Friday, January 30, 2004
AND WE HAVE AN ANSWER…
...to Cedar Pundit’s question, “Who is smoking crack here?” It is Rekha Basu!
Once you are done throwing up after reading her column diatribe thing that should not be written on a roll of Charmin because it is a waste of toilet paper, go read Jeff over at Tusk and Talon. You’ll feel better, I promise.
UPDATE: Royce Dunbar has more.
. . .
DO DEFICITS MATTER?
My new column at the American Spectator.
. . .
ON THAT IOWA RAIN FOREST
Cedar Punidt had a great post on all the hype over Iowa Child, or whatever they are calling it these days. Money quote:
Who is smoking crack here?
. . .
NEA: DO WE CONSERVATIVES EVER LEARN?
As much as I admire Roger Kimball, I could only shake my head after reading his recent piece at NRO. Kimball tires to make the case that the National Endowment for the Arts is something that conservatives can now be proud of:
Under normal circumstances, the White House announcement that the president was seeking a big budget increase for the National Endowment for the Arts might have been grounds for dismay.
Under any circumstances.
But things have changed, and changed for the better at the NEA. The reason can be summed up in two trochees: Dana Gioia, the distinguished poet and critic who is the Endowment's new chairman.
Within a matter of months, Mr. Gioia has transformed that moribund institution into a vibrant force for the preservation and transmission of artistic culture. He has cut out the cutting edge and put back the art. Instead of supporting repellent "transgressive" freaks, he has instituted an important new program to bring Shakespeare to communities across America. And by Shakespeare I mean Shakespeare, not some PoMo rendition that portrays Hamlet in drag or sets A Midsummer Night's Dream in a concentration camp.
One of the reasons I am a conservative is that I am very wary of government power. While I may like what the government does when my ideological brethren hold power, it is important to realize that my ideological brethren will not always hold power. Eventually in a democratic government, someone will take the reigns of power who does not share my view of what constitutes the “social good.” Sure, I’d expect Bush to appoint someone to the NEA who promotes Shakespeare, Rembrandt, etc. But sooner or later, a Democrat will be elected to the White House, and he’ll appoint some two-bit college administrator who desperately wants to hang out with upper-West Side crowd in New York. He will fund stuff like this.
There is plenty of room for debate about whether and to what extent government should be directly involved in funding culture. But there can be no argument that if we are going have public support of the arts, it should be done in an enlightened and life-affirming way. This is the George Bush approach to cultural reinvigoration. Conservatives — by which term I mean people who are interested in conserving what is best from the past — should applaud his efforts. After years in the wilderness, the NEA has finally come home.
That has it completely backwards: there can be plenty of room for debate about art standards, but there should be no debate over whether the government should fund it. It should be obvious that government shouldn’t fund it at all. Government power is inherently evil because it forces people to do things against their will. When government funds the arts, it forces people who do not approve of such programs to fund them via taxes. Because government power is inherently evil, government needs to be limited to only those functions that can’t be provided by the private sector.
But now we have Roger Kimball telling us that conservative should not only be happy about the NEA, but should be happy it is receiving more funding. Sigh. I don’t know whether to interpret that as how far the conservative movement has fallen since Ronald Reagan, or simply how far we still have to go.
. . .
KRUGMAN VS. KAY
Yes, I haven’t dipped into the Krugman well for a while. It’s gotten a little boring because he’s become so predictable.
Not surprisingly, his Friday column has a distortion right in the second paragraph:
Surely even supporters of the Iraq war must be dismayed by the administration's reaction to David Kay's recent statements. Iraq, he now admits, didn't have W.M.D., or even active programs to produce such weapons.
But in his Congressional testimony, Kay stated:
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…New research on BW-applicable agents, brucella and Congo Crimean hemorrhagic fever, and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the U.N.
New research? Continuing work? Perhaps it depends on what the meaning of “active program” is.
Krugman also continues his proud tradition of citing research that has credibility problems:
True, Mr. Kay still claims that this was a pure intelligence failure. I don't buy it: the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace has issued a damning report on how the threat from Iraq was hyped, and former officials warned of politicized intelligence during the war buildup.
Here’s the interesting part about that Carnegie report. One of the authors is Jessica Mathews. About a year ago she wrote a piece for the Washington Post opposing the War to liberate Iraq. Yet in that article, she penned the following line:
We have known for a very long time, or should have known, that Hussein will give up his weapons of mass destruction only when he is convinced that the alternative is his certain destruction and that of his regime.
Clearly, Ms. Mathews believed at the time that Hussein had WMDs. So now why the claim that the Bush politicized the intelligence? Well, the Carnegie Endowment is a liberal organization, it’s an election year, you can fill in the rest.
But hey, look at the bright side. At least Krugman didn’t refer to Carnegie as “non-partisan.”
