Highway 99
Thursday, September 30, 2004
Oh, the perils of being a political candidate with a blog.
Why more politicians don't blog.On August 27, Dunn had written in her blog about a dispiriting evening out canvassing with Simon Hughes. "It didn't just rain last night, it poured," she wrote. "In fact the evening became one of the more farcical moments of the campaign. We'd picked what appeared at first to be a fairly standard row of houses. As time went on however, we began to realise that everyone we met was either drunk, flanked by an angry dog or undressed."
The blog had continued with a joke about how Dunn looked like Worzel Gummidge in the rain. Ed Fordham had checked the copy as usual before posting it online. Nothing he read had sounded alarm bells.
The Labour printing machines turned again, and this time Hartlepool woke up to the news on its doormat that Dunn had accused them all of being "either drunk, flanked by an angry dog, or undressed".
Tony Blair has announced that he intends to serve out a full third term as prime minister, but that he will not seek a fourth term. Also, he is going into the hospital today for some minor surgery to try to correct his heart condition.
Big relief that he is not stepping down right away, as rumors from a week or two ago were intimating. Another bullet dodged. And good luck to him on the operation.
The debate is just now wrapping up. I'm the first to admit that, when it comes to public speaking, George Bush has his good days and his bad days. Thank goodness, this was one of his good days.
I don't think there were any disasters on either man's part, but . . . did I hear correctly? Did John Kerry threaten to cancel yet another American weapons system if he becomes President?
Let's get this straight. Kerry would offer nuclear fuel to Iran if it "promised" not to use it to do bad things -- but at the same time Kerry would cancel a nuclear weapon for the U.S.?
He just can't stop himself!
I'll check the transcript tomorrow to make sure I heard Kerry's words correctly.
Overall verdict: Bush won.
Update, 7:40. Curious -- I'm watching the pundits on Fox, and they seem more impressed with Kerry than with Bush. I think they're wrong. In fact, let me stick my neck out here and make a prediction -- I think Bush will get a small bounce out of this debate. And Bush will win the election.
Wednesday, September 29, 2004
If it turns out to be true, this is pretty big. From the New York Post:
Weirdly, the New York Post placed this in its "regional news" section. Regional news? Was that a mistake, or can they possibly be serious?The Justice Department has charged that a veteran New York Times foreign correspondent warned an alleged terror-funding Islamic charity that the FBI was about to raid its office -- potentially endangering the lives of federal agents.
Hat tip to the Ombudsgod.
Tuesday, September 28, 2004
Stephen Den Beste is blogging again. Unfortunately, from my point of view, he's only writing about Japanese anime. He flatly states as a postscript, "Before anyone asks: no, I have no urge whatever to once again write posts for USS Clueless."
You might have noticed that a week or two ago I added The Diplomad to the blogroll. This is a collection of U.S. State Department Foreign Service officers with furtive pro-Republican sentiments they can't afford to publicize at work, for reasons too obvious to mention.
Not only are they good, funny writers dealing with some very interesting material (much of it centering on U.S.-Europe relations), but I find their blog absorbing for a personal reason: I also work in the public sector, and belong to a government-employees' union; and one of my co-workers and I, along with a third person who might be considered an auxillary member, form a sort of surreptitious pro-Bush network at our workplace.
Like the folks at Diplomad, my tiny posse keeps very quiet about their proclivities. It's amazing how being surrounded by public-sector Democrats can make anyone with a twinge of sympathy for the Republicans feel like a member of an endangered underground.
So when Diplomad urges us to "join the State Department Republican Underground," even though I'm not with the State Department -- believe me, I can relate.
I look forward to reading what these kindred spirits have to say in the months ahead, as they send back dispatches from the insane regions of collectivist anti-American dystopia.
At least David Aaronovitch has a sane view of the current situation.
Aaronovitch is a regular columnist for The Guardian, and although I don't know his views on all issues, I've been surprised over the months at how consistently sensible he is concerning the WoT.And organisations and individuals who want to help should reconsider the notion of sending appeals through "mediators". Who are these mediators and what are they mediating? A slightly smaller eternal Caliphate? The orderly withdrawal of the Jews from the area of Old Palestine? When one campaigner in Blackburn told the Guardian that, "Mr Straw is not doing enough by simply stating that we do not negotiate with terrorists," what was he asking for? The circumstances in which the British government negotiated with the IRA (it is often forgotten) was when that organisation indicated that it wanted to end the "armed struggle". That's the only negotiation that's possible.
Suppose, for a moment, that we in Britain faced a fascist insurgency, which kidnapped a few Jews and black people. Should we negotiate for their lives by releasing Neo-Nazi bombers and racist murderers? Or would we calculate how many more Jews and black people would, as a result, wind up in cellars with knives to their throats?
It is, I know, different for the families of kidnapped victims, whose most obvious responsibility is to their relatives. Even so, and even at a terrible time like this, they should think about the consequences for others.
. . . We may not know their names yet, these victims of the future, but if we give in - if we fool ourselves into thinking there is a negotiation to be had - then other people's brothers will surely die.
I assume most people reading this blog will understand the anger that motivated me to write the previous post. But just in case you don't, read this excerpt from an LGF entry, then go back and read my last post -- and try not to become enraged:
Emphasis in the LGF original."Given the sensitivity, we are saying nothing," one Downing Street official explained. Privately, Blair recognises the Bigley family's predicament is "ghastly", but he will not negotiate with terrorists.
This does not seem to bother the hostage-takers. They began taunting Western governments over their efforts to seek their citizens' release from captivity. Late on Friday a fresh message appeared on a website believed to be used by al-Zarqawi which read: "What is laughable is the insistence of the ministers of all infidel nationalities on the phrase 'no negotiations'. As if there was any question of negotiation. Far from it - they must obey the demands of the Mujahadeen. If you refuse, we slaughter."
If you refuse, we slaughter.
And the morons in Britain -- and yes, I'm including the Bigley family in this, sorry if that offends you -- are blaming Blair.
As I've said before, we are living in a time of madness.
Monday, September 27, 2004
This article is insane even by the standards of The Independent. But then, to some extent, the article is merely describing an insane reality.
Not once, not one single time in the entire article does anyone actually blame the would-be murderers.Kenneth Bigley, who has been held by his extremist kidnappers for 10 days, could be freed if Mr Blair put pressure on the US President George Bush to release two female Iraqi prisoners, as the hostage takers have demanded, it was claimed.
Paul Bigley said: "Mr Blair will be the man to blame. He is the man at the top. Even though he is an honest gentleman, and probably a good father, if Ken is killed, Tony Blair will have blood on his hands."
