|
RattlerGator
****************************************************************************************************************
RattlerGator Blog Archives
May - June 2004; July 2004; August 2004; Sep 2004
Oct 2004; Nov 2004; Dec 2004
Archive
of January 1 – 10, 2005 Presented Below
Back to RattlerGator Blog
****************************************************************************************************************
January 10, 2005
RatherGate Report
RatherGate.com; RatherBiased.com; memeorandum.com; Instapundit.com; PowerLineBlog.com;
That’s just for starters; this news will be chewed on for weeks.
****************************************************************************************************************
Nelson Mandela’s son, Makgatho Mandela, 54, dies from AIDS:
On Thursday [January 6th], as he announced
the cause of his son's death, the 86-year-old former president said: "Let us give publicity to HIV/Aids and not hide it, because
[that is] the only way to make it appear like a normal illness."
Makgatho's wife Zondi died of pneumonia last year.
The struggle of life for Nelson Mandela continues. But, for an interesting addition to
this discussion that I haven’t really been able to check out (but the little that I’ve seen looks interesting
as hell), check out this post from Dean Esmay:
Now, an interesting fact is that the mainline AIDS establishment has for years been loathe to acknowledge people who
are HIV+ but refuse medication and never get sick. See, for example, the recent documentary The Other Side Of AIDS, which interviews a number of people who are HIV+ and healthy, some going on 20 years now. See also support groups
such as Alive & Well, and related groups found in New York, Portland, San Diego, and Toronto, with numerous members who are HIV+ but refuse to take the "safe" cocktail medications. Many of these groups have
been around as long as ten years, with members who can document HIV+ status of 10, 15, even 20 years and are still alive and
well--and med-free. See also Kim Bannon.
Wow, talk about an interesting angle on a complex story!
****************************************************************************************************************
Jason Van Steenwyk comments on the dumber and dumber calls for Donald Rumsfeld’s resignation:
Wanna
help troops? Bitchslap the cocktail-swilling milquetoasts on the editorial page of the New York Times who are so easily spooked
they want to postpone the elections in Iraq, and the defeatist mopes at The Nation who as recently as October were pushing
for a cut-and-run by the New Year. Publicly excoriate them. Make them out to be the fools that they are. Commit the nation
to winning.
And worry less about what the insurgents are doing to us and worry more about what we're going to do to
the insurgents.
The U.S. military did not do these things because of Rumsfeld's
choices.
It's clear that Kagan [in the latest edition of The Weekly Standard] doesn't quite know
what the military has or has not done. Nor does he offer a productive plan to utilize additional troops he thinks we need.
I tell you, there were no proposals on the table to expand the Army by enough troops to take on the missions he delineates.
All of them defensive missions, by the way. Not one idea about how to reach out and clobber the insurgent.
What a
loser.
Yeah, what he said.
****************************************************************************************************************
Wretchard the Cat,
explaining indirectly that we are preparing to take action against Syria
(and that makes me a happy man):
The apparent confidence of the "Senior
State Department Official" that Iraqi elections will be held on time is not necessarily inconsistent with the idea that US strategy is entering a new phase. The refusal
to postpone the elections, the likely voting patterns and the absence of a deal to almost guarantee that the incoming Iraqi
government will be largely Shi'ite and Kurdish. The uncompromising position of the Sunni insurgents will create a post-electoral
Iraq where they have been largely excluded:
a choice they have strategically embraced. With Syrian sanctuary and extensive clandestine networks in Sunni areas surrounding
Baghdad, the insurgents hope to destabilize the new government, believing the America too overstretched to take on Damascus directly.
The more
the American military struggles to stabilize Iraq, the Syrians may reason,
the less likely the Bush administration will be to directly confront the Damascus regime or
try to dictate changes in the Middle East. Tied down fighting in Iraq,
the thousands of U.S. troops deployed across Syria's eastern border are not so unnerving. As it is, patrolling the border area,
vast and desolate and reminiscent of West Texas, is a relentless challenge for the Marines
and a new group of Iraqi border agents.
The US
was clearly content to stay on the defensive while it attained its strategic goal of creating a new Iraqi State. Now that achievement is in sight
the US is faced with the choice of whether
to remain on the defensive over go over to the attack. As long as Damascus can persuade the
new Iraqi government it will not directly threaten it, Syria and the Ba'athist
holdouts can hope to eventually pry the incoming government in Baghdad
away from the Americans. One way the US can neutralize that potential danger
is to pre-emptively transform the new Iraq into a direct threat to Syria. It is possible that US planners are examining offensive
options that do not necessarily involve a conventional invasion of Syria.
