Friday, August 02, 2002
HAPPY HOLIDAY
Today marks the third annual sales tax holiday in Iowa. From 12:01 am today until midnight tomorrow, anything purchased, under $100, is charged no sales tax.
This editorial in the Daily Nonpareil praises the holiday, noting
Along with providing shoppers the opportunity to stock up on the likes of back-to-school items while saving themselves some money, the annual sales tax holiday has proven itself to be a huge plus for retailers as well.
And just think how great it would be if every day was a holiday. Which reminds me, I’ve got some shopping to do. See you later.
. . .
GROSS, VILSACK, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Doug Gross and Tom Vilsack are sparring again, this time over each other’s development plans. I think Gross is getting the best of this one. Vilsack is reduced to lame comebacks like “The concept of targeted tax cuts reflects a belief that special interests should be placed ahead of the people's interests.” Oh really? I’ll bet Vilsack didn’t make a similar statement in 2000 when Al Gore released his tax cut plan.
The only problem I see here is that I still can’t figure out exactly what Gross’s plan is. I can’t find anything about it on his website. I’ve emailed the Gross Campaign about it late this afternoon. Hopefully they will get back to me about it soon.
. . .
POVERTY DECLINED IN IOWA
This AP story in the Ottumwa Courier notes that poverty dropped in Iowa during the 1990s. Yet it fails to mention one of the biggest reasons for that drop, welfare reform. It’s particularly odd (and perhaps a little biased?) since the story begins by talking about a mother who got herself off of welfare.
. . .
WHERE ARE YOU COMING FROM?
I’ve noticed my site stats say I’ve gotten 114 hits today. Given that my average as of late is about 80, and that Friday is usually when my blog traffic tails off, I wonder where it is coming from. Can’t seem to find anyone of note who has linked to one my posts today. Anyway, thank you, whoever it is. If you’d like to drop me an email or a comment, I’ll be happy to thank you for it on the site.
And thanks to all of you who have visited, not just today, but every day. I’d really like to have a better idea of who you all are. Please feel free to post a comment under one of my blogs (there are way too many zeros), or just email me and tell me a bit about yourself. Again, thanks to all of you who visit.
. . .
HI OCCIFER, I’M MILL BOYERS
Thanks to Croooow Blog for pointing out that Bill Moyers was arrested for drunking driving.
. . .
DEPRESSING STUFF AT NRO
Over at National Review Online, John Derbyshire thinks conservatives should be more despondent. Stanley Kurtz doubts we have enough troops to fight a war with Iraq. And Jerry Bowyer confirms what many of us feared, that Bush’s tax cut has not been sufficiently supply-side. Have a real nice weekend.
. . .
HOW TO STIMULATE THE ECONOMY
Newsmax reports that members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committee are unwilling to take lie detector tests to determine who leaked some classified info about 9/11. Frankly, I think it is a great idea. Imagine hooking up one of these machines to your average politician; it would breakdown due to overload. The resulting increase in demand for lie detector machines could do wonders to stimulate the economy.
. . .
YEEESSSSS!!!!!
The Anna Nicole Smith Show begins this Sunday, August 4, 9pm Central Standard Time, on E! I promised I would track the show for the Blogosphere. I will keep that promise. My blogs on it will be under the title “Big Bouncing Boob Watch.”
. . .
DAILY DIATRIBE: DES MOINES REGISTER GETTING READY TO OPPOSE WAR WITH IRAQ
Examining recent coverage of the New York Times, Andrew Sullivan finds that the Times is gearing up to oppose the coming war with Iraq. He sees the Times as part of a larger movement to oppose such a war. He warns:
Those of us who think the majority of Americans decided last September that war with Iraq was essential to our present and future security had better be prepared. The opposition is determined and organized, and they are passionately opposed to using American power to defeat the forces of state terror. What if the U.N. opposes it or doesn't endorse it? Many visceral doves in Washington will rally. If they can isolate the administration from the allies and the Congress, then there’s a good chance appeasement will gain even more momentum.
Well, you can put the Des Moines Register, or at least its editorialists, in the getting-ready-to-oppose camp. I’m sure you are stunned beyond belief. Anyway, the Register editorialists don’t actually have the courage to come right out and oppose a war with Iraq. Rather, in a disingenuous editorial in yesterday’s paper, they demand that President Bush explain to the American people why we need to make war on Iraq—as though an explanation would satisfy the Register. They then engage in the weaselly tactic of advancing criticisms posed as questions.
If action against Iraq is being considered by the Bush administration, the president must do more to explain his reasoning to the American people. No link between Iraq and the Sept. 11 attacks has been established. Though Saddam has long been perceived as a threat, why is it necessary to go after him now? Is it clear he poses a direct threat to U.S. security? Why, after eight relatively quiet years, is hunting down Saddam a priority when the United States is already up to its ears in military operations?
No link between Hussein and Sept. 11 has been established, true. (Although Czech intelligence stands behind its account of a meeting that would establish such a connection.) There is, however, an established link between Hussein and al Qaeda, as this article in the Weekly Standard accounts.
