Month: September 2004

Patriotism and Taxes

This is the third post of a series on patriotism. (The first two posts are here and here.) I am working from the definition of patriotism given by TheFreeDictionary.com: “love of country and willingness to sacrifice for it.”

Love of America often takes the shallow form found in the familiar first verse of “America the Beautiful”, with its paean to “amber waves of grain…purple mountain majesties…[and] fruited plain.” America should be loved for its vision of liberty — and, most importantly, for its steadfast efforts to promote that vision by permitting Americans a combination of personal and economic freedom that is unparalleled in the world. America isn’t perfect and never has been. But what nation is perfect or ever was? It’s true that the regulatory-welfare state has taken deep root in America, but at least those who understand that the regulatory-welfare state denies freedom, stifles initiative, and slows economic progress are free to hack at it. And sometimes they succeed in pruning it.

The other side of the coin of patriotism is sacrifice. Most living Americans (I hope) will never have to sacrifice life or limb in the defense of liberty. The only practical form of sacrifice open to most of us is to give up some material goods — to pay taxes — for the defense of the country. And perhaps there is an emerging consensus on that score. ProfessorBainbridge.com quotes from The Economist‘s Lexington column:

Americans may disagree about whether Mr. Bush should have invaded Iraq. But most of them agree that America is engaged in a global war on terrorism. And most of them — including those furious Democrats — are willing to project American power abroad in order to win that war.

The most obvious sign of this consensus is America’s growing military muscle. Compare the last budget adopted before September 11th and that for the current fiscal year: total federal spending on defense (including both Iraq and Afghanistan, homeland security and international affairs) has risen by more than 50%, from $354 billion to about $547 billion. This huge military build-up, the biggest since the Korean war, has enjoyed support from both Democrats and Republicans. Considerable bipartisan agreement propelled the creation of the gigantic Department of Homeland Security; and now Congress (again, not the White House) is pushing through the most far-reaching reorganization of the intelligence services for 50 years.

Anyone who doubts the force of America’s gathering consensus should study the Kerry campaign, which proposes little different from Mr. Bush in terms of future action; or they should look at this summer’s surprise bestseller. The 9/11 Commission Report is a thoroughly bipartisan production, the work of five leading Democrats and five leading Republicans. And it minces no words on the need for an aggressive approach to terrorism.

The report argues that there is no room for appeasement: the terrorists are willing to use any means to spread Islamic theocracy, and the only way to deal with them is either to destroy them or to leave them utterly isolated. The report endorses lots of nicey-nicey reforms in the Middle East, but it is also comfortable with projecting American power abroad. “Terrorism against American interests ‘over there’,” reads the report, “should be regarded just as we regard terrorism against America ‘over here’.” America’s homeland is, in fact, “the planet”.

I would gladly pay higher taxes to support the war on terror. I am not a knee-jerk tax-cutter when it comes to the essential functions of government. But I do not want to pay higher taxes to support the war on terror and to subsidize corporate welfare, individual welfare, farm subsidies, the nationalization of education, myriad regulatory activities, and all other programs that transfer money and power to Washington for the benefit of the permanent government and interest groups. That is not what the Framers meant by the general welfare.

Taxes should be the price we pay for the preservation of liberty — not the price we pay for charity, graft, and our own enslavement.

Kerry for King of the World?

You may have seen this poll result (as reported by James K. Glassman at Tech Central Station):

At last, some good news for Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry!

A new poll, using a huge sample of 34,330 people, shows Kerry is favored by 26 percentage points over the incumbent president, George W. Bush.

The survey, which has Kerry leading, 46 percent to 20 percent, marks an incredible turnaround from the latest Time Newsweek and Gallup polls, which have Bush up by between 7 and 11 points.

Only one problem for Kerry. The new poll, by a public opinion group called GlobeScan and the University of Maryland, did not survey Americans. It surveyed people in 35 foreign countries, from Mexico to Germany to Thailand. And, unfortunately, for Kerry, these folks won’t be voting in the U.S. presidential election on Nov. 2.

Kerry should take his act on the road — the road to Bali.

September 11: A Remembrance

When my wife and I turned on our TV set that morning, the first plane had just struck the World Trade Center. A few minutes later we saw the second plane strike. In that instant what had seemed like a horrible accident became an obvious act of terror.

Then, in the awful silence that had fallen over Arlington, Virginia, we could hear the “whump” as the third plane hit the Pentagon.

Our thoughts for the next several hours were with our daughter, whom we knew was at work in the adjacent World Financial Center when the planes struck. Was her office struck by debris? Did she flee her building only to be struck by or trapped in debris? Was she smothered in the huge cloud of dust? Because telephone communications were badly disrupted, we didn’t learn for several hours that she had made it home safely.

Thousands of grandparents, parents, husbands, wives, children, grandchildren, lovers, and good friends — the survivors of the 3,000 who died that day in Manhattan, the Pentagon, and western Pennsylvania — did not share our good fortune.

Never forgive, never forget, never relent.

(Adapted from a post dated April 2, 2004.)

Rather Lathered by the Blogosphere

InstaPundit says:

What we need from CBS is (1) the provenance of the documents; (2) chain of custody; (3) extrinsic evidence of reliability — and the original documents, not just PDF copies on the web, made available to independent outside experts for review.

I think what we’re getting is “trust us” and after-the-fact lawyering.

QandO demands more:

The blogosphere has been all over the CBS documents, but all the information is parceled out in penny packets all over the place. At the request of a reader, I thought I’d try to consolidate them into a single post. This is not canonical, of course, just the stuff I know about.

Typographical Arguments

1. The use of superscripted “th” in unit names, e.g. 187th. This was a highly unusual feature, available only on extremely expensive typewriters at the time.

2. The use of proportional fonts was, similarly, restricted to a small number of high-end typewriters.

3. The text of the memos appear to use letter kerning, a physical impossibility for any typewriter at the time.

4. Apostrophes in the documents use curled serifs. Typewriters used straight hash marks for both quotation marks and apostrophes.

