Thursday, March 31, 2005
Aspirin better than rat poison for stroke patients
A national study found that aspirin worked just as well as warfarin, a common anticlotting drug, in stroke patients with narrowed brain arteries. More than 500 patients at 59 sites across the country were studied.
"This trial is good news. A simple low-cost drug works just as well as one that requires complicated and expensive monitoring and dose adjustments," said Dr. John Marler. Marler is the associate director for clinical trials at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, which sponsored the research study.
Participants who took warfarin, which is marketed as Coumadin, suffered a higher death rate and more major bleeding compared to those who took aspirin.
Warfarin also used to be marketed as “D-CON”, until the rats developed a resistance to it. Yep, warfarin is rat poison. It worked by causing the rats and mice to bleed to death.
The study appears in the New England Journal of Medicine.
"This trial is good news. A simple low-cost drug works just as well as one that requires complicated and expensive monitoring and dose adjustments," said Dr. John Marler. Marler is the associate director for clinical trials at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, which sponsored the research study.
Participants who took warfarin, which is marketed as Coumadin, suffered a higher death rate and more major bleeding compared to those who took aspirin.
Warfarin also used to be marketed as “D-CON”, until the rats developed a resistance to it. Yep, warfarin is rat poison. It worked by causing the rats and mice to bleed to death.
The study appears in the New England Journal of Medicine.
"Bioethics experts" and the Terri Schiavo tragedy
When I wrote this post on the Terri Schiavo tragedy, I included this language, intended as shocking and extreme examples of where we may end up as a result of incrementalism and the “slippery slope”:
So we start with Karen Ann Quinlan, begin talking about “preserving bodily functions by heroic means”, and move on to the idea that you can write a “living will”, a personal declaration of your wish not to be kept on a ventilator, then to the idea that you can execute a “health care power of attorney”, a written document that says you delegate authority to someone else to decide not to keep you on a ventilator, to Terri Schiavo. And a husband who clearly has a vested interest in seeing you die can decide to starve you to death while you’re not on a ventilator, and arguably not even brain-dead, and other relatives object and are willing to take responsibility.
We are clearly on an incremental path here. What’s next? I can starve my bedridden grandmother with advanced Alzheimer’s to death? I can decide to kill my severely disabled baby AFTER he is born? With all due respect to the law professors of the nation, you are full of crap. The slope is indeed slippery, and damned steep, too.
Imagine my surprise to find that my examples are neither shocking nor extreme. As explained by Wesley J. Smith, “Bioethicists” got there long before I did…and the mainstream view among “bioethics experts” is that both grandma and the baby are actually not “persons”, and therefore, not only can I kill them, I should harvest their organs while I’m at it!
Allen’s perspective is in fact relatively conservative within the mainstream bioethics movement. He is apparently willing to accept that “minimal awareness would support some criterion of personhood” — although he doesn’t say that awareness is determinative. Most of his colleagues are not so reticent. To them, it isn’t sentience per se that matters but rather demonstrable rationality. Thus Peter Singer of Princeton argues that unless an organism is self-aware over time, the entity in question is a non-person. The British academic John Harris, the Sir David Alliance professor of bioethics at the University of Manchester, England, has defined a person as “a creature capable of valuing its own existence.” Other bioethicists argue that the basic threshold of personhood should include the capacity to experience desire. James Hughes, who is more explicitly radical than many bioethicists (or perhaps, just more candid), has gone so far as to assert that people like Terri are “sentient property.”
So who are the so-called human non-persons? All embryos and fetuses, to be sure. But many bioethicists also categorize newborn infants as human non-persons (although some bioethicists refer to healthy newborns as “potential persons”). So too are those with profound cognitive impairments such as Terri Schiavo and President Ronald Reagan during the latter stages of his Alzheimer’s disease.
Personhood theory would reduce some of us into killable and harvestable people. Harris wrote explicitly that killing human non-persons would be fine because “Non-persons or potential persons cannot be wronged” by being killed “because death does not deprive them of something they can value. If they cannot wish to live, they cannot have that wish frustrated by being killed.”
And killing isn’t the half of it. Some of the same bioethicists who have been telling us how right and moral it is to dehydrate Terri Schiavo have also urged that people like Terri — that is, human non-persons — be harvested or otherwise used as mere instrumentalities. Bioethicist big-wig Tom Beauchamp of Georgetown University has suggested that “because many humans lack properties of personhood or are less than full persons, they…might be aggressively used as human research subjects or sources of organs.”
HUMAN RESEARCH SUBJECTS?!
Such thinking is not fringe in bioethics, a field in which the idea of killing for organs is fast becoming mainstream. In 1997, several doctors writing for the International Forum for Transplant Ethics opined in The Lancet that people (like Terri) diagnosed as being in a persistent vegetative state should be redefined as dead for purposes of organ procurement:
If the legal definition of death were to be changed to include comprehensive irreversible loss of higher brain function, it would be possible to take the life of a patient (or more accurately to stop the heart, since the patient would be defined as dead) by a lethal injection, and then to remove the organs needed for transplantation subject to the usual criteria for consent.
Ah yes…the would-be organ harvesters take comfort in requiring “the usual criteria for consent”…which in Florida can be given by a “husband” openly living with and having children with some other woman over a period of several years. Over the objections of parents willing to assume responsibility. Based solely on hearsay evidence, evidence which would NOT be admissible in court for the purpose of deciding what to do with the “non-person’s” car, but IS admissible for purposes of deciding to starve the “non-person”, Terri Schiavo, to death.
This article by Wesley J. Smith is an absolute must-read. These excerpts are extensive, but the whole article is chilling. And please note, much of what Smith quotes is not new, and is considered “mainstream” in the field of “bioethics”.
Why do I suddenly feel like I’m already at the bottom of that slippery slope, looking up?
So we start with Karen Ann Quinlan, begin talking about “preserving bodily functions by heroic means”, and move on to the idea that you can write a “living will”, a personal declaration of your wish not to be kept on a ventilator, then to the idea that you can execute a “health care power of attorney”, a written document that says you delegate authority to someone else to decide not to keep you on a ventilator, to Terri Schiavo. And a husband who clearly has a vested interest in seeing you die can decide to starve you to death while you’re not on a ventilator, and arguably not even brain-dead, and other relatives object and are willing to take responsibility.
We are clearly on an incremental path here. What’s next? I can starve my bedridden grandmother with advanced Alzheimer’s to death? I can decide to kill my severely disabled baby AFTER he is born? With all due respect to the law professors of the nation, you are full of crap. The slope is indeed slippery, and damned steep, too.
Imagine my surprise to find that my examples are neither shocking nor extreme. As explained by Wesley J. Smith, “Bioethicists” got there long before I did…and the mainstream view among “bioethics experts” is that both grandma and the baby are actually not “persons”, and therefore, not only can I kill them, I should harvest their organs while I’m at it!
Allen’s perspective is in fact relatively conservative within the mainstream bioethics movement. He is apparently willing to accept that “minimal awareness would support some criterion of personhood” — although he doesn’t say that awareness is determinative. Most of his colleagues are not so reticent. To them, it isn’t sentience per se that matters but rather demonstrable rationality. Thus Peter Singer of Princeton argues that unless an organism is self-aware over time, the entity in question is a non-person. The British academic John Harris, the Sir David Alliance professor of bioethics at the University of Manchester, England, has defined a person as “a creature capable of valuing its own existence.” Other bioethicists argue that the basic threshold of personhood should include the capacity to experience desire. James Hughes, who is more explicitly radical than many bioethicists (or perhaps, just more candid), has gone so far as to assert that people like Terri are “sentient property.”
So who are the so-called human non-persons? All embryos and fetuses, to be sure. But many bioethicists also categorize newborn infants as human non-persons (although some bioethicists refer to healthy newborns as “potential persons”). So too are those with profound cognitive impairments such as Terri Schiavo and President Ronald Reagan during the latter stages of his Alzheimer’s disease.
Personhood theory would reduce some of us into killable and harvestable people. Harris wrote explicitly that killing human non-persons would be fine because “Non-persons or potential persons cannot be wronged” by being killed “because death does not deprive them of something they can value. If they cannot wish to live, they cannot have that wish frustrated by being killed.”
And killing isn’t the half of it. Some of the same bioethicists who have been telling us how right and moral it is to dehydrate Terri Schiavo have also urged that people like Terri — that is, human non-persons — be harvested or otherwise used as mere instrumentalities. Bioethicist big-wig Tom Beauchamp of Georgetown University has suggested that “because many humans lack properties of personhood or are less than full persons, they…might be aggressively used as human research subjects or sources of organs.”
HUMAN RESEARCH SUBJECTS?!
Such thinking is not fringe in bioethics, a field in which the idea of killing for organs is fast becoming mainstream. In 1997, several doctors writing for the International Forum for Transplant Ethics opined in The Lancet that people (like Terri) diagnosed as being in a persistent vegetative state should be redefined as dead for purposes of organ procurement:
If the legal definition of death were to be changed to include comprehensive irreversible loss of higher brain function, it would be possible to take the life of a patient (or more accurately to stop the heart, since the patient would be defined as dead) by a lethal injection, and then to remove the organs needed for transplantation subject to the usual criteria for consent.
Ah yes…the would-be organ harvesters take comfort in requiring “the usual criteria for consent”…which in Florida can be given by a “husband” openly living with and having children with some other woman over a period of several years. Over the objections of parents willing to assume responsibility. Based solely on hearsay evidence, evidence which would NOT be admissible in court for the purpose of deciding what to do with the “non-person’s” car, but IS admissible for purposes of deciding to starve the “non-person”, Terri Schiavo, to death.
This article by Wesley J. Smith is an absolute must-read. These excerpts are extensive, but the whole article is chilling. And please note, much of what Smith quotes is not new, and is considered “mainstream” in the field of “bioethics”.
Why do I suddenly feel like I’m already at the bottom of that slippery slope, looking up?
Don't be shy...leave a comment
As I stated in a previous post, I believe this site is being seen by quite a few new visitors. For these new readers, as well as the established regulars (and you three know who you are) I'll just point out that this blog does not require any kind of registration, and does allow anonymous comments. It's all I can do to get a fresh post up on a daily basis, so don't worry that I'll track you down, or sell your e-mail address to spammers or anything like that. So feel free to leave a comment! If you leave anything especially heinous and offensive, I might delete it, but that's about the extent of my interference with comments.
Tuesday, March 29, 2005
Now THIS is a frivolous lawsuit
A lawsuit has been filed, and seeks to be certified as a class action, based on the argument that “reduced sugar” in fact means something other than “reduced sugar”.
Jennifer Hardee has sued three big cereal companies, accusing them of misleading advertising through prominent "low sugar" packaging. She was surprised to learn from an Associated Press story last week that the new cereals have no significant nutritional advantage to regular versions of the popular kids' breakfast cereals.
Well, DUH! Just because sugar is one of the targets of the nanny-staters, along with dietary fat, pesticides, genetically engineered improvements, fertilizers, etc., etc., putting less sugar in a processed food doesn’t make any nutritional change other than… LESS SUGAR. While this should be manifestly obvious to anyone with a brain in his/her head, Jennifer Hardee apparently ASSUMED that “less sugar” means something other than “less sugar”. Now she’s suing the big three cereal makers over her assumption.
Howard Rubinstein of Miami, one of the lawyers representing Hardee, said the companies have intentionally misled consumers by displaying low-sugar labels prominently on the packages. Consumers don't always understand the details in nutritional labels, he said.
"A lot of people, quite frankly, don't have the educational ability to make those decisions. They rely on the one-line ad," he said Monday. "It is that kind of an ad that adds a lot of ambiguity, and it shouldn't."
I can hear this argument in court, “well your honor, my client reasonably relied upon her assumption that “less sugar” doesn’t mean “less sugar”, it means “there are other nutritional changes to this product aside from ‘less sugar’ which you should assume from the fact that the package says ‘less sugar’.”
In other words, “my client is too damn stupid to figure out what the nutritional labels required by the government say, and too stupid to stand in the store and compare them, and because she automatically assumes that “less sugar” means “nutritionally superior” she’s entitled to sue and those companies should have to pay somebody because they said “less sugar” and they should have said “less sugar, but that only means less sugar, it does not mean something else other than what it says, and specifically it does not mean that less sugar actually means nutritionally superior…which we never said in the first place”… oh, and by the way, your Honor, it is my client they should have to pay, because she has suffered damages by feeding her children cereal with less sugar when she thought she was feeding them cereal with less sugar that would be nutritionally superior to cereal with more sugar, by virtue of the fact that it had less sugar…which in fact it does…have less sugar…
I would like to ask this attorney exactly what is “ambiguous” about the phrase “reduced sugar”? There’s NOTHING ambiguous about it…if people choose to ASSUME that it has some nutritional consequence other than what it says, that’s their problem. When did our society reach the point that no one has any responsibility for his/her own actions? The attorney alleges that the companies “intentionally misled” consumers by prominently putting “reduced sugar” on the package. Misled them into what? Believing there is less sugar? There IS less sugar…anything else anyone imagines as a consequence of “less sugar” is just that…their imagination.
This is similar to the “all natural” or “organic” products. Many people automatically assume that these phrases mean something other than what they say. Many people automatically assume these products are “healthier”. Well, the fact is, arsenic, strychnine and various snake venoms are “all natural”. They are not good for your health, but they are “all natural”. And study after study has shown that “organically grown” produce, i.e. without the use of chemical fertilizers, pesticides, or treatments, are more likely to be infected with harmful bacteria and contain insects, insect larvae, and insect eggs than are products produced commercially using chemicals.
Have we really reached the point where the law will enforce what people imagine something in writing should mean, rather than what it actually says? Oh, wait…I guess that question has already been answered. After all, isn’t that what the Supreme Court did in Roper v. Simmons?
Jennifer Hardee has sued three big cereal companies, accusing them of misleading advertising through prominent "low sugar" packaging. She was surprised to learn from an Associated Press story last week that the new cereals have no significant nutritional advantage to regular versions of the popular kids' breakfast cereals.
Well, DUH! Just because sugar is one of the targets of the nanny-staters, along with dietary fat, pesticides, genetically engineered improvements, fertilizers, etc., etc., putting less sugar in a processed food doesn’t make any nutritional change other than… LESS SUGAR. While this should be manifestly obvious to anyone with a brain in his/her head, Jennifer Hardee apparently ASSUMED that “less sugar” means something other than “less sugar”. Now she’s suing the big three cereal makers over her assumption.
