May 31, 2007Obama Heath Plan(2007-05-30) — Democrat presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, D-IL, unveiled a universal health care plan yesterday, which would boost taxes on the rich to fund care for the poor and would mandate involuntary organ donations from healthy, wealthy Americans to their ailing, impoverished counterparts. Hat-tip: Club for Growth
Posted by jk at 6:36 PM
| What do you think? [1]
But johngalt thinks:
Club for Growth calls this "laugh out loud satire." I call it too close for comfort. I did a double-take on "involuntary organ donations [from rich to poor]" but I did believe it - and I wasn't laughing. I actually visualized this coming out of BO's mouth. I'm a little miffed that I was fooled by it. But what is the difference, really, between involuntarily taking pieces of someone's body or part of the prosperity that was earned with that body? As I explained to sympathetic but misguided familyh members last night, "morality to Democrats means that nobody can prosper more than anyone else." This satire takes that ideology to its logical end. Posted by: johngalt at June 2, 2007 10:28 AMInternecine, Episode II have the first show's guests: We hereby challenge the Journal’s editors to debate the immigration bill in a neutral venue with a moderator of their choosing — two or three of us versus any two or three of them. We propose to do it in Washington next week so it will have the maximum impact on the Senate’s consideration of the most sweeping immigration reform in decades (time and place to be worked out in a mutually satisfactory fashion). Internecine
Posted by jk at 4:16 PM
Immigration: the Market SpeaksMy right-wing crazy buddies at the WSJ Editorial Page deliver a little badly needed cover for the "liberal-on-immigration" Republicans today. First is a guest editorial (paid link) by Gov. Jeb Bush and former RNC Chief Ken Mehlman supporting the current Immigration Bill. Immigration reform is very tough. It's an issue that divides both political parties and, on the right, has led many close personal and ideological friends -- people we respect and whose criticism we take seriously -- to oppose new rules governing how people enter this country and how we handle those who are here illegally. But we hope our friends reconsider. Second is Dan Henninger's Wonderland column (free link). Henninger suggests that the quantity and destination of the immigrant flow is a perfect example of market forces at work, and he challenged conservatives who champion the market to recognize this. Conservatives and liberals will fight unto eternity over whose notions of the law, society and justice are right. But the one idea owned by conservatives is the market. Immigration is down this year without a post hole for a fence having been dug. Immigrants come when their relatives tell them there is work, Henninger is right.
But Terri thinks:
I've argued in the past and I think it's only right that if business gets to cross borders without barriers (ala NAFTA), then so too should workers.
But jk thinks:
I agree. I think a regularized border that provides enough workers with safe, legal crossing is the best way to know who's here. Posted by: jk at June 1, 2007 1:49 PM
But johngalt thinks:
I so dearly wish to comment on these assertions, and I won't have just one "little flaw" to pick on, yet I haven't had the requisite spare moments in the past 24 hours. Stay tuned. (And even if brother AC beats me to it, I'm sure I can push his pile even higher.) Posted by: johngalt at June 1, 2007 4:19 PM
But johngalt thinks:
First Jeb Bush - "It strengthens national defense" by hiring x more government border agents to enforce the same flawed policies on the border? "It makes our economy more competitive and flexible" by adding dependents to the welfare state? "It enhances the rule of law" by eliminating laws that don't rule "and promotes national unity" by splitting the Republican party? "It does not grant amnesty to the 12 [or whatever] million illegal immigrants already in this country" but it does, somehow, make them legal. Curious. "The bill provides real border security for the first time" because this time, we mean it! And then Henninger - Who is picking "one little aspect" now? The particular anti-illegal immigration argument that Dan chooses to assail happens to be the one that is used principally by unions and their members, not by mainstream conservative thinkers. I personally don't see the urgency to change the status of illegal workers (unless your goal is to "bring them out of the shadows" and into the great society.) Let them stay. Let them work. Don't let them collect $200 for passing go or stay in this country if they commit a violent crime. Biometrically ID them and deport them. That option goes away when they all become "legal." Posted by: johngalt at June 2, 2007 11:09 AMDueling HeadlinesAP goes with "Economy has worst growth since 2002" WASHINGTON - The economy nearly stalled in the first quarter with growth slowing to a pace of just 0.6 percent. That was the worst three-month showing in over four years. But I'm tempted to go with "Economy Grows for 23 consecutive Quarters." Yeah, that's Pollyanna on steroids, but once you get past the lede, the news is not so bad: [..] fewer people signed up for unemployment benefits last week. New filings dropped by 4,000 to 310,000. That suggests the employment climate is weathering well the economy's sluggish spell. Not mentioned were the record closes for the DJIA, S&P 500 and Russel2K. Media and Blogging
Posted by jk at 10:31 AM
May 30, 2007Thank You John StosselIn RCP, John Stossel explains Adam Smith better than Mr. Smith and even better than PJ O'Rourke's book explaining Adam Smith. He relates trade to the purchase of coffee. How many times have you paid $1 for a cup of coffee and after the clerk said, "thank you," you responded, "thank you"? There's a wealth of economics wisdom in the weird double thank-you moment. Why does it happen? Because you want the coffee more than the buck, and the store wants the buck more than the coffee. Both of you win. In related news, a new drive-trough Starbucks has now opened about a mile from my house. Short jk futures, dude's gonna be broke. Hat-tip: Greg Mankiw
But johngalt thinks:
But what about "coffee gouging?" Does Stossel explain why the government refuses to curb the "obscene coffee profits" that result from $4 venti lattes? Posted by: johngalt at May 30, 2007 7:40 PM
But jk thinks:
Clearly, Stossel is in the tank for big coffee. Posted by: jk at May 31, 2007 10:30 AM
But Terri thinks:
"Coffee Gouging"? That venti really means $3 vs joe which means $0.50. S&P Record CloseCommence modest levels of rational exuberance: WSJ
Posted by jk at 4:41 PM
| What do you think? [2]
But AlexC thinks:
Sell Sell SELL! Posted by: AlexC at May 30, 2007 5:18 PM
But jk thinks:
Views represented by commentators are solely their personal views and do not represent the opinions of threesources.com or its sponsors. Posted by: jk at May 30, 2007 6:12 PMFred!Fred Dalton Thompson is planning to enter the presidential race over the Fourth of July holiday, announcing that week that he has already raised several million dollars and is being backed by insiders from the past three Republican administrations, Thompson advisers told The Politico. Speaking Truth to PowerOr at least speaking truth to moonbats. Blog friend Sugarchuck sends a link to an article in The Nation magazine where Alexander Cockburn defends himself for his aposty of questioning Deleterious Anthropogenic Warming of the Globe (DAWG) in the lefties' flagship publication. I began this series of critiques of the greenhouse fearmongers with an evocation of the papal indulgences of the Middle Ages as precursors of the "carbon credits"--ready relief for carbon sinners burdened, because all humans exhale carbon, with original sin. In the Middle Ages they burned heretics, and after reading through the hefty pile of abusive comments and supposed refutations of my initial article on global warming I'm fairly sure that the critics would be only too happy to cash in whatever carbon credits they have and torch me without further ado. This is one little datum, but the computer model I feed it into suggests that the warmies may have overplayed their hand with their apocalyptic predictions, overwrought rhetoric, and scientific arm-twisting. More people are recognizing that this is not science anymore. Hat-tip to sc -- reading The Nation so you don't have to! Deleterious Anthropogenic Warming of the Globe
Posted by jk at 10:39 AM
May 29, 2007Hurricanes May Predate Bush PresidencyLooking back at 5,000 years of hurricane data suggested by soil samples, a scientist has determined that "There are stormy periods and more placid epochs -- and they alternate back and forth." Who'd have thought? The samples have allowed hurricane historian Donnelly from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) to look more than 5,000 years into our planet's past. And what he found may have profound implications for our understanding of the effects of global warming on violent storms. The frequency of fierce storms that sweep into the Caribbean and onto the Puerto Rican island of Vieques varies considerably. There are stormy periods and more placid epochs -- and they alternate back and forth. I hate to be flip -- it is an interesting study. And even Der Spiegel has to admit that "The samples suggest that recent devastating storms may not necessarily be linked to global warming." Hat-tip: I Think ^(Link) Therefore I Err Deleterious Anthropogenic Warming of the Globe
Posted by jk at 1:34 PM
Crazy Uncle JackThis scandalous conduct would be unknown except for reforms by the new Democratic majority. But the remodeled system is not sufficiently transparent to expose in a timely manner machinations of Murtha and fellow earmarkers to his colleagues, much less to the public. It took Republican Rep. Jeff Flake of Arizona, the leading House earmark-buster, to discover the truth. In the old days, the crazy uncle (or aunt) would be locked in a basement and discussed in hushed tones. Now they're major players. ;) 110th Congress
Posted by AlexC at 12:00 PM
AP Admits to Strong EconomyOne of the signs of the apocalypse, no doubt. Regarding the demand for large cranes... Commercial building is hot in Texas, Florida, California, New York and other parts of the West Coast, Midwest and Northeast, industry officials say. Spending on nonresidential construction was up nearly 14 percent during the first three months of 2007 from last year, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. There's always a bit of a dark cloud, but hey, it's progress. Economics and Markets
Posted by AlexC at 11:35 AM
Mopar MalaiseEverybody talks about legacy heath care costs and their effect on the competitiveness of GM, Ford and Chrysler. James Surowecki has an article in the New Yorker (complete with cartoon!) where "The Wisdom of Crowds" author explains that Cerberus faces more problems than health care: A 2006 report by the Harbour-Felax Group, a well-respected automotive-industry analyst, concluded that in 2005 Chrysler’s health-care costs were about eleven hundred dollars more per vehicle than Toyota’s. But even if that gap were closed Chrysler and other U.S. automakers would be far less profitable and would be growing more slowly than their foreign competitors. Ultimately, American manufacturers sell too few cars for too little money, and have to offer too many incentives—thousands in cash back or low-interest financing—on the vehicles they do manage to sell. That same Harbour-Felax report found that, on average, Japanese automakers’ profits for 2005 were twenty-nine hundred dollars more per vehicle sold in the U.S. than those of American automakers. And most of that profit comes not from lower production costs but from the Japanese automakers’ being able to charge more, because their cars are better designed and more reliable, and because their mix of products is smarter. Honda’s revenue per vehicle, for instance, was twenty-six hundred dollars more than Chrysler’s. So they pay more in health care, more in wages, get less productivity from workers and produce lower profit automobiles. We have a few Mopar fiends around here, but where does this stop? I think the UAW needs to be chased out or defanged. You can trace about all of these problems to union demands and concomitant lack of flexibility. Read it all. It's short, good, and you get a cartoon. Hat-tip: Everyday Economist
Posted by jk at 11:06 AM
| What do you think? [1]
But AlexC thinks:
Why would you work hard if you knew your job was secure? (well, relatively secure) Why would you work hard if you knew your chances for advancement were not based on your ability, but on your duration? Unions provide strong disincentives. Posted by: AlexC at May 29, 2007 11:39 AMPower Rate Caps ExpiringAnother example of why governments ought to stay out of the regulation of markets. The tiny Pocono Mountains borough of Milford was among the first to feel the pain from the expiration of rate caps that for a decade have insulated Pennsylvanians from paying the true cost of the electricity they use. It's astounding how that kind of leap of logic can be made. The state government has artificially kept the price of electricity below fair market value, and now that that lid is off, it's a surprise that rates jump? Really? The answer? Wait for it.... go to Harrisburg for help. U.S. Steel Corp. and Allegheny Technologies Inc. say their costs for power in Pennsylvania have climbed about 40 percent in recent years, since the state deregulated its electricity market. Gar! Why in the world does the state regulate the length of utilities contracts?! There are teams of business analysts and contracting personnel at the manufacturers and utilities who are more than capable of coming to equitable terms. If US Steel wants a 10 year deal for power, let them. Why? There is a bright side, however. Less power consumed means less air polluted. Yay environment! For the steel companies, it probably means less steel and less work and fewer workers. Yay environment!
But jk thinks:
Blog friend Sugarchuck sends a link this morning to a NYTimes story about subsidizing coal and coal based diesel. We can't let the market sort things out? Posted by: jk at May 29, 2007 9:39 AMMay 28, 2007Happy Memorial Day III have read a dozen great posts about Memorial Day. But don't miss Dean Barnett's late entry: Even if we put the tendentious political agenda aside, commemorating the fallen as victims does them a profound disservice. If the fallen were anything like any of the men I’ve spoken to who have served in Iraq or who are serving in Iraq or who will serve in Iraq, they would far prefer being celebrated as heroes than mourned as victims. Amen to that.
