Good liberals

In today's New York Times and New York Daily News two good liberals step to the plate with reasonable opinion pieces on Iraq and the war on terror. So here are two cheers for Paul Berman in the Times and Stanley Crouch in the Daily News.

Clash of Favorites

Air America blasts Instapundit.

Pass the sunscreen

Count me in. I'm for open government, too, as long as it doesn't compromise the privacy of people, the security of the nation, or hinder the ability of the country to get input from knowledgable sources.

I wish Mr. Podesta had felt this way when Hillary Clinton started her behind closed doors health care meetings, too. But that would have been too much to ask.

Consequently, I'm skeptical of the motivations of Podesta and the organizers of this project. Podesta is too clearly a political animal to believe his motives now are not simply to hurt the current administration to get his party back into power. I worked in Washington briefly and I'm afraid I know how these people (in both parties) think and act. What do you suppose the motivation is for this document request:

3. A list of the contaminants found in the sources of our drinking water.

It may be that Mr. Podesta is truly interested in the safety of the drinking water. However, given the ability of modern instruments to measure very, very small amounts of substances I predict this is an attempt to scare people into thinking the Bush Administration is trying to kill people. This despte the Bush Administration having tightened the water quality standards to levels well cleaner than the Clinton Administration advocated until December of 2000. That is as they were heading out the door. It's all politics.

This particular request bugs me because I see this as evidence that science is being politicized. Both the Clinton Administration and the Bush Administration have been guilty of this. The EPA under Clinton was admonished for scientific fraud by a federal judge. The Bush Administration's position on stem cell research and science in general is weak.

That all being said, I do support the principle that Podesta is advocating in the piece Rhoads linked to below.

Let the sunshine in

One of the things that good liberals dislike the most about the current presidential administration is that they seem to be way too secretive> Now I understand the need for secrets to help protect national security, but I think that much of their secrecy is just to protect their pals (like Ken Lay, e.g.).

Here is a good article by John D. Podesta explaining the resentment that this causes in the liberal community. The last paragraph really gets to the point for me:

This penchant for secrecy undermines America's founding principles. Without reasonable access to government information, the public is unable to evaluate whether the administration is behaving responsibly and in the public interest. Excessive secrecy undercuts confidence in the workings of our government. It's time to let the sunshine in.

Sources please

Rhoads links to an essay from CAP on tax burdens. My first question as I read the piece, "What are your sources?"

A lowly blogger in a garden appartment already covered this here on CwR, with sources (see my prior posts here, here, and here). How hard is that for a bigshot at CAP?

Here's the CAP piece again:

Consider: The top 1 percent of America's taxpayers earn 17 percent of the income and pay 23 percent of federal taxes; the top 5 percent earn 31 percent of the income and pay 40 percent of the taxes; the bottom 80 percent of the earners make 41 percent of the income and pay 31 percent of the taxes (and those numbers are from 2001, the most recent such data available; President Bush's tax cuts have since made the burden on top earners lower). In other words, in aggregate, we have a modestly progressive federal tax system.

Those figures look about like the one's I've cited in my prior posts. As I said, I support a modestly progressive federal (state and local) tax system. What I pointed out, and what I think is worth considering, is that (based upon the figures I cited in prior posts) 40% of the taxpayers pay 83.5% of the federal taxes (all taxes considered as the CAP fellow rightly suggests tax burdens should be calculated). They earn roughly 70-73% of the income, so they should pay more than the lower 60%. The danger is that the 60%, being a solid electoral majority, may be tempted to vote themselves more and more of the money of the 40% through increased taxes on "the rich" and lower taxes on "the poor."

Fortunately, in this country those in the lower quintiles don't view themselves as likely to stay in the lower quintiles for very long. That leads to a more rational tax system than we might expect once we start using taxes on income. The danger is there, though, if people start believing that it's "us" against "them" that the system will get out of control.

I don't think our tax code is as nutty as it was thirty and forty years ago (when John F. Kennedy lowered the marginal rates and slashed capital gains tax rates). But it needs simplifying. I'm with Bill Bradley when he said (in an ESPN ad, of course) that taxes need to raise money in the least intrusive, the least disruptive way. Taxes on income and capital strike me as more destructive of wealth creation (which we should all favor) than consumption taxes. I realize there's an argument that consumption and income are just two sides of the same coin and it doesn't matter which you tax. I'm not persuaded by that argument. I think a consumption tax is less intrusive and less destructive of the productive capacity of a society than are taxes on income and capital.