Besides, why does there need to be any link? Lack of such a connection doesn’t mean that Hussein is not a threat. And Hussein is a threat. In response to the Register’s pseudo questions, the evidence is rather compelling that Hussein is building up his arsenal of biological and chemical weapons, as this article in the Washington Post demonstrates. As the article states:
According to interviews with dozens of analysts in government, the military, intelligence agencies and academia, Iraq has a reservoir of knowledge, technology and equipment to create weapons of mass destruction. These specialists also agree that Iraq still has a residual arsenal from the 1991 Persian Gulf War, including stocks of chemical agents and possibly biological weapons that were hidden from the United Nations during seven years of inspections.
The experts also note that Hussein is clearly determined to preserve whatever capability he has. Iraq attempted to conceal its weapons infrastructure from U.N. inspectors throughout the 1990s, and for the past four years it has refused to allow the inspectors back into the country, even at a cost of continuing international sanctions.
It is even possible, although the probability is in doubt, that Hussein may not be far off from constructing a nuclear weapon. The time to depose him is now, before he succeeds.
Furthermore, the last eight years weren’t all that quiet. How quickly the Register forgets all the times the Hussein booted out the weapons inspectors, or the brief U.S. and British bombing of Iraq in December 1998. The reason we didn’t do more isn’t that Hussein presented no threat. It’s that the previous Commander-in-Chief was too busy handling the interns to give foreign affairs its proper due.
Next, the Register resorts to the standard international community sop:
There is little global support for an attack on Iraq, unlike 11 years ago during the Persian Gulf War when allies picked up most of the expense. If Saddam is really a danger to the world, other nations should be willing to allocate resources to a military effort against him. Why aren't they? Don't they see the threat? Or do U.S. officials see a threat that isn't there?
Oh, that is rich. The seriousness of a threat is dependent on the rest of the world’s willingness to commit resources to a military effort. By that logic, England and France’s decision to not take military action against Germany in the late 1930s meant that Hitler was no threat. I wonder if the French were still thinking that when the blitzkrieg entered Paris?
I particularly like the question: “Or do U.S. officials see a threat that isn’t there?” By implication that would mean Register thinks that Iraq really poses little or no threat. Do the editorialists really believe that? If so, they are either incredibly ignorant, or incredibly stupid, or both.
And, of course, no anti-war editorial would be complete without a contemplation of all the awful scenarios that will occur if the U.S. wins such a war:
Then there’s the question of what happens if the United States succeeds in deposing Saddam. How will an equally odious dictator be prevented from taking his place? Will the Middle East be thrown into even more turmoil without Saddam than with him? Will there be a prolonged U.S. occupation of Iraq?
If the U.S. occupies Iraq after toppling Husein, what are the chances that we would allow another brute thug to take Hussein’s place? It’s as though the Register has never heard of Afghanistan and Hamid Karzai. As for turmoil in the Middle East, it’s pretty tumultuous now. A strong U.S. military presence in the area is more likely to bring stability to the region. With respect to a prolonged occupation, the Register begs the question of relative to what? Leaving Hussein in power long enough so he can unleash a devastating attack using biological weapons? Of course, if the editorialists don’t see Hussein as a threat, such a question would not occur to them.
It does occur to them to engage in a lot of finger wagging at the President:
If the president wants to lead the nation into a war against Iraq, he needs to make a far better case than has thus far been presented. He needs to go before Congress and explain to Americans why forceful measures are exigent and unavoidable. Then he must ask for a declaration of war.
I’m sure Bush will give the American people plenty of explanations as the war with Iraq draws near. The Register can stop worrying. They can also stop worrying about a declaration of war, ‘cause it ain’t gonna happen! Bush 41 didn’t get one when he used the military against Iraq back in 1991. It’s not clear why Bush 43 needs one now, other than the Register sees it as another obstacle to actually waging war on Iraq.
After this moral posturing, the Register expresses its utmost concern for the American people:
With U.S. troops already deployed around the world, Osama bin Laden’s whereabouts unknown and with concerns lingering about the effectiveness of U.S. intelligence, the American people are reeling.
I must have missed all those news stories about all those Americans in anguish about the U.S. military in the Philippines and the failures of the CIA and FBI. Actually, this article in the Washington Post notes more than 60% of the American people support military action against Iraq—and that’s before Bush has started to really make the case for it.
Finally, in the last paragraph, the editorialists get to what’s really bothering them:
It's up to Bush to connect the dots of his military strategy. He must do that before entering into yet another conflict, lest this "war on terrorism" start to look like a license to attack any country without explanation.
Ah yes, Cowboy George is going to use the war on terrorism as an excuse to trot the military around the globe resulting in a new era of American Imperialism. I'm just going to let most of that last line in Register editorial slide by as something written without much reflection on how careful the President has been with using the military so far.
