Friday, October 24, 2003
COMPLETE INABILITY TO CONTEMPLATE CONSEQUENCES
The Des Moines Register has a glaring inability to think through the consequences of the policies it advocates. Yes, I know, like that’s news, right?
Exhibit A is this editorial on nursing homes in Iowa. To avoid more patient abuse, the Register states:
The Legislature should set minimum staff-to-patient ratios. Many of the problems in nursing homes are associated with understaffing. Homes should have to maintain staffing ratios in order to meet licensure standards. The failure to do so would result in the loss of license and the inability to operate a home in this state.
Another case of not having a clue on economics. If nursing homes are forced to abide by minimum staff-to-patient ratios it will drive up their labor costs. If the costs go up, so will the price of nursing home care. And where will that leave low-income seniors?
Demanding subsidies from the government, that’s where! Which is probably what the Register wants anyway. Perhaps they do know the consequences of what they propose…now that’s a creepy thought.
. . .
THE WINDMILLS REALIGN
Over at Tusk and Talon Jeff has an excellent takedown of Rekha Basu’s latest inanity. (Thank you Jeff. Now I don’t have to deal with it.) Here’s a money quote:
The only way wind energy would produce enough electricity to make it useful would be if we built the turbines on the surface of Rekha's tongue and ran it off all the blustering hot air coming from her mouth.
He also has an interesting post on realignment, which he says I inspired. Cool!
. . .
MORE ON YOU-KNOW-WHO
Looks like James Klurfeld over at NewsDay is also unhappy with Krugman’s Tuesday column. And Klrufeld says he has “great respect for Krugman as an economist.” Guess it’s not just us “stalkers.”
. . .
GUESS WHO ELSE USED MAHATHIR'S REMARKS?
TimesWatch doesn’t think too much of the New York Times recent editorial lambasting Don Rumsfeld over the Lt. General Boykin.
. . .
Thursday, October 23, 2003
NOTES ON AN INSTALANCHE
My new column at the American Prowler.
. . .
WHO'LL PAY THE ESTATE TAX
Jeff Utech has an interesting post on that very question.
. . .
W E'RE NOT LEAVING HISTORY TO YOU
After distorting David Kay’s interim report on weapons of mass destruction (takedown is post below), the Des Moines Register editorial page presumes to lecture the Bush Administration on what it should and shouldn’t be doing:
The sad thing is, the spin isn't necessary. History will judge whether the war was a good idea. For now, there's little to be gained by debating it or whining about the press coverage.
Right or wrong, American troops are in Iraq.
All the energies of the administration and war critics alike should be focused on helping them complete their mission of building a free and democratic Iraq.
No, nothing to be gained other than winning in 2004. If the Bush Administration does not promote the good news about Iraq, the major media will fill the vacuum with all of the bad news. The bad news festers and Bush’s reelection chances drop. The Register editorialists seem to think that we’re stupid enough to believe that their only concern with getting Bush off the “Good News in Iraq” tour is to get his attention back on the troops in Iraq.
The Register also presents “history” as a seemingly innocuous concept. In other words, history just judges events, independent of who is actually writing the history. If Bush doesn’t get his side of the story out, we can expect that liberal papers like the Des Moines Register will dispassionately present the history of the War to Liberate Iraq. If you believe that, I have that proverbial bridge to sell you. Conservatives are not going to leave the history of the War to Liberate Iraq to be interpreted by liberal papers like the Register or the New York Times.
Sorry Register, but we’re not that stupid.
. . .
Wednesday, October 22, 2003
KRUGMAN AND MAHATHIR, BEST BUDDIES?
Don Luskin has the goods, and they are pretty damning.
. . .
HYPE AND SPIN
The Des Moines Register editorial page is unhappy that President Bush is out trying highlight the good news in Iraq:
The White House has launched a public-relations offensive to justify the war and to cajole the press into reporting happy news about Iraq. So what else is new? Hype and spin have been integral to the war effort from day one.
You mean the spin that Saddam supported terrorists? You mean the hype that he was a brutal dictator? Oh, wait, they mean this hype and spin:
In the buildup to the war, President Bush made selective use of intelligence to convince Americans that Iraq was bristling with weapons of mass destruction about to be handed to terrorists and used against the United States.
Just more unsubstantiated statements about what President Bush allegedly said about Iraq, much like the bogus “imminent” charge. The closest Bush ever came to saying that terrorists were about to get weapons from Hussein was this passage in the State of the Union:
Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.
Last time I checked, “could provide” is not the same as “about to provide.” As for that intelligence, it was the same intelligence that had Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, Israel, and a whole host of others convinced that Hussein had a bunch of WMDs.
