Do I Have To Vote For Sen. Kennedy?

What City am I?

You Are Boston

Both modern and old school, you never forget your roots. Well educated and a little snobby, you demand the best. And quite frankly, you think you are the best. Famous people from the Boston area: Conan O'Brien, Ben Affleck, New Kids on the Block

I am not a big city guy and I am usually not an East-coast guy, but I have to admit that I really liked Boston. Hmm, I can always pretend to be educated...Hat-tip: Virginia Postrel (who is L.A.)

Cuts!

When is a cut not a cut?

When you slow the growth of Medicare spening from 8.1% per year to 7.7%.

Some cut.

Socialized Medicine III

It has been a tough week for government run health care on ThreeSources. Today, Cafe Hayek reports on The Death of the Canadian Model

We pointed out things were bad at the NHS. Our neighbors to the north allowed the crack in the dam when its supreme court ruled that private medical purchases could not be outlawed. Freedom is now rushing in. The NYTimes reports:

The country's publicly financed health insurance system — frequently described as the third rail of its political system and a core value of its national identity — is gradually breaking down. Private clinics are opening around the country by an estimated one a week, and private insurance companies are about to find a gold mine.

I flog this deceased equine because many people still want to bring this model here.

Harvard as GM

I have posted before about Professor William Stuntz of Harvard and his articles in The New Republic. He is on fire again. In What Summers's fall says about the future of higher education he takes the educational establishment square on with a prescient metaphor about Harvard as GM: on top, yet unable to see the problems on the horizon.

Harvard is the General Motors of American universities: rich, bureaucratic, and confident--a deadly combination. Fifty years from now, Larry Summers's resignation will be known as the moment when Harvard embraced GM's fate. From now on, the decline will likely be steep. And not only at Harvard: Among research universities as in the car market of generations past, other American institutions will follow the market leaders, straight to the bottom. The only question is who gets to play the role of Toyota in this metaphor.

At the end he suggests that Chinese or Indian Universities might take over, or that Bill Gates might start a University from scratch. Of course, he admits the current universities might wisen up, but it does not seem likely.

Problem is, university faculty don't want to talk back to their bosses; they don't want to have bosses. And their preferences matter. The past 40 years have seen faculty take near-total control of leading universities. These institutions are democracies of a peculiar sort: Only a part of one constituency gets to vote. Two kinds of people teach in universities: those who invest in some combination of teaching students and writing scholarship (the best people invest in both), and those who go through the motions. Which group do you suppose is more likely to attend the meetings and write the memos and vote on the motions of no confidence? The correlation isn't perfect: There are great teachers and scholars who do invest in institutional governance, and thank God for them. Over time, though, general tendencies swamp individual variations, and the general tendency here is disastrous. It is as if you took the bottom half of GM's factory workers a half-century ago and told them to run the corporation, promising that whatever they did, their jobs were guaranteed and their pay could only rise. It's a great gig while it lasts.

In between, he makes a serious defense of Summers as a man of ideas and a true reformer. This has exposed the seriousness of the problem to a few more people. A competitor for traditional higher education would have a great opportunity; sadly, none exist now.

If you can't lick 'em

Instead of complaining about Kyoto adding 20% to the cost of energy in the EU, I should have been playing the future's market. Iain Murray writes in TCS Today about "The Kyoto Bubble."

It is well known that Enron was a keen enthusiast for limits on carbon dioxide emissions under the aegis of a cap and trade scheme, which would enable companies to trade permits for the right to emit carbon dioxide. Enron documents released to the public reveal that executives thought such restrictions would, "do more to promote Enron's business than almost any other regulatory initiative outside of restructuring the energy and natural gas industries in Europe and the United States." We can now see why. In Europe, such a scheme has been introduced, and the energy companies and their advisers are very happy.

"The carbon market is going very well. We've seen tremendous growth this year," Henrik Hasselknippe, senior analyst at Point Carbon, told Agence France Presse on February 12. "Carbon is now being used as a commodity on the same lines as other energy commodities." According to his estimates, CO2 trading will be a $40 billion annual industry by the end of this decade. The current price for a metric ton of carbon is $31, while a year ago it was $8. Others are equally bullish. Thierry Carol of Powernext Carbon, a CO2 trading market, told the same reporter, "Things are taking off. This is just a start."

" UBS itself concluded that there is a significant risk of a windfall profit tax being placed on the industry." Talk about full-circle -- whom would I root for if there were a windfall profits tax on greenhouse gas markets? I get dizzy just thinking about it.

I know we have some fundamental disagreements on global warming around here, but perhaps we can all agree that Kyoto is a bad idea? Oddly enough, the free-marketer in me loves the idea of cap and trade. But I would like to use it for real pollutants, not what plants breathe.

WSJ Answers Fukuyama

My wobbly moment is solidifying without any help from PM Thatcher. Rather, it comes from today's lead editorial in the Wall Street Journal,(free link) which matches my objection to Fukuyama's "end of neocon history," namely, what else do you do?

Then there is the supposedly failed policy of the Bush Administration. In five years, it has brought four democratic governments to power in the Middle East: by force of arms in Afghanistan and Iraq, and through highly assertive diplomacy in Lebanon and Palestine. Mr. Fukuyama tells us that "by definition, outsiders can't 'impose' democracy on a country that doesn't want it."

Leaving aside the niggling examples of Japan and Germany, exactly how are we to know that country X does not want democracy, except democratically? Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians and Lebanese have all made their democratic preferences plain in successive recent elections. And with the arguable exception of the Palestinians (arguable because Fatah was as undemocratic as Hamas), they have voted to establish considerably more liberal regimes than what existed previously.

This is not to say democracy is a cure-all. It is also not to say that the peril these democracies face, from terrorist insurrection or ethnic or religious feuding, isn't grave. Nor, finally, is it to say that the "Hitler scenario" can be excluded in a democratizing Middle East; that possibility is always present, especially among nascent democracies.

But democracy also offers the possibility of greater liberalism and greater moderation, possibilities that have been opened with the courageously pro-American governments of Hamid Karzai, Jalal Talabani and Saad Hariri. And as we stand with them, it seems to us that America's bets are better placed promoting democracies--even if some of them succumb to illiberal temptations--than acceding to dictatorships, which already have.

Or does someone have a better idea?

Bereft of Ideas

I'm gonna beat up on a good friend who is a committed liberal. He keeps me on his e-mail list, which has some intelligent commentary and interesting articles from time to time.

Today, it was a poem called "Make the pie higher" assembled entirely from supposed W malapropisms (click "Continue..." if you really want to read it).

It struck me that "his side" has had several important victories this week, He could have sent me a link to the Fukuyama piece in the NYTimes, he could have sent me a link to Bill Buckley's article which claims the war is lost, he could have pointed to the Dubai port contretemps to highlight GOP rifts and signal what FOXNews commentators called "creeping lame-duckism," et cetera, et cetera...

Instead they have made the discovery -- five years into his presidency -- that the President is not a skilled orator, and ask the question whether this might indicate a lack of intelligence.