The only thing I won't let slide is the fact that the editorialists put quotes around the words war on terrorism. Apparently they think that we are not really at war. You'd swear they had forgotten all about 9/11.
. . .
ANTI-AMERICANISM AT THE DAILY IOWAN
Another fine example of moral cluelessness on the political left.
. . .
SPEAKING OF BUDGET CUTS
If the Des Moines Register editorialists have their undies in a big twist over budget cuts, they ought to take a look at this story in the Daily Iowan. The Johnson County Board of Supervisors has grudgingly committed funds to the project to restore the Englert Theatre in downtown Iowa City. The Board did this so that the project can remain eligible for over $1 million in funds from the state Vision Iowa program.
Perhaps the Register op-ed page should encourage the Englert Theatre project give up that money to the Department of Human Services. Surely the libs down in Iowa City would have no problem with that, would they?
. . .
BALANCING THE BUDGET ON THE BACKS OF ABSUED CHILDREN
That’s what the headline should be for this editorial in the Des Moines Register. The Register worries that
abused, drug-addicted, mentally ill and troubled kids are being told they just have to wait. And they're waiting in places they shouldn't be - in detention that costs taxpayers more than the facilities equipped to provide the care needed.
No doubt, that is a problem. The root of the problem? Well, this is the Des Moines Register op-ed page:
According to Jessie Rasmussen, director of the Department of Human Services, there's no choice. "We have no place left to go," she said. Budget cuts have forced the department to resort to a waiting list that serves kids on a first-come basis as money becomes available….
It's the same, old story. Cuts to human services result in bad outcomes.
As I’ve noted before, the Department of Human Services had its funding increased a full 12.4% the first three years Vilsack was in office. After an increase like that, if the DHS can’t make some cuts without severely damaging services, then the problem is mismanagement.
The solution? Firing Rasmussen would be a good start. And that means we need to get rid of Vilsack first.
. . .
GROSS RELEASES TAX RETURNS….
….and there is nothing there. All they show is Gross made a lot of money as Des Moines area attorney. I expect an apology from the Vilsack campaign. I’m going to go sit in the corner and hold my breath.
. . .
Thursday, August 01, 2002
GROSS ATTACKS ON ISSUES, VILSACK SLINGS MUD
That would be the headline of an op-ed in a fair world. Rather, this editorial in the Quad City Times criticizes both Gross and Vilsack for the TV ads they’ve been running as of late:
….our governor and governor wannabe have slipped past the line on silliness and by implying that such airborne dreck is what will drive our vote from one camp to the other.
We don’t deserve to be insulted with childish exchanges on the airways. And contributors to the campaigns must have hoped that their contributions would be better spent.
This article in the Des Moines Register takes the same tone. Perhaps the Register and QC Times haven’t noticed, but the candidate nattering over things like his opponent’s personal tax returns and legal clients is Vilsack. Gross isn’t doing the same thing to Vilsack; rather, Gross is attacking on the issues.
The only thing that even hints of silliness in the Gross ads is the bit “Doug Gross is Really From Mars.” That was an ad designed to use humor to deflect all the mud Vilsack is throwing at Gross. Further, most of the ad was spent talking about an issue, namely how Vilsack has mismanaged the budget.
I wonder if the Iowa media would be taking the same “pox on both their houses” posture if the situation were reversed. I can’t be sure, but I’d wager that they wouldn’t.
. . .
ECONOMIC GROWTH ANEMIC; NY TIMES HAPPY
Well, big surprise. The op-ed page of the New York Times just about threw a party over yesterday’s news about slow second-quarter economic growth. In fact, they were so giddy they couldn’t help but get in a dig against Bush’s tax cut:
The president could not have reassured anybody yesterday when he said he remained committed to making his fiscally disastrous 10-year tax cuts permanent. It seemed especially surreal to mention this, as he did, after saying that he would ask Congress to show some fiscal restraint.
I dunno, but I think folks in the business world would be far less reassured if Bush did as the Times wants him to do, announce that he is rescinding the tax cut.
. . .
DAILY DIATRIBE: PHOTOS OF THE DMZ
UPDATE: Sorry, folks. I just realized that you probably have to be a member of my brother's yahoo group to see the photos. I think you can sign up here. Oh....I'm such a yutz!
Before I embark on today’s Diatribe, I must first congratulate my brother Doug on his engagement to Melissa Rush! She’s a lovely young woman, Doug. You are very lucky.
Doug and Melissa’s recent trip to the World Cup in South Korea is the subject for today. Specifically, I’m focusing on their brief excursion to visit the DMZ between South and North Korea. Luckily, Doug and Melissa took many pictures and posted them on Yahoo! Here is the link to the photos page.
This first picture is the waiting area in South Korea for tourists before they get to go inside the blue buildings. The blue buildings are built right over the border, and are the areas where diplomats from both sides meet to negotiate. You’ll notice that there are South Korean soldiers posed on either side of the buildings. Doug said that they are standing with half their body behind the building. This is so they can see any intruders coming from the North Korean side, while at the same time they can quickly duck behind the building if any projectiles suddenly come their way.