. . .
BUD AND LOU IN THE 21st CENTURY
My good friend Mark Wrighton emailed this to me today. Enjoy:
ABBOT: Super Duper computer store. Can I help you?
COSTELLO: Thanks. I'm setting up an office in my den, and I'm thinking about buying a computer.
ABBOT: Mac?
COSTELLO: No, the name's Lou
ABBOT: Your computer?
COSTELLO: I don't own a computer. I want to buy one.
ABBOT: Mac?
COSTELLO: I told you, my name's Lou
ABBOT: What about Windows?
COSTELLO: Why? Will it get stuffy in here?
ABBOT: Do you want a computer with windows?
COSTELLO: I don't know. What will I see when I look in the windows?
ABBOT: Wallpaper.
COSTELLO: Never mind the windows. I need a computer and software.
ABBOT: Software for windows?
COSTELLO: No. On the computer! I need something I can use to write proposals, track expenses and run my business. What have you got?
ABBOT: Office.
COSTELLO: Yeah, for my office. Can you recommend anything?
ABBOT: I just did.
COSTELLO: You just did what?
ABBOT: Recommend something.
COSTELLO: You recommended something?
ABBOT: Yes.
COSTELLO: For my office?
ABBOT: Yes
COSTELLO: OK, what did you recommend for my office?
ABBOT: Office.
COSTELLO: Yes, for my office!
ABBOT: I recommend office with windows.
COSTELLO: I already have an office and it has windows! OK, let's just say, I'm sitting at my computer and I want to type a proposal. What do I need?
ABBOT: word.
COSTELLO: what word?
ABBOT: word in office.
COSTELLO: the only word in office is office.
ABBOT: the word in office for windows.
COSTELLO: which word in office for windows?
ABBOT: the word you get when you click the blue w
COSTELLO: I'm going to click your blue w if you don't start with some straight answers. OK, forget that. Can I watch movies on the Internet?
ABBOT: yes, you want real one.
COSTELLO: maybe a real one, maybe a cartoon. What I watch is none of your business. Just tell me what I need!
ABBOT: real one.
COSTELLO: if it's a long movie I also want to see reel 2,3&4. Can I watch them?
ABBOT: of course.
COSTELLO: great, with what?
ABBOT: real one.
COSTELLO: OK, I'm at my computer and I want to watch a movie. What do Ido?
ABBOT: you click the blue 1
COSTELLO: I click the blue one what?
ABBOT: the blue 1.
COSTELLO: is that different from the blue w?
ABBOT: the blue 1 is Realone and the blue w is word.
COSTELLO: what word?
ABBOT: the word in office for windows.
COSTELLO: but there's three words in office for windows!
ABBOT: no, just one. but it's the most popular word in the world
COSTELLO: it is?
ABBOT: yes, but to be fair, there aren't many other words left. It pretty much wiped out all the other words out there.
COSTELLO: and that word is real one?
ABBOT: real one has nothing to do with word. Real one isn't even part of office.
COSTELLO: stop! Don't start that again. What about financial bookkeeping, you have anything I can track my money with?
ABBOT: money.
COSTELLO: that's right. What do you have?
ABBOT: money.
COSTELLO: I need money to track my money?
ABBOT: it comes bundled with your computer.
COSTELLO: what's bundled to my computer?
ABBOT: money
COSTELLO: money comes with my computer?
ABBOT: yes. No extra charge.
COSTELLO: I get a bundle of money with my computer? How much?
ABBOT: one copy
COSTELLO: isn't it illegal to copy money?
ABBOT: Microsoft gave us a license to copy money.
COSTELLO: they can give you a license to copy money?
ABBOT: why not, they own it.
. . .
Thursday, January 29, 2004
GUESS WHO TOOK KRUGMAN TO TASK?
Last year a bunch of us took a lot of heat for saying that Paul Krugman was excusing Prime Minister Mahathir’s anti-Semitism by basically saying that it was Bush’s fault. (Also go here and here.)
Well, look who is giving Krugman a scolding now? It is none other than those raving, unhinged right-wing loon balls at the New Republic.
For Paul Krugman, writing in The New York Times on October 21, Mahathir's anti-Semitic remarks were both "inexcusable" and "calculated," made by a "cagey politician, who is neither ignorant nor foolish." Krugman did not elaborate on why such remarks are "inexcusable." Instead he preferred to see them as reflecting "how badly things are going for U.S. foreign policy." Mahathir may be "guilty of serious abuses of power," but he is also, said Krugman, "as forward-looking a Muslim leader as we're likely to find." Hence he should be encouraged, not denounced. His anti-Semitism is merely "part of Mr. Mahathir's domestic balancing act."