5. The font appears indistinguishable from the Times New Roman computer font. While the Times Roman and Times fonts were rare, but available, in some typewriters at the time, the letters in Times Roman and Times took up more horizontal space than Times New Roman does. Times New Roman is exclusively a computer font.

6. Reproductions of the memos in Microsoft Word using 12pt TNR and the default Word page setup are indistinguishable from the memos when superimposed.

7. The typed squadron letterhead is centered on the page, an extremely difficult operation to perform manually.

8. Several highly reputable forensic document specialists have publicly stated their opinions that the documents were most likely computer generated, and hence, are forgeries.

9. The numeral 4 has no “foot” serif and a closed top. This is indicative of the Times New Roman Font, used exclusively by computers.

Stylistic Arguments

1. The memos do not use the proper USAF letterhead, in required use since 1948. Instead they are typed. In general, typed letterhead is restricted to computer-generated orders, which were usually printed by teletype, chain printer or daisy-wheel printer, the latter looking like a typed letter. Manually typed correspondence is supposed to use official USAF letterhead. However, even special orders, which used a typed letterhead, were required to use ALL CAPS in the letterhead.

2. The typed Letterhead gives the address as “Houston, Texas”. The standard formulation for addresses at USAF installations should require the address to read “Ellington AFB, Texas”.

3. Killian’s signature block should read:

RICHARD B. KILLIAN, Lt Col, TexANG

Commander

This is the required USAF formulation for a signature block.

4. Lt Col Killian’s signature should be aligned to the left side of the page. Indented signature blocks are not a USAF standard.

5. The rank abbreviations are applied inconsistently and incorrectly, for example the use of periods in USAF rank abbreviations is incorrect. The modern formulation for rank abbreviations for the lieutenant grades in the USAF is 2Lt and 1Lt. In 1973, it may well have been 2nd Lt and 1st Lt, but that certainly wasn’t correct in 1984, when I entered active duty, so I find the rank abbreviation questionable, and, in any event, they would not have included periods. Lt Col Killian’s abbreviations are pretty much universally incorrect in the memos.

6. The unit name abbreviations use periods. This is incorrect. USAF unit abbreviations use only capital letters with no periods. For example, 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron would be abbreviated as 111th FIS, not 111th F.I.S.

7. The Formulation used in the memos, i.e., “MEMORANDOM FOR 1st Lt. Bush…” is incorrect. A memo would be written on plain (non-letterhead) paper, with the top line reading “MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD”.

8. An order from a superior, directing a junior to perform a specific task would not be in the memorandum format as presented. Instead, it would use the USAF standard internal memo format, as follows:

FROM: Lt Col Killian, Richard B.

SUBJECT: Annual Physical Examination (Flight)

TO: 1Lt Bush, George W.

Documents that are titled as MEMORANDUM are used only for file purposes, and not for communications.

9. The memos use the formulation “…in accordance with (IAW)…” The abbreviation IAW is a universal abbreviation in the USAF, hence it is not spelled out, rather it is used for no other reason than to eliminate the word “in accordance with” from official communications. There are several such universal abbreviation, such as NLT for “no later than”.

10. The title of one of the memos is CYA, a popular euphemism for covering one’s…ahem…posterior. It is doubtful that any serving officer would use such a colloquialism in any document that might come under official scrutiny.

Personal Arguments

1. The records purport to be from Lt Col Killian’s “personal files”, yet, they were not obtained from his family, but through some unknown 3rd party. It is an odd kind of “personal file” when the family of a deceased person is unaware of the file’s existence and it is not in their possession.

2. Both Lt Col Killian’s wife and son, as well as the EAFB personnel officer do not find the memos credible.

3. Keeping such derogatory personal memos , while at the same time, writing glowing OERs for Mr. Bush would be unwise for any officer. At best, it would raise serious questions about why his private judgments differed so radically from his official ones, should they ever come to light. At worst, they would raise questions about whether Lt Col Killian falsified official documents. As Lt Col Killian’s son, himself a retired USAF officer, has said, nothing good can come of keeping such files.

4. Both Lt Col Killian’s wife and son relate that Killian wasn’t a typist. If he needed anotes, he would write them down longhand, but in general, he wasn’t paper-oriented, and certainly wasn’t a typist.

And what do we get from Dan Rather? This, according to Wizbang:

Dan Rather came out swinging tonight but so far he was just shadow boxing. To defend his story, he made 4 arguments.

#1) You could find th’s in other documents. Fair enough. (or not, see ‘more’ below.) What about the other 300 anomalies Dan? [See QandO’s list, above: ED}

#2) We learned the name of their forensics guy… (I’ll save you the trouble and set up the search) Marcel Manley

My mini google tells me the guy is not that impressive. He has a few self-published books that I found. Mostly he is a “handwriting expert,” he has no apparent skills at looking at the rest of the document. Certainly not the resume’ that Bill at INDC Journal’s guy had. (He also seems more at home with the legalities of being an expert witness than being a forensics guy.)

I also found he apparently is behind the story that Kurt Cobain’s suicide note was bogus and he was really murdered. I’m speaking before I google enough but the guy seems like wingnut. (more later) Update: The guy who wrote the web page was a wingnut. No reflection on Matley.

Anyway the Forensics guy said (in a nut shell) that since the signatures match (which they don’t to my layman’s eye) the whole document is legit. Because obviously nobody would scan a signature and paste it into Word… No, never.

Prediction: CBS is going to get nailed on this guy… wait for it.

#3) Some guy -name not important — that said the documents were legitimate because everyone knew Bush sucked. (no joke)

#4) Some other guy — who has written multiple books bashing Bush- said the documents were legitimate because everyone knew Bush sucked. (No, I’m not making this up.)

Then Dan Rather said that we know the documents are real because well — Bush sucked. (Update 4)

Basically, CBS is making the case that since the content of the documents is true, the documents are legit. And we know the content is true because we have these documents to prove it. (an odd form of recursion)

The other humorous bit of defense is when Rather made the case that the blogosphere is way off base because the copies we got have been copied, faxed and recopied and some of them have been (gasp) downloaded. Completely ignoring that we all got the doc right from their web site. We are looking at a scan of what they have. 1 scan does not lose that much quality. All in all, that line was just laughable.