Mr Blair will be the man to blame.
Truly, this is what it must have been like to be living in the late 1930s.Church services were held in Mr Bigley's native Liverpool to pray for his release while in the Blackburn constituency of the Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, Muslim demonstrators took to the streets to accuse the Government of not doing enough to secure the release of the Briton.
We are living in a time of madness.Ismail Lorgat of the Blackburn Friendship Mission said: "Jack Straw is not doing enough by simply stating that we do not negotiate with terrorists."
"One human being is worth everything. There are words in the Koran: if you kill one human being, it is equivalent to murdering the whole of humanity."
They're not really surprised that things are working out this way, are they?
I've got a hunch the terrorists are actually making it quite clear: Despite the soothing inclusivity of their language, I think the terrorists see Zapatero's Socialist government as their "new opportunity," and I also think they're right in their assessment of the situation. Zappy sowed the seeds of appeasement with the Islamofascists; Zappy is reaping the whirlwind with the Basque terrorists. Could he really not see it coming? Do people never learn?The separatist group ETA defended its use of violence in pursuit of Basque independence from Spain on Monday amid a new campaign of economic sabotage, but also said it saw a "new opportunity" to end the conflict.
. . . It started targeting the power grid in September after a bombing campign aimed at tourist resorts in August.
One bomb went off on Saturday and eight more on Sunday, all aimed at the transmission lines used to export electricity from France to Spain. Two of the four lines linking the countries' power grids remained out of service on Monday.
. . . In the video, ETA reiterated its rejection of a plan by the premier of Spain's Basque region calling for greater autonomy.
. . . ETA rejected the plan as a "partial solution that will only prolong the conflict".
But it also said there was a new opportunity to end it, without making clear why. "Now we have a new opportunity. If we only have the will, among all of us we can find the answers and an adequate solution," ETA said in the video.
Sometimes you just have to shake your head in disbelief. From Miriam at Bloghead:
Hat tip to Damian Penny, who got it from Mick Hartley.An Israeli woman applied for a job at Gisela Graham Limited., a London company which designs Christmas decorations. Earlier this month, she received the following rejection letter:The Israeli woman, who I have been in touch with, says she received an apology from the firm a few days later, followed by an email from Mr. Croke. Conflicting sources claim he has since been demoted, reprimanded, or fired. According to the London Jewish Chronicle, the author claimed the remarks were out of character and caused by family stress.Thank you for your CV, but in you're not we're looking for. The ideal person for us will be first an foremost an illustrator, as our advertisement specified - working with a pen and brush - with an interest in modelmaking, whereas your own forte is interior design and CAD...
Speaking personally however may I suggest that for European consumption you would be wise to omit details of your national service, which you describe with such evident and ingenuous pride?
The natural reaction of most educated Europeans to the information you provide is likely to be "so it was she who guided those gunships to targetted assasinations and the murder of women and children with indiscriminate bombing and strafing of refugee camps (refugee camps!!!! 50 years after your compatriots drove them from their homes - and you have done nothing for them ever since.)!". Most educated Europeans - and as a matter of fact a large proprtion of educated Americans too - now view 'Israel' as a brutal undemocratic (where are the votes for the indigenous inhabitants whom you have helotised?) colonial state, run by criminals who defy all international law and natural justice. And a sizeable proportion doubts the 'right' of Israel to exist.
This has nothing to do with anti-semitism, nor is it racism - that is the kind of disgusting attitude which one might say is inherent in the idea of the state of Israel, and one might say among a large section of believing Jews elsewhere, who regard the rest of us as inferior and unclean - and not chosen by God. What could be more racist than that? And what happens to those of your race who dare to speak out against the wickedness that your fanatacsim inevitably leads to? they are murdered or have acid thown in their faces like Yael Dayan
just to put you in the picture
Piers Croke
Gisela Graham Limited.
Perhaps; but the scary thing, of course, is that he was telling the truth. This is how many (I hope not 'most') Europeans see Israel today, you just don't usually hear it so explicitely and so hatefully from the man in the street. Speaking personally however may I suggest, Mr. Croke, that you would be wise not to attribute such opinions to your European education, which you describe with such evident and ingenuous pride?
The natural reaction of most decent people to the information you provide is likely to be that this has everything to do with anti-Semitism and racism and is absolutely vile. Just to put you in the picture, Mr. Croke.
There were three notable essays written within a 24-hour period concerning our good buddy Kofi Annan, and all three are well worth your time: Weighing in are Anne Bayefsky in National Review, Victor Davis Hanson in The Wall Street Journal, and Benny Avni in The New York Sun.
Considering the importance of visual images and the media in prosecuting the current war, I've been wondering: If there were video available showing Lt. Colonel Allen West roughing up a prisoner, would some of the people who now regard him either neutrally or as a hero suddenly regard him as a criminal? (If that sounds like a ludicrous question, recall the difference between the way the announcement of an investigation into abuse allegations at Abu Ghraib was greeted, and the way the release of the photos was greeted.)
Remember when Andy Rooney was suspended from CBS News after making a remark that offended gay lobbying groups?
Question: If making a clumsily worded statement about the connection between homosexuality and AIDS (followed by another humdinger about less-intelligent blacks outbreeding more-intelligent blacks) resulted in Andy Rooney being given a three-month suspension from on-air duties back in 1990, why should Dan Rather be let off the hook for his far more serious offenses in 2004? How often does a misdemeanor result in a heavier sentence than a felony?
Sunday, September 26, 2004
The BBC as aristocracy. Certain beliefs that have widespread appeal among young people tend to get exploded as people age; they seem to make intuitive sense at one stage of life, but the accumulation of experience has an abrasive effect, and these ideas are steadily corroded until for most middle-aged people they're nearly unrecognizable. The classic idea of this type is that a society based on the premise of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" will not only work, but will work better than any other form of society. Most kids think it's great the first time they hear it, but that initial enthusiasm seldom lasts.
Another idea negated by experience is the malleability of personality. People's characters, once set, are damnably difficult to change. Unwanted traits you thought you'd gotten rid of can surface, transmuted slightly, at the most inopportune times.