Howard Rubinstein of Miami, one of the lawyers representing Hardee, said the companies have intentionally misled consumers by displaying low-sugar labels prominently on the packages. Consumers don't always understand the details in nutritional labels, he said.
"A lot of people, quite frankly, don't have the educational ability to make those decisions. They rely on the one-line ad," he said Monday. "It is that kind of an ad that adds a lot of ambiguity, and it shouldn't."
I can hear this argument in court, “well your honor, my client reasonably relied upon her assumption that “less sugar” doesn’t mean “less sugar”, it means “there are other nutritional changes to this product aside from ‘less sugar’ which you should assume from the fact that the package says ‘less sugar’.”
In other words, “my client is too damn stupid to figure out what the nutritional labels required by the government say, and too stupid to stand in the store and compare them, and because she automatically assumes that “less sugar” means “nutritionally superior” she’s entitled to sue and those companies should have to pay somebody because they said “less sugar” and they should have said “less sugar, but that only means less sugar, it does not mean something else other than what it says, and specifically it does not mean that less sugar actually means nutritionally superior…which we never said in the first place”… oh, and by the way, your Honor, it is my client they should have to pay, because she has suffered damages by feeding her children cereal with less sugar when she thought she was feeding them cereal with less sugar that would be nutritionally superior to cereal with more sugar, by virtue of the fact that it had less sugar…which in fact it does…have less sugar…
I would like to ask this attorney exactly what is “ambiguous” about the phrase “reduced sugar”? There’s NOTHING ambiguous about it…if people choose to ASSUME that it has some nutritional consequence other than what it says, that’s their problem. When did our society reach the point that no one has any responsibility for his/her own actions? The attorney alleges that the companies “intentionally misled” consumers by prominently putting “reduced sugar” on the package. Misled them into what? Believing there is less sugar? There IS less sugar…anything else anyone imagines as a consequence of “less sugar” is just that…their imagination.
This is similar to the “all natural” or “organic” products. Many people automatically assume that these phrases mean something other than what they say. Many people automatically assume these products are “healthier”. Well, the fact is, arsenic, strychnine and various snake venoms are “all natural”. They are not good for your health, but they are “all natural”. And study after study has shown that “organically grown” produce, i.e. without the use of chemical fertilizers, pesticides, or treatments, are more likely to be infected with harmful bacteria and contain insects, insect larvae, and insect eggs than are products produced commercially using chemicals.
Have we really reached the point where the law will enforce what people imagine something in writing should mean, rather than what it actually says? Oh, wait…I guess that question has already been answered. After all, isn’t that what the Supreme Court did in Roper v. Simmons?
Saturday, March 26, 2005
How's your Traffic Exchange?
I use a couple of blog exchanges. I'm not a real heavy user, and I don't have a lot of time to spend on it, but if you don't get your stuff out there, people can't see it. It's just a way of getting your blog to pop up in front of somebody's eyes. I've gotten some regular readers, and found some sites I read regularly, using the exchanges. I've also noticed that the law of diminishing returns sets in pretty quickly.
I haven't done a scientific study, but I suspect that the membership is fairly static...new members come in, of course, and a few drop out, but probably the core membership stays about the same. After a while, everybody has seen what you have to offer. Those who like it become regular readers. Those who don't just click on by to earn their credit. We all operate that way, and we all know we all do it. After while, though, your odds of getting a new reader get smaller and smaller, because as membership grows, new users should actually become a smaller percentage of potential visitors. Which is fine if what you're after is watching your counter spin, but not much use in finding new readers as opposed to collecting "hits".
Over in the sidebar I've posted links to two exchanges I tried out on a lark this past week. Both are free (of course) and neither one is a blog exchange. Both are "general traffic" exchanges, which means you get a lot of "make a billion dollars by lunchtime" and "15,000 level commission structure - get rich today" type stuff.
BUT...I am getting (according to Sitemeter, for what it's worth) some really surprising results. The return visits generated so far by any given session are showing about five to fifteen times the number of multi-page view visits that I get from the blog exchanges. I have visits lasting 20, 40, even 60 minutes, and I am getting folks who are coming back later to take another look. One guy has been back three times, and has now apparently read the entire blog, archives and all!
My theory, and again, I haven't done any research, I'm just looking at the stats, is that I am reaching an entirely new audience. Not only have they not seen MY blog fifty times, they're new to the concept of the blog. They surf along and instead of "oh God, it's that idiot that talks about social security all the time again" it's "where's the multi-level structure...wait a minute, I never thought about THAT... I didn't know THAT...". So anyway, that's my theory.
Both of these sites have "new member specials". TrafficAxxiom (where I have gotten some EXTREMELY surprising stats) has a plan (it ends in like six days or something like that) to let you get really quickly to a lifetime 1:1 surf ratio for free, and WebCentreSurf makes you look at 100 sites before they activate yours, then they give you 1,000 free bonus banners and some other stuff. They also have a "Surfsites" page, sort of a control room to coordinate your use of multiple traffic exchanges. I'm not THAT big into exchanges, and I haven't checked it out yet, but it seems like it would have potential. TrafficAxxiom also let's you "pace" your pages at so many views per hour. One drawback, from my perspective: no "blogmark" function, which I use A LOT. I've sent mail recommending they add it.
If your traffic exchange just isn't doing it for you, you might want to try these. After a while, go back to your original exchanges, and you'll probably get a "bump" in performance because of changes in membership.
By the way, yes, there's a downline structure, so if you sign up through these links I get some kind of credit, but I honestly couldn't tell you exactly how it's set up. But I AM a great believer in disclosure, so there you have it. If you do decide to try one or both of these, I'd appreciate it if you'd get back to me in a couple of weeks and leave a comment with how YOUR experience worked out.
I haven't done a scientific study, but I suspect that the membership is fairly static...new members come in, of course, and a few drop out, but probably the core membership stays about the same. After a while, everybody has seen what you have to offer. Those who like it become regular readers. Those who don't just click on by to earn their credit. We all operate that way, and we all know we all do it. After while, though, your odds of getting a new reader get smaller and smaller, because as membership grows, new users should actually become a smaller percentage of potential visitors. Which is fine if what you're after is watching your counter spin, but not much use in finding new readers as opposed to collecting "hits".
Over in the sidebar I've posted links to two exchanges I tried out on a lark this past week. Both are free (of course) and neither one is a blog exchange. Both are "general traffic" exchanges, which means you get a lot of "make a billion dollars by lunchtime" and "15,000 level commission structure - get rich today" type stuff.
BUT...I am getting (according to Sitemeter, for what it's worth) some really surprising results. The return visits generated so far by any given session are showing about five to fifteen times the number of multi-page view visits that I get from the blog exchanges. I have visits lasting 20, 40, even 60 minutes, and I am getting folks who are coming back later to take another look. One guy has been back three times, and has now apparently read the entire blog, archives and all!
My theory, and again, I haven't done any research, I'm just looking at the stats, is that I am reaching an entirely new audience. Not only have they not seen MY blog fifty times, they're new to the concept of the blog. They surf along and instead of "oh God, it's that idiot that talks about social security all the time again" it's "where's the multi-level structure...wait a minute, I never thought about THAT... I didn't know THAT...". So anyway, that's my theory.
Both of these sites have "new member specials". TrafficAxxiom (where I have gotten some EXTREMELY surprising stats) has a plan (it ends in like six days or something like that) to let you get really quickly to a lifetime 1:1 surf ratio for free, and WebCentreSurf makes you look at 100 sites before they activate yours, then they give you 1,000 free bonus banners and some other stuff. They also have a "Surfsites" page, sort of a control room to coordinate your use of multiple traffic exchanges. I'm not THAT big into exchanges, and I haven't checked it out yet, but it seems like it would have potential. TrafficAxxiom also let's you "pace" your pages at so many views per hour. One drawback, from my perspective: no "blogmark" function, which I use A LOT. I've sent mail recommending they add it.
If your traffic exchange just isn't doing it for you, you might want to try these. After a while, go back to your original exchanges, and you'll probably get a "bump" in performance because of changes in membership.
By the way, yes, there's a downline structure, so if you sign up through these links I get some kind of credit, but I honestly couldn't tell you exactly how it's set up. But I AM a great believer in disclosure, so there you have it. If you do decide to try one or both of these, I'd appreciate it if you'd get back to me in a couple of weeks and leave a comment with how YOUR experience worked out.
The Real Cause of Global Warming
Friday, March 25, 2005
Social Security Reform - is W crazy like a fox?
Over at El Cid, another blog taking an interest in the social security issue (and linking frequently to this blog, thank you very much) the proprietor has posted a sort of listing of important dates in the history of social security. Straight factual stuff, just a chronology really. And a couple of patterns emerge: continually increasing taxes and piecemeal half-measures in response to a problem that’s been obvious for over twenty years.
Social security taxes have risen constantly, more slowly at first and then more quickly. From 2% in 1935 to 3% in 1950. With the addition of disability coverage and early retirement for women at age 62, the rate went to 4% in 1956. In 1961, early retirement (at 62) for men was allowed, and the tax rate went to 6%. In 1972, with the addition of automatic cost-of-living increases (and the famous “notch” miscalculation of inflation rates) the tax went to 9.2%. In 1977, the “notch” miscalculation was corrected and the tax set at 9.9%.
In 1983 the National Commission on Social Security Reform, created in response to the realization that the system was “actuarially unsound” (which is a fancy way of saying “slowly going broke”) called for an increase in self-employment taxes, partial taxation of social security benefits received by “upper income” retirees, inclusion of federal civilian employees (including congress), and an increase in the retirement age from 65 to 67. Social security payroll taxes were set at 10.8%. Problem solved.
Well, for two years, anyway. In 1985 the social security “trust fund” was moved “off budget” and accounted for separately from the rest of the federal budget, and the payroll tax went up to 11.4%. In 1993 taxes were raised again to 12.4%, and the amount of “upper income” retirees benefits taxed rose to 85%. In 1996, the Social Security Trustees' Report stated that the social security system would start to run deficits in 2012, and the “trust funds” would be exhausted by 2029.
In 1997, all members of President Clinton’s presidentially-appointed Social Security Advisory Panel agreed that some or all of Social Security's funds should be invested in the private sector. To keep the unchanged system actuarially sound, payroll taxes would have to be increased 50%, to 18% of payroll, or benefits would have to be slashed by 30%.
And the 1999 Social Security Trustees’ Report stated that the system’s “unfunded liability” had increased by $752 billion…in just the one year period since the 1998 report. The 1999 report projected social security’s long-term “unfunded liability” at over $19 trillion.
In other words, Americans expect to receive benefits totaling 19 trillion dollars more than the total social security tax revenues will generate. Benefits for which social security will not have the money. The “trust fund”, of course, no longer contains any real money, just notes from the federal government. Those notes total around 1.6 trillion dollars. The “trust fund” only exists at all if you pretend that social security is totally separate from the rest of the government. Which is nonsense, since the total $1.6 trillion value of the “trust fund” is in fact $1.6 trillion in federal government debt.
So it seems obvious that, at least since 1983, it has been understood by the government that there is a serious structural flaw in social security: the benefits to be paid out will eventually outstrip the revenues collected. And most estimates put that point at about ten years from now. At that point, the government will not only have to find the money to start paying its notes to social security, it will also have to find some way to make up for the $65 billion or so in cash that it has been borrowing annually from surplus social security tax revenues (which is why there are no real “funds” in the “trust fund”). The response to this looming fiscal “inconvenience” (well, there is no “crisis”, right, and we gotta call it something!) over the years has been a series of stop-gap half-measures, tax increases, increased retirement ages, and accounting shell games that would make an Enron accountant blush.
None of this is news to anyone who has been paying attention to the Social Security issue since Ronald Reagan announced that there was a problem. But what suddenly screamed off the page (or should I say the screen?) at me tonight was that 1997 paragraph. Because it suddenly occurred to me to wonder whether President Bush is really after private personal accounts. Whether he really thinks he can get them.
The Bush bashers will never admit it, nor will the defeated opponents bobbing in his political wake like so much litter tossed overboard, but Bush is as politically shrewd as the day is long. Anyone who has really watched his career knows that the man is a cool political operator with nerves of steel, and he loves to play “bait and switch”…demand the earth and sky, then settle for just the earth. Which is what you really figured you could get in the first place. So, is he really after private personal accounts? Or is he really after the investment of social security revenues in the private sector? A position endorsed by President Clinton, which Democrats might have trouble opposing now, particularly since they’ve already declared they are “open to anything except private personal accounts.” A position Bush could embrace by way of making himself look like the reasonable guy willing to compromise. A position that would accomplish the goal of getting the money out of the government’s hands and into the private sector, where it could fuel economic growth and bulk up domestic savings and investment.
Oh, and one more thing. Do not play poker with that man.
Social security taxes have risen constantly, more slowly at first and then more quickly. From 2% in 1935 to 3% in 1950. With the addition of disability coverage and early retirement for women at age 62, the rate went to 4% in 1956. In 1961, early retirement (at 62) for men was allowed, and the tax rate went to 6%. In 1972, with the addition of automatic cost-of-living increases (and the famous “notch” miscalculation of inflation rates) the tax went to 9.2%. In 1977, the “notch” miscalculation was corrected and the tax set at 9.9%.
In 1983 the National Commission on Social Security Reform, created in response to the realization that the system was “actuarially unsound” (which is a fancy way of saying “slowly going broke”) called for an increase in self-employment taxes, partial taxation of social security benefits received by “upper income” retirees, inclusion of federal civilian employees (including congress), and an increase in the retirement age from 65 to 67. Social security payroll taxes were set at 10.8%. Problem solved.
Well, for two years, anyway. In 1985 the social security “trust fund” was moved “off budget” and accounted for separately from the rest of the federal budget, and the payroll tax went up to 11.4%. In 1993 taxes were raised again to 12.4%, and the amount of “upper income” retirees benefits taxed rose to 85%. In 1996, the Social Security Trustees' Report stated that the social security system would start to run deficits in 2012, and the “trust funds” would be exhausted by 2029.
In 1997, all members of President Clinton’s presidentially-appointed Social Security Advisory Panel agreed that some or all of Social Security's funds should be invested in the private sector. To keep the unchanged system actuarially sound, payroll taxes would have to be increased 50%, to 18% of payroll, or benefits would have to be slashed by 30%.