Speaking of spin and hype:
Now 1,500 American inspectors have scoured Iraq for three months and have not found any weapons of mass destruction.
Yes, that’s because Iraq is a big place, and Hussein and his toadies had ten years to practice hiding them. In fact, according to David Kay:
...there are approximately 130 known Iraqi Ammunition Storage Points (ASP), many of which exceed 50 square miles in size and hold an estimated 600,000 tons of artillery shells, rockets, aviation bombs and other ordinance. Of these 130 ASPs, approximately 120 still remain unexamined.
Next,
So the Bush administration has cranked up the spin machine again, making selective use of the interim report of the U.S. arms inspector to make Iraq sound far more dangerous than it was.
Care to give an example? I didn’t think so. So let me give you a few from Kay’s remarks:
A clandestine network of laboratories and safehouses within the Iraqi Intelligence Service that contained equipment subject to UN monitoring and suitable for continuing CBW research.
Reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientist's home, one of which can be used to produce biological weapons.
Continuing covert capability to manufacture fuel propellant useful only for prohibited SCUD variant missiles, a capability that was maintained at least until the end of 2001 and that cooperating Iraqi scientists have said they were told to conceal from the UN.
I don’t know about you, but that seems dangerous enough to me.
And more spin and hype:
In a twist of logic, Americans are now asked to believe that the absence of weapons of mass destruction is somehow proof that the war was unavoidable.
Oh, that is too clever by half. What the Register calls an “absence” is the Bush Administration’s contention, backed up by the Kay report, that Iraq had an infrastructure in place that could produce WMDs. Such an infrastructure would be good justification for going to war. But if you deceptively refer to it as “an absence of WMDs” then the justification evaporates like water on a hot rock.
And then an outright distortion:
The spinmeisters have to strain mightily to read a vindication of the original case for war into arms inspector David Kay's interim report. Essentially, the report said that no weapons of mass destruction have been found, and inspectors will keep on looking.
What a crock! Here’s what Kay said, from the 6th paragraph of his statement:
We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002. The discovery of these deliberate concealment efforts have come about both through the admissions of Iraqi scientists and officials concerning information they deliberately withheld and through physical evidence of equipment and activities that ISG has discovered that should have been declared to the UN.
Is it too harsh to say that the Register editorialists are lying when they say Kay’s report can be summarized as “no weapons have been found”? Or is their interpretation at least defensible? Dunno, but if you’d like to leave a comment on that, please do.
More on the editorial tomorrow.
. . .
Tuesday, October 21, 2003
PAUL KRUGMAN, APOLOGIST FOR ANTI-SEMITISM
Apparently anti-Semitism is okay as long as it is used to placate the population and can be blamed on President Bush’s policies. So says New York Times clown Paul Krugman. Writing about the recent remarks by Mahathir Mohamad, leader of Malaysia, Krugman scribbles:
So what's with the anti-Semitism? Almost surely it's part of Mr. Mahathir's domestic balancing act, something I learned about the last time he talked like this, during the Asian financial crisis of 1997-98.
At that time, rather than accept the austerity programs recommended by the U.S. government and the I.M.F., he loudly blamed machinations by Western speculators, and imposed temporary controls on the outflow of capital — a step denounced by all but a handful of Western economists. As it turned out, his economic strategy was right: Malaysia suffered a shallower slump and achieved a quicker recovery than its neighbors.
What became clear watching Mr. Mahathir back then was that his strident rhetoric was actually part of a delicate balancing act aimed at domestic politics. Malaysia has a Muslim, ethnically Malay, majority, but its business drive comes mainly from an ethnic Chinese minority. To keep the economy growing, Mr. Mahathir must allow the Chinese minority to prosper, but to ward off ethnic tensions he must throw favors, real and rhetorical, to the Malays.
Part of that balancing act involves reserving good jobs for Malay workers and giving special business opportunities to Malay entrepreneurs. One reason Mr. Mahathir was so adamantly against I.M.F. austerity plans was that he feared that they would disrupt the carefully managed cronyism that holds his system together. When times are tough, Mr. Mahathir also throws the Muslim majority rhetorical red meat.
And that's what he was doing last week. Not long ago Washington was talking about Malaysia as an important partner in the war on terror. Now Mr. Mahathir thinks that to cover his domestic flank, he must insert hateful words into a speech mainly about Muslim reform. That tells you, more accurately than any poll, just how strong the rising tide of anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism among Muslims in Southeast Asia has become. Thanks to its war in Iraq and its unconditional support for Ariel Sharon, Washington has squandered post-9/11 sympathy and brought relations with the Muslim world to a new low.
