Saturday, May 18, 2002
BURLINGTON BEES
By and large a beautiful day here in Burlington, Iowa. High of about 62. The Bees sweep a double-header against the Peoria Chiefs, 5-2 and 6-5.
LIBERALS TOLD YOU SO, PART II
Okay, I scratched out most of this in between innings of the Bees’ game on my notepad. So bear with me as I take another swipe at Richard Doak’s "We Told You So: The Tax ‘Cut’ Only Helped Iowa’s Affluent." (Part I is posted under May 12.) Doak displays his ignorance of conservative thought about and wealth and government in numerous ways. Here’s an example:
Today’s prevailing philosophy is that to whom much is giving, even more should be given.
This begs the question who is doing the giving. But one thing liberals are sure of: the rich aren’t earning their wealth; someone’s doling it out to them.
Columnist Walter Williams describes such thinking like this:
[One] vision of the sources of income might be that income is distributed. In other words, there is a dealer of dollars. In this case, the reason why some people are rich and others are not is that the dollar dealer is a racist, a sexist or a multinationalist. Those to whom the mean dealer dealt too large a share of dollars should give back some of their ill-gotten gains. If they refuse to give back, then it's the job of government to confiscate their gains and return them to their rightful owners. In a word, there must be a redealing of the dollars, what some call income redistribution.
But no one gave the likes of Bill Gates, Jack Welch, or Warren Buffet their immense fortunes. As Walter Williams states:
In a free society, income is neither taken nor distributed, it is earned. Income is earned by pleasing one's fellow man. The greater one's ability to please his fellow man, the greater is his claim on what his fellow man produces. This claim is represented by the size of his income.
Doak view tax cuts as "giving" more money to the rich. Conservatives see it as letting them keep more of what belongs to them in the first place.
Doak also misrepresents conservative thinking about government:
In case you hadn’t noticed, the primary purpose of government in the modern era is to make life more comfortable for the already comfortable.
Actually, conservatives believe that government should get out of the way of activities that produce wealth for society. We advocate policies like lower taxes and deregulation because those are the policies that encourage wealth creation. Less regulation reduces the costs facing people who want to start their own businesses. Lowering taxes lets them keep more of what they earn, giving them more incentive to work hard and invest more. The by-products of wealth-creating activities are ones that benefit the rest of society: more jobs, more consumer goods and services, more stock for investment portfolios, etc., etc. Conservative philosophy is not about using government to "make life more comfortable for the already comfortable." It’s about keeping government from interfering with wealth creation.
As I noted last time, given that Doak is the editor of the op-ed page of the Des Moines Register, one might expect that he would be better acquainted with conservative thinking. The internet now makes it all the easier to keep up with prominent conservative thinkers like Thomas Sowell, Steven Moore, Larry Kudlow, and, of course, Walter Willaims. (Also see Tech Central Station; link is provided at the right.) However, understanding the complexities of conservative thought on something like taxes requires some intellectual effort. It’s much easier to simply dismiss tax cuts as "give-aways" to the rich.
. . .
THE GROSS-SUKUP FEUD CONTINUES
Iowa gubernatorial candidate Doug Gross holds a lead in Republican primary according to the recent polls, yet State Representative Steve Sukup is within striking distance and at least 16% of potential voters are undecided. So Sukup has gone on the attack. He has been radio running ads claiming that Doug Gross represented notorious hog producer Jack DeCoster at a May 16, 1990, meeting of the Hardin County Board of Supervisors. In response, Gross has been running ads in which former Governor Terry Branstad (Gross was once his chief-of-staff) all but calls Sukup a liar. But Sukup’s has notes of the Board of Supervisors’ meeting that he claims proves his case. If this editorial in the Des Moines Register is any indication, the charge is beginning to stick. It’s getting nasty out here in Cornland. And interesting.
ISU AND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
A controversy appears to be brewing in the Iowa State University Journalism School. Some of the more senior faculty members have accused minority hires of receiving special treatment. Two administrators who were suspended over the matter have now been reinstated. I’ll have comments as soon as I can get more details. In the meantime, here is an article about it in the Quad City Times.
. . .
IT’S NOT POLITICAL?
Have you noticed that none of the Democrats in tough Senate races this year have commented on what Bush supposedly knew before 9/11? I haven’t seen a word in the media from Tim Johnson, Mary Landrieu, Paul Wellstone, or the illustrious Senator from Iowa, Tom Harkin. Nothing on their Senate websites either. Senate rules won’t allow Johson or Harkin to post news on their Senate sites at present, but their campaign websites have no comments on the matter. Something to contemplate the next time you hear a Democrat claim that it’s not political.