More as I google.

One more comment – To distill the above, their whole argument was that the signatures matched. The rest was fluff. [emphasis mine: ED]

UPDATE: hmmm This is interesting… Seems Matley vouched for the authenticity of the Vince Foster suicide note.

UPDATE 2: ZERO (none, nada, zip) evidence this guy was in any way qualified to vouch for the authenticity of these documents. NONE. He is a handwriting guy who makes the case the signatures match. (they can be scanned) His only claim to fame is that he is a librarian. Google can find nothing this guy has ever done with anything other than handwriting. Bill at INDC spanked CBS.

Bottom line… CBS’s document expert ain’t.

UPDATE 3: I forgot to note that the defense of the documents came after Rather bashed Bush for a while… I know you’re surprised.

UPDATE 4: I kinda made a joke about everyone saying “Bush sucked” but from an evidentiary point of view that is what they offered. They said the documents must be legit because everyone knew this is what happened. Since the contents were true, the docs were, by definition, not forgeries. It really was rather odd. (oh heck, that pun wasn’t intended but I’ll take it) Only the mentally lame will accept this argument….

Clearly, Rather is one of the mentally lame. He came nowhere near addressing all the charges. He’d be found guilty of flagrant violation of journalistic standards, if there were such a thing.

Why Free Markets Are Better Than Central Planning — Example 9,999,999

Just look at what happened to the “60 Minutes” story about Bush’s National Guard service. James Lileks (The Bleat) explains:

In retrospect, TV looks like a big smothering quilt: it killed the afternoon papers, forced the survivors to consolidate; it reshaped the news cycle to fit its needs, shifted the emphasis to the visual. It fed off the Times and the Post and other surviving papers, which had institutionalized the Watergate and Vietnam templates as the means by which we understand events. The old-line media, like its Boomer components, got old, and like the Boomers, it preferred self-congratulation to self-reflection. And so the Internet had it for lunch, because the Internet does not have to schedule 17 meetings to develop a strategy for impactfully maximizing brand leverage in emerging markets; the Internet does not have to worry about how a decision will affect one’s management trajectory; the Internet smells blood and leaps, and that has turned the game around, for better or worse….

A Precious Musical Mystery

From arts.telegraph.co.uk:

The finest of all fiddlemakers

(Filed: 05/09/2004)

Martin Gayford reviews Stradivarius: Five Violins, One Cello and a Genius by Toby Faber

According to the great violinist Nicolo Paganini, Antonio Stradivari (better known as Stradivarius), to make his celebrated violins used only “the wood of trees on which nightingales sang”. Others have made more prosaic suggestions – that the timber Stradivari employed was soaked in brine, or that it was of unusual density owing to the freezing conditions of the 17th-century “Little Ice Age” in which it grew. Some argue that his wood was endowed with special properties while it was being floated down river from the Alps in the form of logs. But there is still no agreement.

Nor is that the only mystery of these antique musical instruments. Their varnish, measurements and internal construction have been minutely examined since the 19th century. And still – 360 years after the birth of their maker – nobody really knows what makes the tone of these old fiddles so marvellous….

Some great things can’t be duplicated. If they could, we’d enjoy them less because they would become trite.

Now for something that’s not trite, here’s Bela Bartok’s “Tanz des holzgeschnitzten Prinzen – Nachspiel” (RealAudio), played on a Stradivarius violin (with orchestral accompaniment).

Here’s Something All Libertarians Can Agree On

Not having school-age children I didn’t know about forced mental screening. Now that I do know about it, I’m outraged.

A WorldNetDaily Exclusive:

Forced mental screening hits roadblock in House

Rep. Ron Paul seeks to yank program, decries use of drugs on children

Posted: September 9, 2004

1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Ron Strom

© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, plans to offer an amendment in the House of Representatives today that would remove from an appropriations bill a new mandatory mental-health screening program for America’s children.

“The American tradition of parents deciding what is best for their children is, yet again, under attack,” writes Kent Snyder of the Paul-founded Liberty Committee. “The pharmaceutical industry has convinced President Bush to support mandatory mental-health screening for every child in America, including preschool children, and the industry is now working to convince Congress as well.”

As WorldNetDaily reported, the New Freedom Initiative recommends screening not only for children but eventually for every American. The initiative came out of the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health, which President Bush established in 2002.

Critics of the plan say it is a thinly veiled attempt by drug companies to provide a wider market for high-priced antidepressants and antipsychotic medication, and puts government in areas of Americans’ lives where it does not belong.

Writes Snyder: “The real payoff for the drug companies is the forced drugging of children that will result – as we learned tragically with Ritalin – even when parents refuse.”

Paul’s amendment to the Labor, HHS and Education Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2005 would take the new program out of the funding bill.

The congressman…wrote in a letter to his colleagues: “As you know, psychotropic drugs are increasingly prescribed for children who show nothing more than children’s typical rambunctious behavior. Many children have suffered harmful effects from these drugs. Yet some parents have even been charged with child abuse for refusing to drug their children. The federal government should not promote national mental-health screening programs that will force the use of these psychotropic drugs such as Ritalin.”

The New Freedom Commission found that “despite their prevalence, mental disorders often go undiagnosed” and recommended comprehensive mental-health screening for “consumers of all ages,” including preschool children….

The state of Illinois has already approved its own mental-health screening program, the Children’s Mental Health Act of 2003, which will provide screening for “all children ages 0-18” and “ensure appropriate and culturally relevant assessment of your children’s social and emotional development with the use of standardized tools.”

Members of the Illinois Children’s Mental Health Partnership have held several public hearings on the program in recent months, hearing from parents and others who oppose the mandatory screening.

Karen R. Effrem, M.D., is a physician and leading opponent of mandatory screening. She is on the board of directors of EdWatch, an organization that actively opposes federal control of education.