This is another picture from the waiting area. The guy looking at the camera is Doug. Get a haircut hippy! Anyway, if you look beyond the blue buildings, you can make out some tourists from the North Korean side. Doug emailed me about this while he was on his trip, wondering what those folks on the other side were thinking. You can see my response to it here.
If you look closely at the last two pictures, you’ll notice a small cement ridge running between the blue buildings. You can see it much better in this picture, although it is sideways. What can I say, Doug had too much Korean beer. The cement ridge represents the border between North and South Korea. You cannot cross the ridge on the outside.
However, once inside the blue building, you can. The sideways photo is actually from a window inside the blue building from the North Korean side. Here is another photo from inside the blue building. That woman in the picture is Melissa. Ain’t she a cutie? Here is another photo of her.
This photo reveals a very interesting little tidbit into the mindset of communists. If you look very closely, you can see some buildings in the distance. (Sorry, but you have to look very closely. My brother was using an Instamatic camera, so the image in the distance is very fuzzy. The little figure rising up is one of the buildings.) It is a city that North Korea built to resemble a modern Western city. The purpose was to show people in the south that things were just as modern in North Korea. Of course, it fools no one. As my brother found out from the tour guide, no one actually lives there. What a sad bit of propaganda.
Okay, let’s not end this on a depressing note. While Doug and Melissa were in South Korea, they took a quick trip to Tokyo. There is a building in Tokyo that has a sculpture on top that is supposed to be a flame. The artist screwed up, and now it is known as the “Turd Building” in Tokyo. You can see why.
And last, here are the Elvises that were representing America at the World Cup. Have a nice day.
. . .
GUESS WHO OBJECTS TO GENETICALLY MODIFIED CORN?
This article in the Des Moines Register reports that the government of Zimbabwe is objecting to a shipment of U.S. food aid because it contains genetically modified corn. The article states:
Zimbabwe doesn't object to feeding its people biotech products, but officials say they're afraid some of the corn kernels will be sown, instead of eaten, and cause Zimbabwe to lose export markets for its domestic crops because of European objections to bioengineered ingredients.
This despite the fact that about half of Zimbabwe’s population of 12 million are short of food. As Marc Cohen of Washington-based International Food Policy Research Institute puts it, "If I had half a million people out of a population of 12 million facing severe difficulties and maybe even starvation, I would worry about that first, rather than exporting to Europe."
Unfortunately, the article is short on the politics behind the food problem in Zimbabwe:
Zimbabwe has historically been a grain exporter, but experts say its agricultural economy has been devastated in the last two years because of drought and militants' takeover of many white farms.
Uh, yes, and those "militants" have been encouraged and supported by Zimbabwe’s dear leader, Robert Mugabe. Mugabe’s regime is tottering, and one of the ways in which he has tried to bolster it is to blame the country’s problems on wealthy white farmers. He has encouraged marauding bands of thugs to kill and terrorize the owners of these farms, regardless of the effect it would have on Zimbabwe’s ability to feed itself.
Now it appears that Mugabe is further trying to prop up his regime with a cynical attempt to elicit the support of various international groups, especially environmental ones, who oppose bioengineered food.
Of course, this whole scenarios is very confusing to some:
The idea that a hungry country would reject biotech corn is a puzzle to many Iowa farmers when 41 percent of the corn planted in Iowa this year is genetically engineered.
To be fair, it also appears to be a puzzle to the author of the article, Philip Braser. The explanation is actually quite simple: Brutal dictators like Mugabe are willing to resort to any means necessary to hang on to power, including starving their own people.
. . .
Wednesday, July 31, 2002
DON’T BLAME CAPITALISM
Dennis Clayson has this perceptive piece on the causes of corporate corruption in the Waterloo-Cedar Falls Courier.
. . .
NORDLINGER ON FIRE
Jay Nordlinger of National Review Online has a new “Impromptus” column. It is hilarious. Easily one his best.
. . .
DAILY DIATRIBE: KRUGMAN THE CARELESS
The Blogosphere was a bit light on the Paul Krugman takedowns yesterday. Among the usual suspects Hoystory and Juan Gato had comments, but nothing from Jay Caruso or Jane Galt. So today I’ve decided to take up some of the slack and attempt my very first stab at a Krugman takedown. Here goes:
In yesterday's column, Krugman incorrectly quotes a number from the liberal think tank Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. Referring to a dispute between the Office of Management and Budget and the CPBB, Krugman states
….as the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities points out, the actual [OMB] report attributes 40 percent of the budget deterioration to tax cuts, only 10 percent to recession. Maybe dishonesty in the defense of tax cuts is no vice.
Actually, the CBPP states that the Bush tax cut is responsible for 38% of the decline in the projected surplus between 2002-2011, not 40%. It in the second paragraph on the second page of the CBPP report. The only time the CPBB report mentions a deterioration of 40% is on page 9, when it quotes Glenn Hubbard, Chairman of the President’s Council of Economic Advisors, who said that the “40 percent number sounds about right.”
