Terror Alerts
Much has been made of the fact that the terror alert was based upon old data. On one hand, there seems to be a valid concern - if the administration is sitting on old data until an arbitrary point, questions of its competence and motivations do arise. On the other hand, just because the data is old does not mean that is bad. Case in point - the World Trade Center was not attacked once - but twice. 2001 was the second attack, 1993 was the first. Data that was "old" in 2000 about the WTC being a desirable target may have been especially helpful on September 10th.
The big question is not whether the data was "old" but why it is being acted upon now. Maybe new information came up. Maybe new analysis was done that gave it heightened signficance. Or maybe the administration is cynically manipulating the terror alert system to great a climate fear so as to induce a Republican vote. You'll find people who'll agree to anyone of those explanations, but most likely the one they choose to believe will be determined by their partisan politics.
Personally, I think the first is true - that new data arose. While there is the "climate of fear" does affect peoples choices, you'll be hard pressed to argue that the danger is not real. The fact is that explosives and other weapons are all to easy to make, conceal, and use. And there are many out there who have their reasons for wanting to take advantage of their destructive power.
Wednesday, August 04, 2004
Tuesday, August 03, 2004
"Mission Accomplished"
Lorie at PoliPundit has some commentary about this famous line from Bush - it turns out that Bush only said the line in order to get more international support.
First there was the claim that Bush fed the soldiers in Iraq a "plastic turkey" at Thanksgiving, which turned out to be a fabrication. Then the 9/11 commission report and various other documents showed that it was Joe Wilson, not George Bush, who was lying about the "16 words" statement about Saddam seeking uranium from Africa. Now Gen. Tommy Franks says the "Mission Accomplished" speech was actually meant to encourage more help from the international community, rather than to mislead the American people, as Bush's opponents have claimed. After commanding the operation that toppled Saddam Hussein, Gen. Tommy Franks suggested that President Bush publicly mark an end to major combat in Iraq - an idea that led to the president's politically controversial appearance aboard an aircraft carrier.
Regardless the motivations of the President for the "Mission Accomplished" remark, as commander in chief he was aware of the risk of saying it. Yes, international aid is helpful in Iraq, and it is admirable that Bush was seeking to secure it to relieve the financial pressure on the American Public for paying the sole cost of this war. However, with all of the guerilla violence that has occured since then, the remark his made Bush appear at the least quite foolish, and he is justifiably being skewered for it.
It is beginning to look, however, like Bush might have done the right thing by ignoring so many of these specious attacks on him. In biding his time, the facts disputing so many of the Democrats' attacks are surfacing closer and closer to the election -- just in time to make his opponents appear to have been wrong so many times that many of their new attacks are bound to be taken with a grain of salt.
I think this point by Lorie is possibly closer to the truth. On the other hand, many of my friends who are normally quite Republican are againt Bush this go around on the basis of his "lying nature" . And these aren't East/West Coast liberals - these are solid Ohio voters who were born and raised in Canton, Ohio. Its the old Nazi theory that Moore, Wilson, and his ilk are succeeding at - if you are going to succeed in telling a lie, don't tell a small one. Tell a big one. And keep telling it.
We've been told so many lies, so repeatedly, for so long. Bush stole the election. Bush killed Kyoto. Bush's tax cut benefits only the wealthy. The economy hasn't produced any good jobs under Bush. Bush knew about September 11th. Bush is a puppet of the Bin Ladens. Bush is a puppet of the Jews. Bush is a puppet of Enron. Bush didn't seek international support for Iraq. Bush lied in the State of the Union about Iraq trying to get Uranium from Nigeria. Bush lied about weapons of Mass Destruction. Bush misled us into thinking this would be an easy war. Etc. Etc. Etc. Is it any wonder that Bush has had problems with his approval rating?
The question is not whether the Moores of the world have been lying repeatedly about Bush's truth-telling. The question is whether the American public has caught on. I'd like to believe that it has, but I remain skeptical. If Lorie wants to be an optimist, more power to her - in these dark times, we need people who'll take that attitude.
Lorie at PoliPundit has some commentary about this famous line from Bush - it turns out that Bush only said the line in order to get more international support.