Just one guy who is not a moonbat but runs with them from time to time. But I think it shows the lack of seriousness from their camp. Even when the president is in real political difficulties, they come out blasting with 3rd-grade humor.

MAKE THE PIE HIGHER

I think we all agree, the past is over.
This is still a dangerous world.
It's a world of madmen and uncertainty
And potential mental losses.

Rarely is the question asked
Is our children learning?

Will the highways of the Internet
Become more few?

How many hands have I shaked?
They misunderestimate me.
I am a pitbull on the pantleg of opportunity.

I know that the human being
And the fish can coexist.
Families is where our nation finds hope,
Where our wings take dream.

Put food on your family!
Knock down the tollbooth!
Vulcanize society!
Make the pie higher!
Make the pie higher!

Pass this on.
Help cure mad cowboy disease in the next election!

Lighter Fare

Steven Den Beste: Why I want Roe v Wade Overturned.

Powerline: Saddam Had WMD

WSJ Ed Page on Drug War

I've always looked to National Review (and Instapundit) for common sense about the "War on Drugs" feeling that The Weekly Standard and the WSJ Ed Page were on the wrong side of this issue.

Today, Ed Page Editor George Melloan has a "Featured Article" (free link) that makes me think my favorite economic folks are coming around.

Economist Milton Friedman predicted in Newsweek nearly 34 years ago that Richard Nixon's ambitious "global war against drugs" would be a failure. Much evidence today suggests that he was right. But the war rages on with little mainstream challenge of its basic weapon, prohibition.
[...]
Milton Friedman saw the problem. To the extent that authorities curtail supplies of marijuana, cocaine and heroin coming into the rich U.S. market, the retail price of these substances goes up, making the trade immensely profitable--tax-free, of course. The more the U.S. spends on interdiction, the more incentive it creates for taking the risk of running drugs.

In 1933, the U.S. finally gave up on the 13-year prohibition of alcohol--a drug that is by some measures more intoxicating and dangerous to health than marijuana. That effort to alter human behavior left a legacy of corruption, criminality, and deaths and blindness from the drinking of bad booze. America's use of alcohol went up after repeal but no serious person today suggests a repeat of the alcohol experiment. Yet prohibition is still being attempted, at great expense, for the small portion of the population--perhaps little more than 5%--who habitually use proscribed drugs.

Melloan also discusses the rise of leftists in Latin America and the corruption of drug gangs in Mexico: anti-freedom movements exacerbated by the US position.

I hope this "libertarian" issue will come out into the mainstream (not only because my MS might get much worse). This is as issue of basic freedom and economics to me. Freedom because people should be allowed to do very bad things if they don't hurt anybody else. Economics because criminalization funds the street gangs and their high-end lifestyle.

Prohibition has failed twice now; let's try something else.

Socialized Medicine II

A couple days ago JK made a post comparing the survival rates of cancer patients between socialized medicine nations and the United States.

Unsurprisingly, Americans have a higher survival rate.

I commented somewhat sarcastically...

Yet another unsurprising factoid from the ills of socialized medicine.
I can't wait until euthanasia becomes prescribed by the health systems of those countries.
It's the most cost-effective, after all.
Then we're one step closer to Logan's Run. ;)

Well, here's a case, where I'd rather be wrong.

The parents of Charlotte Wyatt have been told that doctors are to be allowed to let their profoundly ill baby daughter die if they feel it is in her best interests.

A High Court judge yesterday lifted a previous ruling that she should always be resuscitated, on the grounds that the two-year-old was now on a "downward rather than an upward trend".

Mr Justice Hedley heard an emergency application from doctors treating her that she had developed an aggressive chest infection and was unlikely to survive any moves to keep her alive.

"Medical evidence speaks with one voice, that ventilation simply will not achieve the end for which no doubt the parents would wish," he said.

It's not quite a prescription for death by bureaocracy.... but it's awfully close.

Self-Immolation

Everytime I read DailyKos, I have to ask myself why I do it.

Witness.

This is an interesting take on the world situation.
NEW YORK - The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations said Saturday that the world body is hobbled "by bad management, by sex and corruption" and a lack of confidence in its ability to carry out missions....

"We find an organization that is deeply troubled by bad management, by sex and corruption and by a growing lack of confidence in its ability to carry out missions that are given to them," Bolton told an audience at a Columbia Law School symposium held by the Federalist Society, a conservative law organization.

What is the bizarre preoccupation these guys have with sex? Really? Sex is one of the UN's primary problems? I'd think it might have something to do with the fact that the world's greatest power refuses to participate in a meaningful way in any international effort or to recognize international law or the Geneva Conventions or to sign onto critical international treaties. But maybe that's just me.

Well, I cant hold being completely uninformed against someone. Hint: It's the molestations of boys and girls in Africa by blue helmeted men. ABCNews

But then it gets worse.

In the comments, TPaine suggests that Bolton was referring to sex crimes by U.N. personnel in the Congo. If this is what Bolton was talking about, the story is even worse. Equating these heinous crimes with bureaucratic mismanagement is dismissive and offensive. What's more, rape isn't sex. It's violent crime.

Ok. so it's corrected, yet that makes it worse?

Worse because why exactly?

Bolton is not equating them, he's listing them.

Oy.

Engima

Apparently there are some Engima codes for World War II that remain unbroken.

If you'd like to help to crack them, click here.

Door to Door

So I was going around door to door today to my neighbors to collect signatures to get my Congressman Jim Gerlach on the ballot. I went around with one of my solidly R neighbors, who happens to be a recovering Liberal.

On the way out of my house he was saying, "What is Bush doing?"

Shrugging my shoulders, I said, "I have no idea..."

I had the neighbors pretty much pegged D or R. We've never been overly political in the neighborhood, except for a few comments over the years, so I knocked on the definate R doors. In BS'ing with the Republican neighborsI heard more than once, "yeah, I'm a Republican... but I've been disappointed lately."

How do you say anything else but, "Yeah, me too?"

Starbucks Libertarian

I read this article last week off a Pajamas Link. Employment demands and the Fukuyama post crowded it out but it has stuck in my mind.

So I entered the title "starbucks libertarian" into Yahoo search and got 224,000 hits, with the story I wanted represented four times in the top five. I have a lot of liberal friends who will not set foot in a Starbucks. Fine, I'll go with them to an independent place (we're blessed in Boulder and Lafayette with several good ones). But I always say -- or want to say -- that big green created the market and awareness.

Jacob Grier backs this up with Statistics and puts the "Starbucks drives out independents" meme to bed. The piece is even-handed as Grier voices many serious objections to Starbucks's style and quality.

Dave and I come from often opposed ends of the political spectrum. He runs a "red meat" progressive weblog, while I'm loosely affiliated with the libertarian public policy scene in Washington, DC. But we're united by our desire to cross ideological boundaries and by our love for great coffee. So when Dave invited me to write a guest post on "a libertarian perspective on coffee," I was intrigued.