As it is with individuals, so it is with cultures. Cultural traits can outlive historical eras with amazing stubbornness. Think of the Japanese samurai willing to sacrifice his life for his feudal lord, the kamikaze embracing death in service to his emperor, the salaryman working himself to death for the good of his corporation. Think of the Confucian values of submergence in the group, transferred from the family to the nation; the governance by a mandarin civil service replaced by the governance by a Maoist central bureaucracy, then more recently by a Beijing technocratic elite. Think of the brutal autocracy of the czars, replaced by the brutal autocracy of the Communists, replaced by the increasingly brutal autocracy of the post-Soviet Russian presidency. Think of pre-colonial, colonial, and post-colonial Africa. Think of the Arab Middle East. Think of the closing of the frontier followed by pathbreaking discoveries and explorations and inventions by Americans, pioneering transferred to countless new fields.
Now think of one specific aspect of one specific culture: the British class system. Conjure up the images you have from a thousand books and movies and TV shows of how the class system operated prior to the mid-twentieth century. An elite group of people were brought up with the expectation that they would assume power over society, that they were most suited for this position in life, that society owed them something and they also owed society something. They were believed by many to be, and almost always believed themselves to be, suitable as teachers and arbitrators for the rest of society. They would set agendas, pass judgment, and enlighten the rest of the population. Their training was dominated to an enormous degree by Oxford and Cambridge Universities. It was only right that society should provide their upkeep in this rather lofty station in life, because they were doing so much good for society, providing a vital public service.
Isn't that also the basic worldview of the people who work for the BBC?
The superficial trappings have certainly changed -- indeed, in most cases they have reversed. If there is an operating ethos, it is radical chic. Reverse snobbery is the order of the day. Non-white, non-Western cultures are celebrated to an almost mindless degree, and the West is assumed to be history's great villain.
But below the egalitarian surface, the old structure remains. The elite this time are chosen by a more meritocratic method than by birth, certainly a step in the right direction; once chosen, however, the new elite displays the same smug certainty of the old elite, the assumption that they know what's best for the little people, that their mission is to enlighten, and that society owes them a living for providing such a public service.
Social structures live on, maintaining themselves even among people who would consciously reject them. The BBC reflects the worldview of the cultural elite of its day, just as forty years ago it reflected the worldview of the cultural elite of forty years ago. And, just as was the case forty years ago, technological developments are allowing rude upstarts to undermine the establishment, including the BBC. Nowadays, however, the pirates aren't named Radio London and Radio Caroline; instead they've got names like InstaPundit and Biased-BBC.
Somebody quick tell the aristocrats: The peasants are on-line, and they're coming to get you. The revolution is here.
When I stopped by a Raley's this afternoon (Raley's is a grocery store chain in central and northern California), there was a lady sitting at a table just outside the entrance signing up voters. There were Bush-Cheney placards and campaign knick-knacks all over the table. She asked if I was a registered voter and I told her yes, and that I was planning to vote for Bush. The whole area in front of the store was otherwise devoid of shoppers as I went in, so it was hard to get a feel for how well she was doing. I was curious, because I had earlier considered becoming a campaign volunteer, so I figured it could easily have been me (I) sitting at that table, and I wondered how I'd have been doing.
On my way out, as I passed the table again, I asked how things were going. The lady perked up and said people had been showing a lot of interest; she asked if I wanted to buy a Bush-Cheney T-shirt or bumper sticker, and I said not today, and that I already had some bumper stickers. It was still so quiet around the front of the store -- unusual for a Sunday afternoon -- it was impossible to gauge the reaction of other shoppers to the sight of the table.
I hope she was giving me an accurate assessment of the situation. For what it's worth, when she said things were going well, she sounded like she meant it. The area I live in is hard to evaluate: It has a huge unemployment and poverty problem, and years ago voted Democratic, but I remember reading a few years back that in more recent times it's been trending Republican, perhaps because it's pretty culturally conservative. So far I haven't seen many bumper stickers or yard signs for either Kerry or Bush, maybe because California is so deep blue that it's not being seriously contested.
I have to keep my eyes on the national-level prize, because, much to my annoyance, my state is almost certainly going to Kerry. So my hat's off to the lady at the table at Raley's, signing up voters on a hot September afternoon when she could have been in her air-conditioned home watching TV. I hope she signed up enough to make her afternoon worthwhile.
Thursday, September 23, 2004
The number of people leaving messages of appreciation at ThankYouTony.com has gone above fifty thousand. As of this morning, the count stood at 50,448.
Update. Man, I don't know where they're all coming from, but it's later the same day and the count is now up to 50,583.
Tuesday, September 21, 2004
Where is the writer willing to take on one of the most important subjects of this moment in history and do a biography/expose of Kofi Annan?
Monday, September 20, 2004
Could part of Scotland be on the verge of getting its own version of Fox News Radio? A company called Scottish Radio Holdings is trying to get a broadcast license to put a "fair-and-balanced" current affairs radio station on the air on Scotland's east coast.
Good luck to them, but it's an open question as to whether anyone can make a go of a conservative (even by European standards) radio station in Scotland, a country that makes England look like an American red state by comparison.The Scottish-owned broadcaster also claims its research shows listeners are unhappy with BBC coverage of Holyrood.
This week, politicians on The Mound will be lobbied on the merits of the application. In a briefing to all MSPs, SRH will denounce the BBC as "London-dominated" and "state-owned".
SRH's media adviser Jack Irvine said the bid was a challenge to Radio Scotland's "slipping" standards: "There's a dreadful flatness to their coverage, which is made worse by a bizarre news sense ... they ignore many of the things that happen in the parliament. As for the way business is covered, don't get me started."
He said the station would be an antidote to the left-wing bias he felt dominated the BBC. "Radio Scotland has a Glasgow-centric, leftish feel that is no longer relevant. It's also very strange that the parliment is in Edinburgh but the BBC is in Glasgow."
Hat tip to David Farrer.
Sunday, September 19, 2004
Hey, Islam really is a religion of pieces! Teacher chops off ears of 17 students in Bangladesh.
It's a shame this school doesn't have a zero-tolerance policy concerning deadly weapons -- you could at least expel the teacher for packing those scissors.A teacher in a madrassa in northern Bangladesh cut off the ears of 17 children with a pair of scissors because they were not reading their textbooks loudly.
Just another day in the life of Islamic world conquest.
Here's hoping that the rumors turn out to be just one more false alarm.
Harsh, nasty irony: Tony Blair in college belonged to a rock group called the Ugly Rumours.
We've all weathered similar stories before, but this latest is the ugliest yet.
If it's false, damn the people who started it.
If it's true, my intense sympathy to the Blair family.
If it's true, and was leaked out to the media against the wishes of the Blairs, then damn whoever did this to them.
If it's true and 10 Downing Street is releasing it slowly and in stages, as a way of detoxifying and partially controlling a story that was about to leak out anyway, then I wish Downing Street luck at making a bad situation slightly less bad.