First there was the claim that Bush fed the soldiers in Iraq a "plastic turkey" at Thanksgiving, which turned out to be a fabrication. Then the 9/11 commission report and various other documents showed that it was Joe Wilson, not George Bush, who was lying about the "16 words" statement about Saddam seeking uranium from Africa. Now Gen. Tommy Franks says the "Mission Accomplished" speech was actually meant to encourage more help from the international community, rather than to mislead the American people, as Bush's opponents have claimed. After commanding the operation that toppled Saddam Hussein, Gen. Tommy Franks suggested that President Bush publicly mark an end to major combat in Iraq - an idea that led to the president's politically controversial appearance aboard an aircraft carrier.
Regardless the motivations of the President for the "Mission Accomplished" remark, as commander in chief he was aware of the risk of saying it. Yes, international aid is helpful in Iraq, and it is admirable that Bush was seeking to secure it to relieve the financial pressure on the American Public for paying the sole cost of this war. However, with all of the guerilla violence that has occured since then, the remark his made Bush appear at the least quite foolish, and he is justifiably being skewered for it.
It is beginning to look, however, like Bush might have done the right thing by ignoring so many of these specious attacks on him. In biding his time, the facts disputing so many of the Democrats' attacks are surfacing closer and closer to the election -- just in time to make his opponents appear to have been wrong so many times that many of their new attacks are bound to be taken with a grain of salt.
I think this point by Lorie is possibly closer to the truth. On the other hand, many of my friends who are normally quite Republican are againt Bush this go around on the basis of his "lying nature" . And these aren't East/West Coast liberals - these are solid Ohio voters who were born and raised in Canton, Ohio. Its the old Nazi theory that Moore, Wilson, and his ilk are succeeding at - if you are going to succeed in telling a lie, don't tell a small one. Tell a big one. And keep telling it.
We've been told so many lies, so repeatedly, for so long. Bush stole the election. Bush killed Kyoto. Bush's tax cut benefits only the wealthy. The economy hasn't produced any good jobs under Bush. Bush knew about September 11th. Bush is a puppet of the Bin Ladens. Bush is a puppet of the Jews. Bush is a puppet of Enron. Bush didn't seek international support for Iraq. Bush lied in the State of the Union about Iraq trying to get Uranium from Nigeria. Bush lied about weapons of Mass Destruction. Bush misled us into thinking this would be an easy war. Etc. Etc. Etc. Is it any wonder that Bush has had problems with his approval rating?
The question is not whether the Moores of the world have been lying repeatedly about Bush's truth-telling. The question is whether the American public has caught on. I'd like to believe that it has, but I remain skeptical. If Lorie wants to be an optimist, more power to her - in these dark times, we need people who'll take that attitude.
Monday, August 02, 2004
Transitioning to VAT Taxation
A quick question - what happens to those who have mortgages? All that interest that was deductible under the old system - well, its not deductible anymore (unless I am misunderstanding the VAT). There are plenty of other people I'm sure in different situations who have made tax favored decisions that would be no longer beneficial, but cannot be transitioned away from immediatly. This could end up screwing a lot of people if the transition is done overnight. I guess we'll find more out as the debate continues.
A quick question - what happens to those who have mortgages? All that interest that was deductible under the old system - well, its not deductible anymore (unless I am misunderstanding the VAT). There are plenty of other people I'm sure in different situations who have made tax favored decisions that would be no longer beneficial, but cannot be transitioned away from immediatly. This could end up screwing a lot of people if the transition is done overnight. I guess we'll find more out as the debate continues.
How to Panic College Students
1) Sponsor Legislation to Bring Back Draft
2) Warn that Bush wants to Bring Back Draft and Point to Own Legislation.
Guess what - it really happened. Click here for the goods.
1) Sponsor Legislation to Bring Back Draft
2) Warn that Bush wants to Bring Back Draft and Point to Own Legislation.
Guess what - it really happened. Click here for the goods.
Getting Rid of the IRS?