By way of an introduction, I should note that I'm not a full-time policy analyst. I left the 9-5 think tank world a couple years ago to work behind the bars at two of Washington's top coffee shops, places committed to elevating coffee and espresso preparation to a culinary art. In this world, Starbucks is an apparent nemesis, replacing skillful baristas with automatic machines, driving indie coffee houses out of business, and submerging its burnt espresso in heaps of milk and syrup.

Grier describes three waves of coffee adoption and even links to the famous "Coffee Achievers" ad.

I ask people to believe counter-intuitive things on this blog all the time: lower taxes increase Federal revenue, imports make us richer, freer immigration will raise wages, &c. I'll add this to the list: Starbucks is the best thing in the world for independent coffee houses

According to the Portland Yellow Pages, before Starbucks came to Portland in 1989, there were 28 coffee shops in the city. Today, there are 91 non-Starbucks coffeehouses in Portland proper, compared with the chain's 48 stores within city limits.

An excellent article, near and dear to all of our hearts.

T-Shirt Poll

CafePress has 345 Dick Cheney Shooting Items. I love this country!

Bake Sales

I love these things.

The College Republicans at a local university setup an affirmative action bake sale.

When Ahmirah Cottman walked into the student center at Kutztown University earlier this month, she was appalled by the insinuations she thought were being made by members of the college Republican club standing behind a table with cookies, brownies and cupcakes.

Prices at the so-called ''Affirmative Action Bake Sale,'' which was actually against affirmative action, varied depending on the race of the customer, with whites paying more than minorities.

''The sign said $1 for whites, 25 cents for blacks and women got a 25-cent credit, so they told me, 'Go ahead and take it, it's free for you,''' said Cottman, a black woman.

That's a good deal.

''I got here because I'm bright,'' said Cottman, a junior studying political science.

I'm sure you did, Ms Cottman. That's precisely the point. You have to defend your admission to KU because of the taint of affirmative action.

Witness some silencing of dissent.

About 100 students — black, white and Hispanic — marched Thursday on campus to demonstrate their concerns about the Feb. 8 bake sale, allegations of offensive comments made by Republican club members, and why the university administration allowed the sale to happen and has not done anything to punish those involved.

Too bad the CR's didn't have the Mohammed comics. It would have been open and shut.

Here's another case where an offended group wishes to silence an opinion contrary to their own.

[University President] Cevallos said he understood why the students were upset, but added the campus has to accommodate a free exchange of ideas and can't silence political viewpoints some find objectionable. He offered to host a forum Tuesday where all sides could share their opinions and learn about the university's admissions policies, which do not give preference based on race.

Can't silence is the correct answer. Thank you Mr President.

Howdy From TX

Thanks JK! The name and password worked, and here I am. I'll be working in San Antone this weekend, so I'll see ya'll next week!!

Neoliberalism

Earlier I posted about liberals and leftists being defined not by what they're for, but what their against.

The Environmental Republican labels these people neoliberals.

Today we have the neoliberals. You can spot a neoliberal by these telltale signs:

An unflinching hatred of George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, etc. Watch a neoliberalhenever W is shown on TV--they actually develop a tic and get a crazy-assed look in their eyes. Kind of like Pavlovs dogs at the sound of the bell. They go insane.

Depending on the company they are in, they may suffer from symptoms that look alot like those associated with Tourette's Syndrome. They'll uncontrollably start saying things like "Bush is a new Hitler" or "It's all for the oil" or my personal favorite: "He was selected and not elected".

It goes on to list a number of other ways to spot them, as well as including some situations.

He ends...

In conclusion; neoliberalism rules the left and paleoliberalism is dead.

Yeah.

US / UAE Bi-lateral Relationship

I got the following email forwarded to me.
It originated in the Jewish liason's office at the White House.

Below you will find facts and comments from the Administration about the bilateral relationship between the United States and the United Arab Emirates, as well as information on the DP World transaction. As the President said two days ago, "this is a company that has played by the rules, that has been cooperative with the United States, that's an ally in the War on Terror, and it would send a terrible signal to friends and allies not to let this transaction go through."

Click read more to see the bullet points...

The United States – UAE Bilateral Relationship

"But I also want to repeat something again, and that is, this is a company that has played by the rules, that has been cooperative with the United States, a country that's an ally in the War on Terror, and it would send a terrible signal to friends and allies not to let this transaction go through."
- President Bush, 2/21/06

"[T]he military-to-military relationship with the United Arab Emirates is superb. … They've got airfields that they allow us to use, and their airspace, their logistics support. They've got a world-class air-to-air training facility that they let us use and cooperate with them in the training of our pilots. In everything that we have asked and work with them on, they have proven to be very, very solid partners."
- General Peter Pace, Chairman Of The Joint Chiefs Of Staff, 2/21/06

The United Arab Emirates (UAE) Is A Longstanding Friend And Ally Of The United States. The United States and UAE have a longstanding alliance. The UAE is a key partner of the United States in the War on Terror, helping to advance Middle East peace efforts. The UAE is also a vibrant trading partner and has provided critical support in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.

The UAE Is A Key Partner In The War On Terror. The UAE provides U.S. and Coalition forces unprecedented access to its ports and territory, overflight clearances, and other critical and important logistical assistance. Today, the UAE is providing assistance to the missions in Afghanistan and Iraq, combating terrorists by cutting off their financing, and enhancing America's homeland security by actively participating in initiatives to screen shipments and containers.

UAE Ports Host More U.S. Navy Ships Than Any Port Outside The United States. The UAE provides outstanding support for the U.S. Navy at the ports of Jebel Ali – which is managed by DP World – and Fujairah and for the U.S. Air Force at al Dhafra Air Base (tankers and surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft). The UAE also hosts the UAE Air Warfare Center, the leading fighter training center in the Middle East.

The UAE Is A Partner In Shutting Down Terror Finance Networks. The UAE has worked with us to stop terrorist financing and money laundering, including by freezing accounts, enacting aggressive anti-money-laundering and counter-terrorist financing laws and regulations, and exchanging information on people and entities suspected of being involved in these activities.

The UAE Is An Established Partner In Protecting America's Ports. Dubai was the first Middle Eastern entity to join the Container Security Initiative (CSI) – a multinational program to protect global trade from terrorism. Under CSI, a team of U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers is permanently stationed inside Dubai's ports, where they work closely with Dubai Customs to screen containers destined for the United States. Cooperation with Dubai officials has been outstanding and a model for other operations. Dubai was also the first Middle Eastern entity to join the Department of Energy's Megaports Initiative, a program aimed at stopping illicit shipments of nuclear and other radioactive material.

The UAE Is A Critical Partner In Afghanistan. The UAE extends vital military and political support to Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and substantial financial and humanitarian support to Afghanistan and its people.

The UAE Is Supporting The New Iraqi Government. The UAE has provided significant monetary and materiel support to the Iraqi government, including a pledge of $215 million in economic and reconstruction assistance.