If it's true and 10 Downing Street is releasing it slowly and in stages, as a way of letting Tony Blair resign soon and more easily, then I reiterate my gratitude to Blair and his family for all they've gone through the past three years, and express my extreme regret that he is not able to stay longer.
In any case, if Tony Blair is not still prime minister by the end of the year, or during the assumed spring 2005 British general election, whether by his choice or because he is forced out, it will be a terrible blow to the war effort.
I am torn right now between wanting what's best for our best ally, who God knows has sacrificed his well-being more than any other politician I've ever seen, and what's best for our side in the struggle against the Islamic fascists, which is the most crucial struggle of our time.
Friday, September 17, 2004
The Australians could make a significant contribution to Bush's "ownership society."
There's a type of tax-deferred savings account used by farmers in Australia, in which the farmers can deposit anywhere from $1,000 to $300,000 in the account during a good farm year pre-tax and then make withdrawals during a bad farm year, with the withdrawals taxed as income during those low-income years.
In other words, it works like a traditional IRA, but it works to even out the income stream of a farmer from year to year rather than evening out the income stream of a worker from the working years to the retirement years.
And while it's in the account, the money grows untaxed.
It's called a Farm Management Deposit Account. You can read what various Australian banks have to say about the account here:
(And according to page 24 of this pdf, Canada has a tax-advantaged plan to encourage farmers to save for self-insurance, the Net Stabilization Account [NISA] program. Good grief, if even increasingly-pinko Canada has this sort of plan, surely we can get one.)St. George Bank
Elders Rural Bank
Pioneer Permanent Building Society Limited [I think a building society is the equivalent of a savings & loan.]
National Australia Bank Limited
Mackay Permanent Building Society Ltd
Nacos Credit Union [Hey, they have credit unions in Australia.]
ANZ Bank
Suncorp
Adelaide Bank
I found information on the web from about 1999 through about 2001 concerning efforts to introduce legislation to create an FMDA-type acccount in the U.S. The American account would have been called the Farm and Ranch Risk Management (FARRM) savings account. The legislation was strongly supported by the Farm Bureau and by several influential lawmakers including Kay Bailey Hutchison and Chuck Grassley. But I didn't find any indication that the bill came to the floor of either the House or the Senate for a vote. Nor could I find an explanation of why it died. (Too many people profit from the present system, I would imagine. Anything that threatens the subsidy junkies is going to be unpopular among some highly motivated people.)
Now would be the perfect time to reintroduce the bill, and to promote it publicly as part of the "ownership society" package that is the centerpiece of Bush's second-term domestic agenda. The FARRM account would reward the responsible, who save for a rainy day, as opposed to more welfare-oriented programs that often end up rewarding the feckless and irresponsible. It would be owned by the individual farmer (like an IRA, as opposed to a 401(k) or 403(b) which has to be set up and sponsored by the individual's employer). Perhaps most important, it would be a gentle way to begin to get farmers off of taxpayer subsidies.
There is one disadvantage, which is a disadvantage the FARRM account would share with all other tax-advantaged savings accounts, and that is that people who are barely eking out a living would be least able to take advantage of them. The FARRM account would be good for smoothing out farm income among good and bad years; but that wouldn't help farmers who never have good years. However, there's a difference here between the FARRM account and the others: everyone who doesn't have a terminal disease ought to be saving for retirement and medical expenses; but not everybody ought to be a farmer. If you never have a good farming year, you really should consider getting into another line of work.
One suggestion: People have the choice between the traditional IRA (skip taxes when income is first earned, pay taxes on withdrawals) and the Roth IRA (pay taxes when income is first earned, skip taxes on withdrawals). Why not give the same choice of tax procedures to people opening FARRM accounts?
As he campaigns between now and November, Bush would do well to showcase FARRM accounts along with IRAs/401(k)s/Lifetime Savings Accounts, education savings accounts, school vouchers, Health Savings Accounts, and private accounts for a portion of a person's Social Security taxes. As components of a movement toward individual responsibility and individual control, they all complement each other perfectly.
Thursday, September 16, 2004
Watching CBS's reaction to the discrediting of the Rathergate documents, a reaction which at this point seems to amount to Yeah-and-even-if-they-are-fake-so-what-the-story-still-stands, I'm wondering: Will CBS now do an hourlong prime-time news special on the subject of Iraq's attempted purchase of yellowcake in Africa; and how even if a couple of the documents involved turned out later to be forgeries, that doesn't discredit the story, which was based on a much larger supply of evidence than those fake documents; and how Italian intelligence is claiming that Our Traditional Allies the French (whom John Kerry and the rest of the liberals love so dearly) deliberately circulated the fake documents along with legitimate documents in order to discredit the Coalition, so that French financial interests in Saddam's Iraq would not be endangered; and how the Bush administration should be given the benefit of the doubt that they were sincere even as they made use of the forged documents, and that motives of overzealousness or bias should not be assumed . . .
Think we'll see a program like that popping up on CBS's prime-time line-up any time soon?
Perhaps they've already got the program scheduled, but the affiliates are going to pre-empt it for a Billy Graham movie.
One of the disadvantages of living in a rural area is that you're not within range of the dinosaur networks' owned-and-operated stations, and have to rely on local affiliates.
Which means that, when I went to look for 60 Minutes last night, I should not have been surprised when I found instead a movie that appears to have been produced and presented by the Billy Graham ministries.
No cause for conspiracy theories; the 90-minute movie, listed in TV Guide as Last Flight Out, was evidently scheduled to bump the program long before the current controversy flared up last week.
So I wasn't able to watch one of the most important broadcasts of the year, Dan Rather's latest non-explanatory non-apology.
Apparently my local one wasn't the only CBS affiliate to bump 60 Minutes. Wonder if all the affiliates in question were showing the same Billy Graham production -- perhaps the ministries got some sort of quantity discount by buying time on a lot of CBS stations in one go. If so, they're probably kicking themselves for it now, wishing they hadn't prevented people from seeing another episode in CBS News's flare-out. After all, as the dictate goes: Never interfere with the enemy when he is in the process of destroying himself. And I have a hunch that the folks at the Graham ministries do not consider Dan Rather to be on their side in the culture wars.
Wednesday, September 15, 2004
I know I've linked to this before, and I know it's cheesy to recycle posts, but given the current situation with Dan Rather I can't resist having another look at this worshipful portrait of him drawn by our friends at the BBC.
Where to begin?Dan Rather: America's news anchor
Veteran broadcaster Dan Rather's exclusive interview with Saddam Hussein is the latest in a long line of scoops for a journalist who has become a national institution.