Bush is proposing to scrap it and go with a value added tax (VAT) in place of our National Income Tax. I was going to dust off my old tax notes/books to see what the implications of this would be, but Dale Franks saved me (and you if your curious)most of the trouble.
Bush is proposing to scrap it and go with a value added tax (VAT) in place of our National Income Tax. I was going to dust off my old tax notes/books to see what the implications of this would be, but Dale Franks saved me (and you if your curious)most of the trouble.
Great Editorial in the Post
I am not going to do the editorial an injustice by commenting on it - I'll let it speak for itself.
Even though it's true that the deficit has recently grown sharply, deeper historical forces explain manufacturing's attrition.
What forces? An honest candidate might highlight two. First, Americans are growing richer, and richer people tend to spend less of their money on manufactured goods and more on services. As a result, the composition of production tends to shift. Second, manufacturing productivity has risen fast -- considerably faster, in fact, than the average rate for the economy. That productivity gain explains why manufacturing jobs tend to pay well. But it also allows firms to meet consumers' limited demand with fewer workers, so that manufacturing employment has fallen even faster than manufacturing's share of GDP.
So here's what Kerry ought to say. "My fellow Americans, I promised in my convention speech to revitalize manufacturing. But this sector's long-term decline is the flip side of our economic progress. Our manufacturing workers are marvelously productive, which is why they are paid well and also why they aren't more numerous."
While he's at it, Kerry could correct the impression that the pain an Ohio steel worker feels is about to beset millions of others. American voters are forever being told that workers in poor countries get paid rock-bottom wages and that there's something suspiciously unfair about this; "our plan calls for a fair playing field" was Kerry's summation of his trade philosophy at the convention. But the fear of foreign workers is exaggerated.
The reasons are explained in "Why Globalization Works," a powerful book by Martin Wolf, the chief economics commentator at the Financial Times. Foreign workers may be cheap: Chinese ones, for example, cost an average of $730 a year in the second half of the 1990s, as against $29,000 for the average American. But the average Chinese worker in this period added only $2,900 of value per year, while Americans added $81,000 each. U.S. workers are better educated, better managed and equipped with better machinery: They had at their disposal fixed capital worth 25 times as much as the machines their Chinese rivals used. No doubt, in the future, China's handicaps will erode. But China's wages will rise, too, offsetting the advantage.
Read the whole thing.
I am not going to do the editorial an injustice by commenting on it - I'll let it speak for itself.
Even though it's true that the deficit has recently grown sharply, deeper historical forces explain manufacturing's attrition.
What forces? An honest candidate might highlight two. First, Americans are growing richer, and richer people tend to spend less of their money on manufactured goods and more on services. As a result, the composition of production tends to shift. Second, manufacturing productivity has risen fast -- considerably faster, in fact, than the average rate for the economy. That productivity gain explains why manufacturing jobs tend to pay well. But it also allows firms to meet consumers' limited demand with fewer workers, so that manufacturing employment has fallen even faster than manufacturing's share of GDP.
So here's what Kerry ought to say. "My fellow Americans, I promised in my convention speech to revitalize manufacturing. But this sector's long-term decline is the flip side of our economic progress. Our manufacturing workers are marvelously productive, which is why they are paid well and also why they aren't more numerous."
While he's at it, Kerry could correct the impression that the pain an Ohio steel worker feels is about to beset millions of others. American voters are forever being told that workers in poor countries get paid rock-bottom wages and that there's something suspiciously unfair about this; "our plan calls for a fair playing field" was Kerry's summation of his trade philosophy at the convention. But the fear of foreign workers is exaggerated.
The reasons are explained in "Why Globalization Works," a powerful book by Martin Wolf, the chief economics commentator at the Financial Times. Foreign workers may be cheap: Chinese ones, for example, cost an average of $730 a year in the second half of the 1990s, as against $29,000 for the average American. But the average Chinese worker in this period added only $2,900 of value per year, while Americans added $81,000 each. U.S. workers are better educated, better managed and equipped with better machinery: They had at their disposal fixed capital worth 25 times as much as the machines their Chinese rivals used. No doubt, in the future, China's handicaps will erode. But China's wages will rise, too, offsetting the advantage.
Read the whole thing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
