Thursday, January 23, 2003
OH NO!
It turns out that the murder of an American man Tuesday in Kuwait is doubly tragic for Iowa. Michael Rene Pouliot was an ISU grad.
. . .
LET'S GET TO IT
Okay, as promised, it’s time to put the smackdown on the antiwar editorial in the Des Moines Register. Let’s get to it:
There is no evidence linking Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida.
Actually, not “no evidence,” just not “conclusive” evidence. See this bit by Stephen Hayes in the Daily Standard.
More importantly, the view that this is just a war against al Qaida is myopic. It’s a war against a radical Islam. It’s a war against the purveyors of an ideology of hate and destruction. If we only destroy al Qaida and do nothing about those nations that enable terrorism, some other group will take al Qaida’s place as a major terrorist threat. It will have a ready supply of resources provided by the nations that enable terrorism. Saddam is one the biggest of the enablers.
Iraq poses no imminent threat to the security of the United States.
If by imminent they mean not in the next few months, okay. But Saddam is very much a threat in the long term. As noted above, he is a supporter of terrorism. He supports terrorism in the Middle East, most notably suicide bombers, and has weapons of mass destruction. If terrorists are to acquire WMDs to use against us or other Western countries, they will more than likely get them from Saddam. And if Saddam ever acquire nukes, he will be able to supply his other WMDs to terrorists with near impunity, knowing that his nukes will be a formidable deterrent to a U.S. invasion. We need to invade before he gets such weapons.
Instead of world support, the United States has no allies except Britain in this venture.
El-wrongo. Somebody at the Register needs to check his facts. See Australia, Italy, Qatar, and Yemen.
The U.S. is breaking with tradition. If the United States launches military action, it will be the first time this country has attacked another country unprovoked and without making a clear case that action is necessary.
No, it is not unprovoked. For over a decade Saddam has been flaunting the United Nations resolutions that he is supposed to abide by. Most recently, he has violated U.N. resolution 1441, which requires him to declare all WMDs that he has. He has not done this. As Condoleezza Rice explained in this column in the New York Times, “instead of full cooperation and transparency, Iraq has filed a false declaration to the United Nations that amounts to a 12,200-page lie. For example, the declaration fails to account for or explain Iraq's efforts to get uranium from abroad, its manufacture of specific fuel for ballistic missiles it claims not to have, and the gaps previously identified by the United Nations in Iraq's accounting for more than two tons of the raw materials needed to produce thousands of gallons of anthrax and other biological weapons.”
U.N. inspectors have not uncovered weapons of mass destruction. The empty chemical-weapon warheads found so far are not considered a"smoking gun" by independent weapons experts.
Is the Register implying that Iraq doesn’t have any WMDs because Blix and crew haven’t found any yet?!?! Surely they aren’t that stupid. On second thought:
However, even if the U.N. does find weapons, the only justification for war would be that Saddam is lying about weapons programs.
Is the United States going to invade Iraq for lying?
Maybe.
That’s so idiotic that it doesn’t merit a response. The end.
. . .
I’LL GET TO IT
Yes, I’ve seen the Register’s antiwar editorial this morning. I’ll post something more extensive about it later this evening. For now I’ll just point your attention to two things.
First, note the sentence “Those, like France, that appeared to be committed earlier, are now bowing out.” I don’t recall when the Cheese-Eating Surrender Monkeys “appeared to be committed.” As far as I can remember, they’ve been waffling the whole way. The first person who can find me an article that shows they “appeared to be committed” will receive a free Cornfield Commentary T-Shirt.
Second, compare the Register editorial to this one from the Washington Post. Clearly, some liberals get it.
UPDATE: Found it. William Safire notes in this column that "France sent its aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle to the coming war zone. Chirac made plain that, though a minor and reluctant participant in the attack, France was not to be frozen out of postwar oil arrangements." I'd forgotten all about that. Anyway, since I found it before any of you, no T-Shirt.
. . .
SPEND, SPEND, SPEND!
An article in the Des Moines Register reports that the State Legislature is spending extra money “so that furloughs of prison employees and state troopers are avoided.” It turns out that the state will take in about $100 million more in tax revenue this fiscal year than was predicted.
But it’s going to more than just furloughs:
DEPARTMENT OF INSPECTIONS AND APPEALS: $2.3 million for legal defense of poor defendants.
IOWA PUBLIC TELEVISION: $280,000 for digital television conversion, matching a $525,000 federal grant.
Now given that the Iowa faces a budget shortfall of up to $400 million in Fiscal Year 2004, wouldn’t it make more sense to forgo some that stuff for now, put the extra money in one of the reserve funds, and then use it shore up the budget in FY 2004? Just a thought.
. . .
Wednesday, January 22, 2003
WITH OPPOSITION LIKE THIS….
I just saw Ken Nichols O’Keefe interviewed on FoxNews. Nichols is a former U.S. Marine, former U.S. Citizen who is leading the “Human Shields” effort in Iraq.
What an angry, bitter man. I sure hope the networks keep putting him on. His demeanor will do more to galvanize support for a war than all the pro-war pundits combined.
. . .