But johngalt thinks:
Toby Keith put it thusly: "And I will always do my duty no matter what the price I’m an American Soldier an American I’m out here on the front lines, sleep in peace tonight Thanks to all the HEROES who serve. Posted by: johngalt at May 28, 2007 8:00 PMHappy Memorial Day"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigues of supporting it." -Thomas Paine I'd suggest Michael Yon's "Memorial Day Message" (that's his photo as well). He shares two stories of bravery from wounded soldiers under fire that must be read. He ends, sadly, sadly: Both men often lamented to me how frustrating it was to be back home and realize that the average American is not aware of practically any of the progress that’s been made in Iraq. Both men darken with something closer to anger when they consider the sacrifices made by fallen soldiers and the fact that while the media most likely counted the deaths in all instances, they also most likely failed to mention any of the good things their fellow soldiers had accomplished while in Iraq. Thanks to all who serve. Today, special thanks to all who gave all their tomorrows for our todays. Freedom on the March
Posted by jk at 11:14 AM
May 27, 2007Skimmed!SCIENTISTS have bred cows that produce skimmed milk and hope to establish herds of the cattle to meet the demands of health-conscious consumers. Wake me up when we get chocolate milk right from the tap.
Posted by AlexC at 10:40 PM
| What do you think? [2]
But jk thinks:
...or you can slaughter them and make veggie-burgers! Posted by: jk at May 28, 2007 11:50 AM
But TrekMedic251 thinks:
Can they make 'em lactose-free from the tap, too? Posted by: TrekMedic251 at May 28, 2007 10:25 PMMay 25, 2007Gouge 'emThe lead WSJ Editorial today suggests that Congress look in the mirror if it wants to know who is causing "excessive" gasoline prices. The big anti-gouging law will only enrich a few lawyers. What does "gouging" mean anyway? No one on Capitol Hill can answer that question. The House bill prohibits energy companies from charging a price that is "unconscionably excessive." There's a precise legal term. It further explains that it shall be a crime whenever "the seller is taking unfair advantage of unusual market conditions" or "the circumstances of an emergency to increase prices unreasonably." Now that this law has passed, prices are sure to plummet. UPDATE: link changed to free site -- thanks to johngalt.
But johngalt thinks:
The link was public this morning: http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010132 Posted by: johngalt at May 28, 2007 12:04 PM
But johngalt thinks:
The line that caught my eye, and sent me looking for the story, was this one: "Now that this law has passed..." What? Did the Senate vote on it? Has the president signed it? No, it appears that only Pelosi and Soros' House of Representatives has passed it. Once actual grownups begin debating this measure, sponsored by the aptly named "Bart Stupak" (D-MI) someone is sure to point out that it will cause gasoline shortages during price spikes. Faced with the government imposed alternatives of selling their product at a loss or comitting a felony, retailers will do neither. Instead they'll just turn off the pumps and wait for the government to cave. Bart STUPak needs to read this cartoon and the 'Who is Gouging Whom?' excerpt that follows it. Posted by: johngalt at May 28, 2007 12:15 PMMurtha, Again!I think I've had a Jack Murtha post everyday this week. Here's an op-ed from the Wall Street Journal. Federal audits had found the [National Drug Intelligence] center to be ineffective and duplicative, but when Mr. Rogers proposed sending that $23 million somewhere else, Mr. Murtha was unamused. "I hope you don't have any earmarks in the defense appropriations bills," Mr. Murtha told him, "because they are gone and you will not get any earmarks now and forever." Thanks again to Stan!
But jk thinks:
Keep up the good work, Brother ac. He is a respected leader (almost House Majority Leader) and people should know a little more about this guy. I'm vacationing in sunny Minnesota -- I'll try to take care of the forces of darkness and anti-modernity next week. Posted by: jk at May 25, 2007 1:03 PMMay 24, 2007Bush as John GaltIt's no secret that United States President George W. Bush Continues to Support Bipartisan Immigration Proposal. There is a mystery, however. Why? Conservative icon Rush Limbaugh has struggled with this question, arriving speculatively at the conclusion that the religious president considers it one of his "good works." I've pondered the root cause myself over the past many months since the original Senate proposal last year, with no defensible theory having come forth - until today. I've defended the concept of unfettered immigration on these pages many times, including once with a checklist of prerequisites. Unfortunately, the single most important prerequisite is also universally understood to be nigh on impossible: Entitlement reform to eliminate the welfare state and end government enforced transfer payments amongst individuals. But now, I think the president has figured out how to actually make this happen. By adding millions upon millions of new dependents to the American welfare state the system will collapse under its own weight, with massive shortfalls of capital. Future congresses will have only two options: Increase the money supply, creating hyperinflation and economic collapse or, cancel most entitlement programs outright. Brilliant! Life imitates art as Ayn Rand's epic 'Atlas Shrugged' provides the template for productive Americans to demand the second option, leaving the government with no choice but to comply. Having chosen 'johngalt' as my blog pen name it would be hypocritical of me to continue opposing such a strategy. I just hope Dubya and JK will forgive me for taking so long to come around.