“I am concerned, especially in the schools, that mental health could be used as a wedge for diagnosis based on attitudes, values, beliefs and political stances – things like perceived homophobia,” Effrem told WorldNetDaily.

“There are several violence-prevention programs that do say if a person is homophobic, they could be considered potentially violent.”

Continued Effrem: “This mental-health program could be used as an enforcement tool to impose a very politically correct, anti-American curriculum.”

Effrem emphasized the new program has no guarantees of parental rights, noting some children have died because parents were coerced to put their kids on psychiatric medications.

Snyder says the following groups have come out in opposition to the screening program: Eagle Forum, Gun Owners of America, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Concerned Women of America, Freedom 21, the Alliance for Human Research Protection, and the International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology.

A screening program in Paul’s home state began nearly ten years ago. The Texas Medication Algorithm Project, or TMAP, was held up by the New Freedom Commission as a “model” medication treatment plan that “illustrates an evidence-based practice that results in better consumer outcomes.”

The TMAP – started in 1995 as an alliance of individuals from the pharmaceutical industry, the University of Texas and the mental health and corrections systems of Texas – also was praised by the American Psychiatric Association, which called for increased funding to implement the overall plan.

But the Texas project sparked controversy when a Pennsylvania government employee revealed state officials with influence over the plan had received money and perks from drug companies who stand to gain from it.

Allen Jones, an employee of the Pennsylvania Office of the Inspector General says in his whistleblower report the “political/pharmaceutical alliance” that developed the Texas project, which promotes the use of newer, more expensive antidepressants and antipsychotic drugs, was behind the recommendations of the New Freedom Commission, which were “poised to consolidate the TMAP effort into a comprehensive national policy to treat mental illness with expensive, patented medications of questionable benefit and deadly side effects, and to force private insurers to pick up more of the tab.”

Jones points out, according to a British Medical Journal report, companies that helped start the Texas project are major contributors to Bush’s re-election. Also, some members of the New Freedom Commission have served on advisory boards for these same companies, while others have direct ties to TMAP.

This isn’t a case that cries out for campaign-finance reform, it’s a case that cries out for restricting the scope of government to the powers enumerated in federal and State constitutions. If a particular State’s constitution allows such a program to exist, the voters of that State ought to march on its capitol.

(Thanks to my daughter-in-law for the tip.)

More about the Case of Bush’s National Guard Records

UPDATED AND RE-DATED

Perhaps having learned from the Swift Boat Vets controversy, the mainstream media quickly picked up the Bush documents controversy. Three cases in point:

NYTimes — Commander’s Son Questions Memos on Bush’s Service

Washington Post — Some Question Authenticity of Papers on Bush

ABC News — False Documentation? Questions Arise About Authenticity of Newly Found Memos on Bush’s Guard Service

And of course —

XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX THU SEPT 09, 2004 22:45:32 ET XXXXX

CBSNEWS LAUNCHES INTERNAL INVESTIGATION AFTER SUSPICIOUS BUSH DOCS AIRED

**Exclusive**

But then there’s this (from Captain’s Quarters) — Is The Chicago Tribune Cleansing Its Archives Of The CBS Scam?

And this (also from Captain’s Quarters) — The American Spectator column claims that the forged documents came directly from the Kerry campaign (The American Spectator‘s site has been crashed by traffic.)

Now Dan Rather is in denial (from Drudge Report):

RATHER DIGS IN: THE DOCUMENTS ARE AUTHENTIC

CBSNEWS anchor and 60 MINUTES correspondent Dan Rather publicly defended his reporting Friday morning after questions were raised about the authenticity of newly unearthed memos aired on CBS which asserted that George W. Bush ignored a direct order from a superior officer in the Texas Air National Guard.

CNN TRANSCRIPT:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DAN RATHER, CBS NEWS ANCHOR: I know that this story is true. I believe that the witnesses and the documents are authentic. We wouldn’t have gone to air if they would not have been. There isn’t going to be — there’s no — what you’re saying apology?

QUESTION: Apology or any kind of retraction or…

RATHER: Not even discussed, nor should it be. I want to make clear to you, I want to make clear to you if I have not made clear to you, that this story is true, and that more important questions than how we got the story, which is where those who don’t like the story like to put the emphasis, the more important question is what are the answers to the questions raised in the story, which I just gave you earlier.

Is this the end of Rather? The end of Kerry? Well, Rather is retiring, anyway, and Kerry’s cause was looking lost before this brou-ha-ha. But I can hardly wait to see which donkey the tail gets pinned on.

Now we hear from the daughter of ex-Texas governor Ben Barnes:

WBAP Exclusive

AUDIO – Daughter of Ben Barnes Disputes Father’s Claims as Political

The Former Texas House Speaker Ben Barnes’ recollections over how he helped President Bush get into the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War have evolved over the years from fuzzy to distinct.

Barnes, who once claimed he did not help Bush enter the National Guard, reversed his story and told CBS News 60 Minutes that he in fact did help Bush.

Mr. Barnes daughter, Amy Barnes Stites called the Mark Davis Show and spoke with guest host Monica Crowley on WBAP September 9th dismissing Barnes’ claims as political and opportunistic….

Excerpt of Call:

BARNES: I love my father very much, but he’s doing this for purely political reasons. He is a big Kerry fund-raiser and he is writing a book also. And [the Bush story] is what he’s leading the book off with….He denied this to me in 2000 that he did get Bush out [of Vietnam service]. Now he’s saying he did.

CROWLEY: Did he tell you, Amy – and I’m glad I have you on the line with me – did your father tell you that he was prepared to do this on behalf of John Kerry – go after President Bush like this?

BARNES: He told me he was going to do it. In fact, I talked to him a couple of months ago. He told me he was writing the book. He told me that he was going to be talking about this. And he knows that I – we have very diverse political opinions. He knows my opinions and we get into this debate every time I see him. But, you know, he said that he was going to be talking about it.

CROWLEY: Now you’re saying, Amy, that he has had two separate stories on President Bush’s Guard duty during the Vietnam era?

