Friday, August 16, 2002
DAILY DIATRIBE: THE UP-SIDE OF BLOGGING
A while back, Eric Olsen posted a blog about the “Dark Side” of blogging. While blogging certainly has its downside, it also has its benefits too. I’ve been thinking about this for a while, and it seems to me that there are at least six ways in which blogging has improved my life.
1. Writing becomes easier. I have to write, on average, at least five days a week. (Well, I don’t have to, but I expect it of myself now.) At first, all that writing was difficult. But it is like exercising. At first it is a strain, but eventually you grow accustomed to it. Do it enough and it almost seems easy. Writing is much the same way for me. The more I do it, the less of a hassle it is. The easier the words flow from the brain to the word processor. This has definite side benefits, as my job involves writing. Thus, the writing I do for my blog makes it easier for me to do my job.
2. Practice makes perfect. Well, not quite perfect, but there is a lot of improvement. I’ve noticed that the more I do it, the more I look for new ways to express ideas, for ways to shorten what I write, and so forth. One reason I mention this is that Shelley Powers, who Eric referenced in his blog, gave the following reason why she quit blogging:
And once the words are out and the writing is finished, no matter how terrific the post is, it's slowly pushed down a page and hidden among other postings and blogrolls and blogstickers and other graphics until it eventually falls off the bottom of the page, never to surface again unless some strange person puts a bizarre request into Google that leads to one of our archives.
Truly great writing must be allowed to persist through time and if there's one characteristic common to all weblogs, it's impermanence.
Yes, but truly great writing only comes with a great deal of practice too. Blogging can give one the needed practice.
3. Discipline. Man, has blogging ever forced me to discipline myself. I can’t regularly put out the Daily Diatribe, along with all the other posts, unless I force myself to limit my procrastination and just get on with it. Before I started blogging, I would say that I was a bit—ah hell, a lot!—on the lazy side. I never knew that I had the ability to discipline myself. Now, thanks to blogging, I do.
4. Engaged in the “Debate.” Blogging makes me feel like I’m thoroughly engaged in the debate over ideas. I get to contribute my two-cents worth on the issues of the day, and some people actually read what I say! (Again, thank you to all the people who stop by here.) I suppose it is the difference between sitting on the sidelines, and actually getting to play in the game. This is closely related to…..
5. Venting. I get to comment publicly whenever something peaks my interest or, more importantly, annoys the living snot out of me. Some of you may have noticed that I get very irritated by the Des Moines Register like you may have noticed that the sun comes up every day. Before blogging, each time that happened I’d just have to suck it up. No more. Every time the Register—or anyone else—prints some stupid, irrational drivel, I can show the way to light and truth.
6. New acquaintances. If you’re not like me—someone who works behind a desk all day and is a little shy to boot—you may not realize how important this is. But I’ve met a lot of really nice people who have similar interests. A lot of people, like Eric, Ed Boyd, Henry Hanks, and Geitner Simmons, have been email acquaintances. But others like Bill Quick and Jason Steffans, I’ve met personally. (Furthermore, I’ll get to meet Eric and probably a few others at the end of this month.) Nevertheless, blogging has expanded my pool of acquaintances, and I will be ever thankful for that.
Yes, blogging does have its dark side. But it also has many positive aspects. If it didn’t, I suspect not so many people would do it.
. . .
DEMOCRATS SENDING OUT TRIAL BALLOONS
This article in the Des Moines Register shows that Democrats aren’t actually criticizing President Bush on the coming war with Iraq. No, no. Just that he’s not made an effective case for it. I guess they’re testing the waters, seeing if they can get some traction on this issue.
The most interesting part of the article was the remarks from Senator Lieberman:
U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., said Bush has mismanaged the effort to win the nation's confidence in expanding the war, shown by invasion and airstrike plans leaked to the press in July.
"There's not been a clarity of leadership," said Lieberman, who was in Iowa campaigning for Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack and other Democrats on Wednesday and Thursday.
"Mismanaged the effort to win the nation’s confidence in expanding the war"? Makes sense to me. The American people don’t support a war with Iraq and have no confidence in Bush, do they?
. . .
REGISTER IS REASONABLE?!?!?!?!
I damn near fell out of my chair after reading this editorial in the Des Moines Register.
. . .