The UAE Is Supporting Middle East Peace Efforts. The UAE is a moderate Arab state and a long-time supporter of all aspects of Middle East peace efforts. The U.S. and the UAE are also working together to create a stable economic, political and security environment in the Middle East.

The UAE Provided $100 Million To Help The Victims Of Hurricane Katrina. The UAE was one of the first nations to offer financial aid to the U.S. after Hurricane Katrina struck the Gulf Coast. UAE's $100 million donation was one of the largest by any nation.

The CFIUS Process And The DP World Transaction

“If there was any chance that this transaction would jeopardize the security of the United States, it would not go forward. The company has been cooperative with the United States government. The company will not manage port security. The security of our ports will continue to be managed by the Coast Guard and Customs. The company is from a country that has been cooperative in the war on terror, been an ally in the war on terror. The company operates ports in different countries around the world, ports from which cargo has been sent to the United States on a regular basis.�
- President George W. Bush, February 21, 2006

President Bush Strongly Supports The Decision To Move Forward With The DP World Transaction

The Administration, As Required By Law, Has Reviewed The Transaction To Make Certain That It Does Not In Any Way Jeopardize National Security. Under the process conducted by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), officials carefully reviewed the national security issues raised by the transaction and its effect on our national security. Twelve Federal agencies and the government’s counterterrorism experts closely and carefully reviewed the transaction to make certain it posed no threat to national security.

DP World Has Provided Strong Security Assurances To The United States. DP World has signed a letter of assurances making commitments to meet and maintain security standards for the port terminals that they will own and operate in the United States. There are a number of safeguards that are in place in the agreement, and the American people should feel confident that the transaction will in no way harm the security of the Nation’s ports.

DP World’s Bid For The London-Based Peninsular And Oriental (P&O) Steam Navigation Company Was Announced Last Fall. DP World, a UAE-based commercial entity, is purchasing the U.S. subsidiary of the London-based P&O Steam Navigation Company. The announcement of DP World’s bid for P&O was made in November 2005, and the news was widely reported in the press and international financial trade publications. The formal CFIUS process was set into motion in December, and the Federal government conducted a thorough review to ensure that port security would in no way be compromised by the deal.

The Administration Has Taken A Principled Position Based On The Security Of Our Nation And Careful Review Of The Transaction. The President has made clear that he stands firmly behind the decision to allow the DP World transaction to move forward. Preventing this transaction by a reputable company to go forward after careful review would send a terrible signal to friends and allies that investments in the United States from certain parts of the world are not welcome.

The Port Security Of the United States Is The Administration’s First And Foremost Concern

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Is Always In Charge Of The Nation’s Port Security, Not The Private Company That Operates Facilities Within The Ports. Nothing will change with this transaction. DHS, along with the U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and other Federal agencies, sets the standards for port security and ensures that all port facility owners and operators comply with these standards.

The Transaction Is Not About Port Security Or Even Port Ownership, But Only About Operations In Port. DP World will not manage port security, nor will it own any ports. DP World would take on the functions now performed by the British firm P&O – basically the off- and on-loading of cargo. Employees will still have to be U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents. No private company currently manages any U.S. port. Rather, private companies such as P&O and DP World simply manage and operate individual terminals within ports.

Background On The CFIUS Process

The CFIUS Process Was Rigorously Followed, And CFIUS Agencies Carefully Reviewed The Transaction. Ensuring the protection of our national security is the top priority of all members of CFIUS. In reviewing a foreign transaction, CFIUS brings together 12 Federal agencies with diverse expertise to consider transactions from a variety of perspectives and identify and analyze all national security issues.

• The Department of the Treasury, which chairs CFIUS, receives notices of transactions, serves as the contact point for the private sector, establishes a calendar for review of each transaction, and coordinates the interagency process.
  
• During the initial 30-day review, each CFIUS member agency conducts its own internal analysis of the national security implications of the transaction under review. CFIUS also consults with the intelligence community. In this case, the Departments of Transportation and Energy were also brought in to widen the scope and add to the expertise of the CFIUS agencies involved in the review process.
  
• All CFIUS decisions are made by consensus of the entire committee. The review process allows any agency that sees a potential credible threat to the national security to raise those concerns.
  
• In the course of the review of this transaction, DHS reached an agreement with DP World to mitigate security concerns.

  DP World Has Played By The Rules, Has Cooperated With The United States, And Is From A Country That Is A Close Ally In the War on Terror. The United Arab Emirates (UAE) has been a solid partner in the War on Terror. The UAE has been extremely cooperative on counter-terrorism and counter-proliferation and has provided considerable support to U.S. forces in the Gulf and to the governments and people of Iraq and Afghanistan.

• The UAE Is A Partner In Shutting Down Terror Finance Networks. The UAE has worked with us to stop terrorist financing and money laundering, including by freezing accounts, enacting aggressive anti-money-laundering and counter-terrorist financing laws and regulations, and exchanging information on people and entities suspected of being involved in those actions.

• The UAE Is An Established Partner In Protecting America's Ports. Dubai was the first Middle Eastern entity to join the Container Security Initiative (CSI) – a multinational program to protect global trade from terrorism. Dubai was also the first Middle Eastern entity to join the Department of Energy's Megaports Initiative, a program aimed at stopping illicit shipments of nuclear and other radioactive material.

  Port Security Begins Abroad. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) created the CSI to enable CBP to inspect 100% of high-risk containers at foreign seaports before they are loaded onboard vessels destined for the United States. Dubai was the first Middle Eastern entity to join CSI. Cooperation with Dubai has been outstanding and a model for other operations.

• DP World currently manages 19 container terminals and has operations in 14 countries. The United States government has a strong working relationship with DP World.

Socialized Medicine

In The Big Idea, AlexC asks what the Left stands for. If we had more progressives running around here (for better or worse), I've no doubt we would hear something about healthcare and some very large number n of uninsured Americans. If they have an idea, it includes greater government involvement in health care

They have an idea, and it's bad -- check out these statistics from a WSJ ed, Cancer Prognosis (paid again, sorry!) about how Cancer rates are dropping in the US.

Both are the result of medical innovation funded by government, private donations, and profit-making bio-medical and pharmaceutical companies. Colonoscopies, mammograms and other tests are more widely publicized and utilized. And new drug therapies, less punishing and invasive than surgery or chemotherapy, have been developed thanks to the incentives of a private medical marketplace.

This is in marked contrast to the anti-cancer record of government-run health systems elsewhere in the world. As Michael Tanner, health-care expert at the Cato Institute, notes: "Because cancer is a slow moving and expensive disease to treat, it is not cost-effective under socialized medicine to treat the disease too aggressively. This saves governments money but at a high human cost."

The statistics bear out Mr. Tanner's point. Only about one in five men with prostate cancer in the U.S. will die from it. But, according to a study by the Commonwealth Fund, about 57% of British men, and nearly half of French and German men, will do so. In Britain only 40% of cancer patients are even permitted to see an oncologist to treat the disease. Two-thirds of Canadian provinces report sending their colon cancer patients to the U.S. for treatment. Government-run medical systems can be as cruel to cancer patients as the cancer itself.