What seems certain is that US leaders are rapidly approaching a new decision point.
As so many folks
continue to focus on those fewer but more spectacular attacks in Iraq,
the United States military is steady on
the case.
****************************************************************************************************************
Yet another window
into the soul of the Democratic Party in Florida, and it ain’t pretty:
"I sat here for the last 30 minutes and observed why I stopped
coming to these meetings," County Commissioner Addie Greene said toward the end of the quarrelfest.
"The lack of decorum, lack of respect is abhorrent," scolded Ramona Young
of Boynton Beach, who came with thoughts of joining the DEC
and left with serious doubts. "It goes to show you why we couldn't win an election."
Dysfunctional and
in decline – this is Exhibit A.
****************************************************************************************************************
The Governor, Jeb
Bush, is releasing his proposed budget this week:
Bush will announce proposed policy changes and enhancements
on reading initiatives for Florida middle schools today
and return to the Capitol on Tuesday to release his recommendations on Medicaid -- likely to be one of the dominant themes
in the legislative session beginning March 8.
Education and social services are the largest components of the state
budget.
Should be an interesting
legislative session in Tallahassee this year – come
to think of it, when isn’t it?
****************************************************************************************************************
January 9, 2005
Andrew McCarthy, writing on the recent hearings in the Senate on the nomination of Alberto
Gonzales as Attorney General, praises Arlen Specter:
New Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter
performed his most valuable service of a very long day in about five minutes of questioning — during which he exposed
the emptiness of the high dudgeon by confronting these experts with the so-called "ticking bomb" hypothetical: A bomb is about
to be detonated in a major metropolitan area, likely to kill perhaps hundreds of thousands of people, and the military has
as a captive a known terrorist who, we have reason to believe, has knowledge which would allow us to save those lives if we
could get him to provide it. Are you saying, the senator asked, that torture — even in a non-lethal method, requested
by a responsible high official, and perhaps even supervised by a federal court — would be absolutely impermissible?
That we must stand down while those thousands are massacred?
The answers were fascinating. Cutting through the
dizzying circumlocution, each witness either stubbornly declined to answer the question or grudgingly acknowledged that the
situation made torture (of the non-lethal type described above) at least acceptable if not permissible.
And McCarthy properly castigates these stereotypical representatives
of the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party:
A number of us have tried to grapple with the hard
stuff about the war against terrorists — the intersection between abiding respect for human dignity and the imperative
of pressing for intelligence that might save human life. We don't pretend that this is easy, that it's black-and-white, or
that expressly licensing coercive interrogation — even a minimal form of torture — in the most dire situations
would not potentially open the door to human-rights abuses that should be universally condemned. It would. That's why it needs
to be thought through with sensitivity.
But the critics should do us all a favor: If you're
going to talk the talk of righteous indignation, be ready to walk the walk. Be ready to tell Americans exactly what protections
you want to give to the terrorists. Be ready to tell Americans that you would prohibit coercive interrogation even if it were
the only way of saving a hundred thousand of them.
If you're not ready to do that — because you
full well understand that your position is not one even you can defend when the questions get hard — then don't waste
our time. Get out of the way of serious people like Judge Gonzales. People who don't pretend to be perfect, who don't claim
to have all the answers, and who are not so smug that they think they can afford to take life-and-death options off the table
— even as they pray they will never have to use them.
Life and death. ‘Nuff said.
****************************************************************************************************************
Amir Taheri, on a little-noticed revolution bubbling up from
the surface in the Middle East due to American leadership starting with President Bush. Firstly:
I cannot
tell you what the events of 2005 will be. But I can tell you what the undercurrents that shape events are. The first concerns
the concept of political power and its provenance. This is changing in a dramatic, though little noticed, way. Traditionally,
power in the Middle East has been shrouded in mystical fog, its origins traced to divine
will, military conquest, charismatic leadership and revolution. That view is now changing as more and more people in the region
look to elections, that is to say the expression of people's will, as the proper origin of political power — a power
exercised in the interests of the whole community.