BARNES: Yes, yes. This came out in 2000 and I asked him then, at the time, if he [helped get Bush into the Guard]. He said: “No, absolutely not. I did not do that.” –

CROWLEY: So, I hate to put you in this position, but I will ask you, do you think your father, Ben Barnes who was on “60 Minutes II” with Dan Rather last night – do you believe that he lied on the air to the American people last night about President Bush?

BARNES; Yes, I do. I absolutely do. And I think he’s doing he’s doing it for purely political, opportunistic reasons – trying to get John Kerry elected and trying to make Bush look like the bad person….Like I said, he’s going to be trying to promote his book that he’s got coming out.

See my earlier post here.

Too Pure for My Taste

William Watkins at Southern Appeal flaunts his ideological purity, after committing a logical flaw. First, the flaw:

There’s a good op-ed in the Washington Post on Cheney’s recent remarks that a vote for Kerry would increase the likelihood of another terrorist attack. Here’s the quote:

“It’s absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on November 2, we make the right choice. Because if we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we’ll get hit again, that we’ll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States,” Cheney said.

I forget just who was in office on 9-11? Certainly not Bush and Cheney. It must have been Clinton.

The point isn’t who was in office on 9/11/01, it’s who’ll be in office on 1/20/05, Bush or Kerry. The latter happens to be an infamous waffler, voter against defense programs, ardent mulitlateralist, and advocate of last-ditch self-defense. But that doesn’t seem to register with Watkins.

Now, for a bit of supercilious ideological purity, Watkins says:

I certainly won’t be voting for John Kerry, but this latest attack is yet another reason in the column of why I won’t be voting for Bush either.

Oh, let me guess, he’ll vote for someone from the Libertarian Party or the Constitution Party. If Watkins lives in California, where his employer (The Indpendent Institute) is based, that’ll make a big difference. It will reduce Kerry’s claim on California’s electoral votes by exactly one popular vote. That’ll show that George Bush a thing or three.

More Good Reasons for Unilateralism

The Washington Times has a three-part feature under the heading, “Treachery: How America’s Friends and Foes Are Secretly Arming Our Enemies,” by Bill Gertz. The headlines on the three stories tell the tale:

French connection armed Saddam

Libyan sincerity on arms in doubt

U.N. nuclear agency asleep at the switch

Looks like some good reading.

As I Was Saying about Academic Dissent

RETITLED AND UPDATED

In this post I said, “The crushing of dissent is confined almost exclusively to liberal-run academia.” Here’s an attempt to legalize it (from AP via Yahoo! News):

Colo. Officials Fault Free Speech Policy

By STEVEN K. PAULSON, Associated Press Writer

DENVER – A university president and a Democratic state lawmaker said rules put in place this year to protect conservative viewpoints on Colorado campuses have harmed free speech and led to death threats against professors.

Republican lawmakers responded that conservative students are still being harassed and more needs to be done.

The comments came as a handful of college officials and students went before the Legislature’s Joint Education Committee on Thursday to report on efforts to enforce the Academic Bill of Rights. All state-funded colleges adopted the policy this year under pressure from Republican lawmakers.

The measure encourages the schools to review student rights and campus grievance procedures “to ensure that intellectual and political diversity is explicitly recognized and protected and to ensure those rights are adequately publicized to students.”…

Kieft said death threats against a Metro State political science professor have “sent a real chill across the campus.” The professor, Oneida Meranto, said in March she was threatened after a student filed a complaint against her and told lawmakers he had asked to drop her class because she was biased against conservatives.

Meranto responded publicly that the student was failing, prompting the student to accuse her of violating his privacy rights. School officials said the threats originated off campus, and the FBI has said it was investigating.

Sen. John Andrews, a Republican committee member, pointed to three new complaints aired by students at the meeting as evidence that schools need to enforce the policy more strictly.

University of Colorado law student Mario Nicholas said a professor called him a Nazi after Nicholas complained when the professor told the class that “the `R’ in Republican stands for racist.” The professor was chastised by the dean but not suspended.

Metro State student William Pierce said he filed a grievance after a professor accused him of spying on the class for Republicans intent on enforcing the new policy.

Colorado State student Heather Schmidt said she complained because a professor criticized the late President Reagan and drew a caricature of President Bush (news – web sites). She said when she complained, she was told to find another class.

Democratic Sen. Ken Gordon said he called that professor and was told he had been forced out of the classroom by death threats.

“He said he sleeps with a shotgun under his bed,” Gordon told the panel. The professor did not return a call from The Associated Press.

Rep. Lynn Hefley, a Republican, said professors who violate the rules should be suspended.

“It seems to me you need to take swift action,” she told the university presidents.

Larry Penley, chancellor of the Colorado State University System, CU President Elizabeth Hoffman and University of Northern Colorado President Kay Norton told legislators they are enforcing the policy.

And there’s more, from The Washington Times:

Academic bias cited at Colorado schools

By Valerie Richardson

THE WASHINGTON TIMES

DENVER — Four Colorado university presidents testified yesterday that their institutions are making progress in protecting students from academic bias, but several students said otherwise.

In a hearing before the General Assembly’s Joint Education Committee, students testified or submitted statements about recent incidents in which professors vilified Republicans, called conservative students “Nazis” and other names, and even implied that students’ grades would be affected by their political views.

Their testimony came as presidents at the four main state universities told the committee they were working to comply with the March “memorandum of understanding” in which they pledged to protect students from academic discrimination.

State Senate Majority Leader John Andrews said he was pleased by their progress, but emphasized that recent events show conservative students are still subject to academic bias.

“I’ve had three unsolicited complaints in the last 30 days,” said Mr. Andrews. “They’re indicative of a climate and culture where a lot of faculty feel free to demean personally and intellectually bully conservative and Republican students in a way they would never do to students in protected classes.”…

There’s a simple solution, though it requires some discipline on the part of professors: Stick to teaching and drop the propagandizing and name-calling. Some might call it self-censorship. I would call it doing the job they’re paid to do.