Progressive modernizer that he is, in other words, Mahathir cannot possibly be stupid enough to believe what he spouts, and because he does not believe it, and uses it merely as a tool for the good cause of modernizing Malaysia and combating the Muslim clerics who oppose the acquisition of knowledge, his anti-Semitism is in some way understandable. This is reminiscent of what many said about Hitler's anti-Semitism in the 1930s: it was inexcusable but calculated, and thus it was ultimately both excusable and in the service of a good cause, the modernization of Germany and its reintegration into the community of nations.
For Krugman, Mahathir's "hateful words" serve only to "cover his domestic flank." They do not tell you anything about his own thinking, but they tell 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." And what is the cause of this tide? It is America's "war in Iraq and its unconditional support for Ariel Sharon." Just as Mahathir is not anti-Semitic, but merely a good reader of his people's collective mind, so, too, his people are not anti-Semitic, but merely outraged by the same things that outrage Krugman: Ariel Sharon and George W. Bush.
Hat tip: Don Luskin
. . .
GUESS WHAT THE NEW YORK TIMES WANTS DONE ABOUT THE DEFICIT?
I’m sure you have no clue. In an editorial from yesterday, the Times did put some of the blame for the deficit on spending by Bush and the GOP in Congress. But then the Times gave a pretty big hint as to what they want Congress to do—or, more accurately, not do—about it:
Not only does President Bush insist — as he did a trillion dollars of red ink ago — that the deficit is manageable, but he also wants to make his tax cuts permanent, even though many of them were passed with an expiration date to keep their cost down. That would cost the Treasury an additional $2 trillion over the next decade, the budget office says.
The Times once again proves Thomas Sowell’s dictum: “There are basically only two ways of reducing a deficit — cut spending or collect more taxes. When you see liberals in politics and in the media going ballistic about the deficit, you know that they are not thinking about cutting spending.”
. . .
Wednesday, January 28, 2004
NEW HAMPSHIRE AND BEYOND
Continuing my tradition of bad predictions, here’s some thoughts on what I got wrong from last week on what New Hampshire would mean, and on what it means for next week’s primaries and caucuses.
Okay, it doesn’t look like Joe Lieberman will get out. Come on Joe! You’re finished in this race and, worse, you’re making me look bad. Maybe today will bring some surprise announcement, but he will probably try to hang on through next week. But I can’t see him lasting beyond that unless he gets a win. My guess is that his campaign will be out of money, if not in debt, making future efforts futile.
Looks like Wesley Clark is staying in, and I did say that he would need at least a third place finish (which is where he finished in N.H.) to survive to South Carolina. What happens if he doesn’t do well in South Carolina or some of the other states on that day? Who knows at this point? The Democratic primaries this year are beset with candidates who don’t know their you-know-what from a hole in the ground, so we can’t assume they would know when to get out. Which leads me to…
…Howard Dean. I was very wrong when I wrote, “New Hampshire is now a must win or he is gone. Second place won’t do.” Dean has plenty of money to last a few more weeks, and has the arrogance self-importance belief in himself to stay in the race for a while. There is still the possibility that he could win a state next Tuesday—there are six other states besides South Carolina, including Arizona, Delaware, Missouri, New Mexico, North Dakota, and Oklahoma. If that happens, who knows what is next.
I was very right when I said about John Edwards, “New Hampshire won’t factor much for” him. It didn’t. What matters now is South Carolina. If he can’t win there, he will have a hard time continuing. He probably will even if he doesn’t win S.C., but, again, who knows?
Finally, what I wrote about Kerry is now moot since Kerry won New Hampshire by a sound margin. It’s not a big deal if he doesn’t win in South Carolina since he’s not expected to win. But to continue his status as front-runner, he’ll have to win three of the other six states on February.
That’s all until next week. We’ll then see how much more I’ve embarrassed myself.
. . .
SPENDING ON THINGS WE DON’T NEED
I have to hand it to the Des Moines Register editorial page. They never miss and opportunity to not set priorities.
Now they want to the state to sell bonds (i.e., go deeper in debt) to fund the Vision Iowa and Community Attraction and Tourism (CAT) programs. This comes barely a week after they claimed that taxes needed to be raised to properly fund the state government. I might have more respect for them if they would say, “Let’s not fund Vision Iowa and CAT right now. Those can wait. If we’re going to sell bonds, let’s use the money for the things that are essential.” I wouldn’t support them, but I’d have to begrudge them some respect.
But no. They want to saddle taxpayers with future obligations for programs that are of dubious economic value. And they want to soak the taxpayers at the same time!
I can see the future: all sorts of nice community attractions that no one visits, because Iowa has driven away businesses by taxing all the services they use.
. . .
Tuesday, January 27, 2004
MISSED A FEW THINGS
If you haven't been over to Tusk and Talon--and I haven't in a few days (sorry gents)--you are missing out.