Rather has put his latest scoop down to "hard work and good luck". . . .
Rather's coup is the biggest TV news interview of the year in the US and the one all the rival networks had been after. The award-winning 71-year-old presenter is a national institution in the US, with a journalistic career stretching back more than half a century. . . .
During the interview, Saddam suggests he may not fulfil a UN demand to destroy its medium-range al-Samoud II missiles. . . .
Rather, praising two colleagues for their part in securing the interview, said: "It was a lot of hard work, some team play and, yes, some luck."
He added: "We made a point of saying to him that we keep our word.
"We do what we say we will do and won't do what we say we won't do. They came out of that with the experience that we are who we say we are."
CBS acknowledged that Rather's access was aided by former US Attorney General Ramsey Clark.
Mr Clark is prominent in the global anti-war movement and had met with Saddam on Sunday.
Rather suggested that his previous face-to-face interview with Saddam in 1990 had also helped him to secure the conversation.
He said he did not expect criticism for talking to a leader perceived to be a fierce enemy of the US.
"I'm a reporter," he said. "What reporters do is try to talk to everybody on all sides of the story. I don't know any journalist who wouldn't take this interview." . . .
Last year, Rather said US press freedom was being undermined by a wave of patriotism which swept the US following the 11 September attacks.
He said that fear of offending the politicians "keeps journalists from asking the toughest of the tough questions". . . .
A former CBS bureau chief in London and Saigon, Rather was White House correspondent during the Watergate scandal and fall of President Nixon. . . .
Famed for his incisive, studied delivery and prosaic style, he once said: "A tough lesson in life that one has to learn is that not everybody wishes you well."
A national institution? Yeah, well, the institution is crumbling this week. How will we go on without him?
During the interview, Saddam suggests he may not fulfil a UN demand to destroy its (presumably Iraq's) medium-range al-Samoud II missiles . . . BUT THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT SADDAM HAD WMDs, AND WHEN BUSH AND BLAIR SAID HE DID, THEY LIED, THEY LIED, THEY LIED! GOT THAT?
Rather, praising two colleagues for their part in securing the interview . . . I wonder, was he including the lunatic Ramsey Clark as one of the "two colleagues?"
Nice touch: calling Ramsey "Mr Clark."
Saddam is a leader perceived to be a fierce enemy of the United States.
I notice in this article Rather's usual way of speaking, as if he's reciting lines he's memorized.
I'm sure it's coincidence that the BBC chose to do this fawning profile of Rather soon after he declared that "US press freedom was being undermined by a wave of patriotism which swept the US following the 11 September attacks." Damn that patriotism. Maybe they'll come up with a vaccine to ward it off.
Rather was White House correspondent during the Watergate scandal and fall of President Nixon . . . yeah, and trying to relive those glory days may be what causes the fall of Dan Rather. Oh, the irony.
I suspect the BBC has no idea how much unintentional amusement it provides. Perhaps they could point to this with pride, as fulfilling part of their public service remit, when their broadcast license comes up for renewal soon.
Commercials currently showing on Fox confirm what I was guessing at earlier: the news special "Breaking Point: U.N. Blood Money" has been rescheduled to this Sunday night.
Pat Caddell is on Hannity & Colmes right now, bitterly excoriating his own Democratic Party. He sounds like a Yankee Zell Miller. Either he's the greatest actor of his generation or he is genuinely distraught at what his party has degenerated into. He doesn't like the Republican Party either, which means that politically he's homeless. For a guy who has spent his adult life trying to help one political party get into office, this has to be devastating.
I will keep an eye out for the transcript on the Fox site, and link to and excerpt from it when it becomes available.
There must be some way to use this in a campaign commercial. Bush is doing so well in the polls right now, there's probably no need to go negative, and it might even do some harm; but if the need does arise some time before November, one way to hit Kerry hard would be to tie him to Jane Fonda by way of the Winter Soldier hearings, and then let the audience hear some choice quotes from Jane.
The people at the Media Research Center couldn't vouch for the source of the following, but there must be someone in a position to research it and determine whether the quotes are legit. Imagine how the American people would react to this:In a widely cited comment from 1970, Fonda had extolled: "It's my fondest wish that some day every American will get down on their knees and pray to God that some day they will have the opportunity to live in a communist society."
Oh, and then there's Jane's explanation of why we're trying to defeat Islamofascism:When American POWs finally began to return home (some of them having been held captive for up to nine years) and describe the tortures they had endured at the hands of the North Vietnamese, Jane Fonda quickly told the country that they should "not hail the POWs as heroes, because they are hypocrites and liars." Fonda said the idea that the POWs she had met in Vietnam had been tortured was "laughable," claiming: "These were not men who had been tortured. These were not men who had been starved. These were not men who had been brainwashed." The POWs who said they had been tortured were "exaggerating, probably for their own self-interest," she asserted. She told audiences that "Never in the history of the United States have POWs come home looking like football players. These football players are no more heroes than Custer was. They're military careerist and professional killers" who are "trying to make themselves look self-righteous, but they are war criminals according to law."
Silly me, I thought it had something to do with their wanting to slaughter us all.. . . we're all in this together, whether they're Afghanistan, Bosnian, Vietnamese, American, Philippine, it doesn't matter. Either we hang together with love and learn to look out for each other and learn to make sure that the people we elect to office move from a place of empathy and compassion and love rather than, 'I'm going to prove I'm a man and, you know, God forbid I should lose face, you know, I'm going to put the coon skin on the wall.'
Fonda recently described her son as "a vagina-friendly young man." I wonder, does she consider Islamofascism a vagina-friendly movement?
For an interesting companion piece, check out the New York Times' Gail Collins on the same subject of war and the military.
If the Republicans follow my advice, then once again you would see an ad in which the subject's own words would condemn him/her, just as in the Swift Boat ad on John Kerry's 1971 testimony. A huge proportion of voters were so young at the time, they have no clear memory of what the Jane Fonda controversy was all about. An ad linking Fonda and Kerry would be devastating.
Tuesday, September 14, 2004
There's something happening here, and you don't know what it is, do you, Mr. Rather?
Hi. Are you still taking requests?
Can I dedicate this to someone?
Okay, I just want to say that this is going out to my friend Dan. Dan, I know you're going through some rough times right now, and I just wanted you to know that when I hear this song, I think of you.
So this is how Dan's career ends: not with a bang but a whimper.Come gather round, people, wherever you roam,
And admit that the waters around you have grown,
And accept it that soon you'll be drenched to the bone;
If your time to you is worth savin'
Then you'd better start swimming or you'll sink like a stone
For the times they are a-changin'.
