So is it a campaign trip or isn't it?

How interesting that yesterday his speech in Germany was "not a campaign event" and he was mere there as "a US Senator". When it comes time to visit the troops, now "it would be inappropriate to make a stop to visit troops at a U.S. military facility as part of a trip funded by the campaign". That's disgusting.
Obama Cancels Visit to U.S. Troops in Germany
by FOXNews.com
Thursday, July 24, 2008

Barack Obama’s campaign said Thursday that the Illinois senator opted not to visit U.S. troops at military facilities in Germany because it would be “inappropriate” to make such a stop on the campaign-funded leg of his trip.

The German magazine Der Spiegel reported earlier that Obama canceled a visit to the Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, a military hospital in Germany, and the Ramstein Air Base.

The report came as Obama prepared to speak to thousands at a high-profile address in Berlin.
Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs released a statement saying Obama originally wanted to visit troops at Landstuhl to “express his gratitude for their service and sacrifice,” and noted that he already visited troops in Iraq while he was part of an official congressional delegation.

But he said the second leg of Obama’s trip was different.

“The senator decided out of respect for these servicemen and women that it would be inappropriate to make a stop to visit troops at a U.S. military facility as part of a trip funded by the campaign,” Gibbs said.

John McCain spokesman Brian Rogers said, “Barack Obama is wrong. It is never inappropriate to visit our men and women in the military.”

McCain’s Senate colleague Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., also took a shot at Obama.

“I noticed that Obama had plenty of time to shoot hoops … but he didn’t have the time to stop by (the Ramstein base),” he told FOX News.

The legislative process at work...

CRS Report: 94% of Senate Bills Passed in Secret 
855 bills have passed the Senate with no debate, no amendments, no votes 

July 23, 2008 - Washington D.C. - Today, U.S. Senators Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina) and Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma) released a report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service (CRS) finding that 94 percent of bills the Senate has passed in the 110th Congress have been without a vote, debate or a single amendment. The 855 bills that have been secretly passed spend more than $9 billion, though a final total is not available because many of the bills were rushed through before a cost analysis could be performed.  Wow.

Senator DeMint: “It would surprise many Americans to learn that the ‘World’s Greatest Deliberative Body’ passes the overwhelming majority of legislation without any debate at all. Democrats think they are entitled to pass bills without debate or votes, and they’ve tried to ram them through right before recess to pressure us to give up. But, Senators shouldn’t fear debate on these important bills. It’s in the best traditions of our republic to demand the Senate actually do its job and have a public debate on bills that expand government and increase the burden on taxpayers. Senator Reid can complain all he wants, but Republicans represent millions of Americans whose voices are being silenced by Democrat strong-arm tactics.” 

Dr. Coburn: “The U.S. Senate has a nine percent approval rating because the American people believe that much of our work is done in secret with no debate, no transparency and no accountability. This report shows that the reality is worse than the public’s fears.

[...]

The CRS report states, “[T]he vast majority of measures passed or agreed to by the Senate so far in the 110th Congress have not received formal parliamentary debate on the floor of the Senate.” This practice, known as “hotlining,” has traditionally been reserved for noncontroversial bills with little to no cost to the taxpayer, like the naming of post offices. However, the practice has been abused to sneak through large bills that cost the taxpayers billions of dollars and have significant policy implications. 

On March 3, 2008, U.S. Senator Richard Durbin stated on the Senate Floor: 
“My good friend, the late Congressman from Oklahoma, Mike Synar, used to say: If you don’t want to fight fires, don’t be a firefighter. If you don’t want to stop crime, don’t be a policeman, and if you don’t want to vote on tough issues, don’t run for Congress.” 

“I agree with him. I don’t like facing tough votes, but it is a part of the job. You ought to at least have enough confidence in your beliefs to cast that vote and go home and explain it.”
Highlights from the Congressional Research Service Memorandum – “The Clearance Process in the Senate and Measures Approved in the 110th Congress through June 30, 2008”: 

“Nearly every day the Senate is in session, the majority and minority leaders consult to identify bills and resolutions that have been “cleared” by the Senators in both parties. A measure is considered cleared if no Senator has informed party leadership … that he or she is opposed to passage of the measure without debate.”

This is amazing - 

• Only 56 bills (6%) were passed by vote (53 by roll call vote, 3 by voice vote) 
• 855 bills (94%) were passed by Unanimous Consent (no debate, no vote) 
  
• 388 were passed by UC on the same day they were introduced 
• 381 were passed by UC without debate
• 88 were passed by UC with some debate 
  
• 9 were passed by UC without debate after debate on a Senate companion bill
• 35% of the bills passed by UC were agreed to in the week before a recess 
  
• 52% of the bills passed by UC were agreed to during the two weeks before a recess
  
  

And here I thought it was all in my head...

I especially like the comparison to the rock singer toward the end...

Commentary: Coverage of Obama trip almost embarrassing
By Glenn BeckCNN

NEW YORK (CNN) -- "Sometimes it's hard to tell if Barack Obama is running for president of the United States or Mr. Universe."

If you're guessing that's a quote from Michelle Obama, you're wrong. It was the first sentence of a recent article about Obama's frequent gym visits, published by the esteemed Associated Press.
So many Americans have apparently been worried that Obama might lose his great six-pack abs, the AP felt obligated to step in and put our minds at ease.

"The Democratic presidential contender exercises regularly," the Pulitzer-worthy article continued, "but over a 24-hour span this week, he took it to a new extreme. Twice on Wednesday and again Thursday morning, Obama traveled to a lakefront apartment building near his Chicago home to work out with a friend at his gym."

Whew.

But as a media outlet that claims to offer news "of the highest quality, reliability and objectivity with reports that are accurate, balanced and informed," the AP knew that it couldn't stop there. Its hard-hitting investigation revealed the answer to another question that's kept so many people up at night: "What does Barack Obama wear when he goes to the gym?" The jaw-dropping answer? "A baseball hat, white T-shirt and black sweat pants."

Wow. Sleep well.

But the AP realized that to have its reporting taken seriously, it would need to go even deeper and reveal exactly how much Obama perspires. Fortunately, it has world-class resources at its disposal: "When he shot hoops earlier this year with members of the University of North Carolina varsity men's basketball team, (the photographers accompanying him) didn't see Obama sweat."

My gosh, it's like he's not human! I'm surprised they didn't report how much he bench pressed, the incline level he used on the treadmill or what songs were on his iPod. Then again, I probably just didn't look hard enough.

To reiterate, this wasn't a hometown newspaper, local television affiliates or a left-wing blogger reporting this "news" about Obama's exercise routine. It was a mainstream, international, "unbiased" news organization.

Of course, anecdotal evidence that Obama probably polls somewhere around 95 percent with members of the media has been around for years, but now there are some actual statistics to back it up.