ONE REPUBLICAN WHO DIDN’T RUN AWAY AND HIDE
I guess Greg Ganske, GOP nominee for Iowa’s U.S. Senate seat, didn’t get the memo that he was supposed to be afraid of Democrats’ Social Security scare tactics. Although Harkin attacked Gankse on Social Security during President Bush’s visit on Wednesday, Ganske did not back down:
"I will make sure we never privatize Social Security," said Harkin, a Cumming Democrat who was accompanied by U.S. House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt of Missouri, a possible Democratic presidential candidate in 2004. "This is a clear distinction between me and my opponent."
Ganske, a Des Moines Republican, refuted Harkin's description of the Republican proposal.
"Nobody is talking about privatizing all of Social Security," Ganske said. "People should understand that for anyone over 50, there'd be no change at all in any of the proposed plans."
After setting the record straight on privatization, Ganske stood his ground:
Ganske said he thinks the [President’s] plan "is something that we're going to have to look at." He said something must be done for younger workers so they don't face a doubling of the payroll tax or decrease of the Social Security benefit by 25 percent.
"I think, historically, the market does bring in about twice of what a government bond would bring," he said.
Yes, it does.
Stick to your guns Representative Ganske. Hopefully other Republicans will follow suit.
. . .
Thursday, August 15, 2002
BLOGCRITICS
Blogcritics, the brainchild of master blogger Eric Olsen, is now online. I hope to have my first review sometime next week. Anyway, very nice work Eric.
. . .
TOM SOWELL, OH YES
Sowell has one of his masterful "random thoughts" columns. There are little gems aplenty. This is probably my favorite:
Anything that is "bipartisan" is almost certain to have mushy reasoning, if it has any reasoning at all.
. . .
LYING LEGENDS
Croooow Blog notes that Terry McAuliffe has taken lessons from the master, namely, his boss.
. . .
MUD ON MY SHOES AND REGIONS OF MIND
Thanks to a recently received email, I’ve discovered another fine blog out there called “Mud On My Shoes.” It is hosted by Dean Bartkiw out of St. Louis. If you search around the website, you’ll notice a lot of good commentary recently on the subject of employee stock options. Bartkiw has also recently weighed in on the European Union’s lack of respect for sovereignty. Mud On My Shoes is well worth spending some time at. It will likely receive links at this site in the future.
I’ve also been meaning to post something about Geitner Simmons blog, Regions of Mind. Not that he needs any help publicizing his blog. Instapundit recently linked him, and I’m sure the hits exploded. Congrats Geitner!
Geitner has many interesting comments on the coming war with Iraq, including an useful point he makes on the need for Bush to seek congressional approval.
He also has this blog about a Cal Thomas column on Paul Weyrich’s suggestions for a campaign strategy. I agree with Geitner that the suggestions are bad ones (with the possible exception of the pledge of allegiance case; I think Republicans could and should use that to highlight Senate Democrats’ blockage of Bush’s judicial nominees.) But I wouldn’t get too exercised about Weyrich’s suggestions. He hasn’t been a serious player in conservative politics since the early 1980s. Republicans generally don’t listen to him, and they won’t this time.
. . .
DAILY DIATRIBE: AUTO SAFETY VS. GLOBAL WARMING
In an editorial from last Thursday, the Des Moines Register praised California’s new law (signed by Governor Grayout Davis) that mandates a reduction of automobile tailpipe emissions of CO2. The target of this law is Sport Utility Vehicles, or as the Register puts it "big, gas-guzzling SUVs." The Register bases its support for this law on a new report from Environmental Defense, entitled "Automakers’ Corporate Carbon Burdens."
Both the editorial and the report are based on the premise that human-caused global warming is a given. From the editorial:
An environmental advocacy group has issued a new report critical of Detroit's record of building cars that spew increasing amounts of carbon dioxide, the "greenhouse gas" blamed for causing global temperatures to rise.
From the report (page xvi):
The automobile, in tandem with its great success, imposes a number of burdens on societry. One of these burdens, which the United States has not addressed, is its carbon burden, or contribution to global warming.
Yet, as this article by David R. Legates Global Climate Models (GCM), on which the belief that global warming is human induced is based, have very serious limitations. According to Legates, "These weaknesses combine to make GCM-based predictions too uncertain to be used as the bases for public policy responses related top future climate changes." I've also commented on the supposed human link to global warming here. In short, the evidence that global warming is linked to human activity is questionable at best. Public policy should not be based on such limited research.