Repeal the Income Tax Amendment! Then bring on the National Sales Tax!

Phew, they paid

I got the Air America link to open. Nothing yet on the frequency for Boulder. Do we have any ethnic stations for them to push off the air here? My guess is they show up on 1490, Boulder's only AM radio station.

Why the Right's Wrong on Taxes

Here is a article on the real story on Federal taxes. The statistics in it include the numbers for payroll taxes- both employee paid and employer paid. This is my favorite paragraph:

Consider: The top 1 percent of America's taxpayers earn 17 percent of the income and pay 23 percent of federal taxes; the top 5 percent earn 31 percent of the income and pay 40 percent of the taxes; the bottom 80 percent of the earners make 41 percent of the income and pay 31 percent of the taxes (and those numbers are from 2001, the most recent such data available; President Bush's tax cuts have since made the burden on top earners lower). In other words, in aggregate, we have a modestly progressive federal tax system.

Doesn't seem all that unfair to me, although the latest Bush tax cuts will shift it to make it less regressive. Too bad.

Dang that English

I don't think that BOB holds Kerry in contempt. I think that Bob thinks that the troops would hold Kerry in contempt. I think that, because Bob said so. That's why I used that expression. However, I can see the reason for the confusion.

But I also believe that reasonable people are capable of not holding a president in contempt, even if they voted for someone else.

I, for example, did not hold George W. Bush in contempt until he betrayed my trust. Now I do. But I gave him the benefit of the doubt for a while.

Did they pay their bill?

I couldn't open the link. Did Air America pay the web hosting bill?

Why in the world didn't Air America start out in Boulder? I guess there are few people to convert here. If the link ever opens I'll add the station to my headset radio settings. Right now I wear out 560AM. That would be ESPN Radio, baby!

We do have XM Radio, but I don't think the tuner goes to anything but 140. That would be ESPN Radio, baby!

AirAmerica coming to Boulder

Hey! AirAmerica radio is coming to Boulder! Yoo hoo!

(Although I think they have XM radio at the BRG, so they can tune into channel 167. I of course have to use the internet.

Contempt for Kerry? Moi?

For now Kerry's a good source of comedy for me: his looks, the things he says, that sort of thing. How could I feel contempt for a guy who cracks me up just looking at him?

While I don't feel contempt for Kerry (yet, I may tire of him as time goes on) I think the term "contempt" captures the feeling of Lt. Gen. Hudson and a lot of military people. The majority? I can't say, obviously, but I'd bet contempt captures it. Considering that the military people have voted overwhelmingly Republican since, well, since about the time John Kerry returned from Vietnam and accused American soldiers of being murderers and since the time the Democratic Party nominated George McGovern, my guess is that the majority of military people, active and retired, do not support John Kerry and will not vote for him.

So Kerry may be the sort of guy Rhoads would support if he were in the military, but that tells us more about Rhoads than it does about military people.

I'm hardly a military brat, but I do have some relatives who wore the uniform:

Dad, USN
Uncle, USMC
Uncle, USN
Cousin, USMC
Cousin-in-Law, USN
Uncle-in-Law, USAF

Veterans: 6
Kerry voters: 0

Small sample size, but like I said above, the military folks have voted Republican for a long time. Why do you think Gore worked so hard to get their ballots tossed out in Florida?

Lt Gen Hudson

Hmmm. I wonder if this could be your guy. At any rate, I don't know that Gen. Hudson's statements are factual, that they are not highly exaggerated, and that he speaks for the entire military establishment. Hence I don't necessarily think that the troops will hold President Kerry in contempt, as you do. But I really don't know. What I do know is that if I were a troop in war time, I would prefer a command-in-chief who actually served the last time we were in a major war operation to one who used his political contacts to avoid actual combat service. But that's just me.