This is easily the stupidest thing Krugman has ever written, if not the stupidest thing ever written. To suggest that the anti-Semitism in the Muslim world is a result of our War to Liberate of Iraq is imbecilic beyond belief. Has Krugman forgotten how the Muslim world has treated Isreal these last, oh, 55 years?
No, he simply ignores it, just like he ignores recent history. He ignores the Palestinians dancing in the street after the World Trade Center collapsed, and he ignores the popularity of Mein Kampf in the Palestinian Territories in the months following 9/11. Clearly, much of the Muslim world would hate us regardless of the War to Liberate Iraq.
Furthermore, Krugman ignores Mahathir’s history of making anti-Semitic remarks. It didn’t take more than 5 minutes of Google searching to find this article detailing Mahathir’s long-time hatred of the Jews. It extends all the way back (at least) to his 1969 autobiography in which he wrote “The Jews ... are not merely hook-nosed, but understand money instinctively.” In 1991 he accused leaders of Australia’s Jewish community of plotting to overthrow him, and in 1994 he banned the movie Schindler’s List from Malaysia because he felt it was pro-Jewish propaganda.
Krugman purposely ignores all that. How do I know that Krugman “purposely ignores” it? Because of the way he whitewashes Mahathir’s 1997 remarks. Although Krugman notes that Mahathir “talked like this” in 1997, he then states that Mahathir “loudly blamed machinations by Western speculators.” Here’s what Mahathir actually said, according to the article in the Sun-Times:
Mahathir told Forbes magazine that his government had "definite information" that George Soros, a Jewish financier, was responsible for the Malaysian economy's collapse. "When a person of Jewish origin does this kind of thing [currency speculation], the effect is the same as when a Muslim carried out something akin to terrorism.
Why did Krugman leave out the fact that Mahathir fingered Soros specifically? Because including it would cast Mahathir in an even worse light and expose his seamy history of anti-Semitism. It would reveal that Mahathir had engaged in anti-Semitism before the War on Terrorism was even a thought, and during periods (the 1990s) when the U.S. did not give Israel unconditional support. That would, in turn, undermine Krugman’s absurd contention that President Bush made him do it.
Krugman’s apologetics are the worst sort. They excuse a bigotry so evil that it resulted in the mass slaughter of 6 million innocents as long as the bigotry is used to pacify domestic discontent. (I wonder if anyone ever said the same about Hitler’s rhetoric in the 1930s? I’m betting someone did.) It also panders to the bigots: anti-Semites in the Muslim world are not responsible for their views because there is a big, mean man in the White House who is making them feel that way.
There are three things to conclude from this. First, Krugman’s willinnginess to excuse anti-Semitism in order to bash Bush policy proves that his hatred of this President is pathological. Second, despite the removal of Howell Raines, the New York Times still suffers from a leadership without any sound judgment. And, finally, Don Luksin recently referred to Krugman as “evil.” Privately, I thought that was a bit over the top. Don, I cannot tell you how wrong I was.
UPDATE: Robert Musil and Scott Wrightson have more.
. . .
THE NEW MORALITY ON PATRIOTISM
If a liberal whines about conservatives questioning his patriotism, and then that liberal turns around and says that a particular conservative is not a patriot, you might think such a liberal was a hypocrite.
A little over a week ago, I had a column in the American Prowler in which I noted that some liberals were doing exactly that.
In response, a Mr. Stephen Powelson wrote a letter that he concluded with the line “Conservatives are not patriots.”
After reading it, I realized that I failed to grasp the new morality. You see, it is not okay for someone to question another’s patriotism. But it is just fine to state matter-of-factly that one is not a patriot. So Paul Krugman can whine about Bush questioning others’ patriotism while simultaneously dismissing conservatives as “self-described” patriots.
So to all of those on the right: learn the new morality, and embrace it. Don’t question leftists’ patriotism; simply state that they are not patriotic.
. . .
Monday, October 20, 2003
I NEVER NEW YOU COULD BE SO PASSIONATE…
…about traffic lights. Over at Tusk and Talon, Jeff is less than thrilled that Hickman Road is about to see a whole bunch of new traffic lights installed. He makes some passionate points—even arguing that running red light shouldn’t be a moving violation.
Let me add one thing about something I read years ago, suggesting that traffic lights might not reduce the number of pedestrian deaths. One of the purposes of traffic lights, of course, is to get cars to stop so that pedestrian can cross the street more safely. But once a traffic light is installed, it may make drivers more careful but pedestrians less so. Since pedestrians assume that the light will stop the traffic, more of them no longer look both ways when crossing the street; thus, they never see the occasional car that does not stop.
