream media counterparts, for editorial reasons or other gatekeeping practices common in modern professional media, omit or miss entirely; and weblogs also bring to bear an ever-vigilant group of diverse problem solvers that fact-check the work of many reporters and journalists in the mass-media arena. This makes the blogosphere an excellent addendum to mass media, operating as both appendix and errata to the main compendium of stories that the mass media puts into the public sphere using trained reporters and journalists. and As technology had advanced further, producing Really Simple Syndication (RSS), a distribution method that allows for easy and automatic syndication of new additions to weblogs, it has become possible for a consumer of media to add weblogs to their daily news diet. This allows for readers to mix and match their media, creating a new media outlet that is personally tailored to their interests and to their pursuits. Using an RSS-reader application on a personal computer, a sports fan can have a forty-page sports section and a one page local section, or a political junkie can have page after page of differing commentary from a variety of sources. The reader becomes their own editor and gatekeeper, combining multiple weblogs and conventional media sources, which have also adopted RSS, into their own personal fountain of news and commentary. If you've read Dan Gillmor's We The Media and/or Hugh Hewitt's Blog, some of Tom's piece will sound familiar, especially in that he cites the former as a source, but I say the familiarity makes Tom's arguments stronger. Good work, my friend!
What an adorable little girl
The Stephen Colbert kerfuffle, intrinsically uninteresting though it is, leads Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen to an excellent insight:
Why are you wasting my time with Colbert, I hear you ask. Because he is representative of what too often passes for political courage, not to mention wit, in this country. His defenders--and they are all over the blogosphere--will tell you he spoke truth to power. This is a tired phrase, as we all know, but when it was fresh and meaningful it suggested repercussions, consequences--maybe even death in some countries. When you spoke truth to power you took the distinct chance that power would smite you, toss you into a dungeon or--if you're at work--take away your office.
<p>But in this country, anyone can insult the president of the United States. Colbert just did it, and he will not suffer any consequence at all. He knew that going in.</p>This, it seems to us, explains several conceits of the Angry Left:
The notion that criticism--whether of the Dixie Chicks or of Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer--amounts to censorship.
Claims by Democratic politicians that Republicans are "questioning" their "patriotism."
Fears of incipient fascism.
What these have in common, aside from being totally fantastical, is that they all reinforce the image of the Angry Leftist as courageous dissenter. In truth, this country is so tolerant, indeed downright indulgent, of this sort of "dissent" that it affords no opportunity to be courageous.
Speak "truth to power" in America, and power will pat you on the head and say, "What an adorable little girl." Some on the Angry Left could actually have the courage to stand up if they were faced with real consequences--but they are unlikely ever to get that chance. America's almost boundless tolerance thus reduces them to the level of petulant children. No wonder they're so angry.
Mountains out of molehills
The elements of the "crisis" Mitchell describes are twofold: (1) Iraq isn't Vietnam--i.e., a war the press helps lose for America; and (2) the Bush administration hasn't produced a Watergate--i.e., a corruption scandal in which the press helps bring down an administration. This isn't a crisis for America. For most Americans, Vietnam and Watergate were tragedies, and we'd rather not repeat them, thank you very much.
But it is a crisis for the press. For journalists of a certain age, Vietnam and Watergate were triumphs that they are eager to repeat. It doesn't look as though that's going to happen. Our advice to newsmen? Pray. "Lord, grant me the courage to change what I can, the serenity to accept what I cannot, and the wisdom to know the difference."
Amen. Now stop crusading and report the damn news.
You want equal health care for all? You got it.
The bad news, surprise, surprise, is that it's not as good as we think it is. Jeff Donn, for the AP:
Startling research from the biggest study ever of U.S. health care quality suggests that Americans - rich, poor, black, white - get roughly equal treatment, but it's woefully mediocre for all.
[...]
The survey of nearly 7,000 patients, reported Thursday in the New England Journal of Medicine, considered only urban-area dwellers who sought treatment, but it still challenged some stereotypes: These blacks and Hispanics actually got slightly better medical treatment than whites.