Twenty percent vs. 57%? Yeah, let's bring that great idea to this country!

The Downside of Outsourcing

Remember when outsourcing was going to destroy the domestic IT sector? Lou Dobbs had a hard-on for that line of thinking, and it was a bullet point in the Kerry/Edwards run in 2004.
Well...

"Despite all the publicity in the United States about jobs being lost to India and China, the size of the IT employment market in the United States today is higher than it was at the height of the dot.com boom," said the report. "Information technology appears as though it will be a growth area at least for the coming decade, and the U.S. government projects that several IT occupations will be among the fastest growing occupations during this time."

And even with greater globalization, the report argues that the lower wage scales in India and China are not pushing down pay for U.S. IT workers. Citing information from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, it said that IT workers have seen steady gains in average annual wages for different fields in the sector of between about two to five percent a year.

I'll be darned.

Common Sense on Ports

Isn't this precisely what the United States preaches? Don't we want places like Dubai to fight terror and to grow, to invest, to buy, to trade, to adopt Western commercial practices, to expose themselves to the rest of the world and thus become tolerant and moderate?

Yes, James, it seems to have worked well everywhere else.

My right wing bloggers are in a full blown tizzy over the United Arab Emirates port deal, but the free marketers are finally getting their side out. And I have to agree with folks like James Glassman in TCS.

Instead, congressional leaders are trying to kill the deal, which is set to go into effect next week. Why? "Outsourcing the operations of our largest ports to a country with a dubious record on terrorism is a homeland security and commerce accident waiting to happen," says Schumer.

This is rank racist nonsense. Schumer knows very well that responsibility for port security in the United States lies not with DP World or any other operator, but instead with the U.S. Coast Guard and U.S. Customs. "Nothing changes with respect to security under the contract," said Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. "The Coast Guard is in charge of security, not the corporation."

Using Schumeresque logic, the U.S. should ban flights into the U.S. by airlines from Arab countries, and we should certainly bar any cargo from being loaded in Arab ports and bound for the U.S. ("If you are worried about a bomb in a box going off in New York, you need to worry about who loads the container overseas rather than the terminal operator who unloads it in the U.S.," says someone who actually knows something about port security, Theodore Price of Optimization Alternatives, a Texas company that provides terminal-operating software.) In fact, one would suppose that Dubai, with billions at stake, would be more careful -- not less -- about assisting in anti-terror activities at U.S. ports if it is actually operating them.

Nationalist undertones are a great tool for protectionists. Now that their arguments have failed economically, they will seek to use security. Sorry gang, free trade not only makes us all richer, it also promotes freedom without endangering a single US Marine.

Zachary Karabell, in a guest editorial in the Wall Street Journal, sounds the same themes (paid link, sorry!)

Most troubling of all is the larger pattern of hyperbolic and xenophobic reactions against the tide of globalization. Strip away the particulars and the response to this current deal is almost identical to the reactions last summer when oil giant Unocal was nearly purchased by the Chinese company Cnooc. Then, Republican Rep. Richard Pombo warned that the deal could have "disastrous consequences for our economic and national security," while Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden noted, "Being a free-trader isn't synonymous with being a sucker and a patsy."

Then and now, the response to an economic challenge has been to raise the flag of national security to prevent foreign companies from acquiring U.S. assets. At the time of the Unocal deal, a common rejoinder was, "Well, the Chinese wouldn't let us acquire a vital asset of theirs," but then China began selling portions of its primary state-owned banks to the likes of Goldman Sachs and Citigroup. The specifics of the Dubai deal aside, there are signs that our preferred way to meet the challenge of a globalized economy is not to innovate and compete but to erect walls, invoke sovereign rights and bury our heads in the sand.

The Big Idea

Jane Galt compares the ideas of the left and the right in America.

Conservatives have a few things that pretty much all of them can agree on: the lower taxes are, the better; government programmes and regulations often create more problems than they solve; keep your damn hands off our guns. Pretty much everyone from the Libertarians to James Dobson and Co. can get behind this platform, and sell it to the American public. You can even add "The US military should be able to kick the [expletive deleted] of anyone who threatens us in any way" and keep all but the most hard-core Libertarians. I'm sure there are a couple of other things you could throw in, and still get a platform that is reasonably large, coherent, and agreeable to not only pretty much the entire conservative movement, but a fair number of moderates besides. There are lots--LOTS--of things that the conservatives disagree on, from gay marriage to flag burning. But there are enough that the conservative movement can craft a mission statement and sell it to America.

What's the liberal Big Idea? Raise taxes? I'd say pretty much all the liberals I know are for that . . . but raising taxes, even "raising taxes on the rich", is not an ends, but a means, unless you're the kind of emotional toddler who wants to take other people's things away just because you can't have them. And the left (into which I throw moderate Democrats, just as I'll throw moderate Republicans on the right) does not agree what it wants to do with the taxes it raises. The DLC types (and swing voters) want to close the budget deficit in a (IMHO futile) attempt to build the Clinton legacy. The left-liberals want a big government health care programme, and other sorts of Great Society style social programmes. The far left wants . . . ohhh, a lot of things, but they're not going to get any of them, so that hardly seems relevant.

The idea that the left is defined not by what it stands for, but for what it stands against has been percolating for a while.

I've been seeing a lot of evidence of it in my alternate life on SantorumBlog. Senator Rick Santorum is the new Jesse Helms. No matter what he does, the left hates him. Now he's up for re-election, the Democrat's establishment candidate is not really their kind of guy (pro-life... also pro-Alito). As you can imagine, they're not for Bob Casey. They're against Rick Santorum.

Kind of like Rick Lazio was. He ran against Hillary Clinton in 2000 for the Senate. Yeah, you remember him. Right?

Remember!

Always remember....

Paul Trost, 20, a student at Massasoit Community College in Brockton, Mass., says he was upset by an introduction of Kennedy given by Rep. Stephen Lynch, D-Mass., in which the congressman noted how the long-time senator overcame hardship in life on his way to success.


Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass.

"Lynch said Kennedy had overcome such adversity to get to the place he was, and that's a bunch of bull," Trost said of the introduction, which occurred in the school's student center Tuesday morning.

Just as Kennedy began speaking, Trost was walking out of the room when he shouted, "Remember Chappaquiddick!"

"Most of the crowd gasped," Trost said. "Then I walked out of the student center."

Gasped.. I bet.

The student said one of his teachers confronted him after a class about the Chappaquiddick issue.

"One of my teachers called me ignorant and told me this was an embarrassment to the school," Trost told WND. "She said to me, 'Can't you forgive him after all these years?' And I said, 'No, he killed somebody.'

"If it had been me or any other person, we'd be in jail," Trost says he told his instructor.

It is unknown if Senator Kennedy's face got any redder than usual.

The Wake of War

Vietnam: beacon of freedom?

In another sign that Vietnam is beginning to attract a critical mass of foreign investment, Vietnamese regulators approved Intel Corp.'s plans to proceed with the country's single biggest technology project to date, a chip-assembly plant in Ho Chi Minh City.