. . .
Friday, May 17, 2002
IOWA BUDGET NEEDS SPECIAL TREATMENT
Governor Vilsack is calling another special session for May 28 to resolve the state budget crisis. No doubt Democrats and their mouthpiece, aka the Des Moines Register, will blame the state tax cuts of the late 1990s. Yet, revenues only dipped in 1999, while spending from 1998-2001 was more than double the rate of inflation. In other words, our budget crisis is due to a spending spree, not tax cuts. Which means the Republicans in the Iowa Legislature are exactly right to call for more spending cuts.
. . .
WORLD SERIES OF POKER
I am a big poker fan and player. On Monday, the Big One begins at the World Series of Poker (WSOP). This is the $10,000 No-Limit Hold ‘Em Championship. This is the Wimbledon of poker, a grueling five day competition for which the winner will take down in the neighborhood of $2 million. Some of you might remember seeing this on the Discovery Channel a few years ago. (Sadly, Discovery Channel canceled the series that carried it.)
The WSOP is actually a bunch of small events, ranging from buy-ins of $1500 to $5000, leading up to the Big One. It is held each year at Binion’s Horseshoe Casino in Las Vegas. You can read about some of the small events at Andy N. S. Glazer’s site. This site is also great if you know next to nothing about poker and would like to learn the basics.
Binion’s coverage of the WSOP is here. You can actually watch a webcast of some of the events.
BAD PROFILE
Ames Tribune has a good editorial on the law enforcement profile of Luke Helder. Demonstrates that profiling is suspect.
. . .
PERSPECTIVE ON WHAT BUSH KNEW
This one has been circulating Blogistan quite a bit, but I like it so much I’ll provide a link to it here. John Ellis is dead on.
COMMENCEMENT ADDRESS
The National Review Online has this little gem. Hilarious!
. . .
POOR, MISUNDERSTOOD LUKE HELDER, PART IV
An outstanding column by Dr. Thomas Sowell on Mr. Helder and how his thinking reflects the zeitgeist. This is a must read!
. . .
IOWA IS SO TOUGH
Iowa does not have the death penalty for murder. This pleases Kurt Rogahn in the Cedar Rapids Gazette:
Three recent news stories in nearly so few days should remind Iowans how tough this state is on murderers.
Right. I’m a sure the average murderer would rather be nabbed in, say, Texas.
CATHOLIC CHURCH SCANDAL HITS IOWA
Interesting article in the Des Moines Register. Looks like Bishop Joseph Charron has learned what not to do from Cardinal Law.
IOWA REPUBLICANS ACTING LIKE REPUBLICANS!
The Quad City Times has this article about the current budget crisis in Iowa. This is my favorite part of the article:
Although they have released few details, Republican leaders say their 2003 plan would eliminate 15 state programs along with numerous spending adjustments and cuts. They also want to require that state workers take half-day furloughs each month, saving state government an estimated $30 million. State employee unions rejected their first proposal for a salary freeze next year.
Not trimming at the margins, but dumping whole programs. Let’s hope they are serious.
BANNING COUCH POTATOES?
Iowa City has proposed an ordinance that would ban couches on front porches. This has raised the ire of University of Iowa students. Aaron Winter has this opinion in the Daily Iowan:
Well then, the proposed nuisance ordinance is either the biggest hypocrisy in history, or the allegations we've been led to believe regarding how wonderful our town is are false. Which is it?
It’s the latter, Mr. Winter. It’s the latter.
. . .
Thursday, May 16, 2002
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION VS. DEMOCRACY
After reading some of the opinion on the recent Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals decision on the University of Michigan Law School’s affirmative action policy, two stand out. The first is by Jeffrey H. Lehman, Dean of the UM Law School, in the New York Times. Early in his column he writes:
[O]ur policy was not designed to compensate for segregation and discrimination in American society, past or present. It was designed to enroll a group of highly talented students who will, after three years of study, be as well prepared as possible for the modern legal profession.
The last sentence in his column reads:
Colorblindness is an ideal, not an idol, and the Constitution does not require us to sacrifice effective education and integration in its name.
First he claims that then UM Law School policy is not about compensating for segregation, then he states it is about integration. Dean Lehman needs to consult a dictionary because integration means to abolish segregation. That Lehman can’t keep his argument consistent is a pretty good indication that he is trying to defend the indefensible.
The other opinion came from the Washington Post editorial page. The Post claims that "the courts should not underestimate diversity's importance to education in a multiethnic democratic society." The Post thinks that because the UM Law School policy is designed to foster diversity, i.e. racial diversity, the courts should uphold the policy. I think, however, that the courts shouldn’t be deluded by the concept of diversity. After all, on most college campuses diversity means diversity of everything except thought and opinion.