Jeff has a great post on Iowa rainforest boondoggle. My favorite part:
The project's director, David Oman, said, "This will be a national facility. There is nothing like it in our country." Perhaps there is a reason for that, gentlemen. Perhaps that should clue you in.)
He follows that up with a well-thought out post on immigration reform.
Meanwhile, Don has done the definitive work on the grumbling among educators in Iowa about No Child Left Behind. I'd also recommend Tom Sowell's pieces (one, two, three) about teaching to the test. If you read Don's piece, you'll know why I recommend them.
. . .
RADIO APPEARANCE
I will be on the radio this morning, KWKY 1150 AM, with Maxine Sieleman. Topic: State Budget.
. . .
Monday, January 26, 2004
IS BUSH IN TROUBLE?
Andrew Sullivan seems to think so. Twice in the last two weeks he has made a point of elaborating on two polls, one from CBS/New York Times, and the other from MSNBC/Newsweek. Saturday on MSNBC, the news analyst explaining the new poll suggested the numbers signaled some trouble for Bush, since he should have received a post State of the Union bounce in the polls
So what is going on with Bush’s numbers? Four things, I think:
1. So-so State of the Union Speech. A President is only likely to get a boost from the SOTU if it is, in balance, a good speech. While Bush was on his game the first half of the speech, the second half came off as a Clintonite laundry list of mini-initiatives. That may have worked well for Slick Willie, but Bush does better sticking to broad themes. The two haves cancelled each other out, resulting in no bounce for Bush.
2. Bush’s post Saddam capture bounce. Bush probably received an extra four to five point bounce from the capture of the Butcher of Baghdad. That has now passed, so the approval numbers have declined.
3. Lackluster jobs report for December. American only created, on balance, 1,000 new jobs in December. That less than stellar news on the economy has probably sunk in by now with the public, resulting in some downward pressure on Bush’s numbers.
4. A Democratic pounding. Unless you have been living in a cave the last month, the Democrats are getting tons of free air time. That means that attacks on Bush are getting tons of air time with little to no response from the Bush campaign. That will all change once the Democrats have their nominee. But until then, there will be a lot of Bush bashing without any response, thereby resulting in downward pressure on Bush’s numbers.
If the election were tomorrow, Bush might be in some trouble. But until November 1st, the election won’t be tomorrow. So, the current numbers are nothing much to worry about. A likely good report on Gross Domestic Product will be out Friday, and January’s jobs numbers will probably be good given that weekly jobless claims have dropped the last two weeks. With better economic news the Bush poll numbers will rise. By March, the Democrats will have their nominee, and then the Bush campaign attacks will begin. Worse for the Democrats, if Kerry or Edwards is the nominee, he will not have much money to respond to the attacks, at least for a while. That will give the Bush Campaign the time to define the election campaign, much like Clinton did in 1996.
Right now, the polls for the general election are largely meaningless. If Bush is behind his Democratic rival in June, then it is time for the Bush people have cause for concern. But June is still a long way off.
. . .
NOT 1988?
In that same post from yesterday, Sullivan states:
But I have the feeling that the Republican leadership think they have another 1988 on their hands. I'm not sure they do. Kerry isn't Dukakis and the old Finklestein liberal-bashing seems tired to me and to many others.
Uh, yeah, right. I’m sure attacking Kerry as wishy-washy on foreign policy, as unwilling to vote for the Bush tax cuts, and as a Massachusetts liberal will have no effect whatsoever. And all the ads that the Bush folks will run with Kerry looking all buddy-buddy with Ted Kennedy? I’m sure that will have no effect, especially in the South. After all, we all know how popular Ted Kennedy is in the South. And, even if that did have an effect, what does it matter? The Democrats can easily win the election even if they don’t carry any Southern states.
. . .
FURTHERMORE…
Sullivan also notes, “Bush is in a statistical tie with Kerry, Edwards and Clark.” (In fact, Kerry is slightly ahead in the poll.) Well, of course they are. Clark is an unknown, so poll respondents are projecting their hopes for the best candidate onto the General. As for Kerry and Edwards, thus far most Americans know very little about them, save that the two Senators did very well in Iowa. With that positive boost, and thus far little negative coverage, one should expect that they received an after-Iowa boost in their numbers against Bush.
Finally, Sullivan states, “Another interesting nugget: the liberal base seems more fired up than the conservative base - 47 percent strongly want Bush defeated, versus 37 percent who strongly want to see him re-elected. I guess a major anti-gay push is now in the works at the White House.” Oh, come on! Sure the Democratic base is energized—they are the ones having primaries right now! Once the primaries fade and the general election campaign gets underway, the Democratic base will lose some of its energy, and the energy among the Republican base will rise. To turn that into a worry that the Bush Administration will be doing a major anti-gay push is premature, to say the least.
. . .
|
. . .
|