Come, writers and critics who prophesize with your pen,
And keep your eyes wide, the chance won't come again;
And don't speak too soon, for the wheel's still in spin
And there's no telling who that it's namin',
For the loser now will be later to win
For the times they are a-changin'.
Come, senators, congressmen, please heed the call;
Don't stand in the doorway, don't block up the hall,
For he who gets hurt will be he who has stalled;
The battle outside ragin'
Will soon shake your windows and rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin'.
Come, mothers and fathers throughout the land,
And don't criticize what you can't understand;
Your sons and your daughters are beyond your command;
Your old road is rapidly agin'.
Please get out of the new one if you can't lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin'.
The line, it is drawn; the curse, it is cast;
The slow one now will later be fast
As the present now will later be past;
The order is rapidly fadin'.
The first one now will later be last,
For the times they are a-changin'.
Sunday, September 12, 2004
I posted a few days ago that Fox News was going to do a news special on the Oil-for-Food scandal. To judge from the latest commercials, it appears that that program has been bumped from the Sunday line-up in favor of an update on Hurricane Ivan. Presumably "Breaking Point: U.N. Blood Money" will be rescheduled.
Saturday, September 11, 2004
Before September 11, 2001, I was lukewarm about George Bush.
Before September 11, 2001, I still admired John Major.
Before September 11, 2001, I had a mixed opinion of Tony Blair.
Before September 11, 2001 -- other than as a school assignment -- I had never written a letter to a politician.
Before September 11, 2001, I had never donated money to a politician.
Before September 11, 2001, I frequently voted for Libertarian Party candidates.
Before September 11, 2001, Matthew Parris was my favorite newspaper columnist.
Before September 11, 2001, I considered Canada a good ally.
Before September 11, 2001, I considered Germany and South Korea allies.
Before September 11, 2001, I still didn't consider France an ally.
Before September 11, 2001, I did not realize how many Muslims had moved to Europe.
Before September 11, 2001, I did not realize how lying, insane, anti-American, and anti-Israel most of the world's media are.
Before September 11, 2001, I would not have considered it a realistic possibility that the world might try to kill the Jews, again.
Before September 11, 2001, I did not fully appreciate how biased most American media are.
Before September 11, 2001, I had never watched more than a few hours of Fox News.
Before September 11, 2001, I'm not sure I had ever read a blog.
Before September 11, 2001, I did not think anyone would be stupid or suicidal enough to attack the United States.
Before September 11, 2001, I didn't realize how much I love my country.
Thursday, September 09, 2004
Sometimes when I'm at work I plan ahead what I'd like to blog on when I get home.
Today I figured I was overdue to write about John Howard. A date had been set for the Australian national elections, and I realized I hadn't even mentioned it, let alone wished Howard good luck in winning. Also, while I had given a heads-up a few months ago when Howard was going to be interviewed on Neil Cavuto's program, I hadn't done any follow-up linking to the transcript, and I wanted to rectify that. (And while I'm rectifying that, let me add a link to a 2003 Cavuto/Howard interview as well.) I was also aware that I hadn't thanked Australia recently for its courageous support in the War on Terror, and I wanted to rectify that, too.
It wasn't until I got home tonight that I heard the news that the Australian embassy in Jakarta had been bombed, resulting in numerous deaths and injuries.
So, as I had planned to do anyway, I send my thanks to any Australians who may be reading this for all they've done to make the West safer, but now my appreciation is all the more intense for the greater sacrifice they've made. To the extent their participation in the War on Terror is to support the U.S., they have my gratitude; to the extent their participation is for their own protection, they have my full support in return; and today of all days, they have my condolences for their loss.
Tuesday, September 07, 2004
Earlier I had mentioned the good job Fox News was doing covering the UN Oil-for-Food scandal.
To follow up on that post, I wanted to mention that Fox will be doing a special report on the scandal this coming Sunday, September 12, at 9 p.m. Eastern time, repeated at 12 a.m. and 4 a.m. Monday morning.
I'm glad to see that one of the reporters involved in the report is Jonathan Hunt, whose borderline-gleeful enthusiasm concerning this story so impressed me before.
The special is titled "Breaking Point: U.N. Blood Money." Right off the bat you get the impression they're taking a slightly harder line than, say, Peter Jennings would probably take.
There are moments when I feel like I'm living in a country under enemy occupation, the enemy in this case being the blame-America-first cultural left, who have commandeered the schools and the news and entertainment media; and that Fox News is like one of those underground radio stations set up by the resistance to spread vital information and maintain the population's morale.Find out how Saddam Hussein stole billions of dollars in the biggest financial scam in modern history -- maybe going as far as bribing U.N. officials and buying off the Security Council.
FNC also reveals how that money may have ended up in the hands of terrorists plotting to kill Americans.
Why should I have to feel this way in my own country?
Monday, September 06, 2004
The ghettoization of the Left. Following World War II, what had been a miniscule black American middle class began to grow at an accelerating pace. In the 1950s and 60s, black Americans who could afford to do so started moving out of poor all-black neighborhoods, first into racially mixed areas, then increasingly into majority-black working-, middle-, and upper-middle-class neighborhoods.
Naturally, the birth of comfortable and even well-off mixed and majority-black neighborhoods was noted as a welcome development. The people who were moving from the slums were overwhelmingly the highest achievers, the ones with the best educations, the most positive attitudes, and the steadiest work histories.
After some years of celebrating the founding of neighborhoods full of black achievers, however, many people began realizing that the problems in the poorest black neighborhoods not only weren't getting better, they had, for some time, been getting worse. And eventually some people began drawing a connection between these two developments.
In leaving the ghetto, for reasons anyone would find understandable, higher-achieving blacks appeared to be unintentionally aggravating problems in the neighborhoods they'd left behind. In earlier times, children in the poorest areas had at least some neighbors who worked regular hours and some classmates with ambition and decent study habits; now, with the most conscientious citizens, and the children of the most conscientious citizens, gone, ghetto kids often knew no one with a job, no one who took school seriously. Pillars of the community who kept local volunteer organizations going had now left to be pillars of other communities.
The people left behind were overwhelmingly the non-achievers, the ones least able to cope, the convicted and the addicted. Left more and more to themselves, with fewer middle-class types to provide role models and a link to the larger world, those left behind reinforced each other's most self-defeating beliefs and self-destructive behaviors. Those who made attempts to succeed at work or school were now derided as suckers or for "trying to act white." Social pathologies multiplied and became more concentrated, as the people left behind victimized themselves, each other, and any outsiders who ventured into the no-man's-land of the ghetto.