Secondly:
The second
undercurrent likely to be with us in 2005 is terrorism in its many guises. The Afghanistan
and Iraq wars served as needles that pierced
old festering blisters. The destruction of the Taliban and the Saddamites forced terrorists of all ilks out of the woodwork
to fight open battles. Having geared themselves for a gangrene strategy, that is to say low-intensity warfare to wear out
Arab and Muslim societies over a long period, these terrorists were dragged into open combat in both military and political
battlefields where their defeat, no matter how long it takes to accomplish, is certain.
Thirdly:
The third undercurrent that merits attention in 2005
is the deepening desire for reform. For the first time ever, reform and changes have become the main themes of Arab politics.
Last year dozens of conferences and seminars were held on the subject, and the 2005 calendar is dotted with many more.
Cynics would dismiss all these as nothing but a talk athon. But in politics, talk does matter. The change of Arab political
discourse, from one obsessed with religious themes, to one concerned with matters such as economic development and educational
excellence, is a leap toward modernity.
Well done, Dubya. As the author notes, none of this is guaranteed.
Nothing in life is. But, no one can doubt that the President has engaged the process of tackling serious issues in that region.
America can’t do it all, it will
not be accomplished quickly, and there will certainly be incessant bitching and moaning. Still, the first step has been successfully
taken. America has said to the terrorists:
You looking for me? Here I be, bitch. Right outside your front door.
****************************************************************************************************************
George Will, making a very good point about Social Security:
Surely
the beginning of wisdom is to begin not with such speculations [meaning, the relatively rosy expectations by the Democrats]
but with the question asked, in a Wall Street Journal essay, by Edward C. Prescott, co-winner of the 2004 Nobel Prize in economics:
"If we could wipe the slate clean, what kind
of government retirement program would we build from scratch today?" In no 15-year period in the last eight decades
has the growth of stocks ever been negative; in no 20-year period has the average growth been less than 3 percent, which is
better than the rate of return on Social Security assets. So if we were starting with a clean slate, surely we would consider
some use of the market to be prudent rather than risky.
And then makes an equally good point about the nature of politics
right now:
The political
problem is this: Even if the future were knowable and we knew that the Social Security solvency problem actually is smaller
than Bush assumes, he would still favor reform involving personal accounts funded by a portion of payroll taxes. He believes
such reform would be conducive to civic virtue, as conservatives understand that — individualism, self-reliance, limited
government. Unfortunately, it is difficult to get many Democrats to toss their caps over the wall for that.
Quite right.
****************************************************************************************************************
January 8, 2005
I found this incredible story in the Gainesville Sun today, documenting the steps taken to try and identify (since August 2003) a dead baby found floating in a local
pond:
The Sheriff's
Office paid $1,250 to DNAPrint Genomics Inc., a forensics lab in Sarasota,
to conduct genetic ancestry tests on a bone sample from the infant's remains.
The results showed that there was a "very
high probability" that the child was of sub-Saharan African ancestry and a "high probability" that the parents and or grandparents
were of Caribbean descent, Troiano said.
The tests are part of the DNAWitness program,
a new patented test offered since 2003. Scientists compared the baby's genetic strains with 176 genetic markers endemic to
different ancestries - such as European or sub-Saharan African genetic strains.
Damn! Has DNA research advanced that far? And
it begs this question – with the African American population so heavily infused with admixtures of European and American
Indian ancestry, exactly how are the probabilities in those 176 genetic markers itemized for categorization? I think I want
to believe that they are in fact capable of accurately doing what they say they have done – but I have to admit my B.S.
alarm is going off and I suspect there is quite a bit of “art” being passed off as “science,” and
I will keep that suspicion until someone convincingly demonstrates otherwise.
****************************************************************************************************************
Is the New York Times in all of its arrogant
wisdom and certitude against the idea of happiness? Apparently so:
The New
York Times Book Review has always reviewed the latest wrinkles on Freud, Jung, and (just today) the sexual abuse of children
But no review of Barry Schwartz’s The Paradox of Choice, no review of George Vaillant’s Aging Well, no review
of David Myer’s The American Paradox, no review of David Whitman’s The Optimism Gap, no review of Kahneman, Diener,
& Schwartz’s Well-Being (the Nobel Prize is apparently not enough to make it “heavyweight”), no review
of Howard Gardner, Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, and William Damon’s Good Work. Only one of the dozen or so recent serious
books on happiness has been reviewed, Gregg Easterbrook’s The Progress Paradox. It is a balanced and thoroughly researched
study of striking economic and social progress since 1950 juxtaposed to no increase in happiness over the same time period.
Finally taking notice, the New York Times Book Review denounced it as “slapdash nonsense.”