While the researchers acknowledged separate evidence that minorities fare worse in some areas of expensive care and suffer more from some conditions than whites, their study found that once in treatment, minorities' overall care appears similar to that of whites.
"It doesn't matter who you are. It doesn't matter whether you're rich or poor, white or black, insured or uninsured," said chief author Dr. Steven Asch, at the Rand Health research institute, in Santa Monica, Calif. "We all get equally mediocre care." Too bad this won't shut the left up on wanting government-run, socialized medicine. [Via Stones Cry Out.]
Thomas Jefferson: Porkbuster
Stephen Moore, Political Diary:
During last week's debate about the federal earmarking process -- which is used to distribute pork to congressional districts -- House Appropriators struck back. The appropriators, of both parties, complain that fiscal conservatives in the House are trying to ruin a time-honored congressional tradition of passing out bacon by demanding full transparency for pork spending. In a letter to his colleagues, Idaho Republican Rep. Mike Simpson went so far as to argue that the Framers wouldn't have approved of this effort to curb Congress's power of the purse and even claimed "earmarking is virtually required by article 1 section 9 clause 7 of the Constitution."
So we did some checking on the writings of the founders to shed some light on their view of the domestic pork process. The first budget ever passed by Congress approved roughly $100 million of funds in today's dollars. There were no Lawrence Welk Museums or Cowboy Hall of Fame earmarks in the bill -- which was only a few pages long. The founders believed that if a government function wasn't listed in the Constitution under the enumerated powers clause (Article I, Section 8), the right to spend money didn't exist. Pork was hardly an issue.
The biggest opponent to federal spending on parochial projects was Thomas Jefferson. Here is what Jefferson wrote in a letter to James Madison: "I view [road building] as a source of boundless patronage to the executive, jobbing to members of Congress & their friends, and a bottomless abyss of public money. You will begin by only appropriating the surplus of the post roads revenues, but the other revenues will soon be called into their aid, and it will be a scene of eternal scramble among the members, who can get the most money wasted in their State; and they will always get most who are meanest."
To be sure, there were defenders of congressional funding of local projects, most notably Alexander Hamilton. But back then the stakes and dollar amounts were much smaller. Given what's happening today in Congress with highway bills larded up with thousands of special projects, we'd say that Jefferson's warning was amazingly prescient. We'd also say that the founders would be mighty disgusted with the way Republicans and Democrats have been serving as guardians of the public purse.
The dangers of multiculturalism
I haven't started reading Robert Ferrigno's Prayers for the Assassin yet, though I need to soon. I have started reading his blog the past few days, and like this post from last month:
[I]t seems to me that the issue of the cartoons points out the dangers of multi-culturalism, which has been embraced by Western societies post WW2. If all cultures are equal, and each culture reserves the right to be offended and to act on that offense in a matter it deems appropriate, whether burning cartoons or cartoonists, than we’re in for a rocky ride. When do the Hindus in the West start torching McDonalds for promoting the sinful eating of cows? When do the Amish run amok in shopping malls outraged by the rampant consumerism and excess vanity? When do the Scientologists go after South Park, one of my three favorite TV shows? Eerie how some things come to pass. Not that Scientologists are going after South Park (yet), but it was odd reading Robert's post from February 5th, in light of the recent Isaac Hayes-South Park flap. I don't think we'll see the Amish run amok any time soon, either, since they tend toward pacifism, but I must say I won't be surprised to learn of any Hindu violence, should it erupt in this country. Like many Muslims in other countries, the Hindu within India can be exceedingly violent against Christians, Buddhists, and other persons of faith.
Wither the financial services windfall profits tax?
So both Goldman and Lehman are reporting huge earnings. Obviously they did so on the backs of working-class Americans and Congressional hearings should begin post-haste to determine if a "windfall" profit tax will be levied, right? [For the sarcasm-impaired, the above was typed very much tongue-in-cheek.]
This "Striderweb", I like it
Please note: You're not allowed to call yourselves followers of a "religion of peace" if you riot and make death threats over a political cartoon.