Alienation from the mainstream increased anger. Angry behavior repelled outsiders even more. Outsiders avoiding the ghetto increased the inhabitants' alienation from the mainstream. Alienation from the mainstream increased anger. And on . . . and on . . . and on . . .
Does all this remind you of anyone we know?
Remind me again -- isn't the National Organization of Women one of the feminist groups that rallied to Bill Clinton's defense after he sexually assaulted several women, and in one case possibly even committed rape?A featured performer at a National Organization for Women rally accused President Bush of having "savagely raped" women "over and over" by allegedly stealing the 2000 presidential election.
Poet Molly Birnbaum read aloud to a crowd of feminists gathered in New York's Central Park on Wednesday night, as part of a NOW event dubbed "Code Red: Stop the Bush Agenda Rally."
"Imagine a way to erase that night four years ago when you (President Bush) savagely raped every pandemic woman over and over with each vote you got, a thrust with each state you stole," Birnbaum said from the podium. (If something is pandemic, it affects many people or a number of countries.)
"A smack with each bill you passed, a tear with each right you took until you left me disenfranchised with hands shackled and voice restrained. Thanks for that night, Mr. President, I can barely remember my tomorrows," Birnbaum said to applause.
Birnbaum's reading was followed by a performance by Gina Young, described as a singer of "feminist folk punk." Young's song included the following verse about Bush:
"I got better grades than you, you stupid boy W. Your dad was a killer, too, and you know that nobody voted for you," Young sang as the crowd erupted in applause.
"I object not just to this war, but to all of the things that you stand for, like dropping bombs to lower the price of gas. I guess the Constitution is just some piece of scrap paper you use to wipe you're [sic] a**, you bastard," Young sang to more applause.
Another poet, Stacey Ann Chin, declared from the podium that men have no right to tell women not to have an abortion.
Men will not decide "if I am allowed to eject something from my womb. Be it rape or error, it has always been my right, always been my body to do with as I choose," Chin screamed to cheers.
Chin said she wants her message to be so powerful that Bush will cower in fear.
"I want to be that voice that makes George Bush so scared he hires two butch black bodyguards. I want to write the poem that the New York Times will not print because it might start some kind of black or lesbian or even a white revolution," Chin said.
'People bought the lies'
Kim Gandy, NOW's president, warned that her daughters are going to live very different lives if George Bush is reelected.
"In the next four years, he could do so much damage to the environment, to civil rights and civil liberties, to reproductive rights, to our anti-discrimination laws," Gandy said in an interview with CNSNews.com.
"The world that they (her daughters) grow up in will be totally different if we don't win this election," Gandy added.
A Bush victory in November would mean that "people bought the lies" of the Bush administration, Gandy said. "I hope that people will wake up and pay attention and not just believe everything they see on television, but I know there is a danger there," she added.
"Bulls*** about no sex"
Donna Lieberman, executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, condemned the Bush administration for its policies toward women.
"You can't be for women if you are not for women's rights," Lieberman said.
Lieberman also took a shot at abstinence-based sex education, declaring her support for "real sex education, not this bulls*** about no sex." The crowd roared its approval.
"We are not some fringe lunatics, we are the people. We are the mainstream of America," she added.
The crowd carried signs reading, "Keep your politics out of my vagina," "The religious right is neither," "I don't want a president who believes that I am going to hell," "Keep your God out of my government, keep your laws off my body," and "War is not pro-life."
Earlier in the rally, U.S. Rep. Major Owens, a New York Democrat, warned a crowd of feminist protesters that the Bush administration is taking America "into a snake pit of fascism."
Owens also said the Bush administration "spits on democracy" and is leading the country down a path reminiscent of "Nazi Germany."
The line that sounds superficially the most normal is actually the most bizarre: It's the part where Donna Lieberman says, "We are not some fringe lunatics, we are the people. We are the mainstream of America."
It comes across as the final punch line to a long sick joke. You have to wonder: Could she possibly believe what she's saying? Do these people live on some other planet?
I remember watching C-SPAN's morning call-in show Washington Journal several months ago when one of the guests was a young woman from a major feminist organization (I believe it was NOW) who was there to discuss the findings of a survey the group had taken of women's attitudes toward the feminist movement.
I don't think the guest actually came right out and said so, but I got the strong impression that the survey had been done in an effort to figure out why women's support of feminism had been flagging for quite a few years and why so few women today (as opposed to in the 1970s) wished to be identified as feminists.
Reading the news story excerpted above, I recalled that guest and her survey and thought: You really need to ask?
Why on earth would any normal person want to be identified with what the feminist movement has become? Why would any normal person want to support the Congressional Black Caucus, if Major Owens is a representative sample of its membership?
Why on earth would any normal person still want to be a liberal?
The liberal faction of society, and, more to the point, the Democratic Party, used to contain a variety of people -- some quite normal and mainstream, some freakish and off-putting.
But when the Democratic Party turned anti-American some time around 1968, the normal people began to leave. People who did not hate America, people who did not hate mainstream society -- people who were mainstream society -- began to migrate away, repelled by what the Democratic Party was rapidly becoming.
Some time around 1980, the tail end of the Carter Administration, the trickle became a flood.
And the more the normal people left the party, the more the party they left behind deteriorated. Deprived more and more of the influence and example of mainstream society, the Democrats who remained active in the Party reinforced each other's most self-defeating beliefs and self-destructive behaviors.
And they began to lose elections. In the early and mid-1960s, the Democrats dominated every aspect of American political life. But that was their high-water mark. Around 1968, the Democrats began their long, slow decline from majority party to rage-fueled freak show.
Alienation from the mainstream increased anger. Angry behavior repelled independents, centrists, and moderate Democrats even more. Independents, centrists, and moderate Democrats avoiding the Democratic Party increased active members' alienation from the mainstream. Alienation from the mainstream increased anger. And on . . . and on . . . and on . . .
Active Democrats now inhabit a world of their own that most other people increasingly find repulsive. The Democrats' world is a self-imposed ghetto, beset by the destructive behaviors, bizarre worldviews, and rampant conspiracy theories that characterize ghettos the world over.
Powerlessness and insanity reinforce each other.
Speaking of follow-up attacks after 9/11: Is it possible that the crash of Flight 587 was such a follow-up?
When American Airlines Flight 587 smashed into a residential neighborhood in Queens, New York shortly after take-off, just two months after 9/11, the obvious possibility of a deliberate downing of the aircraft was repeatedly mentioned.