I will begin to sympathize with college teachers when they begin to respect their students’ points of view — all points of view, not just those they agree with.

Right On! For Libertarian Hawks Only

REVISED AND REPOSTED

There’s a devastating critique of libertarian doves at Tech Central Station:

Flying with Libertarian Hawks

By Max Borders

Published 09/09/2004

And covenants, without the sword, are but words and of no strength to secure a man at all.

— Thomas Hobbes

Is it possible for one to be libertarian about policies at home and neo-conservative about policies abroad? After all, isn’t the principle of non-coercion incompatible with the interventionist policies of the current Administration? Simply put: is there such an animal as a libertarian hawk and if he exists, why do we so seldom hear from him?…

Most libertarians fall in line behind the superficial notion that domestic and foreign policies should be mirror images of each other, each reflecting classical liberal principles where self-defense is applied universally like some scriptural edict. Alas, were the threats of the twenty first century so simple to counter, the complexities of world so easily distilled….

I find it sad that so many otherwise bright libertarians seem so unreflective about war. Some of my favorite freedom-loving publications have steered their editorial styles into the hashish den of protest music and anti-Bush priggishness. Some of my favorite think tanks issue press releases almost daily, calling for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq, calling for the US to extend Constitutional privileges to enemy combatants, and claiming that it will be impossible to bring democracy and the Rule of Law to the Middle East….

[O]f course, nation-building isn’t an exact science. But I would have always preferred to hedge my bets that given enough of the appropriate initial conditions, Iraqis would find that — in the absence of a dangerous dictator — they would begin to form of the mutually beneficial relationships with one another that bring about prosperity and peace. I doubt they could’ve done this alone. I think the Coalition was right to help them towards a tipping point. And if we fail, the failure will have been a practical one, not a moral one….

I am one of those who doesn’t fancy the idea of staring down the point of a chemical warhead before I decide to act. (Even if such warheads turn out to be a chimera today, they won’t likely be tomorrow.) In the nuclear age, when the degree of certainty that you will be attacked is at fifty percent, you are as good as done for in terms of your ability to protect yourself. Thus, preventive action in a world of uncertainty is, unfortunately, the only reasonable course. In the meantime, it behooves us to try to make our enemies more like us… and then allow globalization to proceed apace. For the more like us they are, the more likely they are to enter into the tenuous human covenants that are our only means of having peace.

UPDATE:

A blog by the name of verbum ipsum demurs at length. There’s a lot of folderol about the source of rights. The key passage is this:

Borders doesn’t even address one of the chief libertarian arguments against foreign intervention, namely that it will inevitably result in the increased power, prestige, and influence of the State. Libertarian hawks want an all-powerful State that can preemptively crush its enemies abroad but will leave us in peace and freedom at home. The idea that foreign policy and domestic liberty can exist in hermetically sealed compartments seems willfully naïve given historical precedent.

I’m not sure about the historical precedent, but there’s plenty of peace and freedom abroad in the U.S. today, in spite of the present emergency. Just look at what went on in New York City during the Republican convention and what goes on daily in the media and across the internet. The crushing of dissent is confined almost exclusively to liberal-run academia. Moreover, Lee, the perpetrator of the post at verbum ipsum chooses to overlook completely the strategic advantage of foreign intervention, which is to take the fight to the enemy and, in combination with other (clandestine) means, to distract him, to disrupt his plans, and to deny his access to resources. Perhaps Lee would rather fight it out in his living room.

Jeffrey Tucker at Mises Blog quotes F.A. Harper, the founder of the Institute for Human Studies, of which Max Borders is program director. Here’s some of what Harper had to say in 1951:

The theme of this analysis has been that liberty and peace are to each other as cause and effect; that war is an evil; that good cannot be attained by evil means; that war is the cancerous growth of minor conflicts, which would remain small if dealt with as issues between the individual persons concerned but which grow into the larger conflict of war as a consequence of amassing forces by means of involuntary servitude; that a person has the right to protect his person and his property from aggression and trespass and to help others if asked and he wishes to do so; that liberty is lost under guise of its defense in “emergencies”; that in emergencies, of all times, the strength and vitality of liberty is needed; that concentrating power in wartime is as dangerous as at any other time; and that power corrupts those who acquire it.

Perhaps these are the reasons why war always seems to demoralize those who adopt its use; why human reason seems to go on furlough for the duration of serious conflict, and in many instances thereafter; why liberty seems always to come out the loser on both sides of war. Bentham’s definition of war as “mischief on the largest scale” then comes to have a deeper meaning.

Harper was naïve in the extreme if he believed that “war is the cancerous growth of minor conflicts, which would remain small if dealt with as issues between the individual persons concerned….” Where was he when Chamberlain gave the Sudetenland to Germany in an effort to avert Hitler’s aggressive aims by resolving a particular issue? Harper died before implacable Islamofascists came on the scene, though he might have recognized them as the spiritual heirs of Hitler and Stalin.

As for the notion that “liberty comes out the loser” — tell it to the slaves who were freed in the aftermath of the Civil War, tell it to the women who gained the right to vote after World War I, and tell it to black Americans whose contributions to victory in World War II helped pave the way for their full enfranchisement and equality under the law in the decades after the war. America has become increasingly more free with respect to civil liberties, in spite of a succession of wars. To the extent that America has become less free economically, the blame can be placed largely on the Progressive era of the early 1900s and the New Deal of the 1930s, both of which were instigated in peacetime. In sum, Harper was a deluded fool, which says something about those who quote him.

The Mysterious Case of Bush’s National Guard Records

REVISED AND REPOSTED

A lot of blogs are on the story about the apparently forged documents used by CBS in its attack on Bush’s record of service with the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War. Powerline has been in the lead all the way. The relevant Powerline posts are here, here, here, and here.

I have nothing to add but this: Suppose it’s true that the documents are bad forgeries. And suppose someone saw to it that those forgeries found their way to CBS through sources credible to CBS? I’m just saying suppose…

That raises two possibilities. The documents might have been clumsy forgeries by Democrat operatives. If that’s the case, they deserve every bit of backlash that’s coming to them. Alternatively, the documents might have been created by Bush partisans in a clever effort to defuse the attacks on Bush.

