Croker Sack

Trade advantage changing to favor USA?

2011-10-24T16:02:00.000-07:00

This article in The Telegraph (UK) makes a surprisingly optimistic prediction:

The American phoenix is slowly rising again. Within five years or so, the US will be well on its way to self-sufficiency in fuel and energy. Manufacturing will have closed the labour gap with China in a clutch of key industries. The current account might even be in surplus.

The slow growth coming out of the recession can be discouraging, so it would be nice to think that things may get better for reasons we ordinary folks might not have expected. More petroleum and natural gas from US sources and more manufacturing here in the US (and lower imports) could give us a better economy.

Unfortunately, the global situation may still put a damper on things, as the article states:

The switch in advantage to the US is relative. It does not imply a healthy US recovery. The global depression will grind on as much of the Western world tightens fiscal policy and slowly purges debt, and as China deflates its credit bubble.

So everything is relative, but I'd rather be on the good side of that relative balance than the bad; and more "made in USA" labels on what we buy could mean more jobs here in the US.

Job openings that Americans can't fill

2011-10-15T21:16:00.000-07:00

Reuters has an article that points out the availability of quite a few well-paying job opportunities that remain open for lack of qualified Americans.

Too few college students pursue the studies they need to fill the available jobs:

Math, engineering, technology and computer science students accounted for about 11.1 percent of college graduates in 1980, according to government data. That share dropped to about 8.9 percent in 2009.

Whose fault is that?

Vocational education (presumably referring to the secondary school level and perhaps also at the technical/community college level, doesn’t teach what is needed to the students who choose to pursue this type of education:

"Often people say we do have vocational training, but it's geared toward yesterday's technology and yesterday's job opportunities," said ATS's Owens. "I am not sure the educators are on the mark with what exactly needs to be taught for today's environment."

Whose fault is that?

If employers know what knowledge job applicants need to be successful, what is keeping them from informing the students and the public school administrators and faculty?

If the faculty and administrators of our schools know what is needed, do they make reasonable efforts to inform the students?

If the students have this information available to them but still choose to pursue studies that do not qualify them to perform the available jobs, then isn’t it the fault of the students when they have poor job prospects?

Drill here, drill now -- Remember that?

2011-09-30T18:02:00.000-07:00

This article at NPR indicates that the USA is experiencing an increase in petroleum production and a decrease in dependence on petroleum imports.

I'm not sure NPR has the figures right in stating that our dependence on imports has dropped from about two-thirds two years ago to about half now, since what I found shows a reduction in import dependence but not to the same extent.

Nevertheless, it's an improvement even if not quite as great an improvement as stated by NPR.

More waivers in the works

2011-08-08T11:27:00.000-07:00

If we are to live under the rule of law, don't we have to amend the laws when we disagree with them rather than seek waivers from the executive branch?

The Obama administration has previously been in the news with its waivers of "Obamacare" requirements.

Now, the federal Department of Education is in the news with its plan to grant waivers of "No Child Left Behind" requirements.

This article in the Washington Post gives some of the details, and includes at the end a mention of the questionable nature of waivers:

"Even if one agrees with [Duncan] on the merits, as I do, the law doesn't say he can unilaterally impose new conditions that aren't in the law," said Finn, a Republican. "There's a separation of powers issue involved here. To what extent does the executive branch get to decide what's in the law?"

If there is no provision in the statute that authorizes the planned waivers, even when those waivers may be conditioned on meeting new requirements that might achieve something similar to the original purpose, then the executive branch would be legislating.

The legislative power of federal government is vested in the Congress, not the executive branch.

We are going down a path with these waivers that leads to nullification of the legislative power, since the executive branch would not be carrying out the laws as enacted by Congress.

If the law isn't what people want it to be, the proper solution is to amend the law through new legislation, not to waive the law's requirements. So why are we going down this path?

Now what will lenders do?

2011-08-05T18:59:00.000-07:00

The downgrade of Uncle Sam's credit rating by Standard & Poor's today wasn't hard to foresee, given the inability of the Democrats in the Senate and White House to support spending cuts that could rein in the deficits that are anticipated over the next few years.

According to this article in the Washington Post, the compromise reached this week didn't go far enough, and Standard & Poor's concluded that the necessary legislative action to cut spending isn't likely.

The Obama administration apparently doesn't get it, if they really think this sort of judgment about a debtor nation's ability to avoid reaching a point of no return is merely "political" and thus inappropriate.

According to the last paragraph of the article:

Obama administration officials have been critical of S&P for making what was essentially a political judgment and for failing to conclude that the country was making a strong first step to reducing its deficit.

Our political institutions--Congress and the President--have to turn themselves around, which is essentially political no matter how you cut it.

Standard & Poor's and everyone else must make a judgment about the likelihood of such a change. They cannot merely hope for a change.

Change public school teacher compensation

2011-05-18T22:06:00.000-07:00

Megan McCardle has an interesting description of the effects of current ways of compensating public school teachers--and of her ideas for needed changes.

I know what some of you are thinking: but if the system weren't set up this way, people would just fire old, expensive teachers! But I'm proposing repeal of the entire Faustian bargain where teachers get systemic bumps merely for aging in place: pay younger teachers more, and make the raises less generous, so everyone gets the same pay for doing the same job. (For the first five years, I think there's some argument for teachers working at a discount. But teacher effectiveness seems to plateau after five years*.) The system should neither punish longevity, nor reward it. And if that were true, principals would have no incentive to fire teachers by age group rather than performance.