[...]
A lot of people decry such statements, saying that this is the actions of some muslims, but not most of them. I'm still waiting for the major leaders of Islam to rise up and denounce such violence. Until that starts happening on a regular basis, I have a hard time believing those arguments. [Via Jeff.]
Are you registered to vote?
The Free Market Foundation reminds Texans the deadline for voter registration in time for the March primaries is this Monday, February 6th. If you need to register: 1. Click here to download a PDF of the voter registration form you can print out. 2. Fill it out and mail it to your county voter registration office. Click here for a list of registrars by county. As with every election, the Free Market Foundation is providing non-partisan Voters' Guides free of charge. Send them an e-mail with your mailing address and desired quantity. I've taken advantage of these guides in the past, and they are great at distilling voting issues in to clear language, offering pros and cons for ballot propositions, as well as candidate information.
Reckless with the truth and national security
A Patriot Post reader:
In their eagerness to inflict as much damage as possible to the Bush administration record, the Democrats once again are being reckless with the truth and with national security. Some say that the president is spying on American citizens. The president has made clear from the start that the wiretaps were limited to targeting communications from outside the country to individuals in the U.S. with known links to terrorist groups. It's not an "unreasonable search" to look for the bad guys when fighting international terrorism. The Democrats don't have a leg to stand on in this issue...and they know it.
How can the Democrats in all honesty criticize the president for intelligence failures and then attack him for being too aggressive in doing surveillance? How do you explain dismantling protections in the midst of a terror war? The Democrats by their duplicity are playing a very dangerous game that could derail the president's strategy to defeat a deadly enemy. The Fourth Amendment to the constitution protects its citizens from "unreasonable searches and seizures" but who will protect us from "unreasonable" self-serving, seditious and self-destructive politicians?" --Fredericktown, Ohio
Shocked--shocked!--we tell you
Dana Priest of The Washington Post sounds shocked - shocked! - to discover that George W. Bush ordered a complete remobilization and reinvigoration of the CIA immediately after September 11th:
The effort President Bush authorized shortly after Sept. 11, 2001, to fight al-Qaida has grown into the largest CIA covert-action program since the height of the Cold War, expanding in size and ambition despite a growing outcry at home and abroad over clandestine tactics...
This is news? Isn't this just what W. told the country he would do in the aftermath of September 11th?
[...]
Apparently W. meant it. According to the Post's Ms. Priest, the president signed an order six days after September 11th empowering American intelligence agencies in a way not seen since the Second World War.
Gosh, just as if we had suffered a surprise attack and thousands of our people had been killed in a second Pearl Harbor.
Do you think maybe the president decided to fight this like a world war because, far ahead of his critics, he realized we were in one?
On truth being stranger than fiction
What do the senior senator from Massachusetts and quadruple murderer Stanley "Tookie" Williams have in common? The Associated Press provides one answer:
Meet the latest children's author, Sen. Ted Kennedy, and his Portuguese Water Dog, Splash, his co-protagonist in "My Senator and Me: A Dogs-Eye View of Washington, D.C."
<p>Scholastic Inc. will release the book in May.</p>So Ted Kennedy has a dog named Splash? How witty.
Mary Jo Kopechne's children could not be reached for comment.
Cleaning house
Today's featured article on OpinionJournal, while highlighting the Abramoff ugliness, shows why many conservatives, this one included, are relatively unhappy with the Republicans in Congress:
The party that swept to power on term limits, spending restraint and reform has become the party of incumbency, 6,371 highway-bill "earmarks," and K Street. And it's no defense to say that Democrats would do the same. Of course Democrats would, but then they've always claimed to be the party of government. If that's what voters want, they'll choose the real thing.
[...]