But Charlie on the PA Tpk thinks:
So .. .you're saying he wants the system to collapse, so he's trying to make it happen? In the long term, with the divisiveness of the party system, if the collapse did happen, the Left would blame Pres. Bush and the Right for letting it happen. Anything short of Socialism would be called 'radical Right Wing'; this would help the nation? I can't explain Mr. Bush's idea, either; but this doesn't wash with me. Posted by: Charlie on the PA Tpk at May 25, 2007 8:48 AM
But dagny thinks:
Charlie, This was a joke. JG's bizarre sarcasm. He doesn't really think that Bush wishes the end of the welfare state. It is only wishful thinking. Posted by: dagny at May 28, 2007 11:02 AM
But johngalt thinks:
I concede to being guilty of a high degree of "tongue-in-cheekness." My point was that the welfare state is currently in a delicate balance between how much government theft of individual wealth can be perpetrated (through the prevailing moral code of altruism) before enough individuals stop "participating" (effectively going on strike as producers) that the system collapses. I personally consider Dubya to be far more intelligent than he's credited for (except in the area of altruism) so it logically followed that his steadfast position on legalizing an enormous additional demand on the welfare state is founded in an intentional plan to destabilize it. (Except for the president's unintelligent obedience to the code of altruism.) I contend that such a crisis would lead to massive reductions in entitlements. Charlie seems to believe the Democrats and their ideas could escape culpability for the crisis. He may well be right, but such a strategy holds more actual promise for my predicted outcome than any other I've yet contemplated. Posted by: johngalt at May 28, 2007 12:57 PMMay 23, 2007Municipal WirelessPhilly's wireless plan is coming close... to what I'm not exactly sure. As municipalities across the country join the Wi-Fi race, the City of Philadelphia is entering the home stretch. I remember railing on about this at one of my old blogs (unfortunately deleted). The wireless implimentation goals were wildly optimistic. Announce the plan in April, choose vendor by end of June, subscribers by the end of the year. At the time I wondered about the timeline and which cronies were going to get rich off the deal. The former is in the "home stretch," despite having only 10% started. The latter has yet to resolve itself... The question of why cities should be in the broadband business, was never answered. In entirely unrelated news, technology analysts doubt municipal networks efficacy. Because systems are just coming online, it's premature to say how many or which ones will fail under current operating plans, but the early signs are troubling. Enjoy. Technology
Posted by AlexC at 10:47 PM
May 22, 2007Murtha Escapes219-189 to table the resolution. Pa's Tim Murphy was the lone Republican to vote to table. Congressman Murtha, however, did not escape Citizens Against Government Waste's Porker of the Month award. Congratulations! 110th Congress
Posted by AlexC at 5:56 PM
NYTimes: Right on GougingSurprised? The Grey Lady gets bashed enough around here, one must remember that it really is a great newspaper. Today, they're correct on "price gouging" and appropriately dismissive of anti-gouging legislation. It goes without saying that gasoline retailers and oil companies will seek to maximize their profit, which usually means charging the highest price markets can bear. Kinda warms the heart. Hat-tip: Instapundit UPDATE: Insty also has a YouTube of CNN bashing the Democrats for junkets. Tonight on FOXNews: "Was President Reagan really a weasel?" Media and Blogging
Posted by jk at 4:27 PM
2007 Hurricane SeasonGovernment forecasters warned of a busier-than-normal hurricane season Tuesday. Does anyone remember the forecasts of 2006's first post-Katrina season? I've been reading a number of stories this morning about the upcoming season, and none mention it. Here's one from forecasting guru William Gray. The 2006 forecast calls for: Another busier-than-normal season. Wikipedia shows what really happened. Total storms: 10 Um, kinda below average. But let's base major policy decisions from here on out on weather modeling. Environment
Posted by AlexC at 3:27 PM
Murtha Puts Dems in a No-Win SituationIs a no-win situation for the Democrats a win-win for Republicans? House Republicans angled Tuesday to put Democrats in a no-win position: reprimand a senior colleagues or be seen as blindly excusing legislative bullying for partisan reasons. Maybe the best answer to earmark reform is "no earmarks"... everything should go through the regular process.... committee, floor debate, etc.... with thousands of earmarks ever year, Congress would grind to a halt. In which case, it's a win-win for the American people. (thanks to Stan, again!) 110th Congress
Posted by AlexC at 1:07 PM
Murtha, AgainWhat's with this guy? Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) submitted an earmark certification letter for the National Drug Intelligence Center (NDIC) May 1, more than five weeks after the Intelligence Committee’s deadline and the day before the panel marked up its authorization bill, according to copies of the letter and the notice of the deadline sent to the entire committee. 110th Congress
Posted by AlexC at 11:49 AM
You Guys Owe Me OneI watched the whole season of "24." My new Hi-Def satellite lost one episode, but like the $0.04 I owe on my HELOC, I'm hoping you'll write that off. Several people have told me that it used to be better and I would have liked the older seasons. I'll concede that to be true without empirical proof, if y'all don't mind. Lileks nails it. It's not that I was miserable watching it, but I was really, really, really glad that it is over. Did FOX pull a "Firefly" on "Drive" or were the first few episodes just a teaser? I don't know how network stuff works. That show has some potential.
Posted by jk at 11:22 AM
| What do you think? [3]
But Perry Eidelbus thinks:
I had never watched it until a friend bought me the first season on DVD. Each episode was some of the best television I've seen anywhere. I'm told the first season was better than subsequent ones. I'll concede that to be true without empirical proof, if you don't mind. :) Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at May 22, 2007 1:32 PM
But Charlie on the PA Turnpike thinks:
I've been a fan since hour 1 of day 1. Every season of '24' has a few flat spots. And sometimes they stretch the reality rubber band a bit too far. Case in point (and without giving away too much of a prior season): - The Dept of Energy has a device that can remotely control a nuclear power plant, to stop a melt down, in case the main control center is compromised. Fine. - This DoE device can control any of the US power plants. Stretch... - This device can not only stop a melt down, it can cause one. Stretch....stretch..... - This single device can cause a melt down at every power plant in the US, at the same time. And it has been stolen by terrorists. I'm not disappointed, overall, in this season. There were a few too many convenient incidents (I won't name here) that were seen before. But that doesn't make it a bad show, not by a long shot (Grissom and co. always solve the murder on CSI, right?). Of course, the big question now: he spent 8 mths 'dead' as far as the world was concerned, then spent 2 years in a Chinese prison; and the only woman who cared for him (other than Chloe, who has her own hands full now) is now out of his life... what's left??
But Everyday Economist thinks:
My brother was a huge fan of the first season and convinced me that I should start watching. I have thorougly enjoyed the show since the recommendation, however, I was a bit disappointed in this season. Although the previous season seemed to be a little to close to a conspiracy theory, it did have the suspense and actually made you care about the characters. At times, this season seemed rushed as though they were trying to tie too many loose strings. Also, a side note. '24' is always condemned by the left as being a mouthpiece for the right and as being pro-torture (see here). Keeping this in mind, it seemed as though Joel Surnow fired back when Powers Booth said, "You know, Tom, you think you've got all the answers, but until you sit in this chair..." Posted by: Everyday Economist at May 23, 2007 10:37 AM
But jk thinks:
The WSJ Ed Page also thinks this will be big. In "Jack the Stripper" (is Mortman writing their headlines now?) they say: It isn't every day that videos of the House floor get a link on YouTube, so give a nod to Pennsylvania powerhouse Jack Murtha, whose spending threats against fellow Members have earned the House Appropriations process some real airtime. During negotiations over an intelligence bill last week, Mr. Murtha took exception to two colleagues who challenged an earmark for his district, so he let them know who's their daddy. The episode has backfired, however, as Republicans yesterday introduced a House resolution to reprimand Mr. Murtha for his bullying. Under an ethics rule passed by Democrats this year, House members are banned from blocking earmarks based on the way a Member votes. But what do they do now that one of their own is caught doing a Tom DeLay imitation?I'm not sure the GOP will get any traction with this. It's kind of "Inside baseball" isn't it? And the "damming" video is a lot less damming than the FBI sting which he has survived. Posted by: jk at May 22, 2007 10:17 AM May 21, 2007Sounds like my diet...I have had this story in a browser window all day. I don't know what to say but it is too good not to share. The Wall Street Journal details (paid link, sorry) what pig farmers are feeding their livestock as corn is being diverted to Ethanol production. GARLAND, N.C. -- When Alfred Smith's hogs eat trail mix, they usually shun the Brazil nuts. Of course, if we did not provide 50 cents a gallon subsidies for Ethanol and apply 51 cent tariffs to a gallon of Brazilian Ethanol -- never mind, you know the rest. My wife just hopes they don't find a way to make biofuels out of coffee.