I bring that up because the Post followed that last sentence with this one:
American universities function as training grounds for democracy, places where members of the future leadership of this country learn to engage with one another as citizens.
After I picked myself up off the floor—methinks someone at the Post hasn’t visited a college campus in a long time—it occurred to me that such an argument isn’t a justification for keeping affirmative action, but for eliminating it. If universities are supposed to be training grounds for democracy, then they need to encourage unfettered intellectual debate. Yet the orthodoxy of political correctness does much to stifle debate on campuses. It is the affirmative-action induced racial hostility on campuses that, at least in part, fuels political correctness. So if we are serious about universities fostering a democratic mentality—and in the wake of September 11, we should be—then it logically follows that we should do away with race-based admissions policies. Let’s hope that the Supreme Court sees it the same way.
SOME PEOPLE NEVER LEARN
The House of Representatives passed the GOP welfare reform bill earlier today. The vote was 229 to 197, largely along party lines. One might think that what is arguably the most successful public policy in the last two decades would have garnered much more support from the Democrats. Their reasons for not supporting it? It is "harsh and mean-spirited." Where have we heard that before? Almost seven years after the first federal welfare reform became law, and the Democrats haven’t learned a darn thing.
. . .
IS THIS REALLY A SCANDAL?
Here are some random thoughts on the current uproar over the terrorism warnings the Bush Administration received before 9/11:
1. I fail to see why this is a huge deal. If the Bush Administration had received a warning pre-September 11 that al Qaeda was planning to use planes as missiles and was targeting major U.S. cities, that would be a major scandal. It appears, however, that the warnings were vague and general. Pre-September 11, warnings about al Qaeda meant putting the U.S. military and embassies on alert.
2. Does anyone really believe that if Bush himself had serious warnings about the September 11 attack he wouldn’t have taken major steps to prevent it? Let me qualify that: Does anyone besides Cynthia McKinney believe that?
3. So why is it a huge deal? My guess is the Democrats and their willing accomplices in the press need an issue for November. Nothing else—Enron, the Budget, ANWAR—has worked so far. They may have finally struck pay dirt. But I doubt it.
4. Daschle, Gephardt, et al are using this for political advantage by demanding Congressional hearings. Aren’t these the same folks who just yesterday popped a collective blood vessel over the use of a 9/11 photo of Bush for fundraising purposes?
5. I can’t wait for the Oliver Stone movie.
. . .
COMING SHORTLY
I’ll have some thoughts on what Bush knew, and when he knew it, soon.
STRIKE ONE! STRIKE TWO?
A good blog at the Daily Rant about the possibility of another baseball strike. Great minds think alike: If there’s another strike, I’ll spend my baseball hours watching the Single A Burlington Bees.
EGO BOOSTING TIME
Cornfield Commentary is growing. Really! Some new plugs and links:
Crooow Blog has linked me to his site. Thanks Crooow!
Dr. Manhattan has given me a nice little plug on his site, Blissful Knowledge:
ETHANOL FUMES: For everything you never wanted to know about Iowa politics and media, check out Cornfield Commentary.
Cool. Thanks Doc!
And last, but not least, Coyote at the Dog Show has given me a very nice write-up that begins:
I've discovered another good new blog, Cornfield Commentary, through the simple, if shameless expedient of proprietor David Hogberg emailing to say 'hey, how about taking a look at my new blog?' Oddly enough, this usually works with me. Plus, you got to love a guy who heads his info and links column with "Hi Mom!"
I’ve noticed that since these posts and links went up, my number of hits has grown considerably. I’m sure it isn’t coincidence. So thank you gentlemen. You are very kind.
One other thing I’ve noticed. The more these nice folks out there in Blogistan do to satiate my ego, the more ravenous it becomes. Go figure.
. . .
WHICH DO YOU LIKE BETTER? GOVERNOR ‘GROSS’ OR GOVERNOR ‘SUKUP’?
Good column in today’s Des Moines Register by David Yepsen. The ‘Gross-Sukup’ feud gains more intensity. Frankly, Sukup is becoming my kind of Republican—one willing to attack the opposition. If he does this to a fellow Republican now, makes you wonder what he’ll do to Governor Vilsack in the fall. Besides, I like the sound of ‘Governor Sukup.’ Finally, a politician with an appropriate name.