LET’S DO SOME BONDING
An article in the Cedar Rapids Gazette from yesterday reveals that Governor Vilsack is considering selling bonds to fund some his economic development initiatives. I haven’t fully thought out the idea of selling bonds yet, so if anyone out there wants to offer some thoughts on this, please do.
I’ll just say this: if Governor Vilsack is in favor of it, it probably isn’t a good idea. Just kidding. Sort of.
. . .
OH CANADA! YOUR DRUGS ARE CHEAPER!
The Des Moines Register is at it again this morning, trying to convince us that the drug companies are screwing the American consumer. Their evidence:
Americans desperate for affordable prescription drugs have long been flocking to Canada to purchase drugs for a fraction of the U.S. cost. The volume of cross-border sales has doubled in the past two years. Drugs from Canada are offered in newspaper ads, on the Internet and through storefronts.
The discounts are so real that the city of Springfield, Mass., is exploring purchasing drugs in Canada for city workers and retirees.
But all good drug discounts come to an end when the major drugmakers intervene. GlaxoSmithKline, a pharmaceutical giant, gave Canadian pharmacists until Tuesday to stop selling drugs to Americans. Or Glaxo will stop selling the drugs to the Canadian pharmacists.
I wonder how many of those Americans are really ‘desperate” or just after a better deal? Oh well, what’s a little hyperbole when there is an agenda to sell?
First, Americans should understand why Canadians get drugs so much cheaper than we do.
Why does it cost $52 for the breast-cancer drug Tamoxifen in Canada and $319 in the United States? Answer: The Canadian government has a single-payer health system that sets the prices it is willing to pay for drugs. Canada has used its bargaining power to leverage drug companies to sell drugs for a certain cost. Apparently, the drugmakers aren't losing money or they wouldn't continue selling to Canada.
The issue isn’t whether the drug companies are losing money in nations like Canada. It’s whether they make enough money under such a system too recover the high cost of bringing a drug to market. Over 50% of new drugs are developed by U.S. companies. The reason for that is they can charge enough to fund the R & D necessary to develop new drugs. If we reduce what drug companies can charge by adopting a system of price controls like Canada, what will happen to the development of new drugs? That’s the question Americans to be asking.
Rather, we get a scolding from the Register:
There's a lesson for America to learn in this.
So why don't we learn it?
Perhaps Americans are simply too proud to acknowledge that another country has been more successful than this one in solving a problem. Perhaps Americans dismiss the Canadian system as too socialistic for a capitalistic society.
The Register fails to mention that the border is a two-way street. When they need treatment, many Canadians come here. The reason is that their “single-payer” (read “government”) system results in rationing and long waits. Something else we should keep in mind before we adopt the Canadian approach.
. . .
Tuesday, January 21, 2003
AH, THAT'S MUCH BETTER
A little sick of the "Not In Our Name" crowd? Then go to this link and sign the "In Our Name" Pledge of Support. You'll feel better. I know I did.
. . .
ALL THE MORE REASON TO INVADE IRAQ
France Vows to Block Resolution on Iraq War
. . .
THE NEW YORK TIMES NEEDS THERAPY
My new column at the American Prowler.
. . .
A TAXLESS SOCIETY?
The Des Moines Register doesn’t care for President Bush’s call for eliminating the tax on dividends. That’s no surprise. What is surprising is the editorialists actually make a reasonable point:
In the future, the most fortunate among us could go through their entire lives without contributing one dime toward the major federal taxes.
Think about it.
First, Bush wants to abolish the estate tax. That means vast fortunes would be passed from one generation to the next tax free. (Now only the first $1 million is tax free.)
The lucky heir who becomes a billionaire without ever having done one lick of work could then invest the fortune in dividend-paying stock and never pay any income taxes. Ever.
Now don’t misunderstand me. The editorial has a good point, but it’s still wrong.
As liberals are wont to do, the Register is only concerned that everybody is paying his “fair share” and completely overlooks any economic benefits of the proposed tax cut. The Bush cut on dividends would now give inheritors of large sums of wealth (actually of any sum of wealth) more incentive to put it into the stock market. That means more amounts of capital for businesses to invest, to expand their operations, and to create new jobs.
Of course, the Register editorialists completely overlook that. But then you’d expect that from folks who think the government can spend the money better than the private sector.
. . .
HOW BAD GOVERNMENT POLICIES GET STARTED
The demonization of the drug companies continues apace. The Des Moines Register approvingly cites the comments of Governor Howard Dean:
He said the first and most important step to controlling the price of prescription drugs is undoing "the last 15 years of anti-competitive rule-making" by Congress. Drugs don't compete on price as other products do, and he said there is no leveraging down of prices as a result.
Also, major drug manufacturers have been caught paying generic firms not to produce the cheaper generic drugs when the patent has expired. Brand-name companies file lawsuits to delay generics from entering the market. Dean denounced these practices and said laws that prevent reimporting drugs from countries such as Canada should be abolished. "There's no reason Americans should pay higher prices," he said.
Never mind how much it costs to bring a new drug to market. Politicians like Dean have decided that drug companies charge too much and they're going to do something about it. I suppose it will just be a matter of time before we get the wonderfully effective government policy know as “price controls”.