I like the footnote that explains her statement about a "plateau after five years" too:

* Yes, yes, that's only if you accept standardized tests as some sort of accurate measurement. Sadly, standardized tests are the only way we have to get, erm, a standard measurement, and no one's offered any very compelling alternative causation that would make teacher quality as measured by these tests rise for the first five years--and then stop--for reasons completely uncorrelated with whatever intangible variables the anti-testitarians believe constitute "actual" teaching performance.

CBO Assumptions Tell Us More Than CBO Deficit Projections

2011-01-28T21:16:00.001-08:00

Congressional Budget Office budget projections for anything other than the current fiscal year seem almost worthless, since they are based on current laws rather than likely future circumstances.

To illustrate, look at the January 2010 budget projections.

The deficit for fiscal year 2010 was projected to be $1.3 trillion—pretty close to the actual figure for that year.

As shown in the interactive graph at the beginning of the January 2010 report, the federal budget deficit for fiscal year 2011 was projected to be $980 billion.

Now turn to the January 2011 projection, which projects a federal budget deficit of $1.5 trillion for fiscal year 2011.

What a difference a year makes, huh?

The difference largely results from the requirement that the CBO assume current law stays in effect during the future fiscal year, but the law doesn’t.

Here’s part of the explanation in the most recent CBO report:

CBO's baseline projections are not intended to be a forecast of future budgetary outcomes; rather, they serve as a neutral benchmark that legislators and others can use to assess the potential effects of policy decisions. Consequently, they incorporate the assumption that current laws governing taxes and spending will remain unchanged. In particular, the baseline projections in this report are based on the following assumptions:
---Sharp reductions in Medicare's payment rates for physicians' services take effect as scheduled at the end of 2011;
---Extensions of unemployment compensation, the one-year reduction in the payroll tax, and the two-year extension of provisions designed to limit the reach of the alternative minimum tax all expire as scheduled at the end of 2011;
---Other provisions of the 2010 tax act, including extensions of lower tax rates and expanded credits and deductions originally enacted in the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, and ARRA, expire as scheduled at the end of 2012; and
---Funding for discretionary spending increases with inflation rather than at the considerably faster pace seen over the dozen years leading up to the recent recession.

The projected deficits over the latter part of the coming decade are much smaller relative to GDP than is the current deficit, mostly because, under those assumptions and with a continuing economic expansion, revenues as a share of GDP are projected to rise steadily—from about 15 percent of GDP in 2011 to 21 percent by 2021.

The assumptions illustrate what hard choices are ahead. That makes them more useful than the projected deficit figures based on them.

Port district levy authority increase is pending in the legislature

2011-01-21T16:09:00.000-08:00

Port districts in Washington could levy much more for “industrial development district” (IDD) levies, if either House Bill 1308 or its companion bill, Senate Bill 5222, is enacted.

The first committee hearing is scheduled for Monday, Jan. 24, 2011, in the House Committee on Community Development & Housing.

Section 1 of the bill sets a new limit on the aggregate tax revenue that can be collected during the term of the IDD levy, and makes the allowable duration 20 years in each of two periods rather than the current 6 years in each of the two periods. (Port districts in counties bordering the Pacific Ocean can impose the IDD levy in a third period.)

Section 2 of the bill removes the limit on annual levy increases stated in RCW 84.55.010.

The aggregate limit that could be collected over the entire 20 year period is so large as to be meaningless as a limit on taxation. It is an amount of dollars equal to $2.70 multiplied by the total assessed value of all taxable property in the port district in the year prior to the first year’s IDD levy (the “base year”).

This isn’t the dollars per $1000 of assessed value that people are familiar with when tax rates are stated. It is $2.70 times the total valuation, not times each $1000 of valuation.

The resulting aggregate amount is so large that it could not in any probable circumstances be collected over a 20 year period without exceeding the maximum allowable tax rate of 45 cents per $1000 of assessed value.

So, the effect is to make the maximum tax rate of 45 cents per $1000 of assessed value the only limit on annual increases in IDD levies.

The tax rate could remain at the same 45 cents per $1000 each year no matter what change occurs in total assessed valuation.

If total valuation rises by 10 percent in one year, so could the tax imposed by this IDD levy.

To show how this bill would affect property taxes imposed by port districts, imagine that the Port of Bremerton could have done as this bill allows when it imposed its IDD levy.

The “base year” would have been 2006, when the total valuation was $7,829,291,586.

Multiplying $2.70 by the base year’s total assessed value gives a limit on the aggregate tax to be collected over a period up to 20 years—and that limit would be $21,139,087,282. That’s more than $21 billion with a “b.”

In the first year of the Bremerton Port District IDD levy (2007), the tax rate was the maximum 45 cents per $1000, and the levy amount was $4,336,635.

The allowable amount in the first year would have been the same even if HB 1308 or SB 5222 had already been enacted.

The effect of the bill shows up in later years.

In 2008, assessed values rose more than one percent, so the actual tax rate went down because of the limit on annual increases stated in RCW 84.55.010. Total assessed value was $11,152,989,919; the tax rate was $0.406517 per $1000 of assessed value; and the levy amount was $4,533,885.

Under current law, the limit on annual increases is usually described as one percent plus new construction; and this limit allowed the Bremerton Port District IDD levy to rise in 2008 by $197,250, or 4.55 percent. (There was a lot of new construction added to the tax rolls, since the “bubble” had not yet burst when the assessed values were set for taxes payable in 2008.)

Under the bill now pending in the legislature, the tax rate could have stayed at 45 cents per $1000, which would have resulted in a levy amount of $5,018,845—for an increase of $682,210 or 15.7 percent.

When the bubble burst and assessed values declined (and new construction activity almost stopped), the tax rate went up in 2009 and 2010. In 2010, the rate hit the maximum allowed 45 cents per $1000.