The editorial and the report also make faulty assumptions about consumer demand for cars. From the editorial:
Detroit's standard response to legislative efficiency mandates is that consumers want big, gas-guzzling SUVs, and it's giving them what what they want. While sales of gas-hogging light trucks and vans have overtaken passenger cars, there is a glimmer of evidence that tastes may be changing.
From the report 9 (page xii):
In this regard, SUVs are not unique, but rather serve as an icon for the trends of the 1990s, during which the auto industry's resources were allocated to provide greater performance and amenity throughout the market while fuel economy remained generally flat within segments.
Excuse, but wasn’t the 1990s consumer demand for SUVs based on safety? At one point I swore if I saw one more SUV commercial with another soccer mom how important safety was to her children I was going to puke.
Indeed, consumers have bought more and more SUVs because they are safer. And they are safer because they weigh more. While human-induced global warming is highly questionable, the link between safety and automobile weight is not. As this article by Alexandra Bourne points out, "The smaller cars that result from Davis’ foolishness will be less crashworthy. Federal Studies indicate that the downsized vehicles caused by government’s current fuel economy standards cause an additional 2,000 to 4,000 traffic fatalities each year."
So the Register is willing to sacrifice the lives of automobile drivers and passengers for the sake of a dubious theory about global warming. To be fair, the folks at the Register probably didn't think about it that way. But then, if the editorial is any indication, they didn't think much at all.
. . .
THOSE DARN IOWANS LOVE BUSH TOO MUCH!
Rob Borsellino has this column in the Des Moines Register on President Bush’s visit to Iowa yesterday. It seems as though he was hoping to find loads of dissatisfied Iowans willing to complain about Bush’s handling of the economy. (Now where could he have gotten that expectation?)
However, he found lots of people who just adore the man:
It was hot, crowded and some folks had to sit there in the sun, waiting for almost two hours. But there was no complaining. Nobody acting like they wanted to be anywhere else Wednesday afternoon. Just the opposite.
Ask around, see what brought folks out to the fairgrounds, into those tight quarters, and the name George W. Bush kept coming up.
And Borsellino can’t resist getting in a little dig at these Bush worshippers:
Several referred to him as "The President of the United States of America," stopping just short of reciting the Pledge - God and all.
Why you dumb, corn-fed hicks! Wake up! Stop your unthinking worship of this president! Don’t you know Bush is a disaster for the U.S.? You should have been at the fair to express your disgust with the man.
Just in case you don’t get the point, Borsellino ends with this paragraph:
In that respect, this Iowa State Fair stopover worked. He got the GOP jazzed, got his picture taken with the Fair Queen and took a few under-the-table shots at Clinton. He got all kinds of applause and didn't have to eat anything on a stick or take part in a contest that involved throwing things.
Yep. Bush had an audience filled with pliant hokies who don’t use silverware. No wonder his visit was a big success.
. . .
REGISTER: MORE FUNDING FOR AMTRAK PLEASE
The disconnect at the Des Moines Register seems to grow by the day. In today’s paper, this editorial on the airlines states:
Although it will be painful for frequent fliers and worse for laid-off workers, surviving airlines must become more efficient, eliminate costly frills and offer more competitive fares.
Until airlines restructure to make that happen, the federal government should not hand out a dime from the bail-out fund.
Actually, that’s not bad advice. I wouldn’t be complaining if it were not for this editorial, also from today, on Amtrak:
The one much-touted exception was Amtrak's Acela Express, which operates between Washington, D.C., New York and Boston at speeds of up to 150 miles an hour. Unfortunately, due to poor track conditions, the Acelas can run at 150 mph for a mere 18 miles between Boston and Washington, and the service was suspended Tuesday when cracks were detected in some of the Acela locomotives' shock absorbers.
Which exposes Amtrak's fundamental problem: Because it is starved for cash, it has cannibalized its operating subsidy to pay for essential repairs. Thus, both service and equipment are inadequate, and travelers are discouraged from choosing to take the train. Who can blame them?