SOB STORIES
The Des Moines Register just can’t help itself. More stories about the ‘devastation’ caused by Iowa budget cuts. But don’t feel too sorry for state employees. As noted yesterday, Iowa has the biggest pay gap between public and private employees in the nation. Funny, though, the Register has yet to call the author of the pay-gap study, Steve Garrison, for a quote. Can’t imagine why.
MORE SOB STORIES
Thanks to my friend Professor Mark Wrighton for pointing this one out to me. Some University of Iowa professors are holding a bake sake to raise scholarship money for UI students. Of course, the primary purpose is to stage a protest against state budget cuts. But don’t feel too sorry for UI, either. It turns out that professors' salaries are a bit out of whack too. Perhaps they could donate some of their own money to scholarships instead of the taxpayers forking over more.
CARTER, CUBA, AND THE FARM BILL
Tony at QuasiPundit has an interesting blog on how the farm bill is entwined with Carter’s visit to Cuba. He even thinks that Carter is more consistent than the Bush Administration. Now that ought to raise the hackles out in Conservative land.
YOU PROBABLY DIDN’T KNOW WE HAD THIS MUCH FUN IN IOWA
Headline in the Cedar Rapids Gazette: "Naked Soccer Players at Luther Face Penalties."
. . .
KERMIT THE FROG GETS IN A SWORD FIGHT
I said I would post a little review of "Attack of the Clones." It's 100% crap.
. . .
Wednesday, May 15, 2002
GOOD STUFF ON THE WEB
A lot of good blogs out there today. Here are some I recommend:
Zonitics has another interesting blog about his on-going debate with Geoffrey Nunberg over media bias.
Good one at USS Clueless about advances in weapon technology.
Very good one at Man Without Qualities taking Paul Krugman to task. (I'll admit, I'm usually a sucker for those.)
Chilling piece by Glenn Reynolds, aka InstaPundit, about the riot at San Francisco State.
Well, that's it for me today. I've got some more work to do and I'm going to see the midnight showing of "Attack of the Clones." I'll post a little review of it tomorrow morning.
. . .
YES, WE ARE AT ‘WAR.’ GET OVER IT!
Did anyone notice the Monday, May 13 column by Charley Reese? Titled “Going Nowhere Fast,” he trots out most of the tired liberal complaints about the War on Terrorism, and a few new ones.
First, he’s got his underwear in a bunch that the War on Terrorism is called a “war.”
I have said all along that there is nothing wrong with the president pursuing al-Qaida and killing its members in retaliation for the attack on the World Trade Center. It's calling it a war that is the problem. First of all, only Congress has the authority to declare war. We should not forget that, even though Congresses and the presidents since 1945 clearly have.
Has there ever been a more bureaucratized notion of “war”? To those like Reese, it isn’t a war until the officials, in this case Congress, say it is. Let’s see here: We were attacked on September 11 resulting in massive civilian casualties. We have responded by unleashing bombs and bullets on a nation, Afghanistan, which harbored the bad guys. It appears that we will be doing the same to another nation, Iraq, in the near future. I don’t know your definition of “war,” but that certainly fits into mine. Leave it to liberals to get hung up on technicalities.
Next, Reese trivializes FBI efforts to track terrorists:
You don't need laws that allow the FBI to demand lists of books bought at bookstores or books checked out of libraries. There is such a law, and once the FBI makes a demand, the bookseller or the library is forbidden to say the FBI's demand ever happened. Does the FBI seriously think that a professional terrorist is going to buy or check out a book on "How to Be a Terrorist"? Apparently so.
Come now. I suspect the FBI is a tad more sophisticated that that. What if someone checked out the following titles from a public library: Mein Kempf, The Anarchist Cookbook, and Aviation for Dummies? Wouldn’t that raise a red flag with you, Mr. Reese? It certainly would with me. Here’s hoping that it would with the FBI too.
Finally, he concludes with this liberal cliché:
Of course, the real threats to our national security are soil erosion, soil contamination, unjust foreign policies, a profiteering health-care system and millions of hungry and poor people in the world. I don't think either the Pentagon or the Justice Department will be of much use in dealing with these genuine threats.
No, I think the real threats to our national security are still thugs who hijack airplanes and send anthrax through the mail. That, and perhaps foolishness posing as clever opinion.
NEWSFLASH: CUTS IN WELFARE POLICY STUDIES!
I nominate this one from the Daily Iowan for the “non-story of the year in Iowa” award. It seems that the state budget crisis is resulting in a funding cut for policy studies on Iowa welfare reform. Given that Mathematica Policy Research has already done over a half-dozen studies on this issue; given that the studies show that, yes indeed, reform has improved the lot of former welfare recipients; and given that some research institute will continue to do such studies, just not on the state’s nickel, should this really be a front-page story? Should it even be a story at all?