Under the bill, the declining values would have caused the IDD levy to decrease by less than one percent in 2009 rather than the 2.32 percent increase that actually occurred. The rising tax rate in the real world allowed the levy amount to rise, but the tax rate in the imaginary world in which the bill has already become law causes the levy amount to go down slightly. The rate is already at its maximum in this imaginary world, so the decline in total valuation causes a decline in the levy amount.

In 2010, the actual levy amount was lower by 1.35 percent from 2009; and the imaginary levy would have been down by 8 percent because of the continued decline in total assessed value.

In 2011, the actual levy and the imaginary levy experience the same 3.88 percent decline because of further declines in total assessed values.

So during a once-in-a-generation period of declining property values, the bill would have caused the IDD levy amount to go down each year just as fast as values decline—after first having shot up by more than 15 percent when assessed values were still rising.

Over the 5 years in which the Bremerton Port District IDD levy has existed so far, the total actually levied through 2011 is $22,485,384.

If the bill were already in effect, the total would have been $23,306,927.

The big increase allowed by the meaningless limit in the bill caused the imaginary levy to collect more in this 5 year period despite the bigger declines in the imaginary levy amount as property values dropped.

When the tax rate can remain the same each year—as it could under this bill—the property tax levied by the port districts for their IDD levies will go up each year as much as total values rise, or down each year as much as total values decline.

The current “one percent plus new construction” limit on annual increases in the IDD levy amount would no longer be in effect.

Port districts could levy much higher taxes through their IDD levies compared to current law.

Update 7:45 pm, Jan. 21: The Washington Public Ports Association apparently is the group requesting this increase in port district property tax authority. In the association's weekly legislative report for today is this paragraph:

Ports IDD Levy Flexibility: The WPPA proposal to provide more flexibility in how IDD levies are structured was introduced in both the House and Senate this week. The House Bill, HB 1308 is scheduled for public hearing on Monday, January 24 at 1:30 p.m. in the House Community Development Committee. Senate Bill 5222 is tentatively set to receive a public hearing on Wednesday, January 26 at 8:00 a.m. in the Senate Economic Development, Trade and Innovation Committee.

"Flexibility" may be the new euphemism for "authority to impose higher taxes."

Update 8:05 pm, Jan. 21: The WPPA describes this bill in its legislative agenda without saying that it is an increase in levy authority:

With state funding difficult to come by, ports must better utilize current funding mechanisms in order to build necessary infrastructure. Providing additional flexibility to current IDD levy financing tools will provide more opportunities for ports to fund infrastructure projects themselves. WPPA will work for passage of legislation that will allow ports to use smaller portions of their IDD levy capacity on specific projects over extended periods of time without forfeiting their remaining capacity, while maintaining the current level of taxing authority.

The bill clearly does more than "maintaining the current level of taxing authority." Being able to levy an amount that can be collected each year for 20 years at 45 cents per $1000 is clearly greater taxing authority than port districts now have.

Have they fooled themselves into believing what they say? Notice that the current law allows the first year of a 6 year IDD levy to start with the amount that can be collected by a tax rate of 45 cents per $1000. Multiply $0.45 by 6, and the result is $2.70, which is the figure used in the bill to arrive at the aggregate limit on the amount collected in 20 years. Do they not realize that multiplying $2.70 by the total assessed valuation results in a total tax that is 270 percent of the total assessed valuation?

Short Skirts and Easy Money

2010-12-17T18:51:00.000-08:00

The use of attractive women in short skirts to persuade men to participate in DNA tests makes for an eye-catching lead, but I wondered why the men's medical insurance companies would pay for the tests, much less pay exorbitant amounts.

It turns out to be the usual "fraud, waste and abuse" facilitated by a state government requirement that insurance companies pay for these tests to build DNA data bases of potential bone marrow donors.

In the New York Times:

If people expressed interest, Mr. Boffetti said, the models — who, for reasons that remain unclear, sometimes also wore electric-blue wigs — would hand them off to registry employees who would take mouth swabs.

“They got people to do this without telling them it could be a charge of $4,300 against their insurance,” he said.

New Hampshire passed a law in 2006 requiring insurers to pay for tissue-typing tests for potential bone marrow donors. But at the time, Mr. Boffetti said, proponents told lawmakers that each test would cost $100 or less.

The cost of medical insurance premiums keeps rising in part because states keep putting silly requirements in their laws forcing insurers to pay.

This has got to be one of the worst, if not the worst, example of the fraud, waste and abuse that results from silly state requirements. It wasn't medical care, and no one would pay such a high price out of his own pocket. But, use the law to force the insurer to pay, keep the insured ignorant, and then make piles of money.

The same old scare tactic on Social Security

2010-08-14T21:08:00.000-07:00

My recollection of this Democrat tactic around election time goes back more than 40 years--they've used it for at least that long.

Obama must be running out of stuff to say.

Thank goodness I don't actually have to watch and listen as he says it. The summary on the White House site says enough:

Your Weekly Address
President Barack Obama intends to publish a weekly video address every Saturday morning of his presidency.
· Weekly Address: Honoring Social Security, Not Privatizing It
On the 75th anniversary of Social Security, President Obama promises to protect it from Republican leaders in Congress who have made privatization a key part of their agenda. He makes clear that, especially in light of the financial crisis, gambling Social Security on Wall Street makes no sense.

One way or another the younger folks in America have to begin saving and investing for their own retirements. They will probably be paying quite a bit to provide the funding needed to keep the promises made to older folks by politicians elected by those older folks. Whatever they have left over needs to go into personal savings and investments, because there is so little probability that the Social Security funding model can work when there are so few young workers to support each older retired person.