According to the Tyndall Report, a service that monitors the three network news broadcasts, ABC, NBC, and CBS have spent a total of 114 of their national airtime minutes covering Obama since June. They've spent 48 minutes on his Republican rival, Sen. John McCain.

And then you have the almost embarrassing way the media have gushed over Obama's trip to the Middle East. There were 200 requests for the 40 press seats available on Obama's plane, and all three top network anchors (Katie Couric, Charles Gibson and Brian Williams) made the trip and are broadcasting live from each country Obama visits.

You can't buy that kind of publicity. And neither could McCain.

McCain made a trip to the Middle East in March and didn't have to worry about finding seats for any network anchors, because none of them wanted to go. And while Obama was flying from country to country this week in a plane packed with celebrity reporters, McCain flew to an event in New Hampshire. After his Boeing 737 landed in Manchester, he stepped out onto the tarmac and glanced at the one reporter who'd bothered to show up. Yes, one.

And then you have the print media's fascination with Obama. He's been on the cover of U.S. News and World Report, GQ, Rolling Stone, US Weekly (twice), Time and Newsweek (a combined 12 times) and will soon be on the cover of Men's Vogue for the second time. To be fair, Men's Vogue also did an in-depth story on John McCain but, strangely, a photo of McCain didn't make their cover.

Why the disparity? According to Men's Vogue deputy editor Ned Martel, there's a simple explanation: Obama "is what is called in the magazine world an 'interest driver.' " Translation: Obama sells magazines.

As a conservative, I can't argue with that logic. "The Media" aren't around for their health, they're around to make money, and if Obama drives sales or ratings, then I can't really blame them for continuing to tap that well until it runs dry. I could make an argument that McCain's campaign has plenty of interesting angles that would sell and rate -- but, quite honestly, until this media infatuation phase is over, they're not even worth bringing up.

I do, however, find it funny that many of the same people who are clearly not fans of big business or truly free markets have embraced this "run what rates" philosophy. I guess capitalism is evil until it's you whose paycheck is at stake.

But all of this points to a larger point: We've become a country that continually chooses the sizzle over the steak. McCain may not get my vote, but he gets my admiration for at least offering some substance and new ideas when he speaks. Obama, meanwhile, is like the rock star who's realized that he can just scream unintelligible words into the microphone between songs, and the entire stadium will still scream. When your fans already love you, there's no reason to risk it by offering anything that might be controversial. Remember the Dixie Chicks?

As candidates, Barack Obama and John McCain are ironically a lot like the way the media treats them: Obama is the glitzy magazine cover that screams for people to buy the issue, and McCain is the fact-filled article buried inside that makes you glad you did.

Obama's "historic" foreign policy trip

Does anyone else find it ridiculous that Senator Obama is receiving praise for his "landmark" foreign policy trip? The only reason it is "landmark" is because he has such little experience in such matters. To hear reporters, Obama is gaining valuable experience dealing with foreign leaders. Think about that. No one would say that about McCain. The term gaining would be silly - he already has mountains of experience in this area. The commander and chief cannot "gain" enough experience in a week long worldwide tour. He must already have that capability. Obama does not, as the response to his trip inherently concedes. As one author put it,

"[The] message this week [...] is that Obama lacks the judgment and experience to think strategically in a time of war. One does not get that kind of experience in a quickie photo-op tour of the battlefield."

The Democratic Nominee has rarely met with, or had to deal with, the leaders and issues that will shape the future. He had only been to Iraq one other time, he had never been to Afghanistan, and he didn't attempt to meet individually with General Petraeus during either of Petreaus' visits to congress, meeting him for the first time on Monday. His background has never taken him abroad in any official capacity - he has spent almost all of his time in local issues in IL - a worthy and valuable experience but one that does little to prepare you to lead the free world. In his defense, some of this isn't his fault - he is a first term senator. It is unreasonable to expect a first term senator to have the breadth of foreign policy experience that a senior senator would have. SO WHY ARE WE CONSIDERING HIM?!!!???

I confess, I really don't get it - it is just beyond me how he is even in the conversation at this point in his career. Come back to me in 8 years and then we will talk...

In what ways to do we need to be protected from ourselves?

Here is a great example of the "nanny-state" in action. I admit there is a fine line here, as there are some things I want regulated (such as warnings on racy prime-time television shows so parents can make informed decisions for their kids viewing habits) but this is too much. The question I need to address is: where is the line and why do I place the line at that particular point?

Sex PoliceJohn StosselWednesday, July 23, 2008

In a desolate public park in Columbus, Ohio, a man responded to the advances of a topless woman. She asked him to "show me yours." When he did, police officers arrested him. Columbus law says her being topless is OK; exposing his genitalia is not.

Why did cops hide in the shadows to arrest a man no one but they could see?

On last week's "20/20", Dr. Marty Klein pointed out that the police weren't protecting children.
"There were no children anywhere in sight. In fact, there were no adults anywhere in sight."
Klein says it's part of "America's War on Sex."

"American society attempts to restrict what adults can do, what adults can see ... more than any other industrial country."

Ken Giles was jogging in a park in Johnson City, Tenn., when, as he put it, "nature called." He went off the trail to go take care of business. Then an undercover agent "put the badge in my face and told me that I was under arrest. I just thought I was in trouble for urinating in public."
It was much more humiliating than that. The park was the site of a police crackdown on gay men using the park for sex. But the police went beyond arrests. Before anyone was convicted, they posted the names, addresses and photos of the men.

Giles's wife saw his picture on the news. Then his employer fired him. "When I lost my job ... my wife was so upset that she had a ... a major heart attack."

Another man named by the police killed himself.

Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council says he has no sympathy for such sex offenders. "There's not a presumption of confidentiality when you're arrested and charged," he told me.
It's intrusive enough when police arrest someone in a public place, but worse when the police turn their sights indoors, to places where people choose to be exposed to sex.

Chippendales, the male burlesque show, has toured the country for years. Their show is not as racy as you might think. The men dance, show off their bodies and flirt with some women in the audience. There's no nudity.

Chippendales never had a problem with authorities -- until it came to Lubbock, Texas. Ten minutes before their show, the police told the dancers, "Don't ever simulate a sex act."
The dancers did their usual show and then ventured out into the crowd. The police then shut down the show and took the dancers to jail.

The crowd was angry. "City council sucks!" the audience shouted.

Mayor David Miller told me, "In the judgment of our police officers that night, they violated one portion or more of [the city's] ordinance."

What were the police protecting willing adult customers from?

"From these types of activities spilling over into their neighborhood."

Within a week of the Chippendales arrest, three murders occurred in Lubbock. Wouldn't those police officers have been better used elsewhere?

Some states have laws that creep right into the bedroom. In Alabama, legislators banned the sale of sex toys. That upset Dave Smith, whose wife owns Pleasures, "Your One Stop Romance Shop."

"In the state of Alabama I can buy a gun. I can carry it in my pocket. ... But if I buy this [sex toy], someone could get arrested!" Smith said.