Republicans won't escape voter anger by writing new rules but only by returning to their self-professed principles. Gradually since 1994 they've decided they want to reform and limit government less than they want to use government to entrench their own power, and in the case of the Abramoffs to get rich doing so. If Speaker Dennis Hastert, interim Majority Leader Roy Blunt and other GOP leaders are too insulated to realize this, then Republicans need new leaders, and right away. What's the adage, "Lead or get out of the way"? That's what the Republican congressional leadership needs to do. Show some backbone and lead, or let a willing someone step up and take over. There should be no more talk of DeLay returning to the Majority Leader position. Even if Mr. DeLay is found to be completely innocent (and in the case of the Texas charges, I believe he is), he has been tainted by allowing himself to be put in that position in the first place. Mr. Blunt or another Republican congressman needs to be named the new Majority Leader, so the floundering of the party can be put to a stop. The Republican Party, lead by Reagan, and then briefly from '94-98 by Gingrich, was the party of smaller government. This message resonated with the American people, and this put and kept the Republicans in power so long as they abided by that message. If Republicans are so interested in remaining in power, as the OpinionJournal piece opines, perhaps they should look to their recent past.
Fighting on many fronts
Not content to see the U.S. surrender in Iraq, the "peace" activists want us to lose in our own hemisphere as well. Notes Mary Anastasia O'Grady:
Congressional proposals to cut and run from Iraq are not the only dumb ideas emanating from Capitol Hill that threaten the security of Americans. Another is the insistence that the U.S. should stop its training efforts to increase the professionalism of Latin American militaries.
Since the late 1940s, the U.S. has operated a training facility at Fort Benning, Georgia for Latin American soldiers. Prior to 2000, it was known as the School of the Americas (SOA). Today it is the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, or Whinsec. Some 60,000 Latin military professionals have come through the two schools in the past six decades to improve their warfare skills while imbibing U.S. respect for democratic values.
In a region flush with political instability and insurgent activity, promoting military professionalism among our Latin allies might seem like a good idea. But Rep. Jim McGovern, a Massachusetts Democrat, and 122 other House members have a problem with Whinsec. In March 2005, Mr. McGovern sponsored House Resolution 1217, which called for a suspension of the Whinsec program and an investigation of human rights violations that it allegedly contributed to.
It might be tempting to climb on board this "peace train" if not for the low credibility of Mr. McGovern and his activist admirers. The National Journal recently named the Massachusetts congressional delegation the most liberal in the nation and Mr. McGovern one of its most liberal members. Not incidentally, many of those demanding that Whinsec be shut down on "human rights" grounds are wholesale opponents of U.S. policy in the region.
One of the favorite targets of our adorable pacifists is the Colombian military, which a Gallup poll two years ago found was the most respected institution in that war-torn country with an 87% positive image (beating even the Church). Since Colombian President Alvaro Uribe has committed to raising the professionalism of Colombia's armed forces, the country's bloodthirsty guerrillas have been set back on their heels. That seems to make Mr. McGovern's supporters very unhappy.
There is also the habit of linking U.S. training to any misdeed committed by any individual that passed through the school. For example, SOA Watch, a Web site dedicated to closing Whinsec, blames the killing of a leader in the "peace community" on "troops commanded by General Luis Alfonso Zapata Uribe." Whether that's true or not is a matter for Colombian investigators. However, as evidence of U.S. complicity, SOA Watch cites Gen. Zapata Uribe's SOA attendance. What it doesn't mention is that he was there for six weeks in 1976 just after cadet school, according to Whinsec records. Even if Gen. Zapata Uribe -- who may well be innocent -- did spend six weeks in Georgia 30 years ago, does that really have any bearing on what constitutes good U.S. policy in the region today?
The notion that the U.S. should simply withdraw from military relationships in Latin America, abandoning not only alliances but also its role in promoting a U.S. human rights agenda, is about as stupid as, well, the Democratic idea of withdrawing from Iraq.
What is it about people named Barbara and Dean?
John Fund has a note on Barbara Boxer's Bush obsession in today's Political Diary.