Promising to "protect" Social Security by continuing to rely on this obsolete funding scheme is a promise to leave the younger folks in the lurch when they reach retirement age.

Running on fumes

2010-08-06T15:12:00.000-07:00

A fascinating possibility is reported by the Telegraph:

The researchers found that, when deprived of the oxygen and nitrogen from which it made ammonia and given carbon monoxide instead, vanadium nitrogenase automatically started using it to produce short carbon chains, two or three atoms long.
***
Cars produce carbon monoxide in their exhausts through incomplete combustion, so in the not too distant future, it might be possible partly to fuel cars off their own fumes.

Obama's State of the Union Address--Not Entirely True?

2010-01-27T19:36:00.000-08:00

When President Obama said this during his State of the Union Address, Justice Alito appeared to disagree:

Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests – including foreign corporations – to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that’s why I’m urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong.

I believe Obama's claim that the Supreme Court "reversed a century of law" was not true, and I think Alito said so.

"Climategate" has an impact

2009-12-12T21:57:00.000-08:00

Despite what silly people like Al Gore (who hasn't read any of the leaked information) say, the disclosure of emails and other files from the Climatic Research Unit that is now often called "Climategate" has an impact.

People who insist that they are scientists and that we should all trust what they say about man-made global warming can insist all they want (as they have and will), but their work deserves close scrutiny to find out how much of the warming is "man-made" in the sense that they made it by adjusting little things like the instrumental records from thermometers.

If more articles like this one in the UK Daily Mail were published in the lame-stream media, the impact would grow even greater. That is, apparently, why so many in the "news" media are reluctant to publish such things.

Climatic Research Unit Leak

2009-11-24T23:18:00.000-08:00

Bingo! We have a winner.

There is a high likelihood that Charlie Martin has guessed the principal reason for refusing to release the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit's data and methods:

I think there’s a good reason the CRU didn’t want to give their data to people trying to replicate their work.

It’s in such a mess that they can’t replicate their own results.

Of course, some of the data CRU started with has probably been tossed away and replaced by data they've massaged over the years to get the result they expect from their efforts to estimate the global average temperature. But that is just another facet of the same problem--even they cannot replicate their work.

And the CRU temperature estimates are a major part of the whole "global warming" hypothesis. Most of the work done by others assumes the CRU temperatures are valid and reliable.

What if they aren't?

How can anyone know?

Cherry Picking in Siberia

2009-09-28T15:15:00.001-07:00

Who knew there were cherry trees in Siberia?

Over at Climate Audit, the cherry-picking global warmists may have been exposed.

If first appearances turn out to be correct, it will be obvious why the warmists fought so long to hide the data they claimed was the basis of some of their "hockey stick" temperature graphs.

Wanted: Impractical People

2009-07-22T11:11:00.000-07:00

The word "visionary" is used quite a bit in this neck of the woods--maybe overused.

From the context, it appears that the people using it believe that being visionary is a good thing.

For example, the Kitsap County commissioners are looking for volunteers to serve on a budget advisory committee:

PORT ORCHARD, WA—The County Commissioners are looking for visionary citizens with some knowledge and interest in finances to serve on the Citizens Budget Advisory Committee.

Here is the definition in Webster's New World College Dictionary, 4th edition:

Visionary, adjective, (1) of, or having the nature of, or seen in a vision; (2)(a) existing only in the mind; not real; imaginary [visionary achievements]; (2)(b) not capable of being put into effect; not realistic; impractical [a visionary scheme]; (3) seeing or disposed to see visions; (4) characterized by impractical ideas or schemes. Noun, (1) a person who sees visions; prophet or seer; (2) a person whose ideas, plans, etc. are impractical, too idealistic, or fantastic; dreamer; (3) a person of strong and creative imaginative power and, often, the ability to inspire others.

Only at the last, when visionary is used as a noun, is there a definition that could be understood as a compliment--the ability to inspire others.

I doubt that the county is seeking impractical dreamers for its advisory committee, so apparently we are observing the evolution of a word in the English language. Eventually, people may not even recall when it wasn't a complimentary term.

In the meantime, it's a little amusing to see an appeal for advisors who are impractical dreamers.

States to taxpayers: "IOU a tax refund"

2009-07-04T16:03:00.000-07:00

When the government gets "first dibs" on your earnings through income tax withholding, guess what happens if the state decides it needs your money more than you do?

That's right: you get stiffed.

ATLANTA (AP) - Colin Daymude was out of work last year after his business failed and eagerly filed his taxes in mid-January, figuring he'd get his refund sooner. He was wrong.

It took the 44-year-old entrepreneur more than six months to get his $1,300 check—money that he needed to pay living expenses while he worked a few side gigs.

Tax day—April 15—has long since come and gone, but sharp budget cuts and falling revenues have forced many states to delay income tax returns [sic; "refunds" is the word] for months—and left taxpayers longing for their money.

It's happening in Georgia, Alabama, Kansas, Missouri, Maryland, California, etc.

Here in the state of Washington, people who advocate enactment of a state income tax claim that it would provide more "stable" revenue than our existing tax structure. Is this one of the "features" of an income tax that "stabilizes" revenue?

Of course, an income tax would make Washington's tax structure even more "volatile," but you have to admit that being able to delay refunds to people who overpaid their taxes through the withholding system would give the state more money to spend for a while.

They're called "taxpayers," not "revenue sources"

2009-06-30T17:37:00.000-07:00

Is there a government official, employee, or lobbyist/union rep for employees who doesn't wish for "stable revenue sources"?