But TrekMedic251 thinks:
...are downing cookies, licorice, cheese curls, candy bars, french fries, frosted wheat cereal and peanut-butter cups. Sounds like the desk of the lieutenant at the firehouse! ;-) Posted by: TrekMedic251 at May 21, 2007 10:47 PMInspirationalCommenters noted that "their screens went a little blurry" following this link. Whole. Thing. Read. Must. Twenty-four minutes of steady applause. My hands hurt, and I laugh to myself at how stupid that sounds in my own head. “My hands hurt.” Christ. Shut up and clap. Hat-tip: Terry at I Think ^(Link) Therefore I Err
Posted by jk at 3:42 PM
S&P 1526.22The excitement is so thick, you could cut it with a knife. Forty four minutes...
Posted by jk at 3:16 PM
| What do you think? [1]
But jk thinks:
Not today, kids. 1525.10. Now I know how Red Sox fans feel... Posted by: jk at May 21, 2007 5:56 PMValid CritiqueNo, not my shoes. A very legitimate complaint is surfacing on the new Senate immigration bill. Bill Kristol said it yesterday on FOXNews Sunday, and it goes something like this: last year, the McCain Kennedy bill was debated thoroughly on the Senate floor (and on ThreeSources). Kristol and I expect that this bill is similar, and I have a predilection toward supporting it. But this bill is being rammed through in the dark of night; neither the Senators nor their constituents are getting any opportunity to review this complex and important bill. John Fund carries the theme today on OpinionJournal (free link): Many immigration experts say they can't know if they support the current compromise until they've absorbed the entire 1,000 page bill. They are concerned that Mr. Reid seems determined to bypass normal committee review and hearings and rush the bill to the floor. "That's like trying to eat an eight-course meal on a 15-minute lunch break," said former senator Fred Thompson on ABC Radio Friday. The partisan hack in me has to point out that this is just the sort of thing the Democrats weren't going to do if we elected them. Leader Reid has managed to turn me off a bill I really wanted. I'm still tentatively supporting this bill. I think it does most of what I want. Unlike Kristol, I think a confusing bill is better than no bill. But when even I can't get fulsomely behind it, they have --if I may use legislative jargon -- "boogered it up" pretty badly. UPDATE: WASHINGTON - Senate leaders agreed Monday that they would wait until June to take final action on a bipartisan plan to give millions of unlawful immigrants legal status. Immigration
Posted by jk at 11:43 AM
May 20, 2007Our Worst Ex-PresidentOur 39th President deregulated the airlines and trucking, so you cannot call President Carter the worst. But I join Jay Nordlinger is calling him "our worst ex-President." A friend of this blog sends a link to his latest round of bad elderstatesmanship: LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) - Former President Carter says President Bush's administration is "the worst in history" in international relations, taking aim at the White House's policy of pre-emptive war and its Middle East diplomacy. The e-mailer concludes "Pot. Kettle. Black.'
Posted by jk at 4:08 PM
| What do you think? [1]
But jk thinks:
I posted this an hour ago and I am still angry. Carter also lashed out Saturday at British prime minister Tony Blair. Asked how he would judge Blair's support of Bush, the former president said: "Abominable. Loyal. Blind. Apparently subservient." "And I think the almost undeviating support by Great Britain for the ill-advised policies of President Bush in Iraq have been a major tragedy for the world," Carter told British Broadcasting Corp. radio.Posted by: jk at May 20, 2007 5:07 PM Pelosi, Murtha & RogersDespite not having any idea of the exchange between Jack Murtha and Mike Rogers on the House floor, Nancy Pelosi is defending him. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is defending a close Democratic ally whom Republicans want to reprimand for threatening a GOP lawmaker's spending projects. It's too bad this whole issue about someone's ability to add pork to a bill. Fred! The Story Behind the VideoOn Tuesday morning, Mark Corallo, the undeclared Thompson's frontman, had clicked on to the massively popular Internet news aggregator, the Drudge Report, to find that Moore had challenged Thompson to a political duel, also known as a debate. Nice.
But jk thinks:
May 19, 2007Back TaxesThe Bush administration insisted on a little-noticed change in the bipartisan Senate immigration bill that would enable 12 million undocumented residents to avoid paying back taxes or associated fines to the Internal Revenue Service, officials said. There was another Kennedy who said, "we choose to go to the moon not because it is easy, but because it is hard." Getting illegals to pony up on back taxes. Harder than a moon mission. This bill is at least 326 pages, by the way. (tip to HotAir) Immigration
Posted by AlexC at 5:31 PM
More on MurthaActually, not so much on Murtha, but on the AP and they way they choose story titles. Republicans will seek a House vote next week admonishing a senior Democrat who they say threatened a GOP member's spending projects in a noisy exchange in the House chamber, Minority Leader John Boehner said Friday. Venture a guess on the title?
But jk thinks:
I'm surprised it wasn't "Evil Republicans..." Posted by: jk at May 19, 2007 1:21 PMLetter from IraqMax Boot posted this letter from LTC Steve Miska. Given that reality, we need to stand by the Iraqis. How long, you ask? I am on my second tour following a year in Tikrit from 2004-2005. A realistic goal is to have stabilized this region by the time my eleven-year-old son is old enough to serve in the military. Not that he is preordained to serve, but my hope is he will not have to deal with the complexity and tragedies that I have witnessed in Baghdad over the last eight months. My only other goal is to be able to look myself in the mirror every day, knowing that I stuck to my principles and did as much as possible to win in this very dangerous environment. I'd sure read the whole thing, but it's your weekend. Hat-tip to Instapundit and another round of thanks to all who serve. Freedom on the March
Posted by jk at 11:05 AM
Ron?There just isn't enough good punctuation. Don Luskin links to this and claims that "Paul has a point." To Luskin's credit, he includes several well written letters which contradict him. Listening to his defense, I find it lacking. He subverts the idea that we "fight them over there so we don’t fight them here" to make it sound advantageous to the terrorists. Left unsaid is that we have professional, trained soldiers fighting them over there, instead of mommies and children and helpless software developers in our shopping malls over here. Also specious is the claim that Vietnam did swell and discovered Capitalism after we left. As if isolationism in the 60s, 70s, and 80s would have produced the Vietnam we trade with today. Like most on this blog I appreciate his thoughts and votes toward establishing clear Constitutional purviews for Federal activities. Yet he proves his foreign policy views to be as fundamentally unserious as Rep. Murtha's.