And the 1999 Social Security Trustees’ Report stated that the system’s “unfunded liability” had increased by $752 billion…in just the one year period since the 1998 report. The 1999 report projected social security’s long-term “unfunded liability” at over $19 trillion.
In other words, Americans expect to receive benefits totaling 19 trillion dollars more than the total social security tax revenues will generate. Benefits for which social security will not have the money. The “trust fund”, of course, no longer contains any real money, just notes from the federal government. Those notes total around 1.6 trillion dollars. The “trust fund” only exists at all if you pretend that social security is totally separate from the rest of the government. Which is nonsense, since the total $1.6 trillion value of the “trust fund” is in fact $1.6 trillion in federal government debt.
So it seems obvious that, at least since 1983, it has been understood by the government that there is a serious structural flaw in social security: the benefits to be paid out will eventually outstrip the revenues collected. And most estimates put that point at about ten years from now. At that point, the government will not only have to find the money to start paying its notes to social security, it will also have to find some way to make up for the $65 billion or so in cash that it has been borrowing annually from surplus social security tax revenues (which is why there are no real “funds” in the “trust fund”). The response to this looming fiscal “inconvenience” (well, there is no “crisis”, right, and we gotta call it something!) over the years has been a series of stop-gap half-measures, tax increases, increased retirement ages, and accounting shell games that would make an Enron accountant blush.
None of this is news to anyone who has been paying attention to the Social Security issue since Ronald Reagan announced that there was a problem. But what suddenly screamed off the page (or should I say the screen?) at me tonight was that 1997 paragraph. Because it suddenly occurred to me to wonder whether President Bush is really after private personal accounts. Whether he really thinks he can get them.
The Bush bashers will never admit it, nor will the defeated opponents bobbing in his political wake like so much litter tossed overboard, but Bush is as politically shrewd as the day is long. Anyone who has really watched his career knows that the man is a cool political operator with nerves of steel, and he loves to play “bait and switch”…demand the earth and sky, then settle for just the earth. Which is what you really figured you could get in the first place. So, is he really after private personal accounts? Or is he really after the investment of social security revenues in the private sector? A position endorsed by President Clinton, which Democrats might have trouble opposing now, particularly since they’ve already declared they are “open to anything except private personal accounts.” A position Bush could embrace by way of making himself look like the reasonable guy willing to compromise. A position that would accomplish the goal of getting the money out of the government’s hands and into the private sector, where it could fuel economic growth and bulk up domestic savings and investment.
Oh, and one more thing. Do not play poker with that man.
Thursday, March 24, 2005
Iraqi Insurgent base taken in two-hour battle
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- After a two-hour firefight, Iraqi forces and U.S. helicopters captured an insurgent base north of Baghdad, killing 85 rebels, U.S. and Iraqi military officials said Wednesday.
What is significant about this news item, and what was wrongly reported in most headlines, is the composition of the forces doing the fighting. This action was carried out by Iraqi troops supported by US helicopter gunships, not by US troops. The goal all along has been to train Iraqi troops and security forces to gradually take over. It's a slow process. Those who argue that Saddam's Iraqi army should not have been disbanded are simply dead wrong.
Saddam's army, like the old soviet army, was loaded with informants, "political officers" (commissars) and die hard Baathist Saddamites... the very folks who are participating with foreign terrorists and fundamentalists in trying to stave off the emergence of the new Iraqi state. Trying to "retrain" that army, or elements of it, wholesale would have been absolutely futile. The officer corps, in particular, was riddled with persons who should certainly have no place in the new Iraqi armed forces.
Starting from scratch was the only answer. It's a longer, more difficult process. But it was the only realistic course of action.
What is significant about this news item, and what was wrongly reported in most headlines, is the composition of the forces doing the fighting. This action was carried out by Iraqi troops supported by US helicopter gunships, not by US troops. The goal all along has been to train Iraqi troops and security forces to gradually take over. It's a slow process. Those who argue that Saddam's Iraqi army should not have been disbanded are simply dead wrong.
Saddam's army, like the old soviet army, was loaded with informants, "political officers" (commissars) and die hard Baathist Saddamites... the very folks who are participating with foreign terrorists and fundamentalists in trying to stave off the emergence of the new Iraqi state. Trying to "retrain" that army, or elements of it, wholesale would have been absolutely futile. The officer corps, in particular, was riddled with persons who should certainly have no place in the new Iraqi armed forces.
Starting from scratch was the only answer. It's a longer, more difficult process. But it was the only realistic course of action.
Wednesday, March 23, 2005
Terri Schiavo: an American tragedy
Our old friend over at The Great Pontificator has apparently shaken off his late-winter lethargy and begun posting again. He recently loaded a series of photos of the WTC post-9/11 wreckage under the topical heading “Lest we Forget”. Images like these should be seen, regularly. Unbelievably, the horrific reality of the 9/11 terrorist attacks on our country seem to be slipping from the public consciousness. That must not be allowed to happen.
He also has a fresh post on the subject of incremental thinking, using what he says are two recent glaring examples: the ridiculous Supreme Court ruling in Roper v. Simmons, and the wailing and gnashing of teeth over the prospect of oil drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Reserve, in an area where, from the creation of the reserve, oil exploration was supposed to be permitted.
I think he missed probably the most egregious example of incrementalism, and that is the Terri Schiavo case.
I haven’t said anything about this matter because I honestly haven’t followed it closely enough to have a command of the facts. There are some elements that just plain make me feel queasy. The husband has, from what I gather, “moved on”, and actually started a family with another woman. I’m not sure I’m comfortable with the law leaving Terri Schiavo’s fate in his hands in these circumstances. That is, however, apparently the state of the law in Florida. And there seems to be a real question as to her actual medical condition.
Predictably, some on the left have accused pro-life activists and their political allies and supporters of exploiting this case. I can understand pro-life advocates taking a position on this. What really baffles me is the knee-jerk reaction of leftists who see this as a political issue, and viciously argue in favor of her death. They clearly have no stake in the matter, other than as opponents of right-to-lifers.
Terri Schiavo has parents and supporters willing to assume all responsibility for her. What is the interest of her husband in seeing her starve to death? To “carry out her wish?” And what in the world can be the interest of leftists in this case? The celebratory tone of these people at the prospect of the “victory” resulting in her death is revolting. Her “quality of life” is, as I see it, none of their business. And quite frankly, most of the folks who are most strident about her condition or her wishes don’t know any more about it than I do. Which doesn’t stop them from knowing, with absolute and ignorant certainty, what’s right and best for her.
Where does this case tie in with incremental thought? In the span of less than one generation, the law has gone from Karen Ann Quinlan – parents who are not opposed by other close relatives can remove a “brain-dead” young woman from the heart and lung machine which artificially sustains her body’s basic functions – to Terri Schiavo – a husband who has already started a new family can withhold food from a woman who is not on a ventilator and does not appear to be “brain dead” , over the objections of her parents, who are willing to assume responsibility. I see unplugging a ventilator and withholding food as two very different propositions.
Law school professors, who are overwhelmingly social liberals, spend a good deal of time derisively explaining to students that the concept of the “slippery slope” is utter nonsense. The “slippery slope” is the idea that once courts enter a new area and begin making decisions, what’s next and where does it end? Social liberals want the courts, and government generally, to constantly enter new areas, and so they would prefer that the consequences not be thought of in terms of the “slippery slope”. It is much easier to sell the concept of removing a brain-dead person from a ventilator that the idea of starving to death someone who can no longer care for themselves. But as the Great Pontificator points out, incremental thought is pervasive in our way of life. And the slippery slope is both real and slippery.
So we start with Karen Ann Quinlan, begin talking about “preserving bodily functions by heroic means”, and move on to the idea that you can write a “living will”, a personal declaration of your wish not to be kept on a ventilator, then to the idea that you can execute a “health care power of attorney”, a written document that says you delegate authority to someone else to decide not to keep you on a ventilator, to Terri Schiavo. And a husband who clearly has a vested interest in seeing you die can decide to starve you to death while you’re not on a ventilator, and arguably not even brain-dead, and other relatives object and are willing to take responsibility.
We are clearly on an incremental path here. What’s next? I can starve my bedridden grandmother with advanced Alzheimer’s to death? I can decide to kill my severely disabled baby AFTER he is born? With all due respect to the law professors of the nation, you are full of crap. The slope is indeed slippery, and damned steep, too.
Incidentally, the Quinlan court was convinced by medical experts that Karen Ann would die quickly when removed from the ventilator. In fact, it was several years later that her heart finally ceased functioning on its own. I guess “expert” opinions are still just opinions.
He also has a fresh post on the subject of incremental thinking, using what he says are two recent glaring examples: the ridiculous Supreme Court ruling in Roper v. Simmons, and the wailing and gnashing of teeth over the prospect of oil drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Reserve, in an area where, from the creation of the reserve, oil exploration was supposed to be permitted.
I think he missed probably the most egregious example of incrementalism, and that is the Terri Schiavo case.
I haven’t said anything about this matter because I honestly haven’t followed it closely enough to have a command of the facts. There are some elements that just plain make me feel queasy. The husband has, from what I gather, “moved on”, and actually started a family with another woman. I’m not sure I’m comfortable with the law leaving Terri Schiavo’s fate in his hands in these circumstances. That is, however, apparently the state of the law in Florida. And there seems to be a real question as to her actual medical condition.
Predictably, some on the left have accused pro-life activists and their political allies and supporters of exploiting this case. I can understand pro-life advocates taking a position on this. What really baffles me is the knee-jerk reaction of leftists who see this as a political issue, and viciously argue in favor of her death. They clearly have no stake in the matter, other than as opponents of right-to-lifers.
Terri Schiavo has parents and supporters willing to assume all responsibility for her. What is the interest of her husband in seeing her starve to death? To “carry out her wish?” And what in the world can be the interest of leftists in this case? The celebratory tone of these people at the prospect of the “victory” resulting in her death is revolting. Her “quality of life” is, as I see it, none of their business. And quite frankly, most of the folks who are most strident about her condition or her wishes don’t know any more about it than I do. Which doesn’t stop them from knowing, with absolute and ignorant certainty, what’s right and best for her.
Where does this case tie in with incremental thought? In the span of less than one generation, the law has gone from Karen Ann Quinlan – parents who are not opposed by other close relatives can remove a “brain-dead” young woman from the heart and lung machine which artificially sustains her body’s basic functions – to Terri Schiavo – a husband who has already started a new family can withhold food from a woman who is not on a ventilator and does not appear to be “brain dead” , over the objections of her parents, who are willing to assume responsibility. I see unplugging a ventilator and withholding food as two very different propositions.
Law school professors, who are overwhelmingly social liberals, spend a good deal of time derisively explaining to students that the concept of the “slippery slope” is utter nonsense. The “slippery slope” is the idea that once courts enter a new area and begin making decisions, what’s next and where does it end? Social liberals want the courts, and government generally, to constantly enter new areas, and so they would prefer that the consequences not be thought of in terms of the “slippery slope”. It is much easier to sell the concept of removing a brain-dead person from a ventilator that the idea of starving to death someone who can no longer care for themselves. But as the Great Pontificator points out, incremental thought is pervasive in our way of life. And the slippery slope is both real and slippery.
So we start with Karen Ann Quinlan, begin talking about “preserving bodily functions by heroic means”, and move on to the idea that you can write a “living will”, a personal declaration of your wish not to be kept on a ventilator, then to the idea that you can execute a “health care power of attorney”, a written document that says you delegate authority to someone else to decide not to keep you on a ventilator, to Terri Schiavo. And a husband who clearly has a vested interest in seeing you die can decide to starve you to death while you’re not on a ventilator, and arguably not even brain-dead, and other relatives object and are willing to take responsibility.
We are clearly on an incremental path here. What’s next? I can starve my bedridden grandmother with advanced Alzheimer’s to death? I can decide to kill my severely disabled baby AFTER he is born? With all due respect to the law professors of the nation, you are full of crap. The slope is indeed slippery, and damned steep, too.
Incidentally, the Quinlan court was convinced by medical experts that Karen Ann would die quickly when removed from the ventilator. In fact, it was several years later that her heart finally ceased functioning on its own. I guess “expert” opinions are still just opinions.
Monday, March 21, 2005
WOMBATS!
You must see the Gratuitous Wombat Thread over at POOKLEKUFR. I still don’t know what the heck the blog's name means, and I’m not sure WHY you must see the Gratuitous Wombats. But you must.
From the blog "Democracy in Iraq"
This is a long post and comment thread from the Democracy in Iraq blog. It is worth reading every word. You may already have seen this, I picked it up from Little Green Footballs, but I've linked to the original here instead of LGF. I'm sure Charles would appreciate me helping him conserve bandwidth! By the way, if you don't already read Little Green Footballs regularly, you really should check it out.
Sunday, March 20, 2005
Sunday Siteseeing Drive
Back in the days when the family car was something of a novelty, and considered a sort of recreational vehicle, families used to “go out for a drive” on Sunday afternoons. People really did it, it’s where the expression “Sunday driver” comes from. You know, the guy in front of you who isn’t in as big a hurry as you, maybe isn’t in a hurry at all. In fact, he’s just kind of meandering along like he’s out sight-seeing.
The disappearance of this custom, once widespread, seems to have coincided with the rise of television and pretty much vanished completely by about 1970.
What I have for you today is a sort of a blogger’s Sunday drive, a grab bag of sites that are, in my subjective opinion, worth a look. Let’s face it, us little guys never get enough links, and this is my way of giving a pat on the back to the bloggers out there who aren’t getting TV spots or collecting $100,000 in donations, but are still putting their heart into getting something out there for all to see.
These are sites I’ve stumbled across in one way or another. Some have a viewpoint I agree with, and some I wouldn’t agree with if they tied me to a stake and lit me on fire. Some are completely non-political, and interesting for another reason. Maybe they’re just very well-written, or maybe they’re here because of the sheer weirdness of their whole concept. Some actually contain useful information.
No personal endorsement is intended or given, no reciprocal links or visits are required or expected. But I have visited each site personally, so I can assure you that you won’t suddenly find yourself looking at graphic images on the homepage of the Hamster-eating dandelion-worshipping naked dancing society. At least, not without a warning. Although, if there WAS such a site, it would probably make the list under the “weirdness” standard.
So here you go, the Sunday site-seeing tour is underway.