Is that a minor point? Not in Krugman’s case. He has consistently pummeled the Bush Administration for inaccurate budget numbers, including yesterday’s column where he accuses OMB officials of lying. Krugman should apply the same standard of accuracy to his own column, especially when the number is on the second page of a report from one of his allies.
Next, Krugman appears to blame the budget problems faced by most states on lack of tax revenue, as this paragraph suggests:
The fact is that in recent years many states have been run like banana republics. Responsibility gave way to political opportunism, and in some cases to mob rule. When Tennessee considered a tax increase last year, legislators were intimidated by a riot stirred up by radio talk-show hosts. Only when lack of cash forced the governor to lay off half the work force did the state, which has the second-lowest per capita taxes in the country, face up to reality.
Krugman’s penchant for blaming budget shortfalls on lack of tax revenue probably stems, at least in part, from his limited reading habits. He should expand his reading list to include this report from the Cato Institute on state spending habits. The report notes that from 1990-1997 most states went on a spending spree. For example, page 7 shows that all but three states had a rise in total spending of more than 10%. In fact, Krugman’s example of Tennessee ranked 11th at 38.4%. And remember, this study does not cover the go-go years of 1998-2000, when state spending expanded faster than a party balloon hooked up to a compression pump. The point is that current budget problems are far more attributable to spending increases than lack of tax revenue. By focusing on only taxes, Krugman misses a huge contributing factor of the states’ budget problems.
Of course, if Krugman is careless with the numbers he uses from the CBPP, why should we expect that he is any more careful when presenting the state budget picture?
UPDATE: Croooow Blog had some interesting comments on Krugman's rhetoric.
. . .
SAVING BASEBALL
Two good articles on baseball at CNNSI. The first suggests that Nolan Ryan should be made baseball commissioner. I don’t know enough about Ryan to comment on that, but just about anyone would be better than you-know-who.
The second is a very humorous piece by John Donovan on twenty-five ways to improve baseball.
. . .
UPDATE ON PLANNED PARENTHOOD AND IOWA
I received an email back from Gage Church of the Des Moines Register about my question regarding the coverage of Planned Parenthood in Iowa City. Church writes "Sounds interesting. Thanks for alerting us." It’s a start. We’ll see if anything comes of it.
Nothing yet from the Iowa City Press-Citizen or the Daily Iowan.
. . .
?!?!?!?
Oh my! Not one, but two editorials in the Des Moines Register I actually agree with! Am I getting soft?
The first one dislikes the lawsuit filed by a New York man claiming that fast-food restaurants caused his obesity. The second one praises the passage of Trade Promotion Authority in the House of Representatives. Aside from the Register’s requisite cheap shots at the President—"It is uncertain to what extent Bush can succeed in actually negotiating lower trade barriers"—it does a decent job of extolling to virtues of free trade.
. . .
THAT DARN PARTY LINE
Rob Borsellino is frustrated that the Republicans who showed up at Cheney’s speech yesterday morning had nothing bad to say about the VP. Go figure.
. . .
Tuesday, July 30, 2002
RACE AND SEARCH STATISTICS
This editorial in the Omaha World-Herald notes that there is a racial disparity in the rate at which motorists who are stopped by the Nebraska State Patrol are stopped:
Among black motorists who were stopped, 7 percent were then searched; Hispanics, 6 percent; whites, 1 percent.
The World-Herald counsels caution:
But be wary of first blushes. Raw data of this type deserve careful treatment. The matter isn't necessarily as simple as it may appear.
The editorial then lists a number of factors to consider and states:
Do such phenomena factor into the numbers of searches of various races? Should they? At this point, it is literally true to say no one knows. But they could - and they're among aspects of the driving populace that UNO and law enforcement agencies should bear in mind as the data are sifted.
All sound advice. And that’s probably why none of it will be taken.
. . .
DAILY DIATRIBE: WHERE’S THE IOWA COVERAGE OF PLANNED PARENTHOOD?
In case you are unaware, a pro-life group called Life Dynamics revealed in early June of this year that they had caught Planned Parenthoods across the nation in willful attempts to either conceal or ignore reports of felony sexual abuse. An employee at Life Dynamics posed as a 13-year-old girl and called over 600 Planned Parenthoods across the nation. She claimed to be pregnant by a 22-year-old boyfriend, a clear case of statutory rape. Life Dynamics claimed that in 516 cases, the Planned Parenthood employee who took the call promised not tell the authorities about the 22-year-old boyfriend.
World Magazine recently reported on the scandal and, upon request, received 20 of the tape recordings from Life Dynamics. One of those recordings contains the conversation between the Life Dynamics employee and the Planned Parenthood of Iowa City, Iowa. According to the article,
In Iowa City, Iowa, a Planned Parenthood "pre-op educator" acknowledged the illegality of the caller's sexual relationship, then agreed to conceal it:
CLINIC: My problem is, is that if I were you—and this is just strictly off the record—if I were you I would not say anything about your boyfriend being 22 years old.... Like they would say, you know, it's against the law for 22-year-olds to have intercourse with 13, 14-year-olds ...