McCain loses support over Kerry comment

Below is the first paragraph of a letter sent to Senator John McCain from John I. Hudson, Lieutenant General, U.S. Marine Corps (Retired):

I am very disappointed in your statement yesterday (March 18th) that Senator Kerry is not weak on defense issues. Senator Kerry has voted against just about every major new weapons system, voted against most military pay raises, voted against the building of new housing for our troops and their families, voted to reduce spending for intelligence efforts. As far back as 1994 Senator Kerry voted to practically "gut" defense and spending for intelligence. At that time he was taken to task by his fellow Democrats, Senators Inouye, Byrd and DiConcini: but you say he is not weak on defense issues. Will you please tell me who, in the U.S. Senate, has a worse voting record regarding defense, support for our service personnel and support for our national intelligence than Senator Kerry?

Ouch. As I said earlier, senators have trouble winning the White House. They have records on issues of importance that hurt them with significant subsets of the voting public.

The letter concludes:

The greatest disappointment though, Senator, is that your reckless statements now become a threat to the security of our country. I can think of no greater harm to our nation at this crucial time than to have a shameless charlatan like John Kerry to be elected president. Unfortunately, Senator McCain, the Democrats are correct in referring to you as their favorite Republican: you could do no better job for them nor worse for our country.

Earlier Gen. Hudson said he would no longer support Sen. McCain for any public office.

McCain isn't the issue, though. Kerry is. If this is any indication of how military people feel about John Kerry, I find it hard to believe he'd be a good president in times of war. Clinton was certainly not loved by the military, and the world didn't come to an end during his two terms. We'd probably survive Kerry, too. But I don't think it's desirable for the fighting troops to have such contempt for their Commander-in-Chief.

It could be that this letter is an urban legend. It was forwarded to me by my uncle, a retired colonel in the USMC. He got it from a retired Marine friend. My uncle doesn't personally know Hudson, but knew of him while both served in the Corps. That's usually the sort of lineage that indicates you're dealing with an urban legend. I've checked Snopes.com and Googled this letter for a few weeks (since I received it) and it hasn't shown up on any of the debunking sites. I found other references to Lt. Gen. Kelly living in Arizona (where the letter comes from), so for now I'll assume it's legit. Regardless, since my uncle and his friend are both retired military, I don't find it hard to assume that this letter, which my uncle and his friend both chose to spread via email, represents their views and the views of the many military retirees.

Since I don't think Kerry will win many states, this won't be a big issue. But if I'm wrong, it could be a rough four years unless Kerry changes his stripes in office. That's always possible. The office must have a sobering effect.

Babies and Air America

Hey, at least there is something to balance out Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly.

Ones and Zeros

Thanks, Bob for the binary explaination. It took me a while to realize that you were using binary coded decimal (BCD). At first I thought you were saying 145, but now I see you were saying 0x91 (actually 0x091).

I assume you mean 1991.

And again we are in agreement that we attacked Iraq because of 1991. I just don't think that revenge makes for good foreign policy. Go Kerry!

Mamas don't let your babies...

...grow up to listen to Air America.

It'll erode whatever reading or listening skills they once had.

010010001

Is it easier for you to read things in 0s and 1s?

The first Q&A

Q: Mr. President, April is turning into the deadliest month in Iraq since the fall of Baghdad, and some people are comparing Iraq to Vietnam and talking about a quagmire. Polls show that support for your policy is declining and that fewer than half Americans now support it.

What does that say to you? And how do you answer the Vietnam comparison?

BUSH: I think the analogy is false. I also happen to think that analogy sends the wrong message to our troops and sends the wrong message to the enemy.

Look, this is hard work. It's hard to advance freedom in a country that has been strangled by tyranny. And yet we must stay the course because the end result is in our nation's interest.

A secure and free Iraq is an historic opportunity to change the world and make America more secure. A free Iraq in the midst of the Middle East will have incredible change.

It's hard. Freedom is not easy to achieve. I mean we had a little trouble in our own country achieving freedom.

And we've been there a year. I know that seems like a long time. It seems like a long time to the loved ones whose troops have been overseas. But when you think about where the country has come from, it's a relatively short period of time.

And we're making progress. There's no question it's been a tough, tough series of weeks for the American people. It's been really tough for the families. I understand that. It's been tough on this administration. But we're doing the right thing.