Posted by jk at 1:28 AM
| What do you think? [2]
But Everyday Economist thinks:
The comments on isolationism is precisely why I always hesitate to call myself a libertarian (little "l" or otherwise). I consider myself to be more closely associated with neolibertarianism. Advocates of isolationism can use some great one liners, "make trade not war", but that is the end of its benefits. I have no problem with those who oppose a particular war, but I do have a problem with those who oppose war in general. I think that it strikes of idealistic naiveté. Posted by: Everyday Economist at May 19, 2007 11:59 AM
But jk thinks:
Enjoyed the link. ee. Gosh, it seems like we used to call people like that "Republicans." I remain hopeful that they might coverge again. Posted by: jk at May 19, 2007 1:16 PMMay 18, 2007All Over The Murtha ImplosionOur Keystone State Brothers at PA Water Cooler. Go to May 18 and scroll.... Wolfowitz and the WarOr, "Freedom Loses One." The forces of darkness and anti-modernity do not lie peacefully, whether in the caves of Afghanistan or the capitals of Europe, They are active and are bound to win a few. That said, I am still disappointed in the World Bank scandal. The scandal being, of course, that a good man who was trying to clean up a corrupt institution such that it could actually do some good was run out by the thugs who profit from corruption. The Wall Street Journal has a well written recap of what transpired, so I will link and excerpt, not summarize it. We've said from the beginning that the charges against Mr. Wolfowitz were bogus, and that the effort to unseat him amounted to a political grudge by those who opposed his role in the Bush Administration and a bureaucratic vendetta by those who opposed his anti-corruption agenda at the bank. That view was vindicated by yesterday's statement, which showed how little the merits of the case against Mr. Wolfowitz had to do with the final result. I'm glad that the European economies are doing better and that a new crop of leaders show some fondness for capitalism. L'Affaire Wolfowitz shows, however, that there is a fundamental difference between Europe and America in each's tolerance for corruption. Europe stood still as the Oil for Food corruption undermined the only chance the world had to avoid the Iraq War. It wasn't WMDs, it was the fecklessness of Europe to enact and enforce tough sanctions and to demand thorough inspections Now we are repeating the same errors in Iran, with a corrupt Europe having been expanded to include corruption in Moscow and Beijing. Bill Bennet wrote a book about President Clinton's troubles where he discussed European bemusement at Americans' caring so much about a trivial matter. Bennet, whom I've disagreed with on a thousand things, got off one of the great lines ever. I quote from memory: "Europe has much to teach us about wine, culture, and cuisine. America, however, has much to teach Europe about morality in government." The players have all changed, but that part remains true. Europe doesn't seem to care that the UN or many of its satellite NGOs are corrupt, incompetent, and counter-productive. There may be friendlier G-8 meetings with Sarkozy, Merkel and Brown. But a huge gap remains in the tolerance for corruption in NGOs that must be addressed. And it will have to be addressed by America. America, F*ck Yeah!
Posted by jk at 11:05 AM
May 17, 2007Fair and BalancedSpeaking of hyperventilation. Michelle Malkin carries a post called "It's here: The Bush-Kennedy amnesty Report: Potential cost = $2.5 trillion." With an online poll which asks "Will you support a GOP presidential candidate who supports the Bush/Kennedy amnesty?" The three choices are Yes, no, and "hell No!" I hate to be humorless. But I like to think that the right wing blogosphere is a little more thoughtful and intelligent than the left wing "netroots." Malkin frequently proves me wrong. Lastly, I'd make the comment that I made about Hugh Hewitt. Can you not broach any intra-party dissent on this topic? Are we going to chase out all the free traders that support liberalized immigration? Honest people can disagree -- well, no, I guess they can't. Michelle and Hugh will tell us what Republicans think. BTW, thanks to ThreeSources enforcement fans for their respectful and intelligent debate.
But Everyday Economist thinks:
What is amusing is that the immigration debate features a unique dichotomy in which Democrats complain the policy is too conservative and Republicans complain that it is too liberal. As Mickey Kaus pointed out this morning, that is very clearly a contradiction. I do not know why I would expect any different. The current state of political discourse is deplorable -- and I have low expectations. Posted by: Everyday Economist at May 18, 2007 11:46 AM
But johngalt thinks:
Those who've been publicly critical of the new legalization proposal have been accused of "hyperventilating." I think it's fair to say those who rush to assure us "It's going to be okay" are being pollyannish. Posted by: johngalt at May 18, 2007 3:02 PM
But jk thinks:
You can call me Pollyannaish. As I'm generally supportive of legislation which hasn't even been fully written, you are on solid footing. I was trying to separate differences from tactics. I disagree with you and AlexC and Hugh Hewitt and Michelle Malkin and my brother in law, fine. I took exception to Malkin's and Hewitt's assertion that every good Republican agrees with them. I take double exception to their using the language and tactics that were employed to buck up the Republican legislators who were going to vote for surrender in Iraq. Hewitt has taken that successful play and done a search replace for "Amnesty." That equates voting for comprehensive immigration reform -- which is supported by a lot if not a plurality of serious Republicans -- with a withdrawal schedule in Iraq, which is supported by only a fringe. Malkin takes emotional stands on a variety of issues. it may not be fair to accuse her of hyperventilating. But ol' buddy Hugh has really turned the crank up to 11 on this. I don't think I am wrong for pointing that out. GOP Caves to Good EconomicsHugh Hewitt has been hyperventilating all morning that the GOP Senate was about to "cave" on immigration reform. I resent this, because the language and tactics were taken from efforts to bolster the GOP House and Senate in supporting the troops and the war. Hewitt commandeers this pitch, implicitly comparing Immigration with the war. I don't mind calling the war Dogma de Fide for the Republican Party (See, I learned something in Catholic Schools, Dogma de Fide, "of faith," is what you must believe to be Catholic.) But there is a large body of intelligent opposition to Hewitt's immigration views, including Larry Kudlow, William Kristol, President Bush and me. If the four of us are "not Republican enough" you have a losing party. The Senate has passed a compromise bill. I don't know all the particulars but I applaud it. AP WASHINGTON - Key senators in both parties announced agreement with the White House Thursday on an immigration overhaul that would grant quick legal status to millions of illegal immigrants already in the U.S. and fortify the border. Take a deep breath, guys, it's going to be okay...