Intel's arrival is expected to be announced Tuesday at a ceremony with political leaders and Intel Chairman Craig Barrett. The size of the company's investment, likely to be several hundred million dollars, and its prominence in the technology sector signal a turning point in Vietnam's economic emergence.

The country is already an important exporter of food and textiles, and its success in attracting capital is growing. Merrill Lynch estimates that foreign direct investment in Vietnam reached $5 billion in 2005, an eight-year high. The influx helped lift annual economic growth to rates approaching those of Asia's biggest booming economies, China and India. During the past six years, Vietnam's gross domestic product has grown at an annual average of 7.4%, adjusted for inflation.

Like my Fukuyama post (for which I expected severe opprobrium), it makes me question my neoWilsonian beliefs. We failed to install capitalism and democracy in Vietnam, but they found it. Estonia found it, Socialist India and Communist China are finding it.

I definitely veered toward some basic precepts of isolationism in 2005. Not just the tough times -- a better feeling for the difficulty of affecting change from outside.

Who Will Google Censor Next?

Our friend Cyrano sent me this link under the email heading, "Google Censoring Mohammed Cartoons?" I can't tell if any censorship is in play here, but how many people even suspected this sort of thing before Google caved to the Chicoms? This is an apt example of why Google is playing with fire by agreeing to censor certain content for certain markets. So far it's only the Chinese market, as far as we know, but once they show their willingness to bow to one master, how can we have any trust in them ever again?

Besides that, you just can't win the censorship game. No matter how much you hide there will always be something that gets through and pisses off "mastah." According to Brit Hume's Political Grapevine today:

The popular Internet search engine Google has come under fire for giving in to Chinese demands to filter out politically sensitive search results, but China is complaining that Google hasn't gone far enough. Unnamed officials tell one Beijing newspaper that Google needs to cooperate further in blocking "harmful information" and an editorial in another state-run paper accused the firm of sneaking into China like an "uninvited guest," then complaining about having to follow the law.

The Washington Post reports that the government has even raised issues with Google's Internet license to pressure the firm to comply with its demands, which include making a larger investment in China.

You can't lie with dogs without getting fleas.

On Free Speech

Philadelphia's chapter of CAIR had a panel this past weekend to discuss the offensive to Prophet cartoons and free speech. UPenn's paper, the Daily Pennsylvanian covered it.

During their introductory speeches, several panelists denounced the cartoons as slanderous while discussing limitations on free speech.

"People have every right to give an opinion on something," Rachel Lawton, executive director of the Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations, said. "You cross the line when you threaten, intimidate or harass, and that is when free speech is limited."

The trouble is that when that line is defined by the threatened or the harrassed, freedom of speech itself is threatened. ... and that offends me.

CAIR board member Mazhar Rishi agreed.

"The right to free speech is not absolute," Rishi said. "It does not give a right to defame Prophet Muhammad or any other" religious figure.

See what I mean?

If I were a trouble maker, I could do down to Penn's campus, (it's perhaps a forty minute drive) and take an inventory of things I was offended by. Philadelphia has more artwork per capita than any other major city. Surely there is something around that I will be offended by.

Opponents of the death penalty often quote Gandhi, "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind," I would say that "muzzling offense leaves the whole world muzzled."

Must Read

Eric S Raymond writes a great piece on memetic warfare.

By contrast, ideological and memetic warfare has been a favored tactic for all of America’s three great adversaries of the last hundred years — Nazis, Communists, and Islamists. All three put substantial effort into cultivating American proxies to influence U.S. domestic policy and foreign policy in favorable directions. Yes, the Nazis did this, through organizations like the “German-American Bund� that was outlawed when World War II went hot. Today, the Islamists are having some success at manipulating our politics through fairly transparent front organizations like the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

But it was the Soviet Union, in its day, that was the master of this game. They made dezinformatsiya (disinformation) a central weapon of their war against “the main adversary�, the U.S. They conducted memetic subversion against the U.S. on many levels at a scale that is only now becoming clear as historians burrow through their archives and ex-KGB officers sell their memoirs.

Screen Names

The Register...

Yahoo! is banning the use of allah in email names - even if the letters are included within another name.

This was uncovered by Reg reader Ed Callahan whose mother Linda Callahan was trying to sign up for a Verizon email address. She could not get it to accept her surname.

Enquiries to Verizon revealed that a partnership with Yahoo! was to blame. Yahoo! will not accept any identies which include the letters "allah".

I suspect it's a way to prevent trouble making infidels from coming up with screen names like F-Allah1234 or something. Because that would be offensive.

Nor will Yahoo! accept yahoo, osama or binladen. But it will accept god, messiah, jesus, jehova, buddah, satan and both priest and pedophile.

Ed Callahan told us: "On one level this is just silliness. But we have a war on terrorism and it's migrating to be a war on Muslims - this just shows the confusion there is between the two and how pervasive this is."

Yeah.

Update: Unbanned!

Twenty Years of Zelda

Americans of a certain age can certainly remember endless days in front of a TV trying to beat one of the greatest games ever.

The Legend of Zelda.

It's been 20 years now.

Global Warming

JK alluded to this effect in last week's post.

Yet again, frozen Canadians weather-cultists risk hypothermia to complain about global warming:
The weather may belie their message but devoted fans of the outdoor hockey rink plan to brave Alberta’s arctic-like weather as part of a statement against global warming ...

Michael Kalmanovitch, organizer of the event in Edmonton, says the skate will go ahead in Edmonton despite the -23 C temperature. He admits the cold snap is a touch ironic but stressed the above average temperatures that have dominated the winter thus far.

This phenomenon has been observed once or twice previously.

Just a reminder. It's not global warming. It's climate change.

First Quarter Economic News

Usually we hit these stories after the fact, but here's an interesting economic prediction.

The U.S. economy was expected to expand at an annual rate of 4 percent this quarter and at a 3.4 percent rate in April through June after growing at a 1.1 percent rate in the final three months of 2005, based on the median estimate of 77 economists surveyed by Bloomberg News earlier this month.

Economists have since raised forecasts after a report last week showed stronger-than-expected retail sales. Morgan Stanley raised its estimate for first quarter economic growth to 5.9 percent, up from a previous prediction of 5.5 percent.

5.9%!!!

Free Market Health Care

Not as fun as a hunting accident, but the President's health care ideas are getting high marks. The WSJ says (paid site, sorry!):

Washington denizens who say the Bush Administration is out of domestic ideas haven't been paying attention. The more we look at the fine print in the health-care reforms President Bush is now stumping for, the more we see the potential for the most sweeping and beneficial changes in half a century.

One way to think about the Bush reforms is as HillaryCare in reverse. The former first lady sought to mandate employer-based coverage and then hold down costs by brute government force ("managed care"). Mr. Bush is instead attempting to revitalize the private market for individual health insurance, so employees are ultimately less dependent on their bosses' coverage and can ultimately buy the kind of insurance that makes better sense for them. Along the way, Americans would also become wiser consumers of health-care services.