NIF: Recent heavy emphasis on the Schiavo case, a tragedy any way you look at it; scroll down, this site has a HUGE collection of links on a wide variety of topics, from Michael Jackson to video gaming; Webmaster's Profit Center: Oriented to increasing traffic to, and making money with, your blog or website; Reformed Politics: Right-of-Center blog, informative discussion of differences among evangelical Christians; Crochet Happy: Now here’s one where the name pretty much says it all; Zardozz News and Satire: Commentary on a variety of subjects, recent postings on the baseball steroid mess; BLOGCETRA Some of this, some of that…it will take me longer to explain it than it will take you to go look at it; Ravings of a Mad Tech For a help desk technician’s blog, this sure has a lot to say about illegal immigration; Science and Space Space and astronomy articles. Some interesting stuff here you’d have to really hunt to find on your own; Blogs Gone Wild Web design services, including Blogger template modifications…for those who have not yet made their first web billion; PAULTECH: Computer and technical information actually comprehensible by human beings not using pocket protectors. A bunch of really useful links; Democratic Peace: This is a pretty hardcore political theory spot… not for the intellectually lazy, or the faint-hearted.
OK, that’s the end of the Sunday Drive. I’m considering making a more or less regular feature of this, so please feel free to leave a comment and let me know what you think…or to plug your own blog for future inclusion.
The disappearance of this custom, once widespread, seems to have coincided with the rise of television and pretty much vanished completely by about 1970.
What I have for you today is a sort of a blogger’s Sunday drive, a grab bag of sites that are, in my subjective opinion, worth a look. Let’s face it, us little guys never get enough links, and this is my way of giving a pat on the back to the bloggers out there who aren’t getting TV spots or collecting $100,000 in donations, but are still putting their heart into getting something out there for all to see.
These are sites I’ve stumbled across in one way or another. Some have a viewpoint I agree with, and some I wouldn’t agree with if they tied me to a stake and lit me on fire. Some are completely non-political, and interesting for another reason. Maybe they’re just very well-written, or maybe they’re here because of the sheer weirdness of their whole concept. Some actually contain useful information.
No personal endorsement is intended or given, no reciprocal links or visits are required or expected. But I have visited each site personally, so I can assure you that you won’t suddenly find yourself looking at graphic images on the homepage of the Hamster-eating dandelion-worshipping naked dancing society. At least, not without a warning. Although, if there WAS such a site, it would probably make the list under the “weirdness” standard.
So here you go, the Sunday site-seeing tour is underway.
NIF: Recent heavy emphasis on the Schiavo case, a tragedy any way you look at it; scroll down, this site has a HUGE collection of links on a wide variety of topics, from Michael Jackson to video gaming; Webmaster's Profit Center: Oriented to increasing traffic to, and making money with, your blog or website; Reformed Politics: Right-of-Center blog, informative discussion of differences among evangelical Christians; Crochet Happy: Now here’s one where the name pretty much says it all; Zardozz News and Satire: Commentary on a variety of subjects, recent postings on the baseball steroid mess; BLOGCETRA Some of this, some of that…it will take me longer to explain it than it will take you to go look at it; Ravings of a Mad Tech For a help desk technician’s blog, this sure has a lot to say about illegal immigration; Science and Space Space and astronomy articles. Some interesting stuff here you’d have to really hunt to find on your own; Blogs Gone Wild Web design services, including Blogger template modifications…for those who have not yet made their first web billion; PAULTECH: Computer and technical information actually comprehensible by human beings not using pocket protectors. A bunch of really useful links; Democratic Peace: This is a pretty hardcore political theory spot… not for the intellectually lazy, or the faint-hearted.
OK, that’s the end of the Sunday Drive. I’m considering making a more or less regular feature of this, so please feel free to leave a comment and let me know what you think…or to plug your own blog for future inclusion.
Friday, March 18, 2005
"Look, ma! New, secret Constitutional provisions!"
When I posted on the Roper v. Simmons decision by the Supreme Court, my primary objection to that decision was that, as an example of legal analysis and proper application of precedent, it is a pile of poop. The majority basically took the view that what the Constitution says isn’t controlling. What determines the meaning of the Constitution is what a majority of the Supreme Court justices think it should say.
Well, now BELDAR points out the corollary to this absurd doctrine of Constitutional construction. Harvard law professor Lawrence Tribe arguing, apparently with a straight face, that what isn’t written into the Constitution is just as binding as what is written into it. He identifies these mysterious, unwritten but binding Constitutional provisions as “tacit postulates”.
I happen to be quite thoroughly familiar with the United States Constitution, and I’ve honestly never encountered one of these “tacit postulates.” But I have a sneaking suspicion that there are an unlimited number of them, lurking within the “penumbra” apparently cast by each word and phrase which is actually in the constitution, just waiting for some judge who has no legal grounds to stand on, but knows what the Constitution should say, to suddenly discover them.
No wonder the judicial ranks are swollen with arrogant idiots convinced of their absolute right to declare what the law ought to be and henceforth, shall be. They’ve all graduated from law school, and the lunatics are obviously running that particular asylum.
Well, now BELDAR points out the corollary to this absurd doctrine of Constitutional construction. Harvard law professor Lawrence Tribe arguing, apparently with a straight face, that what isn’t written into the Constitution is just as binding as what is written into it. He identifies these mysterious, unwritten but binding Constitutional provisions as “tacit postulates”.
I happen to be quite thoroughly familiar with the United States Constitution, and I’ve honestly never encountered one of these “tacit postulates.” But I have a sneaking suspicion that there are an unlimited number of them, lurking within the “penumbra” apparently cast by each word and phrase which is actually in the constitution, just waiting for some judge who has no legal grounds to stand on, but knows what the Constitution should say, to suddenly discover them.
No wonder the judicial ranks are swollen with arrogant idiots convinced of their absolute right to declare what the law ought to be and henceforth, shall be. They’ve all graduated from law school, and the lunatics are obviously running that particular asylum.
Wednesday, March 16, 2005
Iraqis bullish on the future
How’s this for a headline in USA TODAY: Most Iraqis say future looks brighter.
More Iraqis believe their country is headed in the right direction and fewer think it's going wrong than at any time since the U.S. invasion two years ago, according to a new poll.
The survey of 1,967 Iraqis was conducted Feb. 27-March 5, after Iraq held its first free elections in half a century in January. According to the poll, 62% say the country is headed in the right direction and 23% say it is headed in the wrong direction. That is the widest spread recorded in seven polls by the group, says Stuart Krusell, IRI director of operations for Iraq. In September, 45% of Iraqis thought the country was headed in the wrong direction and 42% thought it was headed in the right direction. The IRI is a non-partisan, U.S. taxpayer-funded group that promotes democracy abroad.
***
The poll showed continuing sharp differences among Iraq's ethnic and religious groups, with 33% in Arab Sunni areas believing the country is headed in the right direction, compared with 71% of Kurds and 66% in the Shiite south. The deposed regime of Saddam Hussein favored Arab Sunnis and persecuted Kurds and Shiites.
According to the poll, more than 80% of Iraqis voted Jan. 30 in the Shiite south and the Kurdish north. In Sunni areas, 44% voted.
None of this should surprise you, unless you get all your news from the MSM. Yes, the poll was pretty spread out, from February 27 to March 5, and I don't have any internals at this point...it hasn't actually been released yet. But the IRI polls definitely seem to be trending in a pretty uniform pattern. And if you look to sources other than network tv news, CNN, and the New York Times, this is pretty consistent with what seems to be actually going on over there.
CHRENKOFF remains an excellent source for the Iraq news roundup you won't get on the tv news.
More Iraqis believe their country is headed in the right direction and fewer think it's going wrong than at any time since the U.S. invasion two years ago, according to a new poll.
The survey of 1,967 Iraqis was conducted Feb. 27-March 5, after Iraq held its first free elections in half a century in January. According to the poll, 62% say the country is headed in the right direction and 23% say it is headed in the wrong direction. That is the widest spread recorded in seven polls by the group, says Stuart Krusell, IRI director of operations for Iraq. In September, 45% of Iraqis thought the country was headed in the wrong direction and 42% thought it was headed in the right direction. The IRI is a non-partisan, U.S. taxpayer-funded group that promotes democracy abroad.
***
The poll showed continuing sharp differences among Iraq's ethnic and religious groups, with 33% in Arab Sunni areas believing the country is headed in the right direction, compared with 71% of Kurds and 66% in the Shiite south. The deposed regime of Saddam Hussein favored Arab Sunnis and persecuted Kurds and Shiites.
According to the poll, more than 80% of Iraqis voted Jan. 30 in the Shiite south and the Kurdish north. In Sunni areas, 44% voted.
None of this should surprise you, unless you get all your news from the MSM. Yes, the poll was pretty spread out, from February 27 to March 5, and I don't have any internals at this point...it hasn't actually been released yet. But the IRI polls definitely seem to be trending in a pretty uniform pattern. And if you look to sources other than network tv news, CNN, and the New York Times, this is pretty consistent with what seems to be actually going on over there.
CHRENKOFF remains an excellent source for the Iraq news roundup you won't get on the tv news.
Do you Ping?
If you blog, you should be pinging regularly. You can count on whatever automatic notification system your software and/or host has, but some systems are, quite frankly, lacking in the "ping" department. When you post, ping. It gets you updated in the listings a lot more quickly. Try Ping-o-Matic.com. I swear that's the real name, and no, I don't get paid by the ping for referrals. Just consider this a sort of public service announcement, one blogger to another.
Social Security: Problems sooner than you think
The proprietor over at El Cid has taken note of some elements of Alan Greenspan’s congressional testimony regarding Social Security that others may have missed…or, in the case of the MSM, decided to ignore. According to Greenspan, Social Security may very well become a major economic headache in THREE YEARS, not in 2040. Greenspan is concerned that the looming Social Security collapse will begin to be felt in the form of escalating interest rates sooner than expected. Unlike the government bean counters, playing games with estimates and IOU’s, Greenspan is looking at real cash money.
Tuesday, March 15, 2005
The flu... or General Tso's chicken?
Sorry for the lack of fresh material. Maybe it’s the flu, maybe it’s the General Tso’s chicken at the all-you-can-eat buffet… but I promise to get something new up soon. In the meantime, here are a few sites you may find interesting. They’re in no particular order, and reflect no particular theme. Just interesting blogs I’ve come across recently.
Viewer discretion may be advisable for the Blogging Part Time Airman, at least, he’s got that warning posted at his blog…although I haven’t found anything there yet that I found offensive. Darn! Pooklekufr: the Kafir Constitutionalist, offers reasoned, principled analysis…how the heck did THAT get on this list? And what the heck does the title mean? And as for Vote For Judges, well, it says it’s “a blog on a mission”. You figure it out for yourself. Planet Moron. I think the title pretty much speaks for itself.
Viewer discretion may be advisable for the Blogging Part Time Airman, at least, he’s got that warning posted at his blog…although I haven’t found anything there yet that I found offensive. Darn! Pooklekufr: the Kafir Constitutionalist, offers reasoned, principled analysis…how the heck did THAT get on this list? And what the heck does the title mean? And as for Vote For Judges, well, it says it’s “a blog on a mission”. You figure it out for yourself. Planet Moron. I think the title pretty much speaks for itself.
Saturday, March 12, 2005
When is a Surplus really a Debt?
When you're the federal government and you do your social security bookkeeping. The social security "surplus" isn't money. As explained HERE, it's government IOU's:
Three-quarters of the money that’s collected in Social Security taxes goes right out the door again in the form of benefits to Social Security recipients. The surplus that isn’t needed to pay benefits is loaned to the federal government to pay for other programs.In return for this loan, the trust fund gets IOUs in the form of special-issue, interest-paying Treasury bonds. The interest isn’t paid in cash, however; the Treasury department issues the fund additional bonds for the interest amount. Last year, the fund was credited with $80 billion in interest; the total value of the securities is about $1.5 trillion.
So there's the "two trillion dollar surplus" we hear about. It only exists on paper, and then only if you engage in the bookkeeping fiction that social security somehow exists totally separate and apart from the rest of the government financial picture...which is nonsense. In reality, the "two trillion dollar social security surplus" is a good chunk of the seven trillion dollar total national debt.
The problem, of course, is that the government now owes the trust fund so much money -- and relies on its surplus so heavily -- that real problems will be created when it comes time to cash in those IOUs. Uncle Sam is going to need to find another source of income to replace the surplus (or cut spending, or borrow money from somewhere else), plus come up with cash to pay the bonds it’s already issued.
Ummmm. Yeah. I'd say that's a problem.
Three-quarters of the money that’s collected in Social Security taxes goes right out the door again in the form of benefits to Social Security recipients. The surplus that isn’t needed to pay benefits is loaned to the federal government to pay for other programs.In return for this loan, the trust fund gets IOUs in the form of special-issue, interest-paying Treasury bonds. The interest isn’t paid in cash, however; the Treasury department issues the fund additional bonds for the interest amount. Last year, the fund was credited with $80 billion in interest; the total value of the securities is about $1.5 trillion.
So there's the "two trillion dollar surplus" we hear about. It only exists on paper, and then only if you engage in the bookkeeping fiction that social security somehow exists totally separate and apart from the rest of the government financial picture...which is nonsense. In reality, the "two trillion dollar social security surplus" is a good chunk of the seven trillion dollar total national debt.
The problem, of course, is that the government now owes the trust fund so much money -- and relies on its surplus so heavily -- that real problems will be created when it comes time to cash in those IOUs. Uncle Sam is going to need to find another source of income to replace the surplus (or cut spending, or borrow money from somewhere else), plus come up with cash to pay the bonds it’s already issued.
Ummmm. Yeah. I'd say that's a problem.
Friday, March 11, 2005
What Really Happened on the Road to the Baghdad Airport
What really happened on the airport road? Was it an unfortunate accident, or did US forces intentionally target an Italian communist reporter of whom no one in the United States had ever taken any note until she turned up on “terror tv” calling for withdrawal of coalition forces and then got shot at by American G.I.s at a road block? Well, we have an exclusive here, we know what really happened, and here it is…
The attack was deliberate, and the orders came straight from the very top. Dick Cheney! Cheney walked into the Oval Office to find the Hitler Chimp messing around with a strange sort of vending machine. “Hey, look at this, boss,” the chimp grinned, “Dr. Strangerove rigged it up for me…all I have to do is push this button, and I get a dehydrated banana chip…dang, nothing happened…maybe I’m supposed to pull this lever…shoot! Maybe it’s Rehnquist’s finger I'm supposed to pull, I remember Rehnquist is always trying to get me to pull his finger…”
“Be quiet,” snapped Cheney. “We need something new to happen in Iraq. Something really big. Something to really crank off some allies.”