Some Democrats have become so obsessed with President Bush's National Security Agency surveillance activities that they are putting the most rabid of the anti-Clinton Republicans of the 1990s to shame. Take Senator Barbara Boxer, the California Democrat who serves as her party's Chief Deputy Whip. Last month, during the holiday season, she sent a letter to legal scholars asking their opinions as to whether the Bush NSA program should compel Congress to start impeachment hearings. With the 2006 midterm elections now upon us, if the Democrats want the American public to take them seriously on matters of national security, perhaps they should quietly decide to make someone else the Chief Deputy Whip. Ms. Boxer's letter had been prompted by a December 16 appearance she made at Temple Emanuel in Los Angeles with former Nixon White House Counsel John Dean, who has since become a sort of understudy to former Attorney General Ramsey Clark in his willingness to ascribe all manner of evil intent to conservative presidents. Mr. Dean, who declared the Bush record on civil liberties "worse than Watergate," told the Temple Emanuel audience that Mr. Bush is "the first president to admit to an impeachable offense." Ms. Boxer called that "a startling assertion" worthy of Congressional attention. During her duet with Mr. Dean, she made her own startling statement, blurting out that she feared Mr. Bush "would prefer to do away with Congress," calling for the House and Senate to be disbanded during wartime. The "worse than Watergate" assertion would be one of the funniest things I've read today if it weren't for Boxer's own comment about Bush wanting to disband Congress. One has to wonder if she's truly serious when she utters such nonsense, or is she simply playing to the anti-war radical left? Either way, I think it shows that Boxer isn't fit for such a high position in one of this country's two major political parties. Democrats such as Ms. Boxer are in danger of being viewed as overheated and irrational in their reaction to the NSA story. Ya think? I think we're well past the "in danger of" stage. A new Rasmussen poll finds that 32% of voters think our legal system worries too much about individual rights at the expense of national security. Another 27% say the current balance is about right. Only 29% say there is too much concern for national security at the expense of individual liberties and only one-third of Americans believe that Mr. Bush broke the law by authorizing the NSA to monitor phone calls between terrorist suspects. Only 26% believe that President Bush is the first to authorize a program allowing the NSA to intercept such calls.
If Ms. Boxer and Mr. Dean continue to urge Democrats down the impeachment route, they should recall how much the issue flopped for Republicans in the 1998 mid-term elections. Mr. Clinton became the first president since FDR to see his party gain seats during a mid-term election, in part because voters felt Republicans were spending too much time attacking him rather than addressing other issues.
Letterman's swing to the left
This morning, while dropping the little phisch off at school and running an errand, I caught a bit of Laura Ingraham. She was discussing and taking calls about David Letterman's treatment of Bill O'Reilly when the latter appeared on the former's show earlier this week. I'm not an O'Reilly fan in the least, and I am an infrequent watcher of Letterman, but when I have tuned in, I too have noticed the late night host's slide toward the radical left. The late night shows, Leno and Letterman, have always poked fun at whomever is the current President, and the Congress. That's not the issue here. Carson did the same, and it's to be expected. They are public figures, and one of the great things about our country, as opposed to, say, the workers' paradise ninety miles off the coast of Florida, is that we can poke fun at our leaders without fear of reprisal. We have come to accept, and expect, such fun-poking from the late-night hosts. Within the past couple of years, however, both Leno and Letterman have increasingly been slinging barbs, instead of zingers, with regard to the President in particular, and conservatives in general. Leno, at least, remains funny and charming about it, and tries to be balanced. Letterman, however, appears bitter, his comments aren't funny, and he certainly isn't interested in trying to be fair. From the clips I heard, O'Reilly was trying to keep things light, quipping that Dave should tune in to O'Reilly's show, and maybe they would "send him a hat." Letterman's response was something along the lines of, "So long as it's a Cindy Sheehan hat." Cindy Sheehan, Dave? She's so last year. No one even showed up for her book signing. Letterman's strength has always been his and his staff's writing. Among the reasons I've tuned in less and less to Letterman is that strength is waning, and he's allowing too much of his political beliefs come through in what is supposed to be an entertainment show. No one tunes in to Letterman or Leno to listen to political rants, from either perspective, or to discuss world events. People tune in to get the latest entertainment gossip, watch the "interviews," and get a good laugh. Letterman has become fallow ground for the latter.