I believe the concept is called “risk homeostasis” and a book about it was written by a Professor Leonard Evans. I anyone can correct me on any of this, please let me know.
. . .
GOOD ECONOMICS, BAD PUNDITRY AND REPORTING
Steve Antler notes that budget deficits aren’t nearly as bad as Krugman claims they are.
Meanwhile, Don Luskin does a much deserved hatchet job on the New York Times hatchet job on the Bush tax cut.
. . .
A REALIGNMENT?
Fred Barnes thinks there is a political realignment under way that will favor the Republicans. I agree, because I said it first!
. . .
HOW NOT TO MAKE A BUDGET CRISIS BETTER
Not surprisingly, the Des Moines Register has its undies in a bunch about the revenue shortfalls in the Iowa State Budget. In a commonly feckless editorial, the Register displays the just about every trope of ignorance of the left. It is an editorial worthy of, well, the Register.
1. Government needs every red cent:
Everyone assumed things would get better. Iowa has been slashing budgets for three years on the assumption that the cuts could be restored when the economy turned around.
Who made that assumption? It seems that a budget crisis is the prime opportunity to find out which spending is needed, and which isn’t. Surely, there is always money that government doesn’t need to spend. Unless, of course, your write for the Register.
2. Ignorance about the economy:
Maybe that will still happen. Or maybe the economy has turned around. According to many economists, the recession officially ended in late 2001. So this might be the new normal.
The economy has not turned around (although it may be on the verge of doing so). It is in a recovery, which means little to no job growth. Unemployment is a lagging indicator. The economy sheds jobs well after the recessions begins, and doesn’t regain them until the recovery is well under way. Productivity is rising, and third quarter GDP growth will likely be very high: this means job growth is right around the corner. This is not the “new normal.” For the Register, however, it is the “old ignorance.”
3. The public wants more and more government spending:
Either way, it's time to address revenue shortfalls more boldly. Otherwise, a chronic gap is likely to continue between the level of services Iowans expect, the level of spending by government agencies and the level of tax revenues available.
Who says Iowans expect a certain level of services? Do they expect on the services provided by the Iowa Arts Council, or the Department of Elder Affairs? The underlying assumption in the register editorial and among much of the left is that there is a great hunger among the public for more and more government spending. Perhaps the Register should start questioning its assumptions. I won’t hold my breath.
4. Call for tax increases by not calling them “tax increases.”
Find more sources of revenue (while continuing to trim in nonpriority areas).
“More sources of revenue”? Hold onto your wallets, my friends. Oh, wait a minute! I thought Iowans demanded a certain level of services, and there was a “chronic gap” between what they expected and what government can actually provide. Now we are told there are “nonpriority areas”? Gee, maybe we can stop funding the nonpriority areas, and use the money we save to plug that “chronic gap.” There’s an idea! Can’t imagine why the Register didn’t think of it.
5. Use exciting adjectives that don’t really mean anything:
More dynamically fund economic development to help Iowa grow its way out of shortfalls.
We aren’t just going to fund economic development, we are going to “dynamically” fund it! I don’t have a clue what that means, but I am sure impressed. Perhaps while we’re at it, we can “dynamically” build some new bike trails!
6. Assume there are no cuts to be made in a “priority area”.
Cease - immediately - the stream of cuts to our public schools at all levels.
But as I pointed out last week, education spending is still well up over inflations in the last ten years, while enrollment has declined in the last six. Or how about looking for some education programs that are wasteful? Surely there must be a few.
7. Undercut a major liberal argument and not even realize it:
Schools have been reorganized, but not in a major way since the one-room schools closed a half-century ago. Meanwhile, declining population in rural districts has resulted in inefficiencies and lack of curriculum breadth. The pupil-teacher ratio in Iowa's smallest high schools is 9 to 1. In the largest, it's a more efficient 19 to 1. Establishing regional high schools would increase efficiency while offering students more courses.
Hey! I thought smaller class sizes were essential to good education. There’s not much empirical evidence to support it, but who needs evidence when you want to find excuses to spend more government money? But now the Register is admitting that class size isn’t all that important—that we can get away with a lager class sizes and still educate our kids quite well. The Register editorialists shoot themselves in their collective foot and don’t even realize it. Typical.
About the only good thought they have is local-government consolidation. Other than that, it’s a hodge-podge of tired, worn-out ideas. How about something more original, like spending limits based on inflation and population growth? Yeah, that’ll be the day.
. . .
|
. . .
|