And as to whether or not I made decisions based upon polls, I don't. I just don't make decisions that way. I fully understand the consequences of what we're doing. We're changing the world, and the world will be better off and America will be more secure as a result of the actions we're taking.

Asked. Answered.

UPDATE: And the second Q&A:
QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. What's your best prediction on how long U.S. troops will have to be in Iraq? And it sounds like you will have to add some troops. Is that a fair assessment?

BUSH: Well, first of all, that's up to General Abizaid, and he's clearly indicating that he may want more troops. It's coming up through the chain of command. And if that's what he wants, that's what he gets.

Generally, we've had about a 115,000 troops in Iraq. There's 135,000 now as a result of the changeover from one division to the next.

If he wants to keep troops there to help, I'm more than willing to say, "Yes, General Abizaid."

I talk to General Abizaid quite frequently. I'm constantly asking him does he have what he needs, whether it be in troop strength or in equipment. He and General Sanchez talk all the time. And if he makes the recommendation, he'll get it.

In terms of how long we'll be there, as long as necessary, and not one day more. The Iraqi people need us there to help with security. They need us there to fight off these, you know, violent few, who are doing everything they can to resist the advance of freedom. And I mentioned who they are.

And as I mentioned in my opening remarks, our commanders on the ground have got the authorities necessary to deal with violence, and will — will in firm fashion.

And that's what by far the vast majority of the Iraqis want. They want security so they can advance toward a free society.

Once we transfer sovereignty, we'll enter into a security agreement with the government to which we pass sovereignty, the entity to which we pass sovereignty. And we'll need to be there for a while.

We'll also need to continue training the Iraqi troops. I was disappointed in the performance of some of the troops.

Some of the units performed brilliantly. Some of them didn't. And we need to find out why. If they're lacking in equipment, we'll get them equipment. If there needs to be more intense training, we'll get more intense training.

But eventually, Iraq's security is going to be handled by the Iraqi people themselves.

Nah

I don't like any politician that much.

Here's the whole thing

Virginia Postrel wrote:

George W. Bush is not the most articulate of men, but he is really good at one kind of speech: laying out in simple language the way he's thought through a policy decision. He most famously did that on stem cell research. Tonight's speech opening the press conference was another good example. If you've only seen snippets, I recommend reading, watching, or listening to the whole thing. Here's the conclusion:

She then blockquotes the final eight full paragraphs of Bush's prepared speech. Followed by this conclusion:

In the Q&A, Bush was much more expansive, articulate, and comfortable than he's often been in the past.

So let's go over this slowly, in fine Princeton preceptorial fashion:

"George Bush is not the most articulate of men,
No argument there, but not commenting on his presentation or content, yet.

but he is really good at one kind of speech: laying out in simple language the way he's thought through a policy decision.
So he's "really good at one kind of speech." I consider "really good" to be "high praise." Perhaps Rhoads disagrees. Let's see if she applies this praise to Bush's speech last night.

He most famously did that on stem cell research.
Not about last night's speech.

Tonight's speech opening the press conference was another good example.
So Bush's speech was "a good example" of "one kinid of speech" that Bush is "really good at." Seems reasonable to say she was offering high praise to last night's speech. Perhaps "praise" is better. Afterall he didn't go beyond anything he'd ever done before. Fair enough. But I consider "really good" to be "high praise" as I said before. I don't think that's too hard to defend as reasonable.

If you've only seen snippets, I recommend reading, watching, or listening to the whole thing. Here's the conclusion:"
So Virginia recommends that you read, watch, or listen to the whole speech, a speech that she calls "really good" and from which she then reproduces the eight concluding paragraphs.

No, she didn't say, "I highly praise Bush's speech. I offer high praise for the presentation and the content." Being a Princeton grad, I guess Virginia figured her readers could figure that out. I get no indication from what she wrote or block quoted that she did not think highly of what Bush said in his speech.

"In the Q&A, Bush was much more expansive, articulate, and comfortable than he's often been in the past."
In the past he hasn't been too good in similar situations, according to Virginia, but last night he "was much more expansive, articulate, and comfortable." How high this praise is depends upon your opinion of how Bush has done in the past, and how well you think Virginia thought he would do.

I guess "praise" may have been safer than "high praise," but I think my original take stands up to reasonable scrutiny.