The ACLU helped challenge the law. But an appeals court ruled that the politicians have a "legitimate legislative interest in discouraging prurient interests in autonomous sex" -- in other words, masturbation -- because that may be "detrimental to the health and morality of the State."

Oddly, Pleasures is still in business because the law makes an exception if a sex toy is sold for a medical purpose. To buy a vibrator, customers need only answer yes to a questionnaire asking things like, "Have difficulty having an orgasm?"

I asked the Family Research Council's Sprigg whom the government protects when it closes down sex shops.

"The government is protecting actually the people who patronize those shops because I don't think it's in their interest to use pornography and sex toys."

Give me a break.

Facts v. Feelings

McCain has consistently stated that he will make decisions about when to begin removing troops from Iraq based on ground conditions and the advice of his generals. Obama, on the other hand, has set an arbitrary deadline of sixteen months for ending the war. In other words, one candidate’s plan is to follow a strategy that has proven itself successful and make adjustments based on results, whereas the other candidate just wants to get out and go home no matter what. Having all the troops home in sixteen months does sound nice, but that does not mean this is the best strategy for keeping America and the rest of the world safe from terrorism. Unfortunately, I am afraid too many Americans are going to vote for the candidate whose plan makes them feel the best rather than the candidate whose plan will actually make them safest.

The NYT

I am not sure what to think of this. It strikes me as odd that the editor would expect McCain to write a piece that "mirrors Senator Obama's". Why would he?

New York Times rejects McCain editorial
Posted: 01:26 PM ET

The New York Times rejected an editorial written by John McCain.
(CNN) — The New York Times has rejected an editorial written by John McCain defending his Iraq war policy in response to a piece by Barack Obama published in the paper last week.

Read the rejected op-ed

In an e-mail to the McCain campaign, Opinion Page Editor David Shipley said he could not accept the piece as written, but would be “pleased, though, to look at another draft.”

“Let me suggest an approach,” he wrote. “The Obama piece worked for me because it offered new information (it appeared before his speech); while Senator Obama discussed Senator McCain, he also went into detail about his own plans. It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece.”

McCain’s rejected op-ed had been a lengthy critique of Obama’s positions on Iraq policy, particularly his view of the surge. “Senator Obama seems to have learned nothing from recent history,” wrote McCain, criticizing Obama’s call for an early withdrawal timeline. “I find it ironic that he is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by waving the ‘Mission Accomplished’ banner prematurely.”

Obama’s July 14 essay had taken shots at McCain for not further encouraging the Iraqi government to take control of the country.

"Instead of seizing the moment and encouraging Iraqis to step up, the Bush administration and Senator McCain are refusing to embrace this transition — despite their previous commitments to respect the will of Iraq’s sovereign government,” Obama wrote in his op-ed. “They call any timetable for the removal of American troops ‘surrender,’ even though we would be turning Iraq over to a sovereign Iraqi government."

Shipley had advised the McCain campaign that “the article would have to articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq. It would also have to lay out a clear plan for achieving victory — with troops levels, timetables and measures for compelling the Iraqis to cooperate. And it would need to describe the Senator's Afghanistan strategy, spelling out how it meshes with his Iraq plan.” He added that he hoped the parties could “find a way to bring this to a happy resolution.”

McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds said Monday the Arizona senator's position will not change based on the "demands of the New York Times."

"John McCain believes that victory in Iraq must be based on conditions on the ground, not arbitrary timetables," he said. "Unlike Barack Obama, that position will not change based on politics or the demands of the New York Times."

Shipley served as a senior speechwriter in the Clinton administration.

The Times has not yet responded to a CNN request for comment.

A scheduling conflict...what must the soldiers in Iraq think?

As sometimes happens, the Fox News videos are not loading properly on the blog, so I have to link the video.

Link Here

I can't imagine what must run through a soldier's mind when he is told Senator Obama cannot attend the veterans' debate due to a "scheduling conflict". What amazing irony that must be for those soldiers.

What is the Liberal response to this?

 I do not like the title of this article b/c it makes it sound as if the entire article is a political ploy. On the plus side, this article does an excellent job of highlighting an important portion of the Democrats' platform that needs to be more carefully examined.

The Way to Box in Barack on Iraq
Dick Morris and Eileen McGann
Thursday, July 17, 2008

The shadow of the Iraq War still hovers over the 2008 presidential race. In deed, though it's the issue that made Barack Obama (giving him his running room to Hillary Clinton's left), it may now become his chief vulnerability.

Weak on national-security issues, untried, inexperienced and (perhaps) naive, Obama can find the Iraq issue hard to handle - if John McCain plays it right.

Obama has long since won the issue of Iraq-past - opposing the war before anyone and voting continuously and solidly against it when others waffled.

Yet McCain is winning Iraq-present: A majority of Americans believe that the surge is working. Casualties are down so far that the pessimistic left has shifted its doom-and-gloom to Afghanistan.

But McCain's key opportunity is to exploit the issue of Iraq-future.

To start, he must ask Obama: "Why won't your troop withdrawal allow al Qaeda and Iran to move into the vacuum, taking over Iraq to use it as a base for terror against us and Israel?"

Obama will hem and haw, but McCain must keep at him - and force his opponent to confront the consequences.

How will Obama answer?

He can't shift his position on his signature issue much more - or he'd get an even worse rap for flip-flopping. So he'll start by stressing the ongoing troop presence that he'll allow in Iraq.

He has said (vaguely) that he'll permit sufficient troops to cover our pullout, protect our embassy and pursue al Qaeda terrorists. Now he'll try to sell the idea that his gradual withdrawal over 16 months and his ongoing troop commitment will hold al Qaeda and Iran at bay.

But who'll believe that? Experience has taught Americans to expect the worst about Iraq. They're inclined to agree that, if we pull out, al Qaeda will move in. It's also self-evident that Iranian influence will grow as ours' declines. (To the extent that we do believe it, Obama will alienate the left and drive voters to Ralph Nader.)

His next dodge will be to talk up diplomacy - that a dialogue with the mullahs can hold Iran at bay. But no negotiations are possible with al Qaeda - and Americans realize that talks with Iran will go nowhere unless we have the leverage of force. His reliance on diplomacy will come off as naive, reinforcing the impression that he's not ready for the job.

Eventually, he'll have to say he's prepared to go back into Iraq if the situation deteriorates. Voters will realize that a nominal troop presence and diplomacy won't do the job.

That's when McCain moves in for the kill: "So, isn't your rigid adherence to withdrawal inviting a third Iraq War?"

He can claim the mantle of the true peace candidate - saying that he'll stay in Iraq, keep control, build up the Iraqi army and keep US casualties down. Obama's pullout, he can warn, would mean an inevitable third Iraq war. Obama is stuck seeming either naive - or just as likely to get us into a war as President Bush was.