If the airlines need to cut costs, what do you think Amtrak’s needs to do, you mopes? Here’s a hint from your editorial on the airlines:
….the airlines have struggled to get back to normal but their problems have less to do with Sept. 11 than with operating inefficiencies and high fixed costs dictated by contracts with labor unions and vendors.
The Register should take a look a the contract Amtrak has with its labor unions if it wants to understand why Amtrak is such a financial mess. Indeed, the problem is so bad that the taxpayer has to subsidize each Amtrak passenger at a very high cost. As Stephen Moore puts it:
Amtrak was formed in 1970 when the Nixon administration agreed to federalize passenger trains in the wake of the Penn Central ("PC") bankruptcy. The subsidies were to be temporary. But nothing in Washington is ever temporary (except for tax cuts). So some $50 billion (in today's dollars) has been burned by Amtrak locomotives already and the subsidies are getting fatter every year.
It cost taxpayers nearly $100 for every Amtrak rider. On some routes the subsidies can reach $300 a passenger. It would be cheaper for taxpayers to get these folks roundtrip tickets on Southwest Airlines.
That is what happens when the government tries to run something like Amtrak. There is no incentive to keep costs down because the government never goes out of business. In other words, because the government runs Amtrak, there will be money for Amtrak year in and year out, regardless of how poorly Amtrak performs. Since the airlines don’t receive government money (or didn’t until recently) they are faced with bankruptcy and, ultimately, failure if they don’t keep a lid on costs.
Indeed, Amtrak vs. the airlines is a classic case of government vs. the free market. The Register doesn’t seem to grasp that lesson. Go figure.
. . .
Wednesday, August 14, 2002
HANKS IS HOT!
Boy, Croooow Blog is absolutely on fire. There are enough links on his site to choke a hippo, and then come back for more. If you want to know lots of stuff that is not being reported by the mainstream press, visit Henry Hanks site. This one on advertising on 9/11 was my favorite of today.
. . .
CARUSO IS ALSO HOT!
What do Hesiod, Susan Sarandon, Paul Begala, and ugly cars have in common? They’re all at Jay Caruso’s The Daily Rant. And that’s just today.
. . .
NY TIMES DOES HATCHET JOB ON WELFARE REFORM
Mickey Kaus continues his takedowns of Nina Bernstein’s deceptive pieces about welfare in the New York Times.
. . .
BUSH IN POLITICAL TROUBLE?
Far from it, actually. But this article by Byron York in National Review Online about Bush’s slowly declining poll numbers is interesting nonetheless.
. . .
DAILY DIATRIBE: WHICH NEWSPAPER IS HOWELL RAINES RUNNING?
Anyone who has read Andrew Sullivan consistently over the last few months knows that the New York Times, under new editor Howell Raines, has taken to editorializing in its news pages. The Times is at it again today in a “news analysis” piece by Patrick Tyler.
The title of the piece gives us a hint of what is to come: “The Options Limited , Bush Turns to Imagery.”
According to the article, the President was using image to conceal the true George W. Bush:
By staging his economic forum in a populist environment where oil entrepreneurs have weathered booms and busts ever since the first gusher came in at Spindletop in 1901, Mr. Bush presented himself not as an intimate of corporate America but as someone who relates to everyday workers and small-business executives. As he aggressively defended his policies, Mr. Bush's word of the day was "optimism." He was bathed in placards with uplifting messages like "helping workers”….
Though he was born to the Yankee traditions of the East, Mr. Bush often knows how to connect with the populist Southwest, where public testimony, prayer and a little swagger to show your confidence are as comfortable as a cardigan in Kennebunkport.
Got that? W. is not a true Texan, but a wealthy northeastern elitist.
To see the extent of the editorializing, it is useful to compare the analysis piece with today’s Times editorial on the same subject. First the editorial:
President Bush's stage-managed economic forum in Texas yesterday was billed as a chance for average Americans to express their views on the economy….
But it was dismaying that after promising a forum of diverse views, the White House ended up with something so transparently scripted that the words of many of the speakers echoed Mr. Bush's own speeches.
Now, from the Tyler piece:
The president stood at a podium flanked in the diversity of black and white faces, union and management representatives. The tableau was arrayed against the Christian conservative backdrop of the Baylor University campus. The symbols all were intended to underscore Mr. Bush's unifying leadership and strong moral compass....