GUN CONTROL HEADED FOR THE TOILET?
Democrats or gun control? One of them may be swirling the bowl.
. . .
PERHAPS I SHOULD BECOME A CYCLONE?
In a post from yesterday I zinged officials at the University of Iowa for their whining over having to comply with a Justice Department program to track foreigners on student visas. An article in the Ames Tribune today notes that Iowa State University officials are gearing up to comply with the new federal rules:
"We're not panicked at all," Kathleen Jones, ISU's registrar, said this morning.
"We'll figure out a way to get it done," Jones said. "We'll make sure we're in a position where we can comply."
Compare this to Steven Hoch, the dean of international programs at the University of Iowa who said:
This is clearly an unfunded mandate and no doubt will involve considerable costs in the range of tens of thousands of dollars.
I’ll bet dollars to donuts this is the first time Hoch has ever worried about unfunded mandates. Here’s a suggestion. If UI officials are worried about finding the money to help the Justice Department stop terrorism, perhaps they could stop funding the Women’s Resource and Action Center. Fighting terrorism would be a much better use of the money currently going to WRAC.
I am not going to become a Cyclone fan just yet. But I sure like ISU a whole lot more now.
GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATES THROW HOG MANURE
A good article from Sunday, May 12, 2002 in the Waterloo-Cedar Falls Courier by Charlotte Eby. (Go to Opinion/Columnists.) It details the current scrap between Iowa Republican gubernatorial candidates Steve Sukup and Doug Gross over Gross’ alleged legal representation of notorious hog producer Jack DeCoster. If you don’t know why this is a big deal, you probably haven’t lived in Iowa for any length of time. Even so, the article is quite enjoyable.
. . .
PRAYERS PLEASE
The wonderful columnist Mona Charen has a son who has been in a terrible accident. Somehow she's found the courage to write about it. As she says, "Prayers are appreciated."
. . .
IOWA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES DON’T NEED A RAISE
The Des Moines Register gets one right. This editorial calls for suspending a proposed 7% raise for Iowa Public Employee salaries. Good idea. Iowa already has the largest pay gap between public and private employees. For more on that, click here. Then click on the link "Brief 8-16."
MORE GANSKE VS. HARKIN
David Yepsin has a good analysis of the Iowa Senate race.
PORK IS ADDICTIVE!
The Sioux City Journal has this piece about farm-state Senators. Apparently the $190 billion they stuffed into the new farm bill isn’t enough. They now want $2 billion more for disaster aid. Here's the story.
THANK GOD HE IS AN "EX-PRESIDENT"
If you need any more evidence that ex-President Jimmy Carter is a clown, read his speech at Havana University. No need for commentary. The speech speaks for itself.
. . .
Tuesday, May 14, 2002
PREDICTION: GANSKE WILL BEAT HARKIN
In a recent post I predicted that Representative Greg Ganske will beat Senator Tom Harkin in November by a margin of 51-49. This might seem premature, given that November is still about six months away and Ganske doesn't have the Republican nomination yet—Iowa has its primary on June 4. Still, I think the prediction is solid.
First, Ganske appears to have learned the lesson that primary-losing moderates like John McCain and Richard Riordan did not. You don't win the primary by angering the Republican base; you win by appeasing it. Ganske is something of a moderate Republican, at least more moderate than his primary opponent Bill Salier. In late April, the Club for Growth endorsed Salier, giving some momentum to his campaign. Perhaps sensing that Salier might gain on him, Ganske has begun running radio ads stressing his conservative credentials. One ad features President Bush praising Ganske for his support of Bush's tax cut, and another ad ends by emphasizing Ganske's vote to impeach Bill Clinton! In short, Ganske is using some effective campaign tactics for the primary, and will likely best Salier handily.
(Don't get me wrong. I think Salier is a good man and a good candidate, although his position on free trade and NAFTA could use some tweaking. Anyway, I hope he uses this race as a springboard to run for office down the road.)
Whether Ganske beats Harkin in the fall will depend on what type of campaign he runs in the general election. (On the remote chance someone from the Ganske campaign is reading this, let me give you a little hint: If you employ the moderate Republican strategy of "I'm really a nice, decent, loveable guy, and I'll prove it to you by not attacking my opponent," you'll lose.) Ganske will have to attack Harkin's legislative record, especially since Harkin has a history of distorting his opponent's record. In other words, Ganske will have to hit back at Harkin, and hit hard. That shouldn't be difficult to do since Harkin has compiled a substantial record after being been in Congress for almost 28 years. It remains to be seen if Ganske will run such a campaign in the fall. But given the campaign skill he's showing in the primary, I'm optimistic that he will.