The success of the surge has created an ideal situation for McCain. What had been the chief Democratic argument against the Republicans can now be their best tool to destroy Obama.
   

The right call?

I do not agree with Bill O'Reilly here.  I believe Jesse Jackson's use the "N" word is related to policy - a policy he has been driving for 20+ years.  Why is it not news that a person who frequently causes the media to attack on command based on comments he deems unacceptable (Don Imus) also uses similar (or worse) hurtful language in his everyday conversations?  His hypocrisy is news, and although I appreciate O'Reilly's efforts to spare Jackson personal anguish, I believe Fox News made the wrong call on this one.

 

Who Does Obama Think He Is?

A political messiah, who — unlike Reagan and Kennedy — needn't bother to do anything.

By Charles Krauthammer

Americans are beginning to notice Obama’s elevated opinion of himself. There’s nothing new about narcissism in politics. Every senator looks in the mirror and sees a president. Nonetheless, has there ever been a presidential nominee with a wider gap between his estimation of himself and the sum total of his lifetime achievements?

Obama is a three-year senator without a single important legislative achievement to his name, a former Illinois state senator who voted “present” nearly 130 times. As president of the Harvard Law Review, as law professor and as legislator, has he ever produced a single notable piece of scholarship? Written a single memorable article? His most memorable work is a biography of his favorite subject: himself.

It is a subject upon which he can dilate effortlessly. In his victory speech upon winning the nomination, Obama declared it a great turning point in history — “generations from now we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment” — when, among other wonders, “the rise of the oceans began to slow.” As economist Irwin Stelzer noted in his London Daily Telegraph column, “Moses made the waters recede, but he had help.” Obama apparently works alone.

Obama may think he’s King Canute, but the good king ordered the tides to halt precisely to refute sycophantic aides who suggested that he had such power. Obama has no such modesty. After all, in the words of his own slogan, “we are the ones we’ve been waiting for,” which, translating the royal “we,” means: “I am the one we’ve been waiting for.” Amazingly, he had a quasi-presidential seal with its own Latin inscription affixed to his podium, until general ridicule — it was pointed out that he was not yet president — induced him to take it down.

He lectures us that instead of worrying about immigrants learning English, “you need to make sure your child can speak Spanish” — a language Obama does not speak. He further admonishes us on how “embarrassing” it is that Europeans are multilingual but “we go over to Europe, and all we can say is, ‘merci beaucoup.’ ” Obama speaks no French.

His fluent English does, however, feature many such admonitions, instructions, and improvements. His wife assures us that President Obama will be a stern taskmaster: “Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism . . . that you come out of your isolation. . . . Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.”

For the first few months of the campaign, the question about Obama was: Who is he? The question now is: Who does he think he is?

We are getting to know. Redeemer of our uninvolved, uninformed lives. Lord of the seas. And more. As he said on victory night, his rise marks the moment when “our planet began to heal.” As I recall — I’m no expert on this — Jesus practiced his healing just on the sick. Obama operates on a larger canvas.

Get the Debate Straight

Why do so many “politicians” have a difficult time staying on topic when discussing current US policy in Iraq? I can’t count the number of times I’ve watched critics of the war scramble to avoid answering a question about the success of the surge by proclaiming that we never should have invaded Iraq in the first place. I’ll admit that we may have made serious miscalculations in our decision to enter Iraq, but that’s not the issue now! In fact, if we really should not have entered the country, then don't we owe a duty to its citizens to do all we can to re-stabilize their nation? My point is simply this: the debate about whether we should have gone into Iraq and the debate about what we should do now are two completely different issues. Unfortunately neither side seems to get this. Democrats downplay present successes by pointing to past failures, whereas Republicans ignore previous blunders for stories of current achievement. While both parties may consistently change the scope of debate for their own benefit, in the end, I want a leader with the proven insight to tell me what needs to happen tomorrow and not what should have happened yesterday. As Bush once said “Second-guessing is not a strategy, and hindsight is not wisdom.” Thankfully, due to the great accomplishments of our troops, many critics of the war have been reduced to nothing more than Monday Morning Quarterbacks.

Not so fast...

Obama Takes Surge Criticism Off Website

NEDRA PICKLER | July 15, 2008 05:06 PM EST

WASHINGTON — Barack Obama's aides have removed criticism of President Bush's increase of troops to Iraq from the campaign Web site, part of an effort to update the Democrat's written war plan to reflect changing conditions.

Debate over the impact of President Bush's troop "surge" has been at the center of exchanges this week between Obama and Republican presidential rival John McCain. Obama opposed the war and the surge from the start, while McCain supported both the invasion and the troop increase.

A year and a half after Bush announced he was sending reinforcements to Iraq, it is widely credited with reducing violence there. With most Americans ready to end the war, McCain is using the surge debate to argue he has better judgment and the troops should stay to win the fight. Obama argues the troop increase has not achieved its other goal of fostering a political reconciliation among Iraqi factions.

After Bush delivered a nationally televised address on Jan. 10, 2007, announcing his plan, Obama argued it could make the situation worse by taking pressure off Iraqis to find a political solution to the fighting.

"I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there," the Illinois senator said that night, a month before announcing his presidential bid. "In fact, I think it will do the reverse."

Obama continued to argue throughout 2007 that the troop increase was a mistake. By the early part of this year, he was acknowledging that it had improved security and reduced violence, but he has stuck by his opposition to the move.

[...]

As first reported Tuesday by the New York Daily News, Obama's campaign removed a reference to the surge as part of "The Problem" section on the part of his Web site devoted to laying out his plan for Iraq.

Is this right?

Ok, I am not sure what I think about this story, but it brings up an interesting discussion - should the gov. have the right to take away the children of those with "extreme" views? In Texas, they ruled that they cannot unless it can be proven that the children are being harmed. I can already hear the reasoning - "they are being mentally and socially harmed" - but this reasoning seems weak to me because it could easily be extended to any strict parent. What do you think? Does this mother have a right to her extreme views in the presence of her children and what power does/should the government have in this situation? I know this incident occurred in Canada, but a similar situation could easily arise in the US.

Mother Loses Kids After Sending Daughter to School With Swastika Drawn on Arm
Friday , July 11, 2008

A Winnipeg mother whose children were seized by authorities after she sent her daughter to school with a swastika on her arm says she regrets redrawing the Nazi symbol after a teacher scrubbed it off.

The mother, who considers herself a white nationalist, is fighting the child welfare system to regain custody of her daughter, 7, and son, 2. They were taken away after the girl was sent to school with the swastika drawn on her arm.

Four months ago, her daughter drew a swastika on her arm and went to school, where her teacher scrubbed it off. The mother helped her daughter draw it on her arm again, an act she regrets.

"It was one of the stupidest things I've done in my life but it's no reason to take my kids," the mother told CBC News.

Child and Family Services case workers were alerted and went to the family's apartment, where they found neo-Nazi symbols and flags, and took custody of her son. Her daughter was taken from school.