. . .
Monday, January 20, 2003
RASPBERRY LOVES RYAN
I figure I’m not going to like any column that begins “Add the name of George Ryan to my short, short list of political heroes.” But this one by William Raspberry is one of the most thoughtful missives on the death penalty that I have seen in a long time. A choice passage:
What makes Ryan's wholesale commutation so appealing to me is that it seems to be driven by the obvious injustice of the existing system -- and perhaps by doubts that it can be fixed.
Those are my doubts as well. I am not an absolutist on the question of capital punishment -- for or against. Every time I come close to deciding that official killing (save in war and police work) is something all civilized societies should abandon, I am hit by some truly horrendous crime that makes me say: Well, maybe this one should get the chair.
Maybe Washingtonians will remember the name of Catherine Fuller, the 48-year-old cleaning woman who in 1984 was robbed and then beaten to death by thugs who left a pipe rammed in her rectum. Marylanders might recall Pamela Basu, who 10 years ago was the victim of a carjacking by two men who threw her baby out of the car and dragged Basu (who became entangled in her seat belt when she tried to get out) more than 100 feet to her death. Most of America knows the name of James Byrd Jr., the Jasper, Tex., hitchhiker who was chained to a pickup truck and dragged to death.
These are among the cases that kept me from being categorical about the death penalty.
My second thoughts now are not about whether such brutal crimes warrant the death penalty but over my new certainty that we often convict the wrong brutes.
If only we could be sure.
Great. Now I've got some doubts. Anyway, go read the whole thing.
. . .
SIZE MATTERS
At the International A.N.S.W.E.R. website: "500,000 Anti-War Protesters Demonstrate in Washington 200,00 March in San Francisco; Hundreds of Thousands More Demonstrate Around the World To Oppose U.S. War With Iraq."
After watching the D.C. protest on C-Span, I think an estimate of a half-million is just a tad overblown. Perhaps C-Span used the wrong camera lense. Or perhaps I'm just biased. Or perhaps A.N.S.W.E.R. just has a problem with the truth.
. . .
A SAD SPECTACLE
That’s the only way to describe the Anti-War Rally in Washington on Saturday. (The video can be viewed at C-Span.)From racial demagogues like Al Sharpton to over-the-hill pop singers like Patti Smith, it was an almagam of the tired, worn-out left. The slogans were trite—"No Blood for Oil!"—or cliché—"Spend money on (insert favorite liberal cause here), Not War!" What the speakers lacked in logic they made up for with shrillness.
Perhaps the most bizarre moment came when Ramsey Clark took the podium. He claimed that President Bush was guilty of impeachable offenses including "assassinations, summary executions, kidnappings and secret holding of people in unlawful detention….and bribery." To think that this man was once Attorney General of the United States is almost as scary as to think Jimmy Carter was once President.
. . .
A SAD SPECTACLE II
Here are photos from the protest in San Francisco. There are more here. I think my favorite is "The difference between Bush and Saddam is that Saddam was elected." But this one has to take the cake. (Thanks to Andrew Sullivan.)
Meanwhile, Belligerent Bunny questions the protestors’ commitment to a "clean environment".
. . .
A SAD SPECTACLE III
Blogger Tacitus is calling on a lot of lefty bloggers to disavow the folks who organized the protests.
Meanwhile, liberal blogger Mike Totten is having none of the protesters nonsense. And he has a link to even more photots.
P.S.: If you need some pro-war paraphernalia go here. (Thanks to Jane Galt.)
. . .
Sunday, January 19, 2003
THEY WERE SERIOUS!
Apparently the Democrats are taking seriously all their talk about how they lost the 2002 election because they didn’t adequately define their differences with Republicans. According to an article in the Des Moines Register, Democrat presidential hopefuls were in Iowa this weekend doing exactly that:
Dean and Gephardt said it's time to repeal the Bush tax cut passed two years ago, while Kerry called for a freeze in the phased-in reductions.
"When I'm president, the first week I'll go to the Congress and I will ask them to rescind all the Bush tax cuts and economic plans that are on the books," Gephardt told party leaders. In their place, he plans to use the money "to get health care for everybody in this country."
And:
Kerry, in his first Iowa visit since announcing his candidacy last month, accused Bush of alienating the international community with his position on the potential for war with Iraq. He said Bush has done too little to rally support from the international community since the United Nations passed a resolution authorizing military force in Iraq, should President Saddam Hussein defy weapons inspectors.
"Let me put it bluntly. We need to win some friends on this planet," Kerry said.
Governor Dean even took pot shots at Bush’s stance on affirmative action:
On Wednesday, Bush called racial preferences in higher education such as those in practice at Michigan "divisive, unfair and impossible to square with the Constitution." Dean told state party leaders that Bush's comments appealed to the white majority's fear of reverse discrimination and said he should apologize….
Dean said Bush "sent a message last week to Latinos, to African-Americans and to poor immigrants that he wishes to reduce the number of those folks who are at our elite medical schools, our elite law schools and our elite institutions around the country."
Going left on the war, taxes, and race. How do you say "Four More Years"?
. . .
|
. . .
|