There is one other very telling sign: The Iowa Democratic Party is already running television ads praising Harkin and bashing Ganske. (The ads, of course, are complete crap, but that's another blog for another day.) Remember, this is pre-primary election. And the Dems aren't running the ads for Harkin's primary. First, Harkin has no serious primary opponent. Second, that would not explain the anti-Ganske ad. So why would the Dems spend money on TV ads before Ganske has even won the primary? The likely reason is that they feel the need to increase Ganske's negatives (and Harkin's positives) early on. This suggests that the Dems have some internal polls showing Ganske doing very well against Harkin in November.
However, this is not cause for unbridled optimism. Harkin is a tough campaigner, and he will put Ganske through the ringer before it is over. Fortunately, Ganske will raise enough money (he has raised $2.9 million to date) to mount an effective challenge if he wants to. So far the signs are that he will.
. . .
DOING THEIR PART FOR THE WAR ON TERRORISM—NOT!
An article in the Iowa City Press-Citizen has this lead:
University of Iowa officials said Monday they don't know how they would meet a Jan. 30 deadline imposed by the U.S. Justice Department requiring schools to compile a database on foreign students.
Apparently the University of Iowa is going to be slow in helping the Justice Department identify terrorists who use student visas to enter the U.S. Indeed, officials at UI are relieved that it will be the federal government that will do most of the scrutinizing of such visas.
The article contains this very telling remark from Gary Althen, UI director of International Students and Scholars:
The idea that the university could somehow monitor students' classes and access to libraries and laboratories is completely impractical.
For the sake of argument, let’s rewrite that sentence to read: The idea that the university could somehow monitor student speech about matters of race, gender, or sexual orientation is completely impractical.
You wouldn’t see a university official ever make such a statement (at least one that wanted to keep his or her job.) University officials will bend over backwards to accommodate those students who believe they have been victims of hate speech. But bust their rears to help the Justice Department stop terrorists? Too much trouble.
Makes you wonder what, exactly, are the priorities at UI?
. . .
POOR, MISUNDERSTOOD LUKE HELDER, PART III
Des Moines Register reports that Luke Helder’s Public Defender, Jane Kelly, is requesting the judge issue a gag order in the case. This would prevent all attorneys involved from making public statements about the case. In other words, the prosecutors can’t try to influence the potential jury pool by making statements to the press.
Since the order would only apply to the officials involved in the case, Helder’s father Cameron would be free to spout off to the media all he wants. This is a sample of recent remarks he made to the press:
I really want you to know that Luke is not a dangerous person. I think he was trying to make a statement about the way our government is run. I think Luke wants people to listen to his ideas. Not enough people are hearing him, and he thinks this may help.
Swell.
UGH.
Ugh.
CIVICS EDUCATION IS NEEDED
Pretty good editorial in the Cedar Rapids Gazette about the need for civics education in our schools. (Sorry, you need to be a member of Gazette Online to read it in full.)
. . .
IOWA'S 5TH DISTRICT: CLUB FOR GROWTH BACKS STEVE KING FOR CONGRESS
Thanks to Zonitics for forwarding an e-mail from the Club for Growth. For those of you who don't know, Club for Growth is a group that supports candidates who promote supply-side policies, especially cutting taxes. They have now endorsed State Senator Steve King for the Republican nomination in Iowa's 5th Congressional District. The race also includes State Senator John Redwine and Iowa House Speaker Brent Siegrist. So far no candidate has a commanding lead in the pools. Here's hoping that CFG's endorsement helps Steve King. What we need more of is Republicans who are adamant about opposing tax increases.
. . .
LEACH BACKS ISRAEL. LEFTIES UNHAPPY.
Although I'm sometimes disappointed in Representative Jim Leach, he's got my full support this time. He voted to back Israel and has subsequently earned the ire of the leftists in the People's Republic of Johnson County, aka Iowa City. Here's the story in the Daily Iowan.
. . .
THEY'RE STARVING CHILDREN AGAIN!
Remember the 1995 budget fight in the nation's capitol, where Republicans were accused of, among other things, "starving children"? Will Governor Tom Vilsack employ similar tactics against Iowa Republicans to best them over the current budget crisis? If he does, he'll certainly have plenty of help from the Des Moines Register.
. . .
DON'T BLOW YOUR VOTE!
Some names just aren't fit for politics: "Edgar Allen BLOW. Democrat for Des Moines County Supervisor." Yard sign in Burlington, Iowa.