The report that Mr. Bush heard today from the carefully picked group, was respectful and seemed far removed from the hard edged reality of the unemployment line, the agony of bankruptcy and the grind of economic retrenchment that is roiling through the American economy.
It’s as though the news analysis is providing the evidence for the assertions of stage managing in the editorial. Come to think of it, it probably is.
And just in case you didn’t get the point of what the Times thinks of our current President, the news analysis ends with this slight:
[Bush] promised that he would take the newly passed corporate responsibility law “and we will hold those to account who do not uphold the high standards Americans expect from those of us in positions of responsibility.” Mr. Bush said “us,” though the president is not covered by the law. But accountability is something that every president understands.
Hmm…what is the implication in that? That Bush engaged in business practices that should be covered by the law, but now that he’s president he won’t be held accountable for them? Or perhaps it was just a closing paragraph that wasn’t well thought out. Yeah, right.
Of course, many of us expect this from the New York Times. What we don’t expect is to see this same sort of thing in the OnPolitics section of the Washington Post. Yet the title of Jonathan Weisman’s analysis piece in the Post indicated that, at least for today, such an expectation was not well founded: “A Sunny Thing Happened at the Bush Forum: Tough Economic Issues Get Little Attention.” Indeed, the article began its commentary in the first three paragraphs:
In December 1992, as the economy limped out of recession and a new government faced widening budget deficits and growing pessimism, Paul H. O'Neill stood up at a presidential economic forum to challenge his leaders to raise gas taxes, be bold, even risk reelection on a new economic vision.
“Frankly,” the Alcoa Inc. chief executive grumbled after President-elect Bill Clinton's Little Rock forum ended, “I think if these kinds of things are done again, it would be good to structure some sharp elbows, so that there's more heat of battle and conflict.”
It was done again yesterday in Waco, Tex., with O'Neill serving as treasury secretary and moderator, not curmudgeonly participant. And sharp elbows were nowhere to be found.
So Paul O’Neill was the rebel at the Clinton Economic Forum. But his wings have been clipped for the Bush Forum. Never mind that what O’Neill was urging at the Clinton Forum—higher gas taxes—was exactly what the Clinton Administration intended to propose. No, the implication is that Clinton was open to dissenting ideas, while Bush can only to be told what he wants to hear.
That implication is strewn about Weisman’s piece. To illustrate this, it is again useful to compare the analysis to an editorial, this time with the editorial on the Bush Forum in today’s Post. Here is the editorial:
Among the adoring Cabinet officers and supportive business executives invited to the president's economic forum in Waco, Tex., there was a range of opinion: Some people thought Mr. Bush is doing a magnificent job, while others insisted that he is doing an extremely magnificent job.
Here is the news analysis:
Van Eure, owner of the Angus Barn Restaurant in Raleigh, N.C., seemed to sum up the tone of the forum when she told the president, “I'm just honored to be sitting next to one of my heroes.”
One more comparison. Again, the editorial:
The few discordant notes played at workshops (questioning high executive compensation, for example) didn't reach the summary reports relayed to Mr. Bush. The theme of those reports was that the country needs lower taxes, that most corporate executives are honest and that the solution to corporate scandals is less, not more, regulation.
And the news analysis:
President Bush assured attendees at the half-day economic forum at Baylor University, "Any specific ideas that bubble up, we'll give it a good look."
As it turned out, administration officials have not just given a good look to virtually all the ideas that bubbled up. They've already embraced them. Viewers of the forum, which was broadcast on C-SPAN, would be forgiven if they came away convinced that the nation is united in its strenuous demands for government-backed terrorism insurance, domestic energy exploration and the abolition of the estate tax -- all issues high on the Bush administration's agenda….
The idea was to convince voters of Bush's heartfelt economic concerns, but mainly the president just heard his own ideas bounced back to him.
Much like the New York Times, the news analysis in the Washington Post appears to provide the evidence foe the assertions made in the editorial. This leaves me wondering: Is Howell Raines running the Washington Post too?
. . .
SILLY ARGUMENTS ABOUT THE WAR WITH IRAQ
A good editorial in the Omaha World-Herald putting the smack down on critics who charge that the coming invasion of Iraq is driven by cynical political motives on the part of President Bush.
. . .
ARE WE LIVING IN THE 1930s?