This possibility was quickly dismissed by authorities. The crash was officially determined to be just a tragic accident with the worst possible timing and location.
Stuart Buck, however, writes that some evidence has emerged that the Flight 587 crash was deliberate sabotage by a Canadian citizen who had trained in an al-Qaeda camp in Afghanistan with the 9/11 hijackers.
Daniel Pipes is also writing on the subject.
I haven't seen this story mentioned anywhere in the big media, or even on the major, big-traffic blogs. Why not? True, we're only talking about a slim lead, but it comes originally from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, not from some guy drinking out of a brown paper bag on the street corner. It at least deserves some discussion and dissemination.
Hat tip to Bill Hobbs for mentioning both the Stuart Buck and Daniel Pipes stories.
Find myself becoming more worried about another large-scale terrorist attack in the weeks ahead. Slight, barely perceptible tension as I switch on the TV first thing in the morning. On some level, I realize, I'm bracing myself: What might be about to hit me? Reminds me of the weeks following 9/11 -- half-expecting to be hit at any moment by news of a follow-up attack.
About eight weeks left until the election. Can we really make it through to November 3 without terrorists at least attempting another Madrid?
One of the best potential side effects of a Bush victory in November is that some American left-wingers might get so disgusted that they'll actually pick up and leave America for some socialist surrender-monkey country. Here's hoping.
Sunday, September 05, 2004
Ye gods. Not John Glenn too. Is the Democratic Party sick unto death, or does it just smell that way?
Hmmm. I wonder if Glenn and the other Democrats are worried that if you hear the Bush = Hitler message repeated, repeated, repeated, repeated, you start to believe it? Or could that be what they're aiming for? And why don't any reporters ask them about this apparent contradic-- oh, never mind.But a combative Kerry questioned the Republicans' truthfulness and described Bush's convention--where the senator was called "unfit" to serve as commander in chief--as filled with "distortion," "anger" and "vitriol."
Former U.S. Sen. John Glenn of Ohio, campaigning with Kerry, urged voters "to separate out fact from fiction." He accused Republicans of making false claims against Kerry and engaging in the kind of propaganda employed by Germany's Third Reich.
"That makes this a very, very tough fight because too often, too often, in this country, if you hear something repeated, it's the old Hitler business," Glenn said. "If you hear something repeated, repeated, repeated, repeated, you start to believe it."
What in God's name has happened to John Glenn? In a time of war, he has joined the other Democratic jackasses in publicly comparing his commander-in-chief to Hitler. Has he decided deliberately to dive headfirst into the fever swamps? Does he actually believe what he's saying? Has it occurred to him what America's enemies will do with this propaganda windfall? Or has he simply begun to go senile?
Despite every loathesome thing the Democrats have said and done in the past few years, I still would have expected better of John Glenn.
Friday, September 03, 2004
In March, I expressed a concern that the Kerry campaign might be indulging in illicit fund-raising shenanigans and a hope that someone with clout would be looking into the matter.
Well, when Highway 99 speaks, people listen.
Hard to imagine most "national media outlets" doing damaging investigations of Kerry, unless we're talking about media outlets that are national but not establishment.WE'LL ALWAYS HAVE PARIS
The John Kerry camp should be careful about how much mud it flings. According to media sources in New York for the campaign, a number of national media outlets have already completed or close to completing several major investigations into possible Kerry fundraising irregularities, as well as what one media source calls "devastating" stories of Kerry's time in Paris when he was meeting with Communist Vietnamese officials.
"Americans have no idea what Kerry was doing during that time in Paris," says a jounalist. "It makes the Swift Boat ads look lightweight by comparison."
Thursday, September 02, 2004
Some free advice for President Bush.
Watched the first part of Bush's speech; I missed a large chunk of it toward the end when I got a phone call.
My only criticism of the half that I saw is that it was a bit low-energy. I'm guessing that Bush's barnstorming of the past few days took something out of him. However, while I was on the phone I kept the TV on and just turned down the sound, and judging by the visuals I'd say that both Bush and the audience became more animated as the speech went on, which I interpret as a good sign. I'll confirm this observation when I watch the rerun.
Here's some free advice for the Bush campaign: something I think would be a powerful selling point for "the ownership society."
One of the major parts of the ownership-society concept is the partial privatization of Social Security. The Republicans should calculate how much the average American pays into Social Security over the course of a working lifetime; then calculate how much the average American would put into his or her own private retirement account under the Bush plan. Point out a hypothetical situation in which a worker dies after many years of paying into both regular Social Security and a private account, but before he or she has the opportunity to receive most of the money back in retirement income. The money such a worker has paid into the system but will never collect in payments could easily reach into the tens of thousands of dollars. Make the point that in a situation like this, which could happen to anyone, the money the worker paid into the current Social Security system would be lost to his or her family, blended into a general Social Security fund and used to pay strangers; but the money put into a worker's individual, private retirement fund would be distributed to his or her heirs, probably the spouse and/or children.
The notion of tens of thousands of dollars of one's earned income being kept in the family, rather than being given to the government to give away to other people's families, would touch a very sensitive nerve for most people. It would appeal to both their self-interest (I earned it, why should other people get it?) and their altruism (the desire to provide for and protect their loved ones even after their own death).
Bush should make a long list of specific, concrete benefits such as this one, then pound away at the resulting talking points in speech after speech, send his administration personnel and public relations people to do television and print interviews to get the word out, and do TV, radio and print ads on the subject.
It would be a positive message, it would wrong-foot the Democrats on domestic issues, and it would nicely supplement Bush's main message on leadership in the War on Terror.
Update at about 8:40. Listening to the reporters and pundits commenting on the speech, I am struck by how geniunely impressed they sound. Okay, I'm watching Fox, so I suppose some people would dismiss this as mere spin. But I notice that even people such as Bill Kristol who have been critical of Bush in the past are saying with what sounds like genuine feeling that they think this speech will do Bush a lot of good. I also notice that none of the commentators is quoting the early part of the speech, the part I heard; they're all quoting from the second half, which was apparently when Bush was finished listing goals he wanted to aim for in his second term and when he got more personal and more poetic. The commentators are saying that this was the Bush we haven't seen in awhile, the inspirational Bush, the Bush of 9/11 and of the United Nations speech. Well, good grief. Evidently I really did miss the best part of tonight's speech. Now I'm really looking forward to watching the whole thing.
Congratulations are due once again to the Free State Project, which is reporting that an even 300 members have now moved to New Hampshire in order to put their classical-liberal philosophy into action.