EGO BOOSTING TIME, AGAIN
Well, Cornfield Commentary continues to grow by leaps and bounds. Well, maybe hops and skips.
Christopher Johnson of Midwest Conservative Journal sent me a very nice e-mail and linked me to his site. Thanks Christopher!
Hokie Pundit put this on his website:
David Hogberg emailed me a few minutes ago, titling his missive with "You Rock Like No Other, HokiePundit. Visit my website, Cornfield Commentary." Flattery will get you everywhere with HokiePundit. Welcome to Blogistan!
Cool.
Plus, my Mom has now read it, and she really liked it. She said, "I've read it now. I really like it." Thanks Mom! Hope you had a Happy Mother's Day! (If your mom doesn't like something you do, you know it's quite bad. What a relief!)
Other comments: Professor Doug Madsen said, "No, I haven't read it yet. What's it called? Corndog something?"
Even better, I've now received two e-mails from non-bloggers!
Paul Breitbach says: "Thanks for the info about your website. It is great to have a clearinghouse for
common sense." And thank you, Paul.
The second e-mailer says: "Please remove my name and email address from your distribution list. Thank you."
Ah, isn't life grand?
. . .
Monday, May 13, 2002
SPIDER-MAN
I have now seen Spider-Man four times. Am I a geek? The question is rhetorical.
THANKS BRIAN!
On Saturday I was trying to figure out how to work this web-page business and having considerable difficulty. My life-long friend and computer expert Brian Lavender came to my rescue. Thanks a bunch, Brian! A link to Brian's web page "BRIE" is located to the right. Also thanks to Tony at QuasiPundit who provided some addtional help.
. . .
PRO-GROWTH IOWA
A very good column by David Yepsen in yesterday's Des Moines Register about the need for pro-growth policies in Iowa. A few samples:
In politics, growth issues need to be the top priority of Iowa's 2002 election campaigns. Left to their own devices, politicians will wander off to fight about irrelevancies such as Ritalin bans or who tore down their yard signs. We need to keep their focus on the economy.
We should applaud people who have money, not drive them out of the state with our tax policies.
State government can foster policies that create more high-speed Internet access - access that's needed for jobs of the future. It can also make changes to our income and property-tax systems to make them simpler, fairer and more competitive. Conservatives are correct when they say we need tax cuts. But liberals are correct in asking if existing tax cuts work.
So good on so many counts.
He's dead on that we need to keep Iowa politicians focused on pro-growwth policies. So far I've heard very little out of the Republican gubernatorial candidates' mouths about cutting taxes. Are you listening Misters Sukup, Vander Plaats, and Gross?
Yespen goes right up to the edge of advocating income tax cuts. Perhaps he doesn't quite go all the way because he doesn't want to hear the liberals' interminable screech about how much it will cost the government. But cutting personal and corporate income taxes are the best pro-growth policy available to government. It is an especailly good idea here in Iowa since this state has some of the highest income tax rates in the nation. (Iowa has the highest top marginal corporate income tax rate in the nation, at 12%. You can look it up.)
And while Yepsen mentions the Internet, let me suggest another policy: Iowa should become the first state in the nation to put a ban on taxing Internet sales. That would attract a lot of Internet companies to Iowa, which would bring a lot of high-tech jobs—i.e., good-paying jobs. It would also have the nice side effect of giving the National Governor's Association a big hissy fit. Again, are you listening Misters Sukup, Vander Plaats, and Gross?
. . .
Sunday, May 12, 2002
POOR, MISUNDERSTOOD LUKE HELDER, PART II
(Note: You can only see the full article in the Cedar Rapids Gazette online if you are a member of Gazette Online. My apologies. But all quotes that follow are taken directly from the article. Nothing is taken out of context.)
The Cedar Rapids Gazette has now done its part to rehabilitate Luke Helder. The article by Steve Grazelle is titled “Helder’s Belligerence Intertwines with Alienated Rock Idol’s Lyrics.” Grazelle attempts to tie Helder’s actions to the philosophy—if one can call it that—of Kurt Cobain, the deceased front-man for the band Nirvana. Cobain’s lyrics—if one can call them that—are interspersed with the text of the article. The article also, like the Des Moines Register, attributes Helder’s terrorism to mental illness
However, unlike the Register article, the Gazette piece does not stop there. It attempts to resurrect the right-wing nut aspect by linking Helder’s motivation to politics. Here is the key quote:
Confronted with a growing, if vague and unstated, dissatisfaction with the world, Helder may have combined bits of cast-off grunge philosophy with an attitude that's not uncommon in his rural, conservative, small-town background: If you're unhappy with your life, it's the government's fault.