In court documents, social workers say they're worried the parents' conduct and associations might harm the emotional well-being of the children and put them at risk.

Although she proudly wears a silver necklace that includes a swastika and has "white pride" flags in her home, the mother, who can't be named to avoid identifying her children, denies she's a neo-Nazi or white supremacist.

"A black person has a right to say black power or black pride and yet they're turning around on us and saying we're racists and bigots and neo-Nazis because we say white pride. It's hypocrisy at its finest."

The mother has been fighting in court for four months to get back her children, who are living with extended family. The mother can see her children for two hours a week.

"It's been gut-wrenching. I didn't get off the couch for the first eight days; I just cried. I laid in their bed and held their stuffed animals and just cried. Last few nights, I've been sleeping in my daughter's bed."

She's outraged that the police and child welfare authorities could take her children away because of her beliefs.

"I'm willing to jump through their hoops," she said. "If they want me to deny my beliefs, I'll tell them that, but at the same time, I'm not a traitor to my politics, my beliefs. I just want my kids back."

The case has sparked questions about whether the state has the right to protect children from their parents' beliefs.

University of Winnipeg professor Helmut-Harry Loewen, an expert on hate groups, said while he disagrees with the ideology, he fears taking custody based on beliefs is draconian.

"If children are apprehended based on parents' political or religious beliefs, then one is opening a kind of slippery slope," he said.

But University of Manitoba professor Harvy Frankel, dean of the faculty of social work, said officials did the right thing.

"We should be reassured that this is child welfare practice as it should be."

If the two sides can't resolve their differences next week, they'll go to family court, likely in the

Congratulations - we have finally gone off the deep end

Unbelievable - now we are going to redefine science terms because of political correctness and because ignorant people don't understand the meaning of a natural phenomenon and respond merely to the term.

Texas County Official Sees Race in Term 'Black Hole'
Friday , July 11, 2008

DALLAS — What do "black hole," "angel food cake," and "devil's food cake" have in common?
They're all racist terms, says a Dallas County, Texas, official.
A county commissioners' meeting this week over traffic tickets turned into a tense discussion over race when one commissioner said the county's collections office was like a certain astronomical phenomenon.

"It sounds like Central Collections has become a black hole," Commissioner Kenneth Mayfield, who is white, said during the Monday meeting.

One black official demanded an apology, and Commissioner John Wiley Price, who also is black, said that type of language is unacceptable.

At the meeting, Mayfield said he intended his comments to be taken in the context of the scientific meaning, and became upset that he was being misunderstood.
In astronomy, the term black hole refers to a star that has collapsed upon itself, creating something so dense and small that it does not have any physical properties besides a gravitational force so great that even light cannot escape its pull.

Later, Price told MyFOXdfw.com that he believed it and other terms were racist.
"So if it's 'angel food cake,' it's white. If it's 'devil's food cake,' it's black. If you're the 'black sheep of the family,' then you gotta be bad, you know. 'White sheep,' you're okay. You know?" Price said.

Price said people should watch their words when it comes to stereotypes.
"I think people should always be careful. You know, I'm okay if I'm 'bartering' with you. ... But if I try to 'Jew you down,' Oooooh. Is that racist? I thought it meant the same thing? No, maybe it doesn't."

The world-renowned physicist Stephen Hawking might have a solution to the problem over perception of the astronomical term. He refers to the phenomenon as "a singularity." - Yes, I am sure this is the appropriate response. How ridiculous.

To see a video of the meeting - click here.

Jesse Jackson shows his true colors

I especially like his gesture following the "cut his nuts off" bit. How classy.

Don't hope for a better life...Vote for one...McCain

Is the McCain campaign finally finding its footing? After many message-less months adrift, this is the first ad I have seen that actually connects. Or, at least the 2nd half connects. The first half tries to make a weak contrast between the "summer of love" and McCain's experience as a POW. I wish they would have dropped the summer of love part and just gone with the bio portion. The summer of love piece is distracting and takes away from the main message. The slogan at the end is a winner, though. I suspect we will be hearing variations of this again.

"John McCain doesn't always tells us what we hope to hear - beautiful words can't make our lives better, but a man who has always put his country and her people before self, before politics, can.

Don't hope for a better life...Vote for one...McCain"

President Bush Part 2

And as soon as I post something criticizing the President's communication skills, the next video I come across demonstrates his better qualities

I especially like the quotes - "a President must make decisions based upon principle and must stand by his principles..."

"A President that trys to make decisions based on polls will be a President that fails the American people.

The thing I have always liked about President Bush is that 1) he says what he believes and 2) he stands by his decisions and doesn't waffle when he believes he is doing what is right.

The Current State of the 2nd Amendment Debate

So I really don't understand the current state of the 2nd amendment debate. Everyone seems to focus on whether the 2nd amendment applies to to individuals or to a "well-regulated militia".

It seems to me the debate is not whether individuals can bear arms (most people agree on that at a basic level), but what arms individuals should have the right to own. Reasonable individuals make a distinction between your right to own a single shot rifle and your right to won a personal nuclear weapon. Thus, it seems to me that the real issue is where the line should be drawn when discussing personal weaponry.

Why is it I rarely hear the debate framed this way? It is always presented as an all or nothing choice, but in reality there are various levels of regulation. Does the right to bear arms allow an individual to own an assault weapon? Does a handgun ban violate the 2nd amendment if individuals are allowed rifles and shotguns? This seem to be where the real debate should lie.

What do you think?

The Right to Self-Defense AffirmedBy John Stossel
"Repeal the Second Amendment," The Chicago Tribune editorialized.

"The Supreme Court on Thursday all but ensured that even more Americans will die," said The New York Times.

"[T]he Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms only in relation to service in a state militia." added The Washington Post.

Those are a few of many editorial expressions of disgust from the mainstream media over the Supreme Court's ruling that when the Bill of Rights says that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," it includes the right to possess guns for self-defense, and not merely a right to be armed as a member of the National Guard.

What has caused so much confusion about the Amendment is its preface: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state ..."

In striking down Washington, D.C.'s three-decade-old handgun ban, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that the preface merely "announces the purpose for which the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia" by the new national government. "The prefatory clause," he continued, "does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting."

But for the four dissenters, the preface limits the right to keep and bear arms to military purposes. In their view, if the Framers of the Second Amendment wanted private individuals to have guns for hunting and self-defense, they would have said so.

Justice John Paul Stevens points to "the Second Amendment's omission of any statement of purpose related to the right to use firearms for hunting or personal self-defense."
I suppose one could argue that the omission indicates the Framers of the Constitution didn't mean to protect that right.

But I find that hard to believe. The right of self-defense -- against homegrown tyrants as well as common criminals -- was much on the minds of Americans in the late 18th century. Thomas Jefferson said, "[W]hat country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."