Note this statement reported by Reuters from a lobbyist in California:

"It's been a sort of perfect storm, of a very deep recession hitting us and exposing the weakness of depending on revenue sources sensitive to economic cycles," labor lobbyist Barry Broad said.

California has every form of taxation known to man, I believe.

Yet, this (almost certainly government emloyees' union) "lobbyist" laments "the weakness of depending on revenue sources sensitive to economic cycles."

There is no perpetual motion machine, and there is no "revenue source" that isn't "sensitive to economic cycles."

Those "revenue sources" are called "taxpayers," and their available income varies in direct relation to the economy in which they earn that income.

Government employees could, I suppose, demand "stable revenue" no matter what the taxpayers' incomes are doing at the moment; but that probably isn't a viable option over the long term. Pitchforks, torches, tar and feathers, and split fence rails for the celebratory ride out of town may be out of the question; but our votes surely could be influenced by such a demand.

The Telegraph gets it wrong

2009-05-14T19:27:00.000-07:00

It's pretty bad when we can't even count on the Telegraph to get it right:

At the time the Bush administration was anxious to support its principal case for the war, that the late Iraqi dictator was aiding plots against the US.

It was never the position of the Bush administration that Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq "was aiding plots against the US."

Time and again, the administration made plain that the risk was in the future--that Iraq would continue its contacts with Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations, and may eventually provide WMD to terrorists.

You might think the risk was too slim to matter, and argue consistently with that belief; but why misstate the administration's position like this?

Should police stay safe or go in?

2009-04-04T12:46:00.000-07:00

Compare these two cases of police response to "911" calls asking for protection from murderers.

Justin Garner, a young police officer in North Carolina, arrived at the scene and within 5 minutes ended the killing spree by going in and shooting the murderer.

Officer Justin Garner got the call about a shooting at the Pinelake Health and Rehabilitation Center at 10:01 a.m. Sunday. According to investigators, 45-year-old Robert Stewart was in the building shooting at patients and a nurse. Eight people died.

By 10:05, Garner radioed a dispatcher that he'd shot Stewart. "I've been shot in the foot," he told the dispatcher.

Cops in New York waited outside, talking on cell phones to people inside the building until they were sure it was safe to go in--more than an hour after they arrived on the scene.

One receptionist was killed, while the other, shot in the abdomen, pretended to be dead and then crawled under a desk and called 911, he said.

Police said they arrived within two minutes.

***
Police heard no gunfire after they arrived but waited for about an hour before entering the building to make sure it was safe for officers. They then spent two hours searching the building.

Who did what you would expect, the cops or the police officer?

Gov. Gregoire and Education Funding Reform

2009-03-26T22:38:00.000-07:00

Over at The Tacoma News Tribune blog, Political Buzz, there's a letter from Governor Gregoire to Speaker Chopp and Senate Majority Leader Brown about reforming state spending policies for K-12 education.

Here's an interesting thing that the governor said to them:

It should be clear that parents, who can afford it, may be asked by school districts to participate in supporting their student in all-day kindergarten programs.

What does"asked...to participate in supporting" mean, if not a tuition fee? In other words, isn't the governor saying that the state law should be clear that school districts can charge a tuition fee for all-day kindergarten?

But, several school districts already charge tuition fees for all-day kindergarten, so isn't state law already clear on the point?

Yes, it is -- state law clearly prohibits charging a tuition fee:

Every school district shall admit on a tuition free basis all persons of school age who reside within this state, and do not reside within another school district carrying the grades for which they are eligible to enroll: PROVIDED, That nothing in this section shall be construed as affecting RCW 28A.225.220 or 28A.225.250.

Several school districts are brazenly breaking state law by charging a tuition fee for all-day kindergarten, and no one in any relevant part of state government is unaware of this fact.

Is the governor suggesting that the law be changed? Hardly. She wouldn't say "asked" and "participate in supporting" if she were suggesting such a change.

Why not change the law?

It's being broken with impunity now. Even the governor is suggesting with her cute phrasing that the illegal charging of tuition fees continue.

Wouldn't it be better to behave like honest people and change the law?

Are the governor and legislators and school district administrators afraid to change the law but unafraid to violate it? What a strange situation.

Obama learns a constellation's name

2009-03-24T16:24:00.000-07:00

Over at Powerline, John asks: "How would he pronounce 'Cassiopeia'?"

Everyone knows that Barack Obama is lost without his teleprompter, but his latest blunder, courtesy of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, via the Corner, suggests that the teleprompter may not be enough unless it includes phonetic spellings. Obama was speaking at a White House roundtable on clean energy systems, and repeatedly saluted Orion Energy Systems, whose CEO, Neal Verfuerth, was present at the event. So Obama referred to "Orion" a number of times. Only problem was, he appeared to be unfamiliar with the word:
All terrific press for Orion, except that Obama kept pronouncing the company's name wrong, calling it OAR-ee-on.

Cassiopeia would be a good one, but I'd like to hear the big O pronounce these quickly in succession: Obama, Ohio, Orion, Onion.

When is a bonus not a bonus?

2009-03-17T11:14:00.000-07:00

According to Reuters, this is part of the letter from New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo to Representative Barney Frank about the AIG "retention pay" contract payments:

"The contracts shockingly contain a provision that required most individuals' bonuses to be 100 percent of their 2007 bonuses," Tuesday's letter said. "AIG chose to lock in bonuses for 2008 at 2007 levels despite obvious signs that 2008 performance would be disastrous."

Well, no wonder AIG has called it "retention pay." A "bonus" would be based on meeting performance goals -- which surely would not include driving the corporation into bankruptcy.