Apparently the Des Moines Register thinks so. Get a load of this paragraph from today’s editorial on President Bush’s economic summit:
The government has already used about all the tools in its kit - lower interest rates, tax cuts, deficit spending.
Those things may have helped, but they don't fix the one big weakness in the economy. They don't correct the imbalance that saw the economic gains of recent decades flow mostly to a relatively few people. The few at the top are already sated with goods and services. And there aren't enough of them to go on the kind of consumer-spending spree that will propel the economy back into a boom. It's the confidence of millions of ordinary Americans that is needed - but they're tapped out.
Actually, the government hasn’t used all its tools—the income tax cuts have been small (larger ones would stimulate much more economic growth) and there has been no cuts in capital gains rates.
But those are minor points compared to the Register’s portrayal of our society as one of haves and have-nots. That is silly, left-wing fantasy. As this article in Business week shows, the people in the middle and the bottom did very well during the 1990s:
Why did workers fare so well in the 1990s? The education level of many Americans made an impressive leap in the '90s, putting them in a better position to qualify for the sorts of jobs that the New Economy created. Low unemployment rates drove up wages. And a torrent of foreign money coming into the U.S. created new jobs and financed productivity-enhancing equipment investment….
A key reason many Americans could take advantage of the New Economy is that they absorbed the big lesson of the 1980s: Education pays, especially in an information-based economy. The latest numbers show that 51% of the adult population now has at least some college education, up sharply from 40% in 1991 and 33% in 1982. Among the critical 25- to 34-year-old age group, the percentage with some college education has risen from 45% in 1991 to 58% in 2000….
But there are plenty of nonroutine tasks that cannot be easily replaced by technology—and those were the ones that boomed in the 1990s. They span a wide range of skill and education levels and include such jobs as sales, truck driving, and network installation….
Sorry, but the U.S. isn’t creating a nation of hamburger flippers. I know that must disappoint folks at the Register, because it provides little support for the redistributionist policies that they favor:
The only prosperity that can be sustained over time is prosperity that is shared broadly throughout the economy. The goal of U.S. policy should be to lift those in the middle- and lower-income brackets.
How?
Mainly by raising wages and salaries.
And how do you do that?
By creating full employment, so the demand for workers drives up wages.
And how do you do that?
One way is to build things - highways, railroads, airports, schools, hospitals. Also, invest more in education and in scientific and medical research. These things put people to work immediately in high-paying jobs at the same time they build the knowledge base and physical infrastructure that will make the economy even stronger in the future.
The prosperity of the last two decades has not been the result of massive government spending. It has been the result of getting government out of the way by means of lower taxes and deregulation. In fact, many of the people at the President’s summit were calling for those things yesterday. Funny how that didn’t make it into the Register editorial.
. . .
Tuesday, August 13, 2002
DAILY DIATRIBE: A GROSS AGENDA?
(Note: My apologies for not posting a Daily Diatribe yesterday. It was a very busy day at work. Should be no problems the remainder of the week.)
An agenda seems to be emerging from the campaign of the Iowa GOP nominee for governor, Doug Gross. I have harped on the need for Gross to present an agenda a time or two, or three, or four. (I harp a lot, don’t I?)
So far the agenda has two prongs. The first is restructuring the state budget. This includes limiting the ability of the state to borrow from one-time funds and putting a wage freeze on state employees. This year the state used funds from the tobacco settlement to plug up holes in the deficit. The problem is that money has to be repaid at some point in the future. Thus, Iowa’s budget problem may get even worse next year, or the year after that. As for freezing state employee salaries, Iowa already has the highest state employee salaries in the nation relative to the private sector.
The second part of the agenda is targeted tax cuts. I can’t find any specifics on which tax cuts Gross would implement, although in this article in the Des Moines Register the spokesman for Gross, Eric Woolson, said that "Gross wants to target certain industries that hold the most promise for growth." Still, it isn’t clear which industries Gross is referring to. And targeted tax cuts are not as good as across the board cuts in personal and corporate income tax rates. Although given the mess that Vilsack has made of the budget, targeted tax cuts may be the best that can be done in the immediate future.
Clearly, Gross needs to provide more details of his agenda, not only on the tax cuts but also on the ways he intends to fix the budget mess. Nevertheless, an agenda is emerging from the Gross campaign. That is good, because the election is just under three months away.
. . .
BAAARRRYYYY!!!!!