But there is something else that many analysts of the decision have missed.

The Bill of Rights did not create rights. It acknowledged them. Right before the July 4 holiday, it shouldn't have been necessary to remind the four Supreme Court dissenters of what Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. ... "

The Framers of the Second Amendment did not say, "The people shall have the right to keep and bear arms." They wrote, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

This isn't just theory. The Cato's Institute's [www.cato.org] Tom Palmer, an early plaintiff in the D.C. gun case, told "20/20" he is alive today because he was carrying a handgun when he was approached on the street by some toughs. "They told us, 'We're going to kill you.' I showed them the business end of a pistol. They turned around, went away."

The four dissenting justices fear the Supreme Court's decision will unleash a flood of gun violence. Unlikely. "Criminals do not have a problem getting guns," Palmer reminded me. It's law-abiding people who suffer when guns are banned.

The victims of gun crimes are easy to count. What cannot be counted are the lives saved because would-be victims were armed. Palmer's confrontation is one of many that didn't make the news.
He asks, "If someone gets into your house, which would you rather have, a handgun or a telephone? You can call the police if you want, and they'll get there and they'll make a crime report and take a picture of your dead body.

"They can't get there in time to save your life."

Why I am ready to see the end of the Bush era

I think this interview typifies why it is time for President Bush to ride off into the sunset. He has done some great things for this country (no terrorist attacks since September 11) but I am ready for a President that can communicate in a clear, articulate, and intelligent matter. I also find it somewhat insulting that the President believes I should accept his claim that "America doesn't torture" when he refuses to define what he considers torture. Without that clear definition, his claim is worthless. That definition would not require him to reveal specific tactics, as he claims. Notice also he chuckles when Bill O'Reilly says his administration has been called fascist. It is this smug superiority that turns off the average American. Unfortunately, John McCain has been known to exhibit some of those same mannerisms. Being called a fascist is not a laughing matter, and President Bush should take such claims seriously.

July 4th Message

Better to have a July 4 message late than not at all. This is an excerpt from an article by Bruce Walker. If you wish to read the entire article you may find it here.

The Declaration of Independence, like the Constitution, like the Bill of Rights, like the Gettysburg Address, is a short document. The words of Jefferson, in the first paragraph of the Declaration, explain why it is being written: “… when it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect for the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.” A decent respect for the opinions of mankind – that is the reason for the Declaration of Independence.

This was not a document for governments: It was a document for the human race. Those who signed the Declaration of Independence were already dead men, if the war was lost: The signers did not sign their death warrant by affixing their names to this brief declaration, but by warring for two years by land and by sea against their political masters. The Declaration of Independence, unlike the Scottish Declaration of Aborath or the English Magna Carta or Petition of Rights or any other human document in history, proclaimed to all mankind the very foundations of government.

So the short written message to the human race continues, after the familiar “We hold these truths to be self-evident…” to these vital words: “That to secure these rights, Governments are formed among Men, drawing their just powers from the consent of the governed – That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it…”

The Reason for Governments

Governments are formed for one limited, specific reason, proclaimed those men in Philadelphia on July 4, 1776. Men do not form governments to take care of the sick and needy (people of conscience are enjoined to do that out of the fear of God.) Men do not form governments to build schools or fund health care (philanthropists had been doing this very efficiently for thousands of years without a single government bureaucracy.) Men do not even form governments to keep the economy strong or prevent inflation (our government did not even print money for many decades, and it did not permit money which was not redeemable in gold for more than 150 years after the Declaration.)

The Declaration of Independence proclaims, not to governments but to people everywhere, that government is intended to protect us from government. It proclaims that government itself is simply a way of protecting liberty, and that the liberty protected is liberty from government itself. The specific list of abuses listed in the last part of the Declaration of Independence have nothing to do with the Crown failing to provide health care, schools, welfare programs, prosperity, support for farmers, rights for union workers, or any of the other thousand things we little children ask of it now.

That list of abuses in the Declaration of Independence speaks of the bad things that the Crown has done, such as: “He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass the people and eat out their substance.” The signers say that government must not deny the governed their rights to liberty and that when it does so, Nature’s God grants us, the governed, the right to reclaim our liberty. That – liberty, and not independence – is what the Declaration of Independence is all about. On the Fourth of July, we celebrate, or we should celebrate, the divine right of freedom.

Our independence is not independence from Britain, which has turned out to be among the best nations among the community of nations. Our independence is from the old notion that government had a right to exist, without regard to the only truly righteous purpose for that government. We Americans rejected that. We embraced liberty as the purpose of government. So let us celebrate our Declaration of Independence from government as government. Let us celebrate our Declaration of Liberty.

Equal Pay

July 06, 2008
Barack Obama and Equal Pay for Women
By Selwyn Duke

What do you call a man who sermonizes about the evils of paying women less than men but allows that very practice in his own office? While a certain unflattering noun would leap to the mind of most, we can now apply a proper one: Barack Obama.

Although the Illinois senator has vowed to make pay equity between the sexes a priority in his administration, it has been revealed that he doesn't practice what he preaches. Writes CNSNEWS.com:

On average, women working in Obama's Senate office were paid at least $6,000 below the average man working for the Illinois senator . . . . Of the five people in Obama's Senate office who were paid $100,000 or more on an annual basis, only one - Obama's administrative manager - was a woman.

Now, some might call Obama a hypocrite. Isn't he guilty of the very invidious discrimination he claims plagues America? It's certainly easy to take this tack, and many on my side will have a field day doing so. Yet, such an analysis only qualifies us for a job such as, well, working in a leftist senator's office. Let's look a little deeper.

Treating this topic recently, I cited member of the fairer sex Carrie Lukas, who wrote:

All the relevant factors that affect pay -- occupation, experience, seniority, education and hours worked -- are ignored [by those citing the wage gap]. This sound-bite statistic fails to take into account the different roles that work tends to play in men's and women's lives.

In truth, I'm the cause of the wage gap - I and hundreds of thousands of women like me. I have a good education and have worked full time for 10 years. Yet throughout my career, I've made things other than money a priority. I chose to work in the nonprofit world because I find it fulfilling. I sought out a specialty and employer that seemed best suited to balancing my work and family life. When I had my daughter, I took time off and then opted to stay home full time and telecommute. I'm not making as much money as I could, but I'm compensated by having the best working arrangement I could hope for.

Women make similar trade-offs all the time. Surveys have shown for years that women tend to place a higher priority on flexibility and personal fulfillment than do men, who focus more on pay. Women tend to avoid jobs that require travel or relocation, and they take more time off and spend fewer hours in the office than men do.

I then added:

To expand on this, women are more likely to decline promotions citing familial responsibilities; tend to gravitate toward lower-paying fields (e.g., favoring social sciences over hard ones); and, according to US Census Bureau statistics, full-time men average 2,213 working hours a year versus only 1,796 for "full-time" women. Thus, the same data telling us women earn less than men also explains why.