Obama wants the debate to stop

2009-02-05T15:49:00.000-08:00

Is Obama trying to imitate "The Goracle" now?

According to an AP article in today's Washington Post:

"The time for talk is over. The time for action is now," declared Obama as the Senate plodded through a fourth day of debate on the legislation.

Wasn't Obama supposed to be a wonderful talker? Why does he want the talking to stop? Is he having a hard time holding his own in the debate?

If Obama is smart enough to know and respect the difference between a dictatorship and a democratic republic, why doesn't he want the Congress to carry out its legislative deliberations in a reasonably careful way? It's not as though the so-called stimulus bill is a small bit of spending with no big importance to our country.

Tropical forests recovering

2009-01-31T12:16:00.000-08:00

Now that Obama is in office, it's safe for The New York Times to write about the apparently improving situation in tropical forests:

These new “secondary” forests are emerging in Latin America, Asia and other tropical regions at such a fast pace that the trend has set off a serious debate about whether saving primeval rain forest — an iconic environmental cause — may be less urgent than once thought. By one estimate, for every acre of rain forest cut down each year, more than 50 acres of new forest are growing in the tropics on land that was once farmed, logged or ravaged by natural disaster.

Remember? There was a "moment when...our planet began to heal."

Nationalized health care in House "stimulus" bill

2009-01-30T21:26:00.000-08:00

How's this for a few giant steps toward nationalized health care? In the House "stimulus" bill, there appear to be a few increases in taxpayer subsidies for health care benefits.

Can anyone explain how this would "stimulate" the national economy?

Worst recession since when?

2009-01-30T16:35:00.000-08:00

Some "news" reporters are already making (up) history by claiming that this recession is "the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression of the 1930s."

Note the dates in this Reuters report about the latest statistical data on the economy. See if any of them go back as far as 1942. (Hint: None go back that far.)

There's a difference between saying this is "the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression" and saying this is "the worst recession since the Great Depression."

Things are bad enough without false reports making it appear they are even worse. Surely even journalists have heard of these words: "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."

Obama's abortion policy is neither inflammatory nor contentious -- it's so because the AP says so

2009-01-24T15:34:00.000-08:00

Notice how biased the reporting of Obama’s abortion policy is.

Bush’s policy was the opposite of Obama’s.

Bush’s policy was “inflammatory” and “contentious”:

WASHINGTON (AP) – President Barack Obama on Friday struck down the Bush administration's ban on giving federal money to international groups that perform abortions or provide abortion information — an inflammatory policy that has bounced in and out of law for the past quarter-century. Obama's executive order, the latest in an aggressive first week reversing contentious Bush policies, was warmly welcomed by liberal groups and denounced by abortion rights foes.

What adjective was used to describe Obama’s policy? I didn’t notice one.

When Obama declared that he has “no desire to continue this stale and fruitless debate,” it isn’t worth an adjective to describe his statement.

Very odd.

“Inflammatory” – likely to rouse anger or violence.

“Contentious” – likely to provoke controversy.

What is it about Bush’s policy that is inflammatory or contentious, while Obama’s policy is neither?

Obviously, the reporters and editors agree with Obama and disagree with Bush -- and their disagreement makes them likely to be roused to anger by Bush's policy.

Either policy may provoke controversy, since people have strong beliefs about the topic of abortion and government funding that may promote abortion -- but only Bush's policy is contentious, because the reporters and editors disagree with him.

Yet, the reporters and editors declare that their news reports are unbiased. They couldn't possibly believe that their declarations are true.

American voters proved something

2008-11-06T20:54:00.000-08:00

As Iowahawk explains, we all have reason to pause in wonder at what American voters have wrought:

Although I have not always been the most outspoken advocate of President-Elect Barack Obama, today I would like to congratulate him and add my voice to the millions of fellow citizens who are celebrating his historic and frightening election victory. I don't care whether you are a conservative or a liberal -- when you saw this inspiring young African-American rise to our nation's highest office I hope you felt the same sense of patriotic pride that I experienced, no matter how hard you were hyperventilating with deep existential dread.

Read the rest here after first placing all food and drink aside for later, especially drink.

Preconditions for talks with Iran

2008-10-12T18:10:00.001-07:00

Barack Obama, when asked during a debate whether he would talk with the leader of Iran "without preconditions," famously answered that he would talk to Iran without preconditions. (He backtracked later, after his Democratic Party primary election opponents pointed out how naive he was to promise such a thing.)

Well, Obama, now that you claim that you would, of course, engage in diplomatic "preparations" before holding presidential-level talks, what is your position on the preconditions announced by the government of Iran?

This would be a good question to pose in the final presidential debate, since our news media appear to be ignoring this development:

Will you agree to withdraw entirely from the Middle East no matter what the effect on our vital interests and on the people of Iraq and Afghanistan, and to abandon our allies, the people of Israel, to whatever fate awaits them at the hands of their enemies?

Obama advocates anticipatory self defense

2008-10-07T21:34:00.001-07:00

Obama began rambling incoherently at one point in tonight's debate at about 7:22 pm (PDT).

Immediately after claiming that the U.S. had been "reactive" rather than anticipating threats to our interests in the "last eight years," he apparently realized that he was advocating anticipatory self defense--you know, preemptory attacks like Iraq which he has opposed and thereby built his national political image as the guy who said don't do it.

I've inserted "[brain freeze]" at the point when I think he realized he was painting himself into a corner. Look what he said immediately after: it "made us more safe." Then, try to follow his ramble after that blunder. In trying to regroup, he claimed that going into Iraq was part of this "reactive" way of handling things.

How can it be "reactive" and still be anticipatory self defense or a preemptory attack? He is contradicting himself.