Now, if it can consistently do that in the
field of social science, surely such an attitude must be reinforced and prevalent throughout the paper, right? Don’t
forget, also, that the opinion cited above is from an avid daily reader of The Times for forty-years who also is a Professor
at an Ivy League school. This is how the opinion piece cited above cites the author:
Martin E. P. Seligman, Ph.D. is the Fox Leadership Professor of Psychology at the University of Pennsylvania, the founder of
the field of Positive Psychology, a Past President of the American Psychological Association (1998), and the author of 21
books including his most recent best seller, Authentic Happiness: Using the New Positive Psychology to Realize Your Potential
for Lasting Fulfillment. With Chris Peterson, he is co-author of the newly-released Character Strengths and Virtues:
A Classification and Handbook. He is also the co-founder of Authentic Happiness Coaching LLC.
Nattering nabobs of negativism in the citadel
of the Democratic Party have unintentionally created a political party that only knows (really and truly) how to bitch and
moan. Thanks to Roger Simon on this post; and check out his readers comments.
****************************************************************************************************************
Patrick Ruffini throws down the gauntlet on the Social Security debate:
In the last few weeks, the Democratic
strategy to distort the truth about personal accounts has congealed. Here's what they're going to do. They're going to claim
that Social Security's solvency crisis is no more than a "myth", a ruse for the Republicans "hidden agenda" to "dismantle"
the program. They're going to ignore the mathematical certainty that a relatively static number of workers cannot indefinetely
support a mushrooming number of retirees. And as the White House official (on blogs, we attribute correctly) adeptly points
out, this certainty is compounded by the wage indexation of benefits -- meaning that no matter how quickly tax revenues grow,
benefits will grow just as fast, making it impossible for traditional Social Security to ever close this funding gap.
But let's leave aside the question
of solvency. The bottom line of this whole debate remains that modernizing Social Security with personal accounts is the
right thing to do. Even if Social Security were perfectly solvent, it would still be the right thing to do. You
accuse us of having a "hidden agenda." Let's spell out in clear terms of what that "hidden agenda" actually is.
And what, pray tell, is that hidden agenda?
When Democrats carp about a "hidden
agenda" always bring the debate back to this cornerstone. Responsibility vs. doing the thing that's failed over and over again.
Modernization vs. a stuck-in-'35 mindset. Growth vs. stagnation. More vs. less.
These are the terms upon which
the future of Social Security must be debated, liberal red herrings aside.
Because Republicans do have an
evil "hidden agenda."
To make you rich.
Strong, strong statement Patrick. I think you've
set the table and it's time to dine. Let the debate begin.
****************************************************************************************************************
Here’s an ugly peak back at American paternalism and its ability to severely impact even those closest to you:
What really happened? The website Lost Among Us is less polite than the wires:
When the confines of a convent weren't enough to contain restive Rosemary
Kennedy, the patriarch of that Massachusetts dynasty had
his beautiful, soft-spoken but slow eldest daughter lobotomized to gain control.
But the operation, performed in Washington, D.C.,
by a famed neurologist with strong ties to San Bernardino,
went terribly awry. At about the age of 23, her ability to care for herself had been hacked away.
This woman who had been presented at court to the king and queen of England remains today in a cottage
built for her at a school for exceptional children in Wisconsin, an infant of 85 in the care of nuns.
Joseph P. Kennedy Sr., father of President John F. Kennedy, didn't tell his wife, Rose, when he ordered
the operation on their daughter.
The sad tale of Rosemary Kennedy is well documented by author Laurence Leamer in "The Kennedy Men 1901-1963"
and by Jack El-Hai, a Minnesota journalist, and others.
In lobotomy, the surgeon slips an ice pick-shaped instrument behind the patient's eye and with a sweeping
motion severs the frontal lobe, where emotion, personality and will are believed to reside, from the rest of the brain. It
is then repeated behind the other eye.
Once in vogue and widely practiced, including many times at Patton State Hospital in San Bernardino,
it has fallen from favor and has been largely discredited.
It was introduced at Patton in 1951 by the theatrical and flamboyant neurologist who developed the procedure,
Dr. Walter J. Freeman Jr., the same man, who with his partner, James Watts, lobotomized Rosemary Kennedy.
So the lobotomy didn't improve the quality of life for JFK's sister; it nearly destroyed it. And the furtive whispers
Joseph Kennedy sought to avoid by the operation grew due to the operation.