So it's entirely possible that Senator Obama is a sexist, misogynistic creep who gleefully rubs his hands together and laughs demonically while scheming to persecute his female employees. Maybe he has nothing better to do. But far more likely is that the aforementioned factors explain his office's inter-sex pay differential. Perhaps his male employees work more hours, have been more likely to accept promotions involving greater responsibility, have more experience, sacrificed "personal fulfillment" and instead chose more lucrative fields, and/or have greater seniority. Whatever the reasons, I'm quite sure of one thing: The phenomenon is attributable to natural, market-based factors and not a conscious desire to disenfranchise women.

Of course, I could nonetheless level charges of invidious discrimination in an effort to score political points -- just as the senator has done. Instead, though, I will extend him a fairness that he denies to the millions of American businessmen he demonizes through implication. That is the right thing to do, Mr. Obama.

Ironically, fairness is what leftists claim to want to achieve when issuing their feminist, 77-cents-on-a-dollar rallying cry. Yet this is an often ambiguous concept. "OK, Duke," you say, "you want specificity? How about equal pay for equal work?" Well, that's an interesting concept.

I once read that female fashion models earn three times as much as their male peers. Then, it's well-known that heavyweight boxers make more than lightweights. Would you support government intervention to ensure pay equity among fashion models and boxers? I mean, as for the latter, lightweights have to train as hard and also endure ruinous blows.

Of course, you might point out that to succeed in the lightweight division, you only have to beat lightweights, but to keep your teeth in the heavyweight division, you have to beat heavyweights, a more difficult task. So it's fair, isn't it?

I agree, but often fairness is reckoned very differently when the lower-paid group has been assigned victim status. For instance, in tennis, there long was talk about the "grave injustice" of offering female players less prize money at Grand Slam events. Yet it's the same as in boxing. Whether or not the women train as hard, the fact remains that to succeed in women's tennis, they only have to vanquish women, not the far stiffer competition on the men's tour. Thus, in either sport, it's ridiculous to rally for equal pay based on an equality argument because the systems are inherently unequal, in that both lightweight boxers and female tennis players are offered an arena in which to compete that excludes the best competition. Yet the competitors do have recourse. If lightweights want the glory and purses of the heavyweights, they can move up into that division. Likewise, if the women want the men's money, they should play on the men's tour.

Yet this doesn't explain the discrimination against male fashion models in an industry where all and sundry compete in the same arena. They all do "equal work," don't they? Perhaps, and this is the problem with advocating social engineering in the name of fairness.

What we earn has nothing to do with idealistic notions of fairness but is determined by the value the market -- our fellow citizens, in other words -- assigns to our labors. Is it fair that rap thugs and sports stars earn more than doctors and teachers? Is it fair that mainstream media propagandists who peddle the wage-gap myth earn more than an alternative-media journalist who tries to debunk it (well, that's not fair!)? Not just female fashion models but also heavyweight boxers and male tennis players earn more money for one reason, and one reason only. It has nothing to do with performing more arduous or impressive work but because the market values them more highly.

At the end of the day, the only question is who will determine wages and on what basis? Should it be 300 million citizens or a small number of politicians and bureaucrats, a market democracy or market autocracy? In other words, all of us, every day -- through what we buy, watch and show interest in -- essentially "vote" on what will get produced, how much people get paid, etc. Are we fair? Again, fairness is a hard thing to reckon. I can't boast about our embrace of shock jocks and reality television, but I will use a variation on a famous Winston Churchill line: Market democracy is the worst system in the world . . . except for all the rest. I'll take the "unfairness" of the market over that of pseudo-elite politicians any day. Now let's contrast these two models.

Actually, the market does in fact discriminate. It compensates those who work longer hours, accept greater responsibility and risk, prevail over stiffer competition, and/or have great "drawing power" more than those who don't, for instance. (This is why I used the modifier "invidious," meaning "likely to create ill will," earlier in this piece -- not all discrimination is created equal.) And, as I illustrated, certain groups benefit from this moral discrimination, such as heavyweight boxers and men. Then there are groups privileged simply because of what they are, such as female fashion models (however, "what they are" makes their employers more money). Now, I ask again, should the government intervene on behalf of lightweight boxers and/or male fashion models?

Regardless of your answer, a Big Brother market autocracy won't. What it will do is train its sights on only politically-incorrect targets, such as men. Thus, in the name of eliminating discrimination, statists are creating second-class groups which are told that they alone may not enjoy compensation commensurate with the market's assessment of their worth, simply because it's fashionable to discriminate against them. You see, when jockeying for votes by playing group politics, some groups must be cast as villains. And guess what, men, you're one of them.

Now that's what I call invidious.

Not surprisingly, this social engineering is already having an effect. In this article, writer Carey Roberts explains:

Female physicists are getting $6,500 more [than men]. Co-eds who majored in petroleum engineering are being offered $4,400 more. And women computer programmers are being enticed with $7,200 extra pay. In fact for dozens of majors and occupations, women coming out of college are getting better offers than men . . . .

Why these disparities? Because in traditionally male-dominated professions, employers are willing to ante up more greenbacks to attract females in order to forestall a costly discrimination lawsuit.

And this is just the beginning. The left will never acknowledge that men earn more due to legitimate market forces, and since trumping those forces isn't easy, expect more government action to achieve "fairness." I wrote about this in my piece, the one I cited earlier:

. . . we can see a glimpse of the future in Norway, a land synonymous with über-feminism. In 2002, the nation embraced affirmative action on steroids, mandating that 40 percent of corporate boardroom members must be female. Since only seven percent were prior to this social engineering, just imagine how many highly qualified men are now denied jobs in the name of complying with this quota.

The implications of such government meddling are more profound than you may think, in that it harms women and children as well. As I went on to explain:

. . . as we force employers to deny positions, promotions and pay raises to qualified men in order to satisfy social engineers, many men will no longer be able to fulfill their obligation to put bread on the table. And this hurts the traditional family, forcing women out of the home to compensate for their now financially handicapped husbands and relegating children to day-care centers . . . . [And] It means, ladies, that your husbands, brothers and sons will find it increasingly difficult to get a fair shake in this Norway-quota brave new world.

So we can choose the discrimination of the market's meritocracy or that of the statists' bureaucracy. I, for one, will settle on the people's determinations every time.

I say this even if they do sometimes give us things such as rap thugs, reality television, and Barack Obama.

"The sky is not falling. Why not?"

Did I mention I really like John Stossel? Any talk of a recession is factually inaccurate and, in my opinion, journalistically unethical. Feel free to say we "might" be headed toward a recession, but you cannot say we "are" in a recession. That just isn't the case.