CALLER: Well, like do you guys do pregnancy tests there?
CLINIC: We do.
CALLER: OK. Would you have to tell anybody about that?
CLINIC: ... Absolutely no one at all, and you will pay cash for this if you have this abortion, and there is no paper trail.
Despite the involvement of Planned Parenthood in Iowa City, Iowa, the print media in Iowa appears to have largely ignored the story. A search using the terms "Planned Parenthood," and "Life Dynamics" failed to turn up any stories in the Des Moines Register, nor the two Iowa City newspapers, the Press-Citizen and the Daily Iowan.
Compare that to the coverage case of a baby found in a shredder in Buena Vista County. In order to determine the mother, the district attorney has requested medical records from numerous organizations, including Planned Parenthood of Greater Iowa. Planned Parenthood has refused to turn over the medical records, citing privacy issues. This has received a story and an editorial in the Des Moines Register. The same in one of Iowa City’s papers, the Daily Iowan.
So why aren’t the Iowa papers covering this story? I don’t know, but I’ve emailed them to ask if they have any plans to do so. If you're interested yourself, here are the emails:
Des Moines Register: gchurch@dmreg.com
Iowa City Press-Citizen: online@press-citizen.com
Daily Iowan: daily-iowan@uiowa.edu
. . .
DAILY IOWAN NEEDS A COURSE IN LOGIC
This editorial in the Daily Iowan is reminiscent of the headline in the New York Times from a few years ago that read something to the effect “Prison Population at Record High, Despite Record Low Crime Rate.” The DI editorial apparently has the same weak logic skills as this passage demonstrates:
Doug Gross is talking out both sides of his mouth, and somebody other than Tom Vilsack or his eloquent spokesman has to point this out.
The Republican gubernatorial candidate criticized Democrat Vilsack last week for forcing "stealth tax increases" on Iowans in the form of increased tuition and property taxes at the local level, such as the recent increase in Johnson County.
Out the other side of his mouth, Gross tries to paint Vilsack as a big-spending liberal who mismanaged the state budget and did not see the economic slowdown coming.
Vilsack literally can't be both, so let's take a look at the facts.
Huh? Perhaps if the DI had reversed the order of the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs, they’d see the cause and effect. Vilsack mismanages the budget by overspending his first three years in office; spending was up 6.1%, more than twice the rate of inflation and twenty times the rate of Iowa population growth. Thanks to the overspending, Iowa is caught short when the economy hits a downturn. It is certainly follows that one way to balance the budget would be to raise taxes, even stealth increases like Gross charges.
The illogic continues:
As a result, taxes in counties are going up. Johnson County homeowners will see an additional $16 per $100,000 worth of property taxes on their next bills. The way to avoid this: Have the state spend the money.
"Republicans in the state Legislature have found a way to raise taxes without taking responsibility for it," an angry House Minority Leader Dick Myers, D-Coralville, recently said. "Frankly, this is nothing less than an outrage."
We agree.
Yet Gross continues his political commercials that wrongly state Vilsack came to office with a $1 billion surplus and is now faced with a $1 billion deficit. He has yet to articulate a clear plan on how he would have dealt with the budget or how he will stimulate Iowa's economy if elected.
A new study suggests Vilsack has actually done pretty well. It shows Iowa cut spending last year by more than any other state.
Sorry, but Vilsack and the DI can’t have it both ways. Vilsack can’t take credit for balancing the budget and then say that it isn’t his fault if balancing the budget results in higher property taxes and increased tuition.
The DI, of course, attempts to blame Republican Legislators. Nice try, but the Republicans in the Statehouse warned Vilsack in early 2001 that the budget was in trouble. At the time Vilsack brushed it off. Clearly, he didn’t see the slowdown coming. Gross is right about that too.
. . .
UNABOMBER ADVOCATES NON-VIOLENCE?
Thanks to Croooow Blog for sending me the link to this Washington Post article about how the really, really radical left is publishing stuff by Ted Kaczynski. Here is a link to the newsletter in which Kaczynski’s article appeared. On page 18, in the first paragraph in the third column, Kaczynski writes:
...revolutionaries must attack the system at points at which it cannot afford to give ground. They must attack the vital organs of the system. Of course, when I use the word "attack," I am not referring to physical attack but only to legal forms of protest and resistance.
Yeah, right.
. . .
PROBLEMS FOR GROSS?
This article in the Quad City Times reports that Doug Gross and Debi Durham are about to make public their tax returns for the past six years. You’ll notice that Lt. Governor Sally Pederson is salivating at the prospect. Well, I hope the Gross campaign is ready. Even the slightest appearance of impropriety in those returns and the Vilsack campaign will be all over it like white on rice.
. . .