R.I.P Rosemary.
Wow. I’d like to believe the man meant
well but that’s some pretty damning information.
****************************************************************************************************************
January 7, 2005
Want a quick overview on the whole Social Security
Crisis issue? Take a look at this Q and O Blog post on the Trust Fund shenanigans. Many will not be surprised that Paul Krugman is central to the disinformation campaign. For instance:
[T]he
real problem in Krugman's criticism begins here . . .
Here's
the truth: by law, Social Security has a budget independent of the rest of the U.S.
government. That budget is currently running a surplus, thanks to an increase in the payroll tax two decades
ago. As a result, Social Security has a large and growing trust fund.
Here's
another truth: the "large and growing trust fund" consists of....future debt. That money's already been spent, baby. When
we do have to dip into the Trust Fund, we'll be that much farther from balancing the budget.
- Backstory: Trust Fund surpluses have been added to the General fund to create a "Unified Budget" since 1970 -- this accounting
gimmick was made law by the Budget Act of 1974.
- Recently: this has worked out to the marked benefit of Washington, which has been able to add "trust fund" assets to the General
Fund, to create the appearance of a budget surplus.
And then Jon Henke made this further point, focusing upon an analysis
of budget numbers and the trust fund numbers during the period from 1998-2003:
YEAR BUDGET SURPLUS
T-FUND SURPLUS [net]
1998
$69b
$99b
1999
$126b
$124b
2000
$236b
$151b
2001
$127
$162b
2002
-$158
$159b
2003
-$375
$155b
See that
number on the right? That's the net increase of the Trust Fund . . . only, we just toss it in with general revenue every year,
and spend the hell out of it.
At some point--2018 [2028, if you include interest]--that free ice cream helping us pay for our current budget is going to....go away.
It will be replaced by obligations. And debt. Lots of debt. Debt as far as the eye can see.
And that debt will be
on top of any other structural and discretionary debt-spending.
Context, context, context. But read the comments
to the post, there are some good points made, I think, on both sides of the debate.
****************************************************************************************************************
Included in one of the comments to the post
cited above is reference to a contextual document that included an informative chart.
With the new federal Fiscal Year 2006 budget
coming out in February, it is undoubtedly useful to any upcoming discussions on that
budget for some reference point data regarding prior budgets.
Scott A. Hodge is President of The Tax Foundation, a Washington think tank, and that outfit produced
this chart presented below on the last fiscal year budget of all Presidents since 1981. The Tax Foundation may be contacted
at (202) 464-5103 or Scott Hodge may be e-mailed at Hodge@taxfoundation.org:
|
Presidential Comparison
|
(all figures in $billions) |
Bush FY '05 Proposal |
Clinton 2nd Term Last Fiscal Year 2001 |
Clinton First Term Last Fiscal Year 1997 |
G.H.W. Bush Last Fiscal Year1993 |
Reagan 2nd Term Last Fiscal Year 1989 |
Reagan 1st Term Last Fiscal Year 1985 |
Carter Last Fiscal Year 1981 |
|
Revenues |
|
Total Revenues
in Current $ |
$ 2,036 |
$ 1,991 |
$ 1,579 |
$ 1,154 |
$ 991 |
$ 734 |
$ 599 |
|
Total Revenues
in Constant $2004 |
$ 2,001 |
$ 2,105 |
$ 1,797 |
$ 1,432 |
$ 1,405 |
$ 1,171 |
$ 1,166 |
|
Total Revenues
as % GDP |
16.9% |
19.8% |
19.3% |
17.5% |
18.3% |
17.7% |
19.6% |
|
Average
Annual Growth in Revenues during term in constant $2004 |
-1.0% |
4.2% |
5.9% |
0.5% |
4.7% |
0.3% |
4.5% |
|
Total
Outlays |
|
Total Outlays
in Current $ |
$2,400 |
$1,864 |
$1,601 |
$1,410 |
$1,144 |
$946 |
$678 |
|
Total Outlays
in Constant $2004 |
$2,359 |
$1,971 |
$1,822 |
$1,748 |
$1,622 |
$1,510 |
$1,319 |
|
Total Outlays
as % GDP |
19.9% |
18.6% |
19.6% |
21.4% |
21.2% |
22.8% |
22.2% |
|
Average
Annual Growth in Outlays during term in constant $2004 |
4.6% |
2.0% |
1.0% |
1.9% |
1.8% |
3.5% |
4.1% |
|
| |
|