Dire News from My Colleagues

John Stossel
Wednesday, July 02, 2008
"It's been described as the most serious financial crisis since the Great Depression. And it brings with it grave dangers for all American families ... ," said Martin Bashir on "Nightline." "Recession looms .... "
On the "Today" show June 20, David Faber referred to "the recession ... these tough economic times." Yet that very day first-quarter GDP was revised upward again to 1 percent.
America is not in recession, and who knows -- maybe we'll be less likely to have one if my compatriots would just chill. A recession is defined as two quarters of negative economic growth. We haven't even had one quarter of negative growth.
Yes, growth has slowed, and many people are suffering because of falling home prices and higher food and energy prices. These are real problems, but watching TV, you'd think we were in a recession so severe it must be compared to the Great Depression.
Maybe I was just watching at the wrong times and just catching some outliers? No. A study by the Business and Media Institute (BMI) found that ABC, CBS and NBC regularly "hyped similarities to the Great Depression."
BMI took a novel approach. It compared the economic-news coverage by the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and Washington Post from Oct. 28 to Nov. 3, 1929, around the time of the stock market crash, with the coverage by ABC, CBS and NBC from March 13 to 19 of this year.
"The difference between how the 1929 and 2008 media handled a crisis was profound -- with modern journalists hyping every event." Today's coverage is much more alarmist. In 2008, few reporters pointed out "the differences between today's economy and the nation's darkest economic years, or bothered to note that America is not in a depression."
So let me stop here to repeat that. We are not in a depression. We are not even in recession. Get a grip, guys. We ought to point out that whatever today's problems bring, we are far away from reliving the Depression.
As Amity Shlaes points out in her book "The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression" -- which has just been released in paperback -- by November 1933, unemployment had skyrocketed to over 23 percent. Think about that: 5 percent unemployment today vs. 23 percent during the Depression. Amidst today's talk of stock market "collapse," remember that during the Depression, the Dow plummeted to 90, a loss of nearly 75 percent of its previous value. "This downturn is to the Depression as a drizzle is to Katrina," says Shlaes, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. "In the Depression, America confronted deflation. There literally wasn't enough money. People made their own scrip, Monopoly money, to pay their bills. In Utah, they made a currency called the Vallar. Today, we are in an inflation. If this period is like anything, it is like the 1970s."
Positive news doesn't fit the narrative. On a day the Dow rose, writes BMI's Dan Gainor, ABC "Reporter Dan Harris seemed puzzled during the ... broadcast of 'World News with Charles Gibson' when he asked: "The sky is not falling. Why not?"
All three major broadcast networks are culpable. But BMI says CBS was the worst. That's typical when it comes to economic coverage, BMI added. "Business reporter Anthony Mason was even called 'the grim reaper' by his own anchor Katie Couric." "Early Show" co-host Julie Chen talked about "a world financial crisis" as if a "crisis" was just a given.
The state of economic reporting in this country is abysmal. We might laugh at it if it didn't have bad consequences. But the more people hear such inappropriate comparisons, the more apt they are to believe them and change their behavior accordingly -- investing less and taking fewer economic risks -- thereby aggravating bad economic conditions.
No wonder, as the Associated Press reported, "U.S. consumers are the gloomiest they've been since the tail end of the last prolonged recession."
I am not saying the 1929 coverage was great; looking back, much of it was naive. I'm also not saying there are no economic problems today. But today's problems are no excuse for reporters to make glib comparisons to the Great Depression.

The Middle Class

The American Dream Goes On
By Mortimer Zuckerman
Posted June 13, 2008


Is the American middle class an endangered species? The majority of Americans have long shared one state of mind: that they are in some central way members of the middle class and hold a passport to the good life.

It's true that there's been a contraction of the number of middle-tier households earning between $45,000 and $90,000. And it's true they are having a tough time. Six in 10 testify to incomes falling behind the cost of living; six in 10 find it hard to pay for gasoline; and five in 10 say they can't afford healthcare. More than a quarter say they have trouble even affording food. To maintain their lifestyle—including those fancy cable TV packages, broadband Internet connections, and travel—they've sent more family members to work, taken on more debt, and borrowed through home equity loans, though the housing slump has undermined that asset.

At the other end of the income spectrum, the well heeled keep doing better. The number of millionaires has shot up, and the wealthiest 1 percent of U.S. families have pushed their share of total national income to levels—21 percent—unseen since the Gilded Age. Yet growing inequality has had little traction thus far as a political issue.

Why is this?

Partly because some have moved up, as economist Stephen Rose points out. There are 12 percent more households earning in excess of $100,000 than 20 or so years ago. And those making less than $30,000 have not increased. So virtually the entire "decline" of the middle-class group has come from people moving up the income ladder, not down.

Higher standards. Those in the middle, and below, are also living better. As William Robert Fogel, the Nobel Prize-winning economic historian, put it, "In every measure that we have bearing on the standard of living...the gains of the lower classes have been far greater than those experienced by the population as a whole." Among the inequalities that have narrowed: The quality of goods at the more moderate price levels has improved faster than at higher price tags; rich and poor are less apart in life expectancy, height, and leisure. It's the attitude of Americans that explains the low combustibility (at the moment!) of income inequality. Most Americans tend to believe that people bear primary responsibility for supporting themselves and that market forces are immune to public policy. There's a reflection here of the optimism and confidence characteristic of American life. In one study by Roland Benabou, more than half of Americans think they will be above the median income in the future (even though that is mathematically impossible). Americans, quite simply, believe that plenty of opportunities exist to get ahead, and, indeed, 82 percent of those born into poverty are much better off than their parents and more than a third of them have made it into the middle class or higher.

Education is another great American success story. There has been a dramatic increase in the percentage of adults completing high school and college. Nearly 90 percent of all adults get high school diplomas today compared with 33 percent in 1947; college graduates have soared from 5.4 percent in 1947 to almost 30 percent today. More than two thirds of Americans concur with the statement that people are rewarded for intelligence and skill—the largest percentage across 27 countries taking part in an international survey of social attitudes. This reflects the widespread belief in the ability to get ahead and helps explain why Americans are more accepting of economic inequality than peoples in other countries and why Americans are less likely to believe their government should take responsibility for reducing income disparity.

For all that, reaction is gathering force in at least two areas. One is an increasing distrust of free trade. There is a widespread conviction that globalization—seen by economists as a boon—holds down earnings for millions of Americans who compete with workers overseas. Free trade has become a political albatross.

Secondly, the level of wealth in the stratosphere of incomes has gotten so extreme that it is provoking a considerable majority to support the notion that wealth should be more evenly distributed through higher taxes.

Senator Obama's plan to take more from people earning $250,000 and above a year, to raise capital gains taxes, and devote some of this money to education may therefore have far more political traction than Senator McCain's intent to maintain the tax cuts of President Bush and, if anything, to expand them. Given that the Bush tax cuts have disproportionately benefited upper-income people, McCain's recommendation may work with the Republican base but most likely will narrow his attraction to the decisive swing voters of the American center—that is, a good part of the middle class.