“How about we bomb the South Koreans? Or the Poles, we could launch an armored attack against the Poles…”
“Oh shut up. Get Rumsfeld on the phone.”
“We don’t need to call him, he’s right in the next room with the Attorney General, going over the plans for the new combination rack/thumbscrew units we’re gonna be ordering for that place down in Cuba…”
“RUMSFELD” Cheney bellowed, at which Rumsfeld and new Attorney General Alberto Gonzales entered the Oval Office.
“Rummy, we need our boys in Iraq to deliberately target that commie writer from Italy who’s making videos with the heroic resistance fighters. It’ll make her famous, and get thousands of gullible leftist cretins who never heard of her to believe every anti-American word she says, and it’ll really piss off Berlusconi. We want to do that because he’s been such a staunch ally.”
“Hey,’ the chimp interjected, “Tony Blair’s really been a staunch ally…why don’t we bomb some British troops?”
“Quiet,” snapped Cheney, flipping the Hitler Chimp a dehydrated banana chip. “You got it, Rumsfeld?”
“OK, well, if we can find her I’ll send in a couple of special ops guys…”
“Oh no you don’t. None of your friggin’ subtlety on this one. That whole Abu Ghraib thing almost backfired cause you had to get cute, ordering those grunts to take a bunch of pictures with their own cameras and post ‘em on a website. Hell, the whole thing almost went unnoticed. You could have had official documentation, but no, you have to let them use their own damn cameras and post the pictures to their own damn websites. This time it has to be really blatant, so there’s no question that it’s official policy handed down from the very top.”
“OK, well, we could use a tank and a half dozen 50 calibers…that ought to just about vaporize her.”
“Great, yeah, heavy weapons fire, that’s good. But for Gosh sakes, make sure they fire at least three or four hundred rounds, but don’t kill her. In fact, all three or four hundred rounds should miss the car. Now if we could manage to kill an Italian soldier or two, that would be fine, but not her. We need her to start telling a series of totally inconsistent and incredible stories, so the anti-war imbeciles have something new to scream about. Geez, nobody even pays attention any more when they mention “Viet Nam” and “Abu Ghraib”. I mean, for Gosh sakes, every discussion ends up being about Viet Nam and Abu Ghraib, and I’m sick to death of it.”
“So, we’re deliberately targeting her, but even though we have the firepower to vaporize her entire country, we want her to survive to complain about being deliberately targeted.”
“Exactly.”
“After we don’t kill her, can we torture her?” the Attorney General asked, not looking up from the pile of legless spiders he was accumulating on the table in front of him.
“No, damn it! We release her so she can start her incoherent raving immediately.”
“Oh.” The Attorney General looked very crestfallen.
“Don’t worry Alberto, next month we’re going to capture some Australian aid workers and send them off to one of your overseas camps for interrogation.”
That cheered the Attorney General up, but Rumsfeld looked confused. “But Australia, next to England, is just about our firmest ally…”
“Of course they are,” Cheney said with condescension dripping from his voice. “Why would we intentionally target, say, the French? They already hate us…”
“If we’re attackin’ allies, why not nuke London,” said the chimp.
“Be quiet,” Cheney said, flipping him another banana chip.
“You got it Rumsfeld?”
“I think so. We deliberately attack her with heavy weapons and a tank, fire several hundred rounds, all of which miss, and kill an Italian agent we don’t even know is there with one or two light caliber rounds that actually strike the vehicle.”
“Exactly.”
“But how will we know where to find her?”
“Don’t worry, Dr. Strangerove has got a reverse gear installed in his evil mind control ray now. So he can read people’s minds too, not just turn them into brainless zombies who vote for Bush even though they obviously meant to vote for Gore or Kerry. He’ll let us know when and where.”
“OOOOH,” shouted the Hitler chimp, “is Dr. Strangerove coming up here? Maybe he could show me again how to work this thing…”
“Take care of it Rumsfeld. I’m off to plan for Halliburton’s rape of that part of the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve which was set aside for oil exploration and production right from the start anyway.”
“But if you’re going to drill where there was always supposed to be drilling anyway, why not make that clear and avoid all the ruckus?” said Rumsfeld.
“Well where would be the fun in that?” said Cheney, gathering up his pitchfork and heading toward the door.
We know this is exactly what happened, because Dan Rather furnished this blog with a transcript of a meeting of the Neocon World Domination Subcommittee of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, LLC. He got it from a guy wearing a tin-foil hat.
The attack was deliberate, and the orders came straight from the very top. Dick Cheney! Cheney walked into the Oval Office to find the Hitler Chimp messing around with a strange sort of vending machine. “Hey, look at this, boss,” the chimp grinned, “Dr. Strangerove rigged it up for me…all I have to do is push this button, and I get a dehydrated banana chip…dang, nothing happened…maybe I’m supposed to pull this lever…shoot! Maybe it’s Rehnquist’s finger I'm supposed to pull, I remember Rehnquist is always trying to get me to pull his finger…”
“Be quiet,” snapped Cheney. “We need something new to happen in Iraq. Something really big. Something to really crank off some allies.”
“How about we bomb the South Koreans? Or the Poles, we could launch an armored attack against the Poles…”
“Oh shut up. Get Rumsfeld on the phone.”
“We don’t need to call him, he’s right in the next room with the Attorney General, going over the plans for the new combination rack/thumbscrew units we’re gonna be ordering for that place down in Cuba…”
“RUMSFELD” Cheney bellowed, at which Rumsfeld and new Attorney General Alberto Gonzales entered the Oval Office.
“Rummy, we need our boys in Iraq to deliberately target that commie writer from Italy who’s making videos with the heroic resistance fighters. It’ll make her famous, and get thousands of gullible leftist cretins who never heard of her to believe every anti-American word she says, and it’ll really piss off Berlusconi. We want to do that because he’s been such a staunch ally.”
“Hey,’ the chimp interjected, “Tony Blair’s really been a staunch ally…why don’t we bomb some British troops?”
“Quiet,” snapped Cheney, flipping the Hitler Chimp a dehydrated banana chip. “You got it, Rumsfeld?”
“OK, well, if we can find her I’ll send in a couple of special ops guys…”
“Oh no you don’t. None of your friggin’ subtlety on this one. That whole Abu Ghraib thing almost backfired cause you had to get cute, ordering those grunts to take a bunch of pictures with their own cameras and post ‘em on a website. Hell, the whole thing almost went unnoticed. You could have had official documentation, but no, you have to let them use their own damn cameras and post the pictures to their own damn websites. This time it has to be really blatant, so there’s no question that it’s official policy handed down from the very top.”
“OK, well, we could use a tank and a half dozen 50 calibers…that ought to just about vaporize her.”
“Great, yeah, heavy weapons fire, that’s good. But for Gosh sakes, make sure they fire at least three or four hundred rounds, but don’t kill her. In fact, all three or four hundred rounds should miss the car. Now if we could manage to kill an Italian soldier or two, that would be fine, but not her. We need her to start telling a series of totally inconsistent and incredible stories, so the anti-war imbeciles have something new to scream about. Geez, nobody even pays attention any more when they mention “Viet Nam” and “Abu Ghraib”. I mean, for Gosh sakes, every discussion ends up being about Viet Nam and Abu Ghraib, and I’m sick to death of it.”
“So, we’re deliberately targeting her, but even though we have the firepower to vaporize her entire country, we want her to survive to complain about being deliberately targeted.”
“Exactly.”
“After we don’t kill her, can we torture her?” the Attorney General asked, not looking up from the pile of legless spiders he was accumulating on the table in front of him.
“No, damn it! We release her so she can start her incoherent raving immediately.”
“Oh.” The Attorney General looked very crestfallen.
“Don’t worry Alberto, next month we’re going to capture some Australian aid workers and send them off to one of your overseas camps for interrogation.”
That cheered the Attorney General up, but Rumsfeld looked confused. “But Australia, next to England, is just about our firmest ally…”
“Of course they are,” Cheney said with condescension dripping from his voice. “Why would we intentionally target, say, the French? They already hate us…”
“If we’re attackin’ allies, why not nuke London,” said the chimp.
“Be quiet,” Cheney said, flipping him another banana chip.
“You got it Rumsfeld?”
“I think so. We deliberately attack her with heavy weapons and a tank, fire several hundred rounds, all of which miss, and kill an Italian agent we don’t even know is there with one or two light caliber rounds that actually strike the vehicle.”
“Exactly.”
“But how will we know where to find her?”
“Don’t worry, Dr. Strangerove has got a reverse gear installed in his evil mind control ray now. So he can read people’s minds too, not just turn them into brainless zombies who vote for Bush even though they obviously meant to vote for Gore or Kerry. He’ll let us know when and where.”
“OOOOH,” shouted the Hitler chimp, “is Dr. Strangerove coming up here? Maybe he could show me again how to work this thing…”
“Take care of it Rumsfeld. I’m off to plan for Halliburton’s rape of that part of the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve which was set aside for oil exploration and production right from the start anyway.”
“But if you’re going to drill where there was always supposed to be drilling anyway, why not make that clear and avoid all the ruckus?” said Rumsfeld.
“Well where would be the fun in that?” said Cheney, gathering up his pitchfork and heading toward the door.
We know this is exactly what happened, because Dan Rather furnished this blog with a transcript of a meeting of the Neocon World Domination Subcommittee of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, LLC. He got it from a guy wearing a tin-foil hat.
Good Riddance to Dan Rather
I’m not going to waste a lot of my space or your time on this guy. Nothing else he ever did has any bearing on the disgusting performance as he dodders of into the sunset. What he pulled was every bit as bad as what Jayson Blair did - worse, if you take into account his position at CBS News. At least Blair took the consequences like a man, not ducking for cover, lying, whining and throwing others overboard like this jerk.
I’m going to make just two points: 1) CBS and Rather were not “duped”. Duped is when reputable experts authenticate the item, you rely on that authentication, and it subsequently turns out that the experts were duped. Duped is NOT when you consult a series of increasingly less-qualified experts, every single one of whom tells you they have doubts, and you nevertheless broadcast, claiming to have expert authentication. That is not being duped. That is perpetrating a fraud.
2) Rather was not some cub reporter reading copy written by somebody else. Rather is a “journalist” with over thirty years’ experience. And more importantly, and more to the point, he was the MANAGING EDITOR. That means he was responsible. Even if he really was so lazy, sloppy and yes, stupid as to go with that story without looking into it himself, he is the managing editor and is therefore responsible for its content. Even if someone else had presented it, Rather should have been held responsible. With big titles and big paychecks comes big responsibility. Rather acted like a backstabbing coward pawning off responsibility on others.
I have posted a couple rather more lighthearted parting shots at “Gunga Dan” over at CHIMPS AT WORK. But as for me personally, the jerk disgusts me. A cowardly, dishonest disgrace to the profession of journalism.
Good riddance.
I’m going to make just two points: 1) CBS and Rather were not “duped”. Duped is when reputable experts authenticate the item, you rely on that authentication, and it subsequently turns out that the experts were duped. Duped is NOT when you consult a series of increasingly less-qualified experts, every single one of whom tells you they have doubts, and you nevertheless broadcast, claiming to have expert authentication. That is not being duped. That is perpetrating a fraud.
2) Rather was not some cub reporter reading copy written by somebody else. Rather is a “journalist” with over thirty years’ experience. And more importantly, and more to the point, he was the MANAGING EDITOR. That means he was responsible. Even if he really was so lazy, sloppy and yes, stupid as to go with that story without looking into it himself, he is the managing editor and is therefore responsible for its content. Even if someone else had presented it, Rather should have been held responsible. With big titles and big paychecks comes big responsibility. Rather acted like a backstabbing coward pawning off responsibility on others.
I have posted a couple rather more lighthearted parting shots at “Gunga Dan” over at CHIMPS AT WORK. But as for me personally, the jerk disgusts me. A cowardly, dishonest disgrace to the profession of journalism.
Good riddance.
Thursday, March 10, 2005
Democrats Admit Social Security Problems
Thanks to the guys over at WIZBANG, we have a laundry list of Democrats who DO admit there’s a big problem with Social Security:
"So at some point we've got to stop criticizing each other and sit at the table and work out this problem... Every year we wait to come up with a solution to the Social Security problem costs our children and grandchildren and great grandchildren $600 billion dollars more" Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT): CNN's "Late Edition," 3/6/05
"If Social Security is left alone; benefits after 30 years would be 80 percent of what they are now.” DNC Chairman Howard Dean on Feb. 23, 2005 at Cornell University
"It's a serious issue. We ought to address it..." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) on ABC's "This Week," 3/6/05
"I am ready, willing, and able to listen to anything the President has to put on the table about the issue of how he is going to deal with the solvency of social security." Sen. Joseph Biden (D-DE): on NBC's "Meet The Press," 2/27/05
"We're not against solving the problem that [Sen.] John Sununu and I both acknowledge exists in social security. All Democrats do." Sen. Jon Corzine (D-NJ) on CBS' "Face The Nation," 2/27/05
There is a an excellent series of comments attached to this post at WIZBANG. Well worth the time and effort, I suggest you go over there and check it out.
"So at some point we've got to stop criticizing each other and sit at the table and work out this problem... Every year we wait to come up with a solution to the Social Security problem costs our children and grandchildren and great grandchildren $600 billion dollars more" Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT): CNN's "Late Edition," 3/6/05
"If Social Security is left alone; benefits after 30 years would be 80 percent of what they are now.” DNC Chairman Howard Dean on Feb. 23, 2005 at Cornell University
"It's a serious issue. We ought to address it..." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) on ABC's "This Week," 3/6/05
"I am ready, willing, and able to listen to anything the President has to put on the table about the issue of how he is going to deal with the solvency of social security." Sen. Joseph Biden (D-DE): on NBC's "Meet The Press," 2/27/05
"We're not against solving the problem that [Sen.] John Sununu and I both acknowledge exists in social security. All Democrats do." Sen. Jon Corzine (D-NJ) on CBS' "Face The Nation," 2/27/05
There is a an excellent series of comments attached to this post at WIZBANG. Well worth the time and effort, I suggest you go over there and check it out.