Stephen Moore has this tribute to Barry Bonds at NRO. The only thing I disagree with is this line: “Bonds is an average fielder at best.” Yes, average relative to Ozzie Smith, Brooks Robinson, and Roberto Clemente, perhaps. Bonds won eight golden gloves from 1990-1998. Perhaps it depends on what the meaning of the word “average” is.
. . .
GUESS WHO PAYS FOR LIBERAL TOYS?
In Iowa City, a.k.a. the People’s Republic of Johnson County, the renovation of the Englert Theatre has hit a snag. It can’t receive matching Iowa Vision funds. This editorial in the Iowa City Press-Citizen explains why:
Basically, because the city of Iowa City contributed more than $300,000 to the Englert restoration project in the wrong phase of the project (for acquisition rather than renovation), the Vision Iowa board will not count the taxpayers' generous gift as a local match for a Community Attractions and Tourism, or CAT, grant.
As a result, the Englert promoters had to come back to the city, and to the county, to ask for more money earlier this month.
So, how is Iowa City City Council coming up with the money so that the Englert Theatre can receive Vision Iowa money?
This time around, Iowa City councilors took $75,000 from the city's share of federal Community Development Block Grant funding, which is supposed to be used to benefit low- to moderate-income residents, although the council decided earlier this year to set aside 9 percent of that federal funding for economic development. The argument can be made that completing the Englert project is an economic development activity, but the odds that the contribution will help low- to moderate-income residents is a stretch.
"A stretch"? I hereby nominate the Iowa City Press-Citizen for "Understatement of the Year Award for 2002."
For those of you who don’t know, the Englert Theatre is a classical style theatre with only two screens in downtown Iowa City. It has balconies that had to be closed due to building code violations. Its clientele is primarily the well-off residents of Iowa City and the college students. Its employees tend to be college and high school students. The boost renovating it will provide for the local economy is next to nil. Nevertheless, the city council is setting aside part of a federal block grant intended to benefit low-to-moderate income residents so that the Englert can qualify for Vision Iowa funds.
Can you imagine the liberal outcry if part of the block grant was set aside for a tax break for "the rich"? The lefties in the People’s Republic of Johnson County would be pouring out into the street in protest. But apparently it is okay to set aside part of it so the liberal aristocracy can indulge its fantasy of what a theatre should be.
Perhaps I’m wrong. Perhaps the protestors are gearing up in downtown Iowa City. But I doubt it. The lesson here is that it’s okay to divert money intended for low-to-moderate-income residents as long as it is diverted into liberal playthings.
. . .
THE COURIER GETS IT RIGHT, SORT OF
This editorial in the Waterloo-Cedar Falls Courier laments the state of property taxes Iowa. I’m not sure I like the editorial’s implications for commercial property taxes (i.e., raise them); but this closing paragraph hits the mark:
The state property tax system is nearly an inexplicable contortion with so many twists and turns it makes the Internal Revenue Service code akin to the McGuffey Reader. Legislators would do well to simplify it. Outrage from voters in November may provide them with an incentive.
. . .
Monday, August 12, 2002
MORE REGISTER HYSTERIA
The Register editorialists still see a coming Gestapo in the Justice Department decision to round up 1,000 people in the days following 9/11. The editorial ends with this question:
Will the "bedrock values" of criminal justice that Judge Kessler referred to stand, or will we abandon them along with a growing list of civil liberties with the unrealistic aim of eliminating every possible terrorist threat?
Yep, civil liberties are swirling the bowl. The fact of the matter is that the Bush Administration’s response following the attack of 9/11 has been far more restrained than administration responses in previous times of war, like World War II. Surely, legitimate questions can be debated about the administration response, such as have some of the detainees been held too long? But hysteria like that emanating from the Register does little to further that debate.
In short, that the Bush Administration approach to detainees has its problems can be reasonably argued. That it is a full-scale assault on civil liberties cannot.
. . .
YEPSEN DEFENDS GOING TO WAR WITH IRAQ
Another excellent column from David Yepsen. If you don’t have time to read the whole thing, at least click on the link and read the title.
. . .
SOMETIMES YOU’VE GOTTA WONDER…
It is things like this letter to the editor in the Des Moines Register that make those of us on the right to wonder if all our efforts are in vain.
. . .
|
. . .
|