But johngalt thinks:
Citizenship. What about citizenship? The franchise? "They could come forward right away to claim a probationary card that would let them live and work legally in the U.S., but could not begin the path to permanent residency or citizenship until border security improvements and the high-tech worker identification program were completed." OK, but what is this "path to citizenship?" Permanent residency I'm less concerned with. Posted by: johngalt at May 17, 2007 4:04 PM
But johngalt thinks:
One more day and some introspection later, I'm now more concerned with permanent residency. Once these illegal immigrants become permanently and irrevocably legal we'll have a genuine two-tiered society split between those who can vote and those who cannot. What will be the persuasive argument that prevents granting the franchise to non-citizens? "They were't born here? They don't speak our language? They don't pay taxes?" Wait. Scratch that last one. This is a major argument in support of the legalization push. These lame reasons won't stand a chance against "No more taxation without representation" and "Non-citizen permanent immigrants are the new emancipated slave class - equal rights for the unfairly downtrodden!" If the 12 to 30 million existing illegal immigrants are granted residency then their ability to vote themselves an ever increasing basket of goodies at public expense (read: wealth creating taxpayers) is a fait accompli. Posted by: johngalt at May 18, 2007 2:57 PMNot Just a Pretty FaceSenator Edwards is not just clear skin and bouncy hair. He's got earning power! John Fund writes about our man of the people in OpinionJournal Political Diary: Last week, presidential candidate John Edwards was on the defensive over his former employment by a hedge fund, a financial vehicle for rich investors not usually open to middle-class folks. Mr. Edwards would have been fine if he had simply said he was trying to support his family, but the putative populist insisted he had joined Fortress Investment Group to learn about financial markets and their relationship to global poverty. I can't decide whether to covet his hair or his money.
Posted by jk at 12:53 PM
May 16, 2007Lou!Hazleton Mayor Lou Barletta, who gained national prominence by targeting illegal immigrants living in his small northeastern Pennsylvania city, cruised to the Republican nomination for a third term on Tuesday - and unexpectedly won the Democratic nomination, too.
But jk thinks:
Whew -- I was afraid you were going to say Lou Dobbs. Posted by: jk at May 17, 2007 12:59 PMTommy! Ron! Duncan! Jim! Tom! Goodbye!That was a great debate last night. I think FOXNews did a great job. I also thought that my candidate, Mayor Giuliani, did a good job. The Instapundit online poll shows him with a commanding lead among those who actually participated. Number me among those who hope the next debate, however, will have fewer participants. Just opinion, mind you, I'm all for the "vibrancy of more ideas and debate" and all. And I must confess that there is plenty of time. But if you gave jk the scythe, here's where it would fall:
Gov. Huckabee can stay or go. His "John Edwards in a beauty shop" line rocked. Scripted, but perfect. (honorable mention to Rep Tancredo for "Road to Damascus, not the Road to Des Moines"). I propose that Gov. Huckabee can replace the whole wind of second tier candidates, continue to attack Democrats in the GOP primary and perhaps land a VP spot. I will get behind any of these guys to beat any of the Democrats (A Duncan Hunter - Bill Richardson race would hurt, but the Tradesports on that is about three cents). Gov. Romney bugged me a little with his assertion that he's pro-Second Amendment but supported the assault weapons ban. Makes Rudy look absolutely solid on abortion... Senator McCain was good but you can just feel it slipping away. Torture and Guantanamo are amazing weaknesses, considering his biography. Wrapping himself in the mantle of Gen. Colin Powell is not going to carry him in South Carolina. Maybe Fred did win....
But Brian thinks:
Duncan Hunter served in Vietnam with the 173rd Airborne Brigade and with independent Ranger Detachments. No one can debate McCain’s time in a POW prison, but Hunter was on the ground fighting. Check out wikipedia and Hunter’s website for more information. Posted by: Brian at May 16, 2007 12:04 PM
But johngalt thinks:
Duncan Hunter is a great American, and I agree with him on most of his policy positions. JK's disdain for his "China bashing" emanates from Hunter's calling the commies on the carpet over their monetary policy, whereby they devalue their currency and hoarde U.S. dollars. This puts them in a position to destabilize the U.S. economy, built as it is on the scrip of a private bank (the Federal Reserve system) amounting to a too well respected house of cards. All that being said, he's not the best hope of the GOP for President in '08. Like McCain, he's got too much legislative experience which acts to atrophy one's leadership skills. Between Rudy, Mitt and Fred, the GOP field has strengthened greatly at this date. Posted by: johngalt at May 16, 2007 4:18 PMMay 15, 2007FRED!You have to like this. Michael Moore challenges Senator Fred Thompson to a debate. The Senator Responds: He earned his exclamation mark today. Hat-tip: Insty, who also links to a Bob Krumm post: Imagine Thompson in a campaign against a hidebound Hillary Clinton who, like a typical candidate, runs every decision through polls and layers of staff. Thompson would be “inside her OODA loop” so quickly that serious Republicans won’t know whether to laugh at her or feel sorry for her by the time of next November’s election.
But TrekMedic251 thinks:
What's holding Fred back???? Posted by: TrekMedic251 at May 15, 2007 10:38 PM
But jk thinks:
From the Krumm post: "In certain military circles there’s this concept known as the 'OODA Loop.' OODA stands for Observe, Orient, Decide, and Act. The late Colonel John Boyd, a Korean War pilot, came up with the concept to try to explain why American pilots were so much better than their opponents in dogfights. He determined that through a combination of training, aerodynamics, and cockpit design, American pilots and their aircraft could more quickly observe a stimulus and respond." Picture Senator Clinton with a big red cicle on her canvas wing... Posted by: jk at May 16, 2007 10:46 AM
But jk thinks:
Don't get me wrong, I'm not fully onboard the Fred boomlet just yet, but you have to appreciate those who can play the game. This was a master's stroke. I think Trek, that the Senator has found that he is able to stay in by holding back. By not announcing, he can still do his columns on NRO, finish his acting work, and avoid some of the expense of this preternaturally early campaigning. He's been on a Sunday show, generated lots of buzz and is always in the top three in the GOP polls. He might be onto something. Sadly, he also retains the right to drop out anytime, leaving his boomlet folks without a candidate.