More on the "Really Odd Couple"
I have previously posted on several occasions on items I’ve picked up from MIKE EVANS’ HOLLYWOOD REPORT, a syndicated radio morning show spot (sorry, I absolutely can not get a link to Mike’s website to work…I’ve tried every time I mention him). Specifically, HERE, I posted that former Presidents Bush the Elder and Bill Clinton had gotten to be pretty good friends on the “Tsunami Relief Tour”. Good enough friends to plan a fishing trip together. This morning Mike is reporting that Clinton will be accompanied to the hospital for his surgery by Hillary, Chelsea, and former President Bush. These two ex-presidents have apparently become very good friends…it is almost reminiscent of the close friendship that developed between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, longtime archrivals, after their departure from national politics.
Hope all goes well with Clinton’s surgery. Even “minor, routine” procedures carry significant risk, and while I might not be a big Clinton fan, I certainly wish him well.
Hope all goes well with Clinton’s surgery. Even “minor, routine” procedures carry significant risk, and while I might not be a big Clinton fan, I certainly wish him well.
Wednesday, March 09, 2005
Now THIS Poll Grabbed My Attention
A recent national poll conducted throughout Indonesia may contain really, really, good news:
In the first substantial shift of public opinion in the Muslim world since the beginning of the United States’ global war on terrorism, more people in the world’s largest Muslim country now favor American efforts against terrorism than oppose them.
Sponsored by Terror Free Tomorrow, a non-profit organization, and conducted by an apparently well-regarded Indonesian polling firm, the poll links some startling numbers to the massive U.S. participation in the tsunami relief effort. The sponsor provides the following summary:
Key Findings of the Poll:
For the first time ever in a major Muslim nation, more people favor US-led efforts to fight terrorism than oppose them (40% to 36%). Importantly, those who oppose US efforts against terrorism have declined by half, from 72% in 2003 to just 36% today.
For the first time ever in a Muslim nation since 9/11, support for Osama Bin Laden has dropped significantly (58% favorable to just 23%).
65% of Indonesians now are more favorable to the United States because of the American response to the tsunami, with the highest percentage among people under 30.
Indeed, 71% of the people who express confidence in Bin Laden are now more favorable to the United States because of American aid to tsunami victims.
The Terror Free Tomorrow poll was conducted by the leading Indonesian pollster, Lembaga Survei Indonesia, and surveyed 1,200 adults nationwide with a margin of error of ± 2.9 percentage points.
Now, before the lefties start screaming about “fixed” polls, and the righties start crowing about winning hearts and minds, let’s all take a deep breath. The poll results are what they are, and while the tin-foil hat crowd will surely find a conspiracy here, one has to ask what a major Indonesian pollster would have to gain from participating in a fraud. The obvious answer is “nothing.” (I refer to the pollster as “apparently” well-regarded because, quite frankly, I don’t personally know one danged thing about Indonesian polling firms).
But, if you’re interested in a side order of facts to go along with that double order of opinion you’ve got there, take some time and go look for yourself. There is a tremendous amount of information here, including detailed methodology and actual poll questions.
As a general rule, the more internals, specifics and background a poll provides, the more attention it deserves and the more possible it is to evaluate its validity. (And yes, I do have some background and experience in public opinion polling, though I would certainly not consider myself an expert). One question I would have is whether the poll may have oversampled the rural population, but I don’t know enough about Indonesia to make that call. AND NEITHER DO YOU, so don’t jump to that conclusion or quote me on that. Go and look for yourself.
What the heck, if it doesn’t fit your prefabricated opinion and world view, you can just slap on your tin foil hat and go back to hunting for all those disenfranchised voters in Ohio.
In the first substantial shift of public opinion in the Muslim world since the beginning of the United States’ global war on terrorism, more people in the world’s largest Muslim country now favor American efforts against terrorism than oppose them.
Sponsored by Terror Free Tomorrow, a non-profit organization, and conducted by an apparently well-regarded Indonesian polling firm, the poll links some startling numbers to the massive U.S. participation in the tsunami relief effort. The sponsor provides the following summary:
Key Findings of the Poll:
For the first time ever in a major Muslim nation, more people favor US-led efforts to fight terrorism than oppose them (40% to 36%). Importantly, those who oppose US efforts against terrorism have declined by half, from 72% in 2003 to just 36% today.
For the first time ever in a Muslim nation since 9/11, support for Osama Bin Laden has dropped significantly (58% favorable to just 23%).
65% of Indonesians now are more favorable to the United States because of the American response to the tsunami, with the highest percentage among people under 30.
Indeed, 71% of the people who express confidence in Bin Laden are now more favorable to the United States because of American aid to tsunami victims.
The Terror Free Tomorrow poll was conducted by the leading Indonesian pollster, Lembaga Survei Indonesia, and surveyed 1,200 adults nationwide with a margin of error of ± 2.9 percentage points.
Now, before the lefties start screaming about “fixed” polls, and the righties start crowing about winning hearts and minds, let’s all take a deep breath. The poll results are what they are, and while the tin-foil hat crowd will surely find a conspiracy here, one has to ask what a major Indonesian pollster would have to gain from participating in a fraud. The obvious answer is “nothing.” (I refer to the pollster as “apparently” well-regarded because, quite frankly, I don’t personally know one danged thing about Indonesian polling firms).
But, if you’re interested in a side order of facts to go along with that double order of opinion you’ve got there, take some time and go look for yourself. There is a tremendous amount of information here, including detailed methodology and actual poll questions.
As a general rule, the more internals, specifics and background a poll provides, the more attention it deserves and the more possible it is to evaluate its validity. (And yes, I do have some background and experience in public opinion polling, though I would certainly not consider myself an expert). One question I would have is whether the poll may have oversampled the rural population, but I don’t know enough about Indonesia to make that call. AND NEITHER DO YOU, so don’t jump to that conclusion or quote me on that. Go and look for yourself.
What the heck, if it doesn’t fit your prefabricated opinion and world view, you can just slap on your tin foil hat and go back to hunting for all those disenfranchised voters in Ohio.
Tuesday, March 08, 2005
Here and There
Over at The Life and Times, Aaron has posted some lesser-known police radio call signals. Boy, the things that go on in the big city!
And for a blog from north of the border, check out The Powers That Be. Hey, looks like there really is intelligent life in Canada!
Contrary to the opinion of yours truly, the proprietor at Political Moose thinks the Supreme Court decision in Roper v. Simmons is O.K.
And for a blog from north of the border, check out The Powers That Be. Hey, looks like there really is intelligent life in Canada!
Contrary to the opinion of yours truly, the proprietor at Political Moose thinks the Supreme Court decision in Roper v. Simmons is O.K.
Sunday, March 06, 2005
Social Security is Just Fine Because I Hate Bush
President Bush proposes modest changes to Social Security. Voluntary partial private accounts not tied to any reduction in present benefits, and calculating benefits based on the cost of living instead of the rising wage levels of those still working.
The reaction from most Democrats? "Social Security is just perfect, and you're Hitler. Oh, and a chimpanzee, too! So there!"
Alan Greenspan cautiously endorses these modest proposals. So Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid calls Greenspan "a political hack".
As I have said before, if you are smarter than my toaster, you can figure out there's a problem with Social Security. That doesn't mean you like Bush, or like his ideas on the subject. It just means you're not a moron who can't do simple mathematical calculations.
Think of it like your checking account: more going out than coming in. Hmmmm. That's a problem. More money being paid out of social security to people collecting than being payed in. Hmmmmm. Nope, no problem there!
So why can't this be discussed, intelligently, as an issue? Why can't everybody look at the facts and start working on solutions?
Nope. Can't have that. Gotta go immediately into full attack mode. If Bush remarked that the sky is blue, the response would be "No sir. And you're Hitler. And a chimpanzee. So there."
Has political discussion in this country really deteriorated to the level of a Monty Python skit?
I'm in favor of Bush's proposals, and I personally would go a heck of a lot further with restructuring the system. But then, I'm a Nazi who wants to destroy the American dream. Oh, and a chimpanzee, too.
The reaction from most Democrats? "Social Security is just perfect, and you're Hitler. Oh, and a chimpanzee, too! So there!"
Alan Greenspan cautiously endorses these modest proposals. So Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid calls Greenspan "a political hack".
As I have said before, if you are smarter than my toaster, you can figure out there's a problem with Social Security. That doesn't mean you like Bush, or like his ideas on the subject. It just means you're not a moron who can't do simple mathematical calculations.
Think of it like your checking account: more going out than coming in. Hmmmm. That's a problem. More money being paid out of social security to people collecting than being payed in. Hmmmmm. Nope, no problem there!
So why can't this be discussed, intelligently, as an issue? Why can't everybody look at the facts and start working on solutions?
Nope. Can't have that. Gotta go immediately into full attack mode. If Bush remarked that the sky is blue, the response would be "No sir. And you're Hitler. And a chimpanzee. So there."
Has political discussion in this country really deteriorated to the level of a Monty Python skit?
I'm in favor of Bush's proposals, and I personally would go a heck of a lot further with restructuring the system. But then, I'm a Nazi who wants to destroy the American dream. Oh, and a chimpanzee, too.
Friday, March 04, 2005
if YOU ran social security it would be an illegal pyramid scheme
If you ran an investment program structured the way Social Security is, you would end up in prison for running a fraudulent – and illegal – PYRAMID SCHEME.
Whether you are a fanatical Bush-hater or a Bush supporter, whether you are a leftist or a right-wing extremist, whether you support or oppose private accounts, IF YOU ARE SMARTER THAN MY FREAKIN’ TOASTER YOU HAVE GOT TO BE ABLE TO FIGURE OUT THAT SOCIAL SECURITY, AS IT STANDS, IS A TRAIN WRECK WAITING TO HAPPEN…and it won’t wait much longer.
I have previously written here and here, among other spots around the web, in support of Social Security reform. I’m in favor of partial privatization, and the sooner the better. But while it is a step in the right direction, private accounts as proposed by President Bush will not solve the problem because the proposal does not go far enough. The “head in the sand, there’s no problem” Democrats are full of crap and they know it. So are the Republicans who tout the proposals as a solution to the problem.
The politicians, of all colors, varieties, and flavors, WANT you to believe that this is very complex and technical…so they can play around and come up with some “solution” so complicated that YOU will never understand it. Or understand how they are taking you to the cleaners to pay for their brother-in-law’s government contract to paint the trash cans in downtown Podunk Center, out of the proceeds of which his painting company can make a nice contribution to the re-election campaign.
Let me say this one more time for the younger viewers out there: it is not rocket science. It is not even complicated. When the baby boomers retire, either the system will collapse or the retirement age and the social security payroll tax will both skyrocket. Period. We can play games all day long with actuarial charts and fiscal projections, but the fact is if the Social Security scam were being operated by anyone other than the government it would be illegal.
Social Security as it now exists is nothing more than a Ponzi scheme (named for the guy who invented it, and went to prison for fraud), also known as a pyramid scheme. It works like this: I solicit investors by promising them a return on their investment, a profit so to speak. And they are happy investors because they make money. They make money because I pay them with the money I collect from subsequent investors, whom I then pay out of the money I collect from subsequent investors, who invest because they can see that the previous investors are making money. Get it?
It works great, until I get greedy and take too big a cut for myself, or I don’t find enough new investors to keep paying all the previous investors. At that point, when those who are expecting to collect are too numerous for me to pay out of money collected from new investors, the system collapses.
Social Security works exactly the same way. People collecting today are being paid out of the taxes collected from people who are paying in today. But when the baby boomers retire, there will not be enough folks paying in to continue to finance those taking benefits out.
At that point, and most estimates say it will be around 2040, the system would collapse. Except the politicians who long ago looted the “trust fund” of all actual cash (took too big a cut for themselves – remember the trash-can painting contract), and who have manipulated the system to curry support (buy votes from an aging electorate), can’t possibly let that happen. So benefits will begin to decrease, and taxes and the retirement age will increase.
Long before that point, most estimates say around 2018 or 2020, the system will begin paying out more than it takes in. Those collecting will no longer be paid by the taxes of those paying in. Additional money will be either taken from other programs or, more likely, new and ingenious federal taxes will begin to appear to generate cash. National sales tax, anyone? The only other alternative will be to begin raising the retirement age and the Social Security payroll tax at that point, not waiting until the system actually goes bankrupt.
I was for privatization when Reagan proposed it in the ‘80’s. I was for reform when Clinton supported the idea and talked about the "looming crisis" in the 90’s. And I’m for it now, when Bush supports it. But to really solve the problem, partial privatization is not the answer. The system must be phased out, those already dependent have to get a reasonable level of security (although indexing to wages rather than the cost of living is nuts and must be changed), and no new “investors” can be allowed to enter the system. Take a look at what Chile did. Look at what Slovakia has done, phasing out the welfare state that was communism.
It’s time to abolish the Ponzi scheme and move to a system that represents actual investment. I’ll leave it to the rocket scientists and actuarials to work out the details.
Whether you are a fanatical Bush-hater or a Bush supporter, whether you are a leftist or a right-wing extremist, whether you support or oppose private accounts, IF YOU ARE SMARTER THAN MY FREAKIN’ TOASTER YOU HAVE GOT TO BE ABLE TO FIGURE OUT THAT SOCIAL SECURITY, AS IT STANDS, IS A TRAIN WRECK WAITING TO HAPPEN…and it won’t wait much longer.
I have previously written here and here, among other spots around the web, in support of Social Security reform. I’m in favor of partial privatization, and the sooner the better. But while it is a step in the right direction, private accounts as proposed by President Bush will not solve the problem because the proposal does not go far enough. The “head in the sand, there’s no problem” Democrats are full of crap and they know it. So are the Republicans who tout the proposals as a solution to the problem.
The politicians, of all colors, varieties, and flavors, WANT you to believe that this is very complex and technical…so they can play around and come up with some “solution” so complicated that YOU will never understand it. Or understand how they are taking you to the cleaners to pay for their brother-in-law’s government contract to paint the trash cans in downtown Podunk Center, out of the proceeds of which his painting company can make a nice contribution to the re-election campaign.
Let me say this one more time for the younger viewers out there: it is not rocket science. It is not even complicated. When the baby boomers retire, either the system will collapse or the retirement age and the social security payroll tax will both skyrocket. Period. We can play games all day long with actuarial charts and fiscal projections, but the fact is if the Social Security scam were being operated by anyone other than the government it would be illegal.
Social Security as it now exists is nothing more than a Ponzi scheme (named for the guy who invented it, and went to prison for fraud), also known as a pyramid scheme. It works like this: I solicit investors by promising them a return on their investment, a profit so to speak. And they are happy investors because they make money. They make money because I pay them with the money I collect from subsequent investors, whom I then pay out of the money I collect from subsequent investors, who invest because they can see that the previous investors are making money. Get it?