Obama is advocating preemptory attacks when he says we have to "anticipate" rather than be "reactive," isn't he?

Here is an excerpt from the transcript provided by CNN. The question was: "How can we apply pressure to Russia for humanitarian issues in an effective manner without starting another Cold War?"

The other thing we have to do, though, is we've got to see around the corners. We've got to anticipate some of these problems ahead of time. You know, back in April, I put out a statement saying that the situation in Georgia was unsustainable because you had Russian peacekeepers in these territories that were under dispute.

And you knew that if the Russians themselves were trying to obtain some of these territories or push back against Georgia, that that was not a stable situation. So part of the job of the next commander-in-chief, in keeping all of you safe, is making sure that we can see some of the 21st Century challenges and anticipate them before they happen.

We haven't been doing enough of that. We tend to be reactive. That's what we've been doing over the last eight years [brain freeze] and that has actually made us more safe. That's part of what happened in Afghanistan, where we rushed into Iraq and Sen. McCain and President Bush suggested that it wasn't that important to catch bin Laden right now and that we could muddle through, and that has cost us dearly.

We've got to be much more strategic if we're going to be able to deal with all of the challenges that we face out there.

And one last point I want to make about Russia. Energy is going to be key in dealing with Russia. If we can reduce our energy consumption, that reduces the amount of petro dollars that they have to make mischief around the world. That will strengthen us and weaken them when it comes to issues like Georgia.

Will anyone in the major news media notice and comment?

You have to go to the tape to know what Palin really said

2008-09-11T21:30:00.000-07:00

Here is a reporter for the Washington Post who is trying to start a new line of attack on Governor Sarah Palin:

Palin Links Iraq to Sept. 11 In Talk to Troops in Alaska

By Anne E. Kornblut
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, September 12, 2008; Page A01

FORT WAINWRIGHT, Alaska, Sept. 11 -- Gov. Sarah Palin linked the war in Iraq with the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, telling an Iraq-bound brigade of soldiers that included her son that they would "defend the innocent from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans."

The idea that the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein helped al-Qaeda plan the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, a view once promoted by Bush administration officials, has since been rejected even by the president himself. But it is widely agreed that militants allied with al-Qaeda have taken root in Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion.

Well, yes, "it is widely agreed" that Al-Qaeda terrorists have been killing innocent people in Iraq for years -- and that one of the tasks of the coalition forces is to protect the people of Iraq from those terrorists, just as Gov. Palin said.

So, how did Ms. Kornblut come up with her fantastic idea that Gov. Palin has claimed that Saddam Hussein's regime helped Al-Qaeda attack us on September 11, 2001?

Probably the same place she found the idea that this was "a view once promoted by Bush administration officials."

Does she have to stand up when she pulls these ideas out? Or is she such a natural liar that she can remain seated at the keyboard the whole time?

Update, September 12: Instapundit links to Tom Maguire, who links to William Kristol, who shows that Kornblut's lie was even worse in the original version. Kristol's headline asks if it is "stupid or malicious." It's both, but that's not unusual for the Democrats and their party organ known as "the MSM." They are stupid and malicious most of the time when attacking their political opposition.

Arctic Sea Ice Melting Fast or Not?

2008-08-04T13:21:00.001-07:00

There appears to be nothing on the NSIDC Web site about this report in today's Seattle Times:

Scientists at the National Snow and Ice Data Center say strong, southerly winds from the North Slope have devoured a huge swath of Arctic ice larger than the state of Texas in the heart of the Beaufort Sea.

Combining that loss with the overall decline in sea ice in recent years should leave this year's end-of-summer Arctic ice pack close to its lowest measurement on record.

Since the latest NSIDC report was released on Friday, August 1, the graph has been updated to show a straight-line decline in Arctic ice extent that is faster than the mean rate. On the graph as of August 1, the line was curving up toward the mean very slightly.

At "The Chryosphere Today," there doesn't appear to have been a change in the rate of melting.

My quick Google news search for National Snow and Ice Data Center turned up only the Seattle Times article with the claim of faster melting. For example, the Barents Observer today summarizes the NSIDC report of August 1, which does not support the statements in the Seattle Times article.

So, is the ice disappearing at a faster rate, or what?

Seattle: The Nanny City

2008-08-01T20:57:00.000-07:00

Is there any point at which the residents of the Seattle Soviet will say "stop"?

Soon, they may have to pay extra so their table scraps can be recycled:

Seattle residents could see a 29 percent increase in garbage rates and an 18 percent increase in water rates next year. Seattle Public Utilities says rates need to go up to keep up with inflation and rising fuel costs and pay for a new table-scrap recycling service.
****

The bill a single-family home would pay for garbage collection each month would increase close to 29 percent, from $23 in 2008 to $29.65 in 2009, which would include a new weekly collection for food scraps.

The city will require all single-family homes to sign up for the new food recycling service in April 2009. If approved, the garbage rate would go up on March 31.

Maybe their nannies at city hall believe too many people let their pets enjoy the scraps. It's not good for Fido, you know.

Arctic sea ice melting at average rate

2008-08-01T14:17:00.000-07:00

The latest report shows why the news media are being fed stories of ice shelf collapse rather than sea ice melt:

August 1, 2008
Race between waning sunlight and thin ice

The Arctic sea ice is now at the peak of the melt season. Although ice extent is below average, it seems less likely that extent will approach last year’s record low.

The pace of summer decline is slower than last year’s record-shattering rate, and peak sunlight has passed with the summer solstice.

There is still a chance for the global warming alarmists to bray about the actual sea ice conditions in the Arctic, but time is running out this year.