When you start to think that the Democrats and Republicans are all alike -- which they too often are -- contrast command-and-control-HillartyCare to Hayekian-free-market-HSAs and walk proudly, Republicans!

Voter Integrity

The Pennsylvania legislature passed a voter identification bill recently which the governor, "Fast Eddie" Rendell (D-Comcast) is promising to veto.

VoterIntegrity.com is a clearinghouse for information.

Lack of Blogging

So I haven't been blogging much... or reading blogs for that matter.

Last week my primary computer a Powerbook G4 finally kicked the bucket after 3 years, and many many many miles. Despite it's problems, it was miles better than this Gateway laptop, I'm suffering with (for as little time as possible) now.

My MacBookPro is still reportedly a month away from delivery... but we're calling the Apple store in town to see if they have any in yet.

Ugh.

Re-accessing Iraq

The best anti-war piece you're ever going to see is in Sunday's NYTimes Magazine. After Neoconservatism is an adaptation of Francis Fukuyama's upcoming book, "America at the Crossroads."

I confess that I was thinking of Fukuyama's "End of History" over this weekend as I tired of the Cheney hunting accident. These are hard times for neocons; hard times for Sharansky-ites; and pretty tough times for Republicans (though it appears they're going to let us play the Democrats again this year...)

I was re-accessing the Iraqi liberation just before this came out. And it is a thoughtful exegesis. Fukuyama is no moonbat. I find much to agree with. Especially his retrospective questioning of the neo-Wilsonianism I felt so strongly.

The way the cold war ended shaped the thinking of supporters of the Iraq war, including younger neoconservatives like William Kristol and Robert Kagan, in two ways. First, it seems to have created an expectation that all totalitarian regimes were hollow at the core and would crumble with a small push from outside. The model for this was Romania under the Ceausescus: once the wicked witch was dead, the munchkins would rise up and start singing joyously about their liberation. As Kristol and Kagan put it in their 2000 book "Present Dangers": "To many the idea of America using its power to promote changes of regime in nations ruled by dictators rings of utopianism. But in fact, it is eminently realistic. There is something perverse in declaring the impossibility of promoting democratic change abroad in light of the record of the past three decades."

The Romanian model was expected to repeat in Iraq, and the insurgency was underestimated. I yield to no-one in my support for this administration and the war on terror. But I am frequently asked to look people in the eye and say we did the right thing. To fail to reevaluate is stubborn. Am I still a Sharansky-ite? Yes. Am I still a neoWilsonian? I don't know.

What is certain, and only partially conceded by Fukuyama, is that it is hard to conceive a pleasant counterfactual. Had we not invaded Iraq, Saddam would still be in power, Iran would be making nuclear noises, payments to suicide bombers' families would still be occurring, training camps would still be open. Fukuyama has no great illusions about the UN's being able to sort this out.

The conservative critique of the United Nations is all too cogent: while useful for certain peacekeeping and nation-building operations, the United Nations lacks both democratic legitimacy and effectiveness in dealing with serious security issues. The solution is not to strengthen a single global body, but rather to promote what has been emerging in any event, a "multi-multilateral world" of overlapping and occasionally competing international institutions that are organized on regional or functional lines. Kosovo in 1999 was a model: when the Russian veto prevented the Security Council from acting, the United States and its NATO allies simply shifted the venue to NATO, where the Russians could not block action.

Yet, in the next breath (or page) he is ready to hand it off to USAID, and the State Department, which I consider our own, local, UN.

If we are serious about the good governance agenda, we have to shift our focus to the reform, reorganization and proper financing of those institutions of the United States government that actually promote democracy, development and the rule of law around the world, organizations like the State Department, U.S.A.I.D., the National Endowment for Democracy and the like.

In fact, I will bend quite a ways to agree with Fukuyama on problems, philosophy, and past history. It is his present and future to which I cannot subscribe. In fact this startling assertion undermines his entire argument:

The most basic misjudgment was an overestimation of the threat facing the United States from radical Islamism. Although the new and ominous possibility of undeterrable terrorists armed with weapons of mass destruction did indeed present itself, advocates of the war wrongly conflated this with the threat presented by Iraq and with the rogue state/proliferation problem more generally. The misjudgment was based in part on the massive failure of the American intelligence community to correctly assess the state of Iraq's W.M.D. programs before the war. But the intelligence community never took nearly as alarmist a view of the terrorist/W.M.D. threat as the war's supporters did. Overestimation of this threat was then used to justify the elevation of preventive war to the centerpiece of a new security strategy, as well as a whole series of measures that infringed on civil liberties, from detention policy to domestic eavesdropping.

Watching the Cartoon Wars for a couple of weeks, I cannot believe that we overestimate Islamicist Terror. And I accuse Fukuyama of underplaying the domestic safety that our foreign actions have produced. Robert Kaplan, quoted in the story, has stated that the original war was not worthy but that the larger conflict in which we are now embroiled is worthy of the blood and treasure.

Happy President's Day

Take the President's Day Quiz!

ALa from Blonde Sagacity and I tie at 14-20. She apologizes; I do not.

Darkness

There has been good discussion on these pages about "The Bush Doctrine" and the application of absolutes toward questionable regimes like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

Good stuff, but let me pull up one I bet we can agree on: North Korea. I like the ThreeSources logo because it associates prosperity to politics and freedom. No segment of the map is clearer than the Korean peninsula. Dynamic, free, South Korea is vibrant and prosperous; their cousins in the north are dark as the sea. Here's a full-size look at the area:





Claudia Rosett today wonders why the US, through the UN is subsidizing this despotic regime.

It's bad enough that North Korea's Kim Jong Il is starving his people while building nuclear bombs. But why are we helping him?

In theory, we're not. But the U.S. has been by far the largest donor to the aid appeal under which the U.N. World Food Program has shipped $1.7 billion worth of rice, corn, wheat and sugar into North Korea over a decade. Last summer the regime declared itself self-sufficient in food, ordering the WFP to wind down operations by the end of the year. But North Korea also let the WFP know that it would be happy to start receiving aid for state-run development projects. Obediently, the WFP has come up with a plan, awaiting approval from its executive board this coming week, to "work with the Government to support its strategy of moving towards development and away from humanitarian assistance." The "Protracted Relief and Recovery Operation" has a $102 million budget to deliver food and "transitional assistance" for Pyongyang's "strategy for recovery."

Just like Saddam, the UN will provide not only cover, but political favors Kim can dispose at his discretion.

If the WFP's new plan goes forward, Kim will be in the pleasant position of receiving free goods, enjoying plenty of control over who gets what, and taking credit for the handouts. Part of the WFP plan, for example, is to provide supplies for food-processing factories where the government will hire the workers, operate the plants, and in some cases -- how many is not clear -- "transport the product to the beneficiary institutions."