It works great, until I get greedy and take too big a cut for myself, or I don’t find enough new investors to keep paying all the previous investors. At that point, when those who are expecting to collect are too numerous for me to pay out of money collected from new investors, the system collapses.
Social Security works exactly the same way. People collecting today are being paid out of the taxes collected from people who are paying in today. But when the baby boomers retire, there will not be enough folks paying in to continue to finance those taking benefits out.
At that point, and most estimates say it will be around 2040, the system would collapse. Except the politicians who long ago looted the “trust fund” of all actual cash (took too big a cut for themselves – remember the trash-can painting contract), and who have manipulated the system to curry support (buy votes from an aging electorate), can’t possibly let that happen. So benefits will begin to decrease, and taxes and the retirement age will increase.
Long before that point, most estimates say around 2018 or 2020, the system will begin paying out more than it takes in. Those collecting will no longer be paid by the taxes of those paying in. Additional money will be either taken from other programs or, more likely, new and ingenious federal taxes will begin to appear to generate cash. National sales tax, anyone? The only other alternative will be to begin raising the retirement age and the Social Security payroll tax at that point, not waiting until the system actually goes bankrupt.
I was for privatization when Reagan proposed it in the ‘80’s. I was for reform when Clinton supported the idea and talked about the "looming crisis" in the 90’s. And I’m for it now, when Bush supports it. But to really solve the problem, partial privatization is not the answer. The system must be phased out, those already dependent have to get a reasonable level of security (although indexing to wages rather than the cost of living is nuts and must be changed), and no new “investors” can be allowed to enter the system. Take a look at what Chile did. Look at what Slovakia has done, phasing out the welfare state that was communism.
It’s time to abolish the Ponzi scheme and move to a system that represents actual investment. I’ll leave it to the rocket scientists and actuarials to work out the details.
Thursday, March 03, 2005
George Washington and American History
It’s National Anthem Day. In 1931 the Star Spangled Banner was adopted as the national anthem. As many of us know, the song started out as a poem, written by a lawyer named Francis Scott Key while watching the bombardment of Fort McHenry from a British ship during the War of 1812. Fort McHenry held, and Baltimore was not sacked by the British, and the poem was set to the tune of a popular drinking song. Or so it is said. I have a little difficulty imagining a bunch of 19th century tavern patrons hitting those high notes.
Anyway, in what seems an appropriate coincidence, over at The Irish Brigade they have posted an excellent piece on the importance of George Washington in history, and the pitiful ignorance of America’s youth with respect to history, quoting from, and linking to, an article by Kathleen Parker:
Six of ten couldn’t say why the Pilgrims came to America. Only seven percent of fourth graders could name “an important event” that took place in Philadelphia in 1776. When seniors at the nation’s top 55 universities were asked to name America’s victorious general at the Battle of Yorktown, only 34 percent named George Washington.
These depressing statistics, which Mount Vernon executive director James Rees rattles off with thinly disguised ennui, shouldn’t be surprising considering that Washington today receives one-tenth the coverage in textbooks that he received 30 years ago. Rees tells of one textbook that offers fewer than 50 lines of text about Washington, but 213 about Marilyn Monroe.
O’Neil briefly addresses Washington’s shortcomings, and his sucesses, as a military commander, and offers up some concise analysis of Washington’s importance in historical political events:
The later writings of both the founders themselves and the political leaders throughout the states make it clear that few really believed there would ever be another "President". Most assumed Washington would serve for life, and either designate a successor in a sort of quasi-monarchy, or hold things together long enough for the states to figure out a new arrangement. Just as he had stunned the world by surrendering his commission, Washington stunned the world by not running for a third term, forcing the federal government to actually establish a precedent for peaceful electoral succession while he was still alive. He was keenly aware of the importance of that act.
And he also provides some not-so-well-known facts about Washington, the man:
The truth is, without any expectation of an inheritance because of the application of primogeniture, Washington had to learn a trade. He became a part-time soldier, and a full-time surveyor, and was as much frontiersman as Virginia aristocrat. He made long journeys into the wilderness of Virginia's western holdings, and bought vast tracts of land far from civilization, which later made him very wealthy. Washington was well known to frontiersmen and settlers along the Ohio River. He loved to dance, he could, when he so chose, drink and curse with the best (or worst) of them, and he loved to play cards. For money. He kept meticulous accounts, and he always collected...and paid promptly.
It’s well worth reading the whole thing which, considering the subject, is not really very long.
Anyway, in what seems an appropriate coincidence, over at The Irish Brigade they have posted an excellent piece on the importance of George Washington in history, and the pitiful ignorance of America’s youth with respect to history, quoting from, and linking to, an article by Kathleen Parker:
Six of ten couldn’t say why the Pilgrims came to America. Only seven percent of fourth graders could name “an important event” that took place in Philadelphia in 1776. When seniors at the nation’s top 55 universities were asked to name America’s victorious general at the Battle of Yorktown, only 34 percent named George Washington.
These depressing statistics, which Mount Vernon executive director James Rees rattles off with thinly disguised ennui, shouldn’t be surprising considering that Washington today receives one-tenth the coverage in textbooks that he received 30 years ago. Rees tells of one textbook that offers fewer than 50 lines of text about Washington, but 213 about Marilyn Monroe.
O’Neil briefly addresses Washington’s shortcomings, and his sucesses, as a military commander, and offers up some concise analysis of Washington’s importance in historical political events:
The later writings of both the founders themselves and the political leaders throughout the states make it clear that few really believed there would ever be another "President". Most assumed Washington would serve for life, and either designate a successor in a sort of quasi-monarchy, or hold things together long enough for the states to figure out a new arrangement. Just as he had stunned the world by surrendering his commission, Washington stunned the world by not running for a third term, forcing the federal government to actually establish a precedent for peaceful electoral succession while he was still alive. He was keenly aware of the importance of that act.
And he also provides some not-so-well-known facts about Washington, the man:
The truth is, without any expectation of an inheritance because of the application of primogeniture, Washington had to learn a trade. He became a part-time soldier, and a full-time surveyor, and was as much frontiersman as Virginia aristocrat. He made long journeys into the wilderness of Virginia's western holdings, and bought vast tracts of land far from civilization, which later made him very wealthy. Washington was well known to frontiersmen and settlers along the Ohio River. He loved to dance, he could, when he so chose, drink and curse with the best (or worst) of them, and he loved to play cards. For money. He kept meticulous accounts, and he always collected...and paid promptly.
It’s well worth reading the whole thing which, considering the subject, is not really very long.
Wednesday, March 02, 2005
Greenspan Calls for Social Security Reform
As I have previously argued on this blog and elsewhere, the Social Security problem is real, and serious, and doing nothing is just not an option. But you don’t have to take my word for it. You could just ask Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, as reported in USA TODAY:
Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan urged Congress Wednesday to move quickly to fix financing problems in Social Security and Medicare, arguing that delay will only make the country's budget problems more severe.
"The one certainty is that the resolution of the nation's unprecedented demographic challenge will require hard choices and that the future performance of the economy will depend on those choices," Greenspan told the House Budget Committee.
Not only does Greenspan’s position support the argument, repeatedly made at this site, that the demographics demand action, but he also argues, as has this site, that the private accounts endorsed by President Bush are a good idea, but only a start:
He again endorsed the key part of President Bush's Social Security plan, to set up private accounts, but he stressed that much more needed to be done to put the giant retirement program and Medicare, which he said faced even more severe financial strains, on a more sound footing.
DO NOT LISTEN to the “head-in-the-sand, no problem” liberals like Dennis Kucinich. They are full of crap, and they know it. They just hope you don’t know it. They are playing political games with our future…and our children’s future. CONTACT your congressional representatives and senators…demand that action be taken on Social Security reform.
Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan urged Congress Wednesday to move quickly to fix financing problems in Social Security and Medicare, arguing that delay will only make the country's budget problems more severe.
"The one certainty is that the resolution of the nation's unprecedented demographic challenge will require hard choices and that the future performance of the economy will depend on those choices," Greenspan told the House Budget Committee.
Not only does Greenspan’s position support the argument, repeatedly made at this site, that the demographics demand action, but he also argues, as has this site, that the private accounts endorsed by President Bush are a good idea, but only a start:
He again endorsed the key part of President Bush's Social Security plan, to set up private accounts, but he stressed that much more needed to be done to put the giant retirement program and Medicare, which he said faced even more severe financial strains, on a more sound footing.
DO NOT LISTEN to the “head-in-the-sand, no problem” liberals like Dennis Kucinich. They are full of crap, and they know it. They just hope you don’t know it. They are playing political games with our future…and our children’s future. CONTACT your congressional representatives and senators…demand that action be taken on Social Security reform.
Roper v. Simmons
Yesterday the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 vote, declared that the death penalty is unconstitutional as applied to any perpetrator of any crime, provided the criminal was not yet 18 when the crime was committed. Without getting into the standard “death penalty: for or against” argument, and without arguing about whether one “likes” or “agrees with” the outcome of this case, it represents another in a long line of really bad decisions. It’s a bad decision, not because of the outcome, but because it’s another example of the Court deciding the outcome, and then hunting for a way to justify arriving at that outcome.
Implicit in the decision are these remarkable propositions: 1) a definitive consensus can be established by less than a majority; 2) what the Constitution “means” can be determined by majority rule, or a “consensus”; 3) the Constitution says what a majority of justices subjectively think it should say. I’m not making this up, by the way. If you go read the opinion, the majority actually says these things. And it represents the disturbing trend, begun in earnest after WW II, of the courts of this country acting as an unelected superlegislature in order to create new law.
First, let me point out that, as a matter of construing whether the death penalty is “cruel and unusual punishment”, a purely chronological rule makes absolutely no sense. If a 17 year old bludgeons his parents to death at 5 minutes to midnight the night before his birthday, capital punishment would be “cruel and unusual punishment”. But if he waits until after the cake and ice cream, opens his presents at 1:00 the following afternoon, then bludgeons his parents to death, capital punishment is not “cruel and unusual”. WOW! What a difference a half a day makes!
You should be able to find the text of the opinion on the public pages of FINDLAW. Here are the facts, as set forth by the Court:
At the age of 17, when he was still a junior in high school, Christopher Simmons, the respondent here, committed murder. About nine months later, after he had turned 18, he was tried and sentenced to death. There is little doubt that Simmons was the instigator of the crime. Before its commission Simmons said he wanted to murder someone. In chilling, callous terms he talked about his plan, discussing it for the most part with two friends, Charles Benjamin and John Tessmer, then aged 15 and 16 respectively. Simmons proposed to commit burglary and murder by breaking and entering, tying up a victim, and throwing the victim off a bridge. Simmons assured his friends they could "get away with it" because they were minors.
The three met at about 2 a.m. on the night of the murder, but Tessmer left before the other two set out. (The State later charged Tessmer with conspiracy, but dropped the charge in exchange for his testimony against Simmons.) Simmons and Benjamin entered the home of the victim, Shirley Crook, after reaching through an open window and unlocking the back door. Simmons turned on a hallway light. Awakened, Mrs. Crook called out, "Who's there?" In response Simmons entered Mrs. Crook's bedroom, where he recognized her from a previous car accident involving them both. Simmons later admitted this confirmed his resolve to murder her.
Using duct tape to cover her eyes and mouth and bind her hands, the two perpetrators put Mrs. Crook in her minivan and drove to a state park. They reinforced the bindings, covered her head with a towel, and walked her to a railroad trestle spanning the Meramec River. There they tied her hands and feet together with electrical wire, wrapped her whole face in duct tape and threw her from the bridge, drowning her in the waters below.
By the afternoon of September 9, Steven Crook had returned home from an overnight trip, found his bedroom in disarray, and reported his wife missing. On the same afternoon fishermen recovered the victim's body from the river. Simmons, meanwhile, was bragging about the killing, telling friends he had killed a woman "because the bitch seen my face."
The next day, after receiving information of Simmons' involvement, police arrested him at his high school and took him to the police station in Fenton, Missouri. They read him his Miranda rights. Simmons waived his right to an attorney and agreed to answer questions. After less than two hours of interrogation, Simmons confessed to the murder and agreed to perform a videotaped reenactment at the crime scene.
Here are excerpts from the two dissenting opinions:
Justice O'Connor, dissenting.
The Court's decision today establishes a categorical rule forbidding the execution of any offender for any crime committed before his 18th birthday, no matter how deliberate, wanton, or cruel the offense. Neither the objective evidence of contemporary societal values, nor the Court's moral proportionality analysis, nor the two in tandem suffice to justify this ruling.
Although the Court finds support for its decision in the fact that a majority of the States now disallow capital punishment of 17-year-old offenders, it refrains from asserting that its holding is compelled by a genuine national consensus. Indeed, the evidence before us fails to demonstrate conclusively that any such consensus has emerged in the brief period since we upheld the constitutionality of this practice in Stanford v. Kentucky, 492 U. S. 361 (1989).
Instead, the rule decreed by the Court rests, ultimately, on its independent moral judgment that death is a disproportionately severe punishment for any 17-year-old offender. I do not subscribe to this judgment. Adolescents as a class are undoubtedly less mature, and therefore less culpable for their misconduct, than adults. But the Court has adduced no evidence impeaching the seemingly reasonable conclusion reached by many state legislatures: that at least some 17-year-old murderers are sufficiently mature to deserve the death penalty in an appropriate case. Nor has it been shown that capital sentencing juries are incapable of accurately assessing a youthful defendant's maturity or of giving due weight to the mitigating characteristics associated with youth.
On this record--and especially in light of the fact that so little has changed since our recent decision in Stanford--I would not substitute our judgment about the moral propriety of capital punishment for 17-year-old murderers for the judgments of the Nation's legislatures. Rather, I would demand a clearer showing that our society truly has set its face against this practice before reading the Eighth Amendment categorically to forbid it.
Justice O’Connor apparently buys the “majority rule” argument, but doesn’t see any “consensus”, which the majority arrives at by combining states prohibiting capital punishment below the age of 17 with states which prohibit capital punishment completely. And her real objection is to the majority simply deciding that the meaning of the Constitution has changed because they think it should.
Justice Scalia, however, whose dissent is joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Thomas, isn’t buying any of it, and has some of the same objections I do:
Justice Scalia, with whom The Chief Justice and Justice Thomas join, dissenting.