But jk thinks:
Comment three times on your own post and you have a problem... I just noticed that Instapundit's online poll shows a 34% plurality who felt Fred Thompson "won" the debate. An oft cited advantage of staying out is to not look lilliputian up there as a gang of 11 non-Presidents. [NOTE: MS-Word disctionary suggests a Capital L on lilliputian. Do they think it's a real place or am I missing something?] Posted by: jk at May 16, 2007 11:12 AM
But dagny thinks:
Note from Dagny, raised by english teachers so she can't help it: A place does not have to be real to be a proper noun. Consider Oz, Atlantis, or Eden. I think the capital L is warranted. Posted by: dagny at May 16, 2007 1:39 PM
But jk thinks:
Good point, Dagny. I guess I felt that Lilliputian has become understood as its own little adjective without reference to the place. I don't want to make a big deal out of it, though if I took it up as a cause "little-l for lilliputians" would -- you must admit -- make a great bumper sticker. Next in the series of "Hobbes was an Optimist." Peer ReviewJosh at Everyday Economist says "If you read one thing today" it should be this commentary by Robert Higgs for the Independence Institute. Higgs admits that he is not an expert in climatology but that he has experience with peer review and the machinations of the scientific community. I have always claimed that my objections to DAWG were epistemological. Scientifically, it seems a good theory and I am no climatologist, either -- I don't even play one on TV. But I am a devotee of Karl Popper and was a scientist wannabe in my school years. I don't think good scientific procedures are being followed in the climate change debate. Higgs pokes some holes in peer review and "consensus." In this context, a bright young person needs to display cleverness in applying the prevailing orthodoxy, but it behooves him not to rock the boat by challenging anything fundamental or dear to the hearts of those who constitute the review committees for the NSF, NIH, and other funding organizations. Modern biological and physical science is, overwhelmingly, government-funded science. If your work, for whatever reason, does not appeal to the relevant funding agency’s bureaucrats and academic review committees, you can forget about getting any money to carry out your proposal. Recall the human frailties I mentioned previously; they apply just as much in the funding context as in the publication context. Indeed, these two contexts are themselves tightly linked: if you don’t get funding, you’ll never produce publishable work, and if you don’t land good publications, you won’t continue to receive funding. The Everyday Economist is right, you have to read the whole thing. In this connection, we might well bear in mind that the United Nations (and its committees and the bureaus it oversees) is no more a scientific organization than the U.S. Congress (and its committees and the bureaus it oversees). When decisions and pronouncements come forth from these political organizations, it makes sense to treat them as essentially political in origin and purpose. Politicians aren’t dumb, either―vicious, yes, but not dumb. One thing they know above everything else is how to stampede masses of people into approving or accepting ill-advised government actions that cost the people dearly in both their standard of living and their liberties in the long run. Deleterious Anthropogenic Warming of the Globe
Posted by jk at 11:13 AM
May 14, 2007Blair Switch Project?That's John Fund's headline, not mine -- unless the OpinionJournal has hired "Extreme Mortman" as Political Diary Editor. Fund floats a rumor: World Bank president Paul Wolfowitz may finally be kicked out this week over the way he handled a salary increase involving his girlfriend, once a Bank employee. Since the bank's top job normally goes to an American, some European nations are expected to argue quietly that in exchange for Mr. Wolfowitz leaving, President George Bush be offered a compromise: The presidency will go to a non-American for the first time, but one he could live with -- departing British Prime Minister Tony Blair. I want "Wolfie" to stay and I want the Administration to defend him all the way. If, however, the forces of darkness and anti-modernity must win one, I'll accept PM Blair. The Europeans want one of their own, I can bite my tongue if it's a reward for one of America's best allies.
Posted by jk at 12:37 PM
FDA: Black WednesdayBrother Johngalt and I explore some unexpected internecine disagreement in the "Pharmaceuticals" topic. I tried to explain in an answering comment that I'd like to see the FDA focus on safety and let the medical community -- a Hayekian collection of doctors, patients and researchers -- explore efficacy and benefits. In addition to that response, I'd like to hide behind another WSJ editorial (another paid link). Dr. Mark Thornton, "a former medical officer in the FDA Office of Oncology Products, [who] volunteers as president of the Sarcoma Foundation of America" shares my disappointment. May 9, 2007, should be cited in the annals of cancer immunotherapy as Black Wednesday. Within an eight-hour period that day, the FDA succeeded in killing not one but two safe, promising therapies designed and developed to act by stimulating a patient's immune system against cancer. The FDA's hubris will affect the lives and possibly the life spans of cancer patients from nearly every demographic, from elderly men with prostate cancer to young children with the rarest of bone cancers. I invoked Hayek because the problem here is a command and control structure. One drug is disallowed because it displays a 94% efficacy rate instead of 95%. One oncologist who votes in a minority on the first panel "launched an unprecedented PR campaign" against those who voted to approve and ultimately prevailed. It disturbs me that one doctor, who may be right or wrong, is enabled by our government to keep other Doctors from trying the treatment. Though the author is a doctor, he knows that this ruling might cause the company or its investors to drop the product entirely, further driving up the risk premium for the pharmaceutical sector. Better to invest in something safe, like soap or cigarettes. Both the Provenge and Junovan clinical trials provided evidence that patients lived longer compared to control groups. But according to the FDA, these "survival advantages" that statisticians talk about had "issues." When the issues were discussed in the Provenge public meeting the majority of the committee (in a 13-4 vote) thought the issues, while relevant and important, were superseded by the solid immunology science behind the product. Pharmaceuticals
Posted by jk at 11:58 AM
But jk thinks:
Awesome. As ThreeSources's Rudy cheerleader, I'll add a "read the whole thing!" Posted by: jk at May 14, 2007 12:29 PMMay 13, 2007Medal of Freedom RecipientsGeorge Tenent has written a book to defend his reputation. While everybody has focused on some of his attacks on the administration, the Weekly Standard has pointed out that his book speaks much about al Qaeda presence in Iraq, the efficacy of aggressive interrogation procedures and the current threat from Iran. He thinks the Bush administration is discrediting him, but he did receive the nation's highest civilian honor: the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Another recipient takes to his own defense, more credibly and succinctly. L. Paul Bremer has an editorial in the WaPo today, defending both the decision to de-Baathify Iraq and to disband Saddam's Iraqi Army: Our goal was to rid the Iraqi government of the small group of true believers at the top of the party, not to harass rank-and-file Sunnis. We were following in the footsteps of Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower in postwar Germany. Like the Nazi Party, the Baath Party ran all aspects of Iraqi life. Every Iraqi neighborhood had a party cell. Baathists recruited children to spy on their parents, just as the Nazis had. Hu |