There is no question that many people are hungry, and, as the head of the WFP office in Pyongyang, Richard Ragan, described it in a recent interview, "living on the edge." In the field of good works, one of the worst dilemmas is what to do when a tyrant holds hostage his own population -- trading on their deprivation to lever out of well-meaning donors whatever it is he really wants. But in North Korea, the WFP -- America's main conduit for aid into the country -- is losing whatever leverage it ever had. Big brother China and eager-to-appease South Korea are shipping substantial aid with few strings attached. Meanwhile, the U.S. is trying to corral Kim over matters as mortally important as nuclear bombs. This new program whipped up by the WFP to suit Kim's palate sends just one message: Yes indeed, we are chumps.

The Spirit of '94

From Mr. Speaker himself. The WSJ has an interview (free site!) with Speaker Gingrich.

"Do I think it's possible to offer a Social Security plan for people under 40 years of age in a positive savings account model that you could pass? Yes. Do I think it's possible to make it so complicated, so impossible to understand that you can't build any momentum for it? Yes." Then the wrap up (after a digression into football): "Let me be quite clear. I don't think 2005 was a good year for Republicans. I'd like to not repeat it. So I'm for doing things differently."

Was 1995 a good year for Republicans? I ask, a little timidly, leaning farther back in my tippy chair. It was the year Mr. Gingrich was sworn in as speaker to much euphoria on the right. But it ended with a rout by President Clinton in a budget standoff that shut down the government and, in the standard telling at least, left the Republicans in Congress looking a little bit like antigovernment extremists.

The response is sharp. "Yeah, it was a great year. It set the stage for us to balance the federal budget, reform welfare, cut taxes, strengthen defense and get re-elected for the first time since 1928." And the budget showdown? "I've never said publicly we lost that. The news media said it." True, but . . . does that mean he doesn't think it was a defeat? "Let me go back and try again. We were the first re-elected majority since 1928." That again! "Why is that a defeat?"

I was a big fan of the Speaker, watching his Pepperdine lectures and enjoying his problem solving and enthusiasm.

Oddly enough, I cannot get excited about a 2008 run. There's nothing in the piece with which I disagree but I do not see him as the man for the times.

Bottom Story of the Day

If you were on a sci-fi series, which would it be? For jk, it's Firefly. I know, you're shocked! I was too.

You scored as Serenity (Firefly). You like to live your own way and don't enjoy when anyone but a friend tries to tell you should do different. Now if only the Reavers would quit trying to skin you. Serenity (Firefly) 100% Nebuchadnezzar (The Matrix) 81% Babylon 5 (Babylon 5) 75% Moya (Farscape) 69% Deep Space Nine (Star Trek) 69% Millennium Falcon (Star Wars) 63% SG-1 (Stargate) 63% FBI's X-Files Division (The X-Files) 63% Bebop (Cowboy Bebop) 56% Andromeda Ascendant (Andromeda) 50% Enterprise D (Star Trek) 44% Galactica (Battlestar: Galactica) 44% created with QuizFarm.com

Hat-tip: Samizadata

Word of the Day

Condign: adj., deserved, adequate.

The WSJ Ed page says, in Chertoff's Penance: "It sounds like the man has actually thought about this, which is more than most of Congress has done. Rather than replace [Michael Chertoff] with some other punching bag, a more condign punishment for Katrina would be to insist that he stick around and finish the job".

The Democrats have a plan!

Rep Rahm Emmanuel, who famously said that "the Democrats will have an Iraq plan before the elections," hits the pages of the Wall Street Journal today with Democratic Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon. Their guest editorial outlines a tax plan called the "Fair, Flat Tax."

The plan has three brackets: 15, 25 & 35% and promises equal treatment of capital and labor (Silence will approve); enough progressivity, presumably, for Democrats; abolition of the AMT; and a one-page 1040 form.

The editorial is an overview without a lot of details and I fear that the devil might be hiding in them. Democrats love to give targeted tax breaks. It's a great form of social engineering. So is this really flat? What about the home interest deduction? What about tax rebates for hybrid car owners or purchasers of diversity rich co-op housing?

The 35% rate strikes me as high, especially if a lot of deductions are removed. I would prefer lower rates on capital but I would trade that for a truly simplified tax plan. One could get it back through productivity.

The worst feature is that it is DOA. Serious legislators would involve the other party (especially if they are in the majority). Then this could be proposed and debated as a serious idea. I feel this is a campaign issue:

By eliminating scores of tax breaks for the fortunate few, reforming the corporate code, and refusing to renew the disproportionate Bush tax cuts, we can give significant relief to those who really need it -- and cut the deficit by $100 billion.

Lastly, you gotta pay money to read it (holler if you'd like me to email you a copy.)

UPDATE: It is pretty short -- I copied the text into extended entry -- click "Continue..."

It's that time of year again -- when millions of Americans begin the mind-numbing chore of doing their taxes. Once again, they'll collect W-2 forms and call for missing 1099s, sift through shoeboxes for receipts and cancelled checks. The typical taxpayer needs more than 30 hours to complete this process, struggling to comprehend a tax code that contains more than 10,000 sections. That's why taxpayers spend more than $100 billion annually on tax preparation. But it doesn't have to be this way.

We have proposed the Fair Flat Tax Act, which would require most taxpayers to fill out a simple, one-page Form 1040. There would be just three personal tax rate brackets -- 15%, 25% and 35% -- instead of the current six. Gone would be the maze of regulations and loopholes. The tax code would receive what it desperately needs: a good cleansing.

And it should not just be simpler, but fairer as well -- especially for the middle class. Under the current system, a police officer walking the beat pays a higher effective tax rate than someone who makes their money from capital gains and dividends. The policeman who makes $70,000 in annual wages pays almost 25% of that salary to the federal government, while an executive who makes five times that in capital gains pays just 15%. Today's tax code has not just become anti-middle class, but anti-worker. Wealth and work should be treated equally.

There are other ways to help the country's middle-class families. By eliminating the Alternative Minimum Tax, which our plan does, we can put an end to the process that forces millions of Americans to do their taxes twice. These measures can help taxpayers without eliminating the incentives used most by the middle class: home mortgages, retirement savings and education.

Our aim is not to soak the rich but to make the tax system fairer. Every American has a right to build and grow wealth. Eliminating the unfair ways wages and investment income are currently treated can allow markets -- not government -- to drive our country toward the best use of investment capital.

Can we afford fundamental tax reform, given our record deficits and tight budgets? We believe America can't afford not to reform. And it can be done without exploding the deficit. By eliminating scores of tax breaks for the fortunate few, reforming the corporate code, and refusing to renew the disproportionate Bush tax cuts, we can give significant relief to those who really need it -- and cut the deficit by $100 billion.

Every year, the tax rigmarole takes more time and leaves more Americans more frustrated. It's time for a change. If we make the tax code easier and fairer, come Tax Day, more Americans will have more sanity, more freedom -- and more money.

Mr. Wyden is a Democratic senator from Oregon and a member of the Senate Committee on Finance. Mr. Emanuel is a Democratic congressman from Illinois and a member of the House Ways and Means Committee.