CRAZY BOB
John Podhoretz has more on Bob Kuttner.
. . .
ONCE IS GOOD, TWICE IS BETTER
Apparently the Des Moines Register so likes the idea of putting corrupt corporate CEOs in prison that they’ve posted the same editorial twice. Here it is on July 27. Here it is again today. Why couldn’t they do this with an editorial I’d already blogged? Would make my job much easier.
. . .
MISSING THE BIGGER PICTURE
The Des Moines Register editorial page continues its obsessive hand-wringing over welfare reform. Today it worries that:
Tough love is popular when it comes to the poor. But the reality is that many mothers who leave welfare go on to live in poverty. Some can't work due to physical and mental ailments. Their children are sick and they miss work. Now, new research suggests an even more troubling trend associated with tougher welfare requirements: Those children affected by strict welfare mandates end up living away from their parents.
Children in families subjected to the stricter welfare requirements end up living in foster homes, with friends or with other relatives more than twice as often as the children helped by the previous system.
It concludes,
Making welfare so difficult to collect can have unintended, negative consequences.
It’s nice that the Register notices that public policy can have unintended consequences; too bad it realizes it only now, after welfare reform. What about the unintended consequences of the welfare system that existed before 1996, such as dependence and illegitimacy? Since the enactment of welfare reform, about 6 million people have moved out of poverty, including 2 million children. And the out-of-wedlock birthrate has declined for the first time in decades. When looking at welfare reform, it is important not to miss the forest for the trees.
Finally, of those children who ended up in foster care, how many were in bad homes to begin with? That is, how many had mothers who were not good at taking care of children and the stricter work requirements merely brought out such a problem? If the Register editorial writers think that being able to stay home with the aid of welfare benefits increases the ability of a person to be an effective parent, well, let’s just say that they’ve probably never met my former downstairs neighbor.
. . .
VEEP VISITS IOWA
A good article on Vice President’s visit to Iowa in the Des Moines Register. Two things of note. One, the article states that Cheney will be at a breakfast fundraiser this morning for Stan Thompson, the GOP challenger to Leonard Boswell. If Thompson is getting a visit from the VP, that may mean he has a real chance at unseating Boswell. Interesting.
Second, the article is rife with speculation as to who will succeed Cheney in 2004. I’ll have a Daily Diatribe about this at some point in the near future. For now, go read the Register article.
. . .
Monday, July 29, 2002
ENDNG THE LAWSUIT CULTURE?
This editorial in the Omaha World-Herald argues in favor of limiting class-action lawsuits to curb abuse. It’s a great idea, but as one of the comments in the comment section suggest, the Democrats and their trial-lawyer buds won’t ever let it through the Senate.
. . .
HURRY UP WITH THOSE NOMINEES
This editorial in the Daily Nonpareil criticizes the process by which the Senate confirms the President’s nominees to the executive branch. If they think that’s bad, they should take a look at Bush’s judicial nominees.
. . .
ANTIOCH ROAD
Jason Steffan’s blog, Antioch Road, has some good stuff. One post reports on Charles Krauthammer’s recent column on the difference between conservatives and liberals, and Orinn Judd’s response to it. The other reports on a decline in AIDs cases due to abstinence—in Uganda.
. . .
THE IRS IS POLITICAL—WHO KNEW?
Columnist Robert Novak reports on 1,500 Internal Revenue Service documents received by Judicial Watch. Turns out many audits during the Clinton Presidency were done at the request of the administration. Thanks to Croooow Blog for the link.
. . .
KUTTNER’S TIPPING POINT
More on Bob Kuttner from Ed Boyd at zonitics. In response to my recent cut up of Kuttner, Boyd notes that just last May, Kuttner was worried that U.S. was on the edge of conservative era. Guess a lot can change in two months.
. . .
ANOTHER ANTI-BUSH PUFF PIECE
This one in the Daily Iowan deals with today’s visit to Iowa by Vice-President Dick Cheney. It gives plenty of space to the administration’s opponents, like Iowa Federation of Labor official Mark Smith, while only giving minimal space to its backers. What’s most interest is this quote from Smith:
"If Social Security is privatized and money transferred to pay for other costs, citizens will have to work harder to contribute to it and have fewer benefits when they retire," said Mark Smith, the president of the Iowa Federation of Labor.
No, Mr. Smith. Fewer benefits upon retirement will occur if we keep the present Social Security system. Guess the unions are already busy spreading lies about Social Security reform.
. . .
DAILY DIATRIBE: TERRORISTS AND CEOs
(Note: I’m posting the Daily Diatribe early today. The system was down at work on Friday, and it was still down when I stopped by yesterday. Thus, I don’t know if I’ll be able to post this during my lunch break. So I’m posting it now.)
On Wednesday of last week, I took Professor Scott Cawelti to task for an inappropriate comparison he made between terrorists and CEOs. I included his email address, encouraging readers to send him a note about his remarks. Jason Steffans at Antioch Road did so. Professor Cawelti responded to Jason’s email. You can read the exchange here. Here is Professor Cawelti’s response:
Hi Jason--thanks for your thoughtful note; you make a solid point about the hyperbolic use of "terrorize."