Got that? It appears that Helder was something of a right-wing nut after all. It was his conservative, blame-the-government beliefs that, at least in part, compelled him on his tear through the Midwest.
Grazelle continues:
"If the government controls what you want to do, they control what you can do," Helder wrote in the rambling anti-government diatribe he left with bombs placed in Iowa and Illinois.
But Helder's rants, along with a seven-page letter mailed to the University of Wisconsin newspaper, were ideologically inconsistent, just as the lyrics of many Nirvana songs are nearly incoherent.
Note the back-tracking in that last sentence. In an attempt to make him out to be right-wing (i.e, “anti-government”) Grazelle perhaps senses he is on thin ice, and so dubs Helder “ideologically inconsistent.”
But is he? There are plenty of themes in Helder’s letters that are usually associated with left-wing politics: unequal distribution of wealth, greed, technological dependence, and global warming. Supposedly he is inconsistent because he is also anti-government. But the left has a vital strain of anti-government sentiment: check out any anarchist text or attend the next anti-globalization protest.
So why not portray Helder as an anti-government leftist? I suspect it has to do with the bias of Grazelle. He focused on the anti-government sentiments in Helder’s letters. True, that’s hard not to do given that Helder uses the term “government” in some form or another eleven times in his letters. But he also uses “greed” or “money” thirteen times in his letter. Yet Grazelle doesn’t focus on that part of Helder’s politics. Helder also uses some form of the word “spirit” fifteen times in his letters. Why not examine Helder’s New Age religious beliefs as a factor in his terrorist acts? Perhaps it doesn’t fit with Grazelle’s desire to view Helder as a right-wing nut.
In the end, it is unfair to blame political beliefs for acts of terrorism, be the politics left or right. But if papers like the Des Moines Register and Cedar Rapids Gazette are going to explore the political angle of terrorism when the politics are right-wing, fairness demands they do the same when the politics are left-wing.
MANUEL AND IVAN HAVE A CHAT
A real knee slapper by Jane Yoder-Short in the Iowa City Press-Citizen. For those of you not familiar with Ms. Yoder-Short, well, let’s just say that she has never fully recovered from the 1960s.
She sets up the column this way: "Our abundant corn production is affecting our Mexican neighbors. I wish the struggle could be settled farmer-to-farmer in a friendly chat across the fence. Imagine Manuel leaning on farmer Ivan's fence here in Iowa." Manuel and Ivan discuss their problems with corn farming and, of course, NAFTA. This reflects much of her previous writing in that she thinks all the world’s problems can be solved if folks would just talk to each other. Apparently she’s never heard about Munich. Or Oslo, for that matter.
Then another entity joins the conversation: "Excuse me, as long as you have a Mexican farmer and an Iowa farmer talking over the same fence I guess Fred Frog can have his say." (If you don’t believe me, visit the link. I can’t make this stuff up my friends.) Fred Frog goes on to lament the destruction pesticides do to the environment.
I thought about doing some research into Ms. Yoder-Short’s (or is it Manuel and Ivan’s?) claims about NAFTA and pesticides. But I’m too scared of being bested in a debate with Fred Frog.
LIBERALS TOLD YOU SO, PART I
A good column by Stanley Kurtz in the Friday edition of National Review Online. Kurtz details how liberals in the press know very little about conservative thinking.
Upon reading this I was reminded of an editorial that appeared in the Des Moines Register back in January that dealt with the tax cuts enacted by the state of Iowa in the late 1990s. This editorial was chock full of ignorance about conservative philosophy. I have posted it here because I can’t seem to find it the Register website. (If a reader knows where it is, I’d much appreciate hearing from you.)
Anyway, the piece is so filled with stereotypes and distortions that I can’t dissect it all in one sitting. Thus, I will deal with it in parts. Here are my first two shots.
First, consider the tone of the opening paragraph:
Once in a while, everyone should get to indulge the impulse to say I told you so. In the case of the editorial page, it would have to be phrased "we" told you so. We told you so about taxes.
A bit snotty, don’t you think? Instead of beginning a debate about tax cuts with some intelligent remarks, the author sounds like a first-grader who just won a playground argument. Perhaps the author is using some tongue-in-cheek, but given the preaching on the remainder of the column, I doubt it.
Second, the author of the piece is Richard Doak, editor of the editorial page at the Des Moines Register. Is it too much to expect that the op-ed editor at a major newspaper in Iowa would be able to discuss conservative thinking with more than cliches and half-baked thoughts? Such a thing is difficult to explain. But it does explain a lot of what passes for thinking on the Register editorial page.
. . .
|
. . .
|