In urging approval of a constitution that gave life-tenured judges the power to nullify laws enacted by the people's representatives, Alexander Hamilton assured the citizens of New York that there was little risk in this, since "[t]he judiciary ... ha[s] neither FORCE nor WILL but merely judgment." The Federalist No. 78, p. 465 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961). But Hamilton had in mind a traditional judiciary, "bound down by strict rules and precedents which serve to define and point out their duty in every particular case that comes before them." Id., at 471. Bound down, indeed. What a mockery today's opinion makes of Hamilton's expectation, announcing the Court's conclusion that the meaning of our Constitution has changed over the past 15 years--not, mind you, that this Court's decision 15 years ago was wrong, but that the Constitution has changed. The Court reaches this implausible result by purporting to advert, not to the original meaning of the Eighth Amendment, but to "the evolving standards of decency," ante, at 6 (internal quotation marks omitted), of our national society. It then finds, on the flimsiest of grounds, that a national consensus which could not be perceived in our people's laws barely 15 years ago now solidly exists. Worse still, the Court says in so many words that what our people's laws say about the issue does not, in the last analysis, matter: "[I]n the end our own judgment will be brought to bear on the question of the acceptability of the death penalty under the Eighth Amendment." Ante, at 9 (internal quotation marks omitted). The Court thus proclaims itself sole arbiter of our Nation's moral standards--and in the course of discharging that awesome responsibility purports to take guidance from the views of foreign courts and legislatures. Because I do not believe that the meaning of our Eighth Amendment, any more than the meaning of other provisions of our Constitution, should be determined by the subjective views of five Members of this Court and like-minded foreigners, I dissent.
In this case, I would have to come down pretty squarely with Scalia, Rehnquist and Thomas. And I think O’Connor gets the right result but for the wrong reasons. For me, Scalia hits the nail right on the head:
Because I do not believe that the meaning of our Eighth Amendment, any more than the meaning of other provisions of our Constitution, should be determined by the subjective views of five Members of this Court and like-minded foreigners, I dissent.
Implicit in the decision are these remarkable propositions: 1) a definitive consensus can be established by less than a majority; 2) what the Constitution “means” can be determined by majority rule, or a “consensus”; 3) the Constitution says what a majority of justices subjectively think it should say. I’m not making this up, by the way. If you go read the opinion, the majority actually says these things. And it represents the disturbing trend, begun in earnest after WW II, of the courts of this country acting as an unelected superlegislature in order to create new law.
First, let me point out that, as a matter of construing whether the death penalty is “cruel and unusual punishment”, a purely chronological rule makes absolutely no sense. If a 17 year old bludgeons his parents to death at 5 minutes to midnight the night before his birthday, capital punishment would be “cruel and unusual punishment”. But if he waits until after the cake and ice cream, opens his presents at 1:00 the following afternoon, then bludgeons his parents to death, capital punishment is not “cruel and unusual”. WOW! What a difference a half a day makes!
You should be able to find the text of the opinion on the public pages of FINDLAW. Here are the facts, as set forth by the Court:
At the age of 17, when he was still a junior in high school, Christopher Simmons, the respondent here, committed murder. About nine months later, after he had turned 18, he was tried and sentenced to death. There is little doubt that Simmons was the instigator of the crime. Before its commission Simmons said he wanted to murder someone. In chilling, callous terms he talked about his plan, discussing it for the most part with two friends, Charles Benjamin and John Tessmer, then aged 15 and 16 respectively. Simmons proposed to commit burglary and murder by breaking and entering, tying up a victim, and throwing the victim off a bridge. Simmons assured his friends they could "get away with it" because they were minors.
The three met at about 2 a.m. on the night of the murder, but Tessmer left before the other two set out. (The State later charged Tessmer with conspiracy, but dropped the charge in exchange for his testimony against Simmons.) Simmons and Benjamin entered the home of the victim, Shirley Crook, after reaching through an open window and unlocking the back door. Simmons turned on a hallway light. Awakened, Mrs. Crook called out, "Who's there?" In response Simmons entered Mrs. Crook's bedroom, where he recognized her from a previous car accident involving them both. Simmons later admitted this confirmed his resolve to murder her.
Using duct tape to cover her eyes and mouth and bind her hands, the two perpetrators put Mrs. Crook in her minivan and drove to a state park. They reinforced the bindings, covered her head with a towel, and walked her to a railroad trestle spanning the Meramec River. There they tied her hands and feet together with electrical wire, wrapped her whole face in duct tape and threw her from the bridge, drowning her in the waters below.
By the afternoon of September 9, Steven Crook had returned home from an overnight trip, found his bedroom in disarray, and reported his wife missing. On the same afternoon fishermen recovered the victim's body from the river. Simmons, meanwhile, was bragging about the killing, telling friends he had killed a woman "because the bitch seen my face."
The next day, after receiving information of Simmons' involvement, police arrested him at his high school and took him to the police station in Fenton, Missouri. They read him his Miranda rights. Simmons waived his right to an attorney and agreed to answer questions. After less than two hours of interrogation, Simmons confessed to the murder and agreed to perform a videotaped reenactment at the crime scene.
Here are excerpts from the two dissenting opinions:
Justice O'Connor, dissenting.
The Court's decision today establishes a categorical rule forbidding the execution of any offender for any crime committed before his 18th birthday, no matter how deliberate, wanton, or cruel the offense. Neither the objective evidence of contemporary societal values, nor the Court's moral proportionality analysis, nor the two in tandem suffice to justify this ruling.
Although the Court finds support for its decision in the fact that a majority of the States now disallow capital punishment of 17-year-old offenders, it refrains from asserting that its holding is compelled by a genuine national consensus. Indeed, the evidence before us fails to demonstrate conclusively that any such consensus has emerged in the brief period since we upheld the constitutionality of this practice in Stanford v. Kentucky, 492 U. S. 361 (1989).
Instead, the rule decreed by the Court rests, ultimately, on its independent moral judgment that death is a disproportionately severe punishment for any 17-year-old offender. I do not subscribe to this judgment. Adolescents as a class are undoubtedly less mature, and therefore less culpable for their misconduct, than adults. But the Court has adduced no evidence impeaching the seemingly reasonable conclusion reached by many state legislatures: that at least some 17-year-old murderers are sufficiently mature to deserve the death penalty in an appropriate case. Nor has it been shown that capital sentencing juries are incapable of accurately assessing a youthful defendant's maturity or of giving due weight to the mitigating characteristics associated with youth.
On this record--and especially in light of the fact that so little has changed since our recent decision in Stanford--I would not substitute our judgment about the moral propriety of capital punishment for 17-year-old murderers for the judgments of the Nation's legislatures. Rather, I would demand a clearer showing that our society truly has set its face against this practice before reading the Eighth Amendment categorically to forbid it.
Justice O’Connor apparently buys the “majority rule” argument, but doesn’t see any “consensus”, which the majority arrives at by combining states prohibiting capital punishment below the age of 17 with states which prohibit capital punishment completely. And her real objection is to the majority simply deciding that the meaning of the Constitution has changed because they think it should.
Justice Scalia, however, whose dissent is joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Thomas, isn’t buying any of it, and has some of the same objections I do:
Justice Scalia, with whom The Chief Justice and Justice Thomas join, dissenting.
In urging approval of a constitution that gave life-tenured judges the power to nullify laws enacted by the people's representatives, Alexander Hamilton assured the citizens of New York that there was little risk in this, since "[t]he judiciary ... ha[s] neither FORCE nor WILL but merely judgment." The Federalist No. 78, p. 465 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961). But Hamilton had in mind a traditional judiciary, "bound down by strict rules and precedents which serve to define and point out their duty in every particular case that comes before them." Id., at 471. Bound down, indeed. What a mockery today's opinion makes of Hamilton's expectation, announcing the Court's conclusion that the meaning of our Constitution has changed over the past 15 years--not, mind you, that this Court's decision 15 years ago was wrong, but that the Constitution has changed. The Court reaches this implausible result by purporting to advert, not to the original meaning of the Eighth Amendment, but to "the evolving standards of decency," ante, at 6 (internal quotation marks omitted), of our national society. It then finds, on the flimsiest of grounds, that a national consensus which could not be perceived in our people's laws barely 15 years ago now solidly exists. Worse still, the Court says in so many words that what our people's laws say about the issue does not, in the last analysis, matter: "[I]n the end our own judgment will be brought to bear on the question of the acceptability of the death penalty under the Eighth Amendment." Ante, at 9 (internal quotation marks omitted). The Court thus proclaims itself sole arbiter of our Nation's moral standards--and in the course of discharging that awesome responsibility purports to take guidance from the views of foreign courts and legislatures. Because I do not believe that the meaning of our Eighth Amendment, any more than the meaning of other provisions of our Constitution, should be determined by the subjective views of five Members of this Court and like-minded foreigners, I dissent.
In this case, I would have to come down pretty squarely with Scalia, Rehnquist and Thomas. And I think O’Connor gets the right result but for the wrong reasons. For me, Scalia hits the nail right on the head:
Because I do not believe that the meaning of our Eighth Amendment, any more than the meaning of other provisions of our Constitution, should be determined by the subjective views of five Members of this Court and like-minded foreigners, I dissent.
Tuesday, March 01, 2005
Social Security - A Little Reform is Not Enough
I have previously written here and here, among other spots around the web, in support of Social Security reform. I’m in favor of partial privatization, and the sooner the better. But while it is a step in the right direction, private accounts as proposed by President Bush will not solve the problem because the proposal does not go far enough. The “head in the sand, there’s no problem” Democrats are full of crap and they know it. So are the Republicans who tout the proposals as a solution to the problem.
Let me say this one more time for the younger viewers out there: it is not rocket science. It is not even complicated. When the baby boomers retire, either the system will collapse or the retirement age and the social security payroll tax will both skyrocket. Period. We can play games all day long with actuarial charts and fiscal projections, but the fact is if the Social Security scam were being operated by anyone other than the government it would be illegal.
Social Security as it now exists is nothing more than a Ponzi scheme (named for the guy who invented it, and went to prison for fraud), also known as a pyramid scheme. It works like this: I solicit investors by promising them a return on their investment, a profit so to speak. And they are happy investors because they make money. They make money because I pay them with the money I collect from subsequent investors, whom I then pay out of the money I collect from subsequent investors, who invest because they can see that the previous investors are making money. Get it?
It works great, until I get greedy and take too big a cut for myself, or I don’t find enough new investors to keep paying all the previous investors. At that point, when those who are expecting to collect are too numerous for me to pay out of money collected from new investors, the system collapses.
Social Security works exactly the same way. People collecting today are being paid out of the taxes collected from people who are paying in today. But when the baby boomers retire, there will not be enough folks paying in to continue to finance those taking benefits out.
At that point, and most estimates say it will be around 2040, the system would collapse. Except the politicians who long ago looted the “trust fund” of all actual cash (took too big a cut for themselves), and who have manipulated the system to curry support (buy votes), can’t possibly let that happen. So benefits will begin to decrease, and taxes and the retirement age will increase.
Long before that point, most estimates say around 2018 or 2020, the system will begin paying out more than it takes in. Those collecting will no longer be paid by the taxes of those paying in. Additional money will be either taken from other programs or, more likely, new and ingenious federal taxes will begin to appear to generate cash. National sales tax, anyone? The only other alternative will be to begin raising the retirement age and the Social Security payroll tax at that point.
I was for privatization when Reagan proposed it in the ‘80’s. I was for reform when Clinton supported the idea and talked about the "looming crisis" in the 90’s. And I’m for it now, when Bush supports it. But to really solve the problem, partial privatization is not the answer. The system must be phased out, those already dependent have to get a reasonable level of security (although indexing to wages rather than the cost of living is nuts and must be changed), and no new “investors” can be allowed to enter the system. Take a look at what Chile did. Look at what Slovakia has done, phasing out the welfare state that was communism.
It’s time to abolish the Ponzi scheme and move to a system that represents actual investment. I’ll leave it to the rocket scientists and actuarials to work out the details.
Let me say this one more time for the younger viewers out there: it is not rocket science. It is not even complicated. When the baby boomers retire, either the system will collapse or the retirement age and the social security payroll tax will both skyrocket. Period. We can play games all day long with actuarial charts and fiscal projections, but the fact is if the Social Security scam were being operated by anyone other than the government it would be illegal.
Social Security as it now exists is nothing more than a Ponzi scheme (named for the guy who invented it, and went to prison for fraud), also known as a pyramid scheme. It works like this: I solicit investors by promising them a return on their investment, a profit so to speak. And they are happy investors because they make money. They make money because I pay them with the money I collect from subsequent investors, whom I then pay out of the money I collect from subsequent investors, who invest because they can see that the previous investors are making money. Get it?
It works great, until I get greedy and take too big a cut for myself, or I don’t find enough new investors to keep paying all the previous investors. At that point, when those who are expecting to collect are too numerous for me to pay out of money collected from new investors, the system collapses.
Social Security works exactly the same way. People collecting today are being paid out of the taxes collected from people who are paying in today. But when the baby boomers retire, there will not be enough folks paying in to continue to finance those taking benefits out.
At that point, and most estimates say it will be around 2040, the system would collapse. Except the politicians who long ago looted the “trust fund” of all actual cash (took too big a cut for themselves), and who have manipulated the system to curry support (buy votes), can’t possibly let that happen. So benefits will begin to decrease, and taxes and the retirement age will increase.
Long before that point, most estimates say around 2018 or 2020, the system will begin paying out more than it takes in. Those collecting will no longer be paid by the taxes of those paying in. Additional money will be either taken from other programs or, more likely, new and ingenious federal taxes will begin to appear to generate cash. National sales tax, anyone? The only other alternative will be to begin raising the retirement age and the Social Security payroll tax at that point.
I was for privatization when Reagan proposed it in the ‘80’s. I was for reform when Clinton supported the idea and talked about the "looming crisis" in the 90’s. And I’m for it now, when Bush supports it. But to really solve the problem, partial privatization is not the answer. The system must be phased out, those already dependent have to get a reasonable level of security (although indexing to wages rather than the cost of living is nuts and must be changed), and no new “investors” can be allowed to enter the system. Take a look at what Chile did. Look at what Slovakia has done, phasing out the welfare state that was communism.
It’s time to abolish the Ponzi scheme and move to a system that represents actual investment. I’ll leave it to the rocket scientists and actuarials to work out the details.
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]