If, in the fullness of time, we discover that the documents were planted by Bush partisans, their prank will go down in the annals of political dirty tricks as one of the greatest — if not the greatest — dirty tricks of all time. A “clean” dirty trick, designed not to smear a candidate but to discredit those who are out to smear a candidate.

I can’t wait to see how this plays out.

Why Is This Considered News?

Yahoo! News has been playing this as a top story all day:

Bin Laden Deputy: U.S. Losing Afghanistan

By SARAH EL DEEB, Associated Press Writer

CAIRO, Egypt – In a videotape made public ahead of the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks, Osama bin Laden’s chief deputy claimed Thursday the United States was on the brink of defeat in Iraq and Afghanistan.

With an assault rifle leaning on the wall behind him, Ayman al-Zawahri said, “The defeat of America in Iraq and Afghanistan has become a matter of time, with God’s help….The Americans in both countries are between two fires, if they continue they bleed to death and if they withdrew they loose [sic] everything.”

The videotape was broadcast by Al-Jazeera television, which said it received the tape exclusively. It was not immediately clear how Al-Jazeera got the video….

But we can guess can’t we? This is like CBS News doing an impartial story about President Bush. No, it’s like Axis Sally telling American troops that Hitler is winning the war.

Ayman al-Zawahri — isn’t he the guy who’s on the run from U.S. and Pakistani forces? Talk about “loosers”.

Insider Trading and Caveat Emptor

Stephen Bainbridge has a new piece at Tech Central Station with the title “Why Regulate Insider Trading?” Bainbridge, who blogs at ProfessorBainbridge.com and professes corporate and securities law at the UCLA School of Law, knows a lot more than most people about the subject of insider trading. Here’s my simple view of it:

When a corporate officer or employee acts on “inside” information to profit from the sale or purchase of his company’s stock, that person is engaging in a form of fraud. Why? Because, the information on which the officer or employee acts isn’t his information. It belongs to the corporation and therefore to the corporation’s shareholders.

An officer or employee who sells the corporation’s stock knowing of bad news that’s about to break is, in effect, profiting at the expense of other shareholders. The inside trader, by selling before other shareholders can sell, loses less than other shareholders; that is, he transfers his losses to others by acting on information that is rightly theirs.

The inside trader who sells short may actually profit from the losses of other shareholders.

An insider who buys his company’s stock knowing of good news that is likely to drive up the price of that stock is profiting from the ignorance of other shareholders. If they had the same information, many of them would compete with the insider to bid up the price of the stock, thus reducing or even eliminating his ability to profit from inside knowledge.

What about the effects of insider trading on prospective shareholders? If a corporation has especially good or bad news, it ought to divulge that news to prospective shareholders. A prospective shareholder — unlike a prospective used-car buyer — has no way of knowing the current working condition of a corporation before he buys its shares. Nor can a prospective shareholder buy shares that come with a warranty against hidden defects. It is therefore a fraudulent act, to my way of thinking, if a corporation fails to divulge critical information about its affairs to prospective shareholders.

The right remedy for insider trading — and for corporate failure to disclose critical information — is to sue and prosecute for fraud. Knock off all the legalistic regulations — just sue and prosecute. If the bastards aren’t deterred, make them pay through the nose and with a stretch in the slammer.

A Health Care Plan for Geniuses Only

Madame Heinz Kerry displays her deep understanding of economics (from an AP story):

Teresa Heinz Kerry says “only an idiot” would fail to support her husband’s health care plan.

But Heinz Kerry, the wife of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, told the (Lancaster) Intelligencer Journal that “of course, there are idiots.”

Kerry’s proposal includes health care subsidies for children, the unemployed, small companies and more; and government assistance to insurers and employers that keep premiums for workers down.

…She says, “Only an idiot wouldn’t like this.”…

Only a genius (a Paul Krugman, for instance) would believe in a free-lunch plan like Kerry’s. Who will pay for the subsidies? Is “government assistance” like manna from heaven? What happens to the incentive of workers who are forced to pay premiums for other workers through higher taxes? How will “free” or subsidized insurance help to reduce the cost of health care? And what about “moral hazard”?

A Case of Unrequited Love?

REVISED AND REPUBLISHED

Andrew Sullivan, renowned homosexual blogger, who was once a staunch supporter of Bush and the war in Iraq has turned his back on his old loves. Sullivan now openly embraces Kerry (no pun intended), puts down Bush at every opportunity, and second-guesses the war in Iraq.

Like many other bloggers, I long sensed that Sullivan eventually would change his colors because he has been monomaniacal about the recognition of homosexual marriage. He kept harping on it in post after post, day after day, week after week. It got so boring that I took Sullivan’s blog off my blogroll and quit reading it.

Now, Kerry isn’t much better than Bush on gay marriage — from Sullivan’s perspective — but Kerry doesn’t make a big issue of opposing it the way Bush does. Maybe that’s because Kerry doesn’t know where he stands on gay marriage. Why should he? He doesn’t seem to know where he stands on anything. No, I take that back: Kerry believes in serial monogamy with rich women; the evidence is irrefutable.

But I digress. Back to Andrew Sullivan. He seems to have put his sexual orientation above all else. He’s really a one-issue voter. Sure, he has rationalized his change of mind, but his change of mind can be traced, I think, to his preoccupation with gay marriage as a political litmus test.

Although gay marriage is an important issue, it’s not the only important issue. In fact, it’s arguably less important issue than, say, the fight against terrorism and the future of Social Security, both of which affect all Americans, straight and gay.

I am disappointed in Andrew Sullivan, an erstwhile voice of reason, whose sexual agenda seem to have clouded his stance on other issues.

NOTE:

The last three paragraphs above replace the following two paragraphs, which appeared in the original version of this post:

But I digress. Back to Andrew Sullivan. He has put his sexual orientation above all else. He’s really a one-issue voter. Sure, he has rationalized his change of mind, but it boils down to the fact that he values his homosexual identity above his identity as an American.