Yet, to defend at the least the point, those CEOs and their shady accounting have damaged the country's economy in ways we can hardy even imagine. Trillions lost, life savings gone, people out of work. This (in my judgment) has affected more Americans negatively and for the longer run than the terrorist attacks. Our economy is souring, and that affects all of us; the other attacks affected us emotionally, of course, but far fewer of us as directly.
Scott Cawelti
I have to give Professor Cawelti some credit for returning Jason’s email and addressing his concerns. Yet, Jason thinks that Cawelti overstates his case. I’ll say.
First of all, most of the economic damage is not likely to be permanent. The stock market has lost trillions of dollars, but that is to be expected when corporations behave badly. Many corporations are already changing their accounting practices in response. Eventually, the stock market will rise, and those "lost trillions" will return, unlike the 3,000 people who died on 9/11.
As for lost jobs, it is true that the unemployment rate has risen in the last few months. But it is only 5.8%, quite low by historical standards. Further, we are now pulling out of the recession which means that sooner or later the number of jobs will increase. In other words, the "loss of jobs" is not permanent either.
Next, Cawelti too easily dismisses the effect of the terrorist attacks. First, the attacks did affect the economy negatively: look at what happened to the stock market and airline travel in the weeks following 9/11. If a souring economy "affects us all," than 9/11 affected all of us by impacting the economy.
There are other ways in which the terrorist attacks affected us more than just "emotionally." Has the good professor traveled through an airport post-9/11, for instance? How about attending a big league sporting event? Apparently Cawelti wants to minimize the impact of 9/11 so that the recent corporate scandals look more serious than they really are.
Finally, Cawelti’s email reveals that he still can’t get away form the CEOs/terrorists comparison. Look at the last sentence of the email where he refers to 9/11 as "the other attacks." By implication, the actions of the CEOs involved in WorldCom, Enron, etc. constitute "attacks." This is another manifestation of the moral cluelessness that infects so much of the political left. The actions of CEOs who engaged in accounting shenanigans that bankrupted their companies and defrauded stockholders are described the same way as the actions of an organized group who for months plotted to kill innocent human beings by hijacking airplanes and flying them into buildings. Since so many on the left can’t see any difference between what al Qaeda did on 9/11 and what the U.S. military did in Afghanistan, I suppose it is too much to expect that they’d see much difference between al Qaeda and CEOs.
There is a galaxy’s worth of moral difference between terrorists and CEOs. Thus, Cawelti’s original remarks and his email are both highly in appropriate.
. . .
IF IT AIN’T BROKE….
It’s no secret that the Des Moines Register editorial page is very upset over the attempt by the Buena Vista Buena Vista county attorney to force Planned Parenthood of Greater Iowa to release medical records that might give clues as to who put that baby through a shredder. But now the Register is in a tizzy over something new:
The latest angle to the story emerged when Planned Parenthood filed a motion in court to block the subpoena. District Judge Frank B. Nelson's two-page ruling denying Planned Parenthood's motion was filed with the Buena Vista County clerk of court on July 15, but it became public later that week only after Planned Parenthood's lawyers released a copy to The Des Moines Register.
Indeed, the court clerk still will not release the ruling to the public, saying it is a "confidential county attorney subpoena."
In fact, there is a provision in the Iowa Supreme Court's rules of criminal procedure that provides that a prosecutor's application for a subpoena in criminal cases, and a judge's approval of the application, "shall be maintained by the clerk in a confidential file until a charge is filed."
Why is this a problem?
By itself, this rule is troubling. Prosecutors may need time to subpoena testimony or evidence in some criminal cases without tipping off potential suspects, but it is troubling that Iowa law clamps an automatic lid on all prosecutors" subpoenas, regardless of the merits, and that they could be permanently sealed if criminal charges are never filed. It's conceivable that an innocent party could be the target of an abusive prosecutor, and no one else would be the wiser.
Even more troubling, however, is the idea that all judicial proceedings related to the secret subpoenas - apparently even appeals to the Iowa Supreme Court - would be kept secret, too.
That just cannot be. Public courts are a hallmark of the American system of justice, civil and criminal. We do not have secret tribunals in this country. Whatever the excuse for secrecy in criminal investigations, it simply cannot be extended to the courts.
Notice that the phrase "could be" is employed twice in the paragraph that begins "By itself." Also notice that in the next paragraph what is troubling to the Register is "the idea." Not an actual problem or abuse, but an "idea."
I assume that this practice by court clerks in Iowa has been going on for some time. Thus, if there was a widespread problem with the practice, it should have surfaced by now. But the Register would have us get all worked up over dangers real or imagined.
Last word: In the last paragraph, the Register can’t resist bringing up the notion of "secret tribunals." Typical Register hysteria.
. . .
|
. . .
|