Welcome to the narrow world of special interests Andrew. You’ll be right at home with professional African-Americans, professional victimized women, professional environmental hysterics, and all the others. Talk about strange bedfellows.

I rewrote the post because Trent McBride of The Proximal Tubule rightly criticized the statement that Sullivan “values his homosexual identity above his identity as an American.” Here’s McBride:

…I read your blog and agree with you on most things, but this struck me as ridiculous and distasteful. You are basically saying that in valuing

one’s sexuality over one’s national identity, one is valuing an intrinsic trait of oneself over an extrinsic, arbitrary trait.

I would consider this a good thing, and I don’t see how you wouldn’t. The roots of socialism, totalitarianism, and terrorism find themselves in nationalism. And this passage comes dangerously close to this line. I hope you would rethink such sentiment….

I did rethink it. That’s why I rewrote it as I did, to say better what I had in mind when I dashed off the phrase “identity as an American.”

There is something to be said for nationalism: It’s better to be an American who is striving to uphold and defend the Constitution and the liberty it affords us than it is to be, say, a member of al Qaeda who is striving merely to terrorize his enemies through wanton murder. But being an American just for the sake of being an American — without understanding and adhering to the deeper principles of Americanism — is no better than, say, being a fan of the Washington Redskins. The roots of totalitarianism do lie in that kind of “home team” mentality.

I thank Trent McBride for pushing me to think and write more precisely. I am solely responsible for any remaining errors of logic or expression in this post.

The Young Mr. Lincoln

Thanks to American Digest, I found an article by Claude N. Frechette, M.D., “A New Lincoln Image: A Forensic Study,” in which Dr. Frechette documents his authentication of an early daguerreotype of Abraham Lincoln.

Believe it or not — and I believe it after having read Dr. Frechette’s article — the following image is that of Abraham Lincoln in the early 1840s, when he was in his early 30s:

The next image, about which there was no controversy, is that of Lincoln in 1848 at the age of 39:

Finally, we see Lincoln in 1862 at the age of 53:

A Good Reason to Favor the "Ownership Society"

Gregory Scoblete, writing at Tech Central Station, calls it the “Market State”. Whatever you choose to call it, here’s what it’s all about, according to Scoblete:

Bush’s domestic agenda, allowing younger workers to direct the investment (of their own money) in Social Security, of portable pensions to follow a mobile work force, and reforming a cumbersome tax code, is specifically aimed at devolving responsibility for individual welfare from the State to the individual. He touts it as an “ownership society” but it could just as easily be called an “opportunity society” — under Bush’s vision, the government promises that all citizens will have the opportunity to advance themselves, regardless of station. That is a distinctly different promise than the traditional Nation State compact that guarantees your welfare by redirecting wealth from one population segment to another.

Even the President’s proposed spending initiatives — increased money to education, to child heath care, and to junior colleges — had one consistent, Market State theme: the State is responsible for laying the foundation for your well-being but ultimate success is up to you.

The unspoken corollary — intolerable to Democrats — is that if you fail, the State will have a very limited capacity to help you. Indeed, critics of Bush will decry this as a move designed to ultimately gut the welfare state. And they will be correct — it is. And it is vital.

Why is it vital? The answer is simple: It reduces (if it doesn’t eliminate) a phenomenon known to economists as “moral hazard”. Put simply, if you are sheltered from the consequences of your actions because you know that others will make you whole, you tend to take risks that you wouldn’t normally take. That is, you make bad decisions.

People who have to live with the consequences of their decisions tend to act prudently. They may still make mistakes (who doesn’t?), but they will learn from them and go on to do better the next time.

That’s not universally true, of course. There are addictive personalities. Some people can’t quit gambling, others can’t quit drinking, and still others can’t quit taking debilitating drugs. But that’s not most people.

Most people — if left to their own devices — can and will manage their lives quite well, thank you. They will, for example, save for their retirement and do a better job of it than the nanny state, which doesn’t save at all — it merely runs a giant Ponzi scheme whose collapse is written in the actuarial tables.

Measuring Happiness

Arnold Kling of EconLog despises happiness research:

My view is that happiness research implies Nothing. Zero. Zilch. Nada. I believe that you do not learn about economic behavior by watching what people say in response to a survey.

Precisely. You learn about economic behavior by watching what people actually do.

Of course, a person’s happiness can’t be reduced to a single number (e.g., disposable income or number of TVs owned). And, even if it could be, it’s impossible to sum the happiness of individuals to arrive at some measure of collective happiness. Are we a happier nation if Joe is “unhappy” and Sadie is “happy” or if Joe is “happy” and Sadie is “unhappy”?

Happiness is a deeply personal thing, as indefinable as consciousness. Some individuals have a sense of happiness and keep it, in spite of adversity. Some individuals rarely have it, in spite of prosperity. Some individuals gain it and lose it with every smile of fortune and blow of fate. Each person is a unique, irreplicable “experiment” in happiness. That’s my take.

Well, let’s give happiness research a chance and see if it has uncovered useful insights. Michael at 2blowhards summarizes the implications of some happiness research:

* If your job isn’t especially rewarding, pursue a hobby you love, one that delivers experiences of “flow.”

* Don’t focus too much on making money and buying things.

* Maintain a wide variety of friendships, and don’t spend too much time alone.

* Cultivate gratitude and forgiveness, including forgiveness towards yourself.

* Don’t try to feel great all the time — that’s not the way life works.

All of which could have been gleaned from introspection and self-help books, and none of which is especially new or particularly helpful:

* Taking up a hobby is old advice.

* Just how much focus on money is too much?

* Friends — I have few and I spend a lot of time alone, and that makes me very happy because I’m a strong introvert.

* I’m very hard on myself, and always have been, but that has made me a happier person because I have fewer faults than I used to have.

* I guess I should try to feel miserable instead of great — that’ll make me happy.

Arnold Kling is right, “happiness research implies Nothing. Zero. Zilch. Nada.”