Greenland Ice Sheet Slows Slide to Sea

2008-07-04T12:53:00.001-07:00

This report in Science magazine by Roderik Van De Waal of Utrecht University in The Netherlands isn't likely to get much publicity beyond the article in New Scientist:

Much noise has been made about how water lubricates the base of Greenland's ice sheet, accelerating its slide into the oceans. In a rare "good news" announcement, climatologists now say the ice may not be in such a hurry to throw itself into the water after all. Mother Nature, it seems, has given it brakes.

Since 1991, the western edge of Greenland's ice sheet has actually slowed its ocean-bound progress by 10%, say the team, who have studied the longest available record of ice and water flow in the region.

A Green Greenland

2008-06-20T23:59:00.000-07:00

Imagine a green Greenland -- spruce forests, ferns, the works. A recent study (published in Science) shows things were quite different, as noted at Canada.com:

FROM FORESTS TO ICE
Climate change obliterated Greenland's leafy cover, turning it into an icy island, a new study says
Margaret Munro, Canwest News Service
Published: Thursday, June 19, 2008

Extensive spruce forests used to cover the southern half of Greenland, according to a Canadian study that gives a remarkable glimpse of the icy island's green past and possible future.

Then try to figure out what caused all that ice to melt 125,000 and 400,000 years ago:

The pollen shows Greenland was much greener than it is today during several warm periods over the million-year span, with extensive fernlike vegetation 125,000 [years] ago and widespread spruce forests 400,000 years ago.

Biofuel Bust

2008-06-08T15:52:00.001-07:00

As noted in this Seattle Times article, at one time biofuels were thought to be an economical alternative to petroleum if crude oil prices rose enough:

The rush to produce biodiesel was a gamble, assuming that skyrocketing petroleum prices would soon make veggie fuels reasonably cheap by comparison.

And as oil prices soared past $100 per barrel in recent months — and a new closing record of $138.54 on Friday — the region's biodiesel industry should have been awash in cash.

But to the surprise of the industry and its supporters, the cost of making biodiesel has outpaced the rise in fossil-fuel prices.

Customers and venture capitalists are abandoning biodiesel, since the cost of production is not, and may not be in the foreseeable future, competitive with the cost of petroleum products.

What will happen in a few months, when the State of Washington requires that 2 percent of diesel fuel sold in this state be biodiesel? Roughly 1 billion gallons of diesel fuel is purchased annually in this state now, so that would be 20 million gallons of biodiesel fuel starting in December 2008. Ironically, the article states that this is the amount exported from Washington in the latter half of 2007 to places where the price is somewhat more competitive:

According to the Department of Licensing, some 20 million gallons of Washington biodiesel were exported to Europe and Canada in the second half of 2007 — about four times the amount that was sold locally.

The very visible hand of government is all thumbs.

Warmth Increases Biodiversity

2008-05-30T23:07:00.000-07:00

Global warming hysteria is fueled partly by claims that warming will reduce biodiversity by causing extinctions.

Interestingly, it appears that warmer temperatures lead to greater biodiversity. As reported at Science Daily:

According to a study recently published online in PNAS Early Edition, the explosion of species at the tropics has much more to do with warmth than with light.

"The diversity was unrelated to productivity (from photosynthesis), but it was strongly related to temperature," said University of Southern California biologist Jed Fuhrman, who led a group that analyzed bacterial samples from warm and cold oceans.

Global Cooling Predicted

2008-04-30T22:09:00.000-07:00

Pay no attention to the cooling Earth, say the scientists who advocate acceptance of the anthropogenic global warming greenhouse gas hypothesis.

It's like this folks: natural solar and climate variations which make temperatures rise are tiny, almost undetectable causes of the recent global warming which was mostly the result of our carbon dioxide emissions; but natural solar and climate variations which cause global temperatures to fall are so huge and powerful that they overwhelm the effect of greenhouse gases.

Yeah, sure. Hold that thought for the next decade or so, since it appears that global temperatures stopped rising in 1998, and may now begin declining for at least the next decade.

Wright Dares Obama to Disown Him

2008-04-29T17:11:00.000-07:00

The irreverent Jeremiah Wright may have done Senator Obama a favor by behaving so obnoxiously over the past few days.

Obama was reluctant to disown Wright, and perhaps reasonable people would have thought less of Obama had he disowned Wright a few weeks ago.

Now, who among us would criticize Obama for "throwing Wright under the bus"?

It looks as though Wright may have decided to jump under the bus.

Did he decide that only through being truly despicable could he make it possible for Obama to do what needed to be done?

It sure looks that way -- unless you believe that Wright is just not smart enough to know that his recent behavior justified Obama's breaking relations with him.

Kerry Emanuel Has Second Thoughts -- Again

2008-04-19T20:34:00.000-07:00

As noted in the April 11 update below, Kerry Emanuel's attempt to devise a computer model and examine the possible effect of global warming on hurricanes could be bad news for global warming alarmists -- or not, if this article accurately portrays Emanuel's second second thoughts.

Will the real Emanuel please stand up and say what he thinks?

At first it was:

The hurricane expert, Kerry Emanuel of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, unveiled a novel technique for predicting future hurricane activity this week. The new work suggests that, even in a dramatically warming world, hurricane frequency and intensity may not substantially rise during the next two centuries.

The research, appearing in the March issue of Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, is all the more remarkable coming from Emanuel, a highly visible leader in his field and long an ardent proponent of a link between global warming and much stronger hurricanes.

His changing views could influence other scientists.

"The results surprised me," Emanuel said of his work, adding that global warming may still play a role in raising the intensity of hurricanes. What that role is, however, remains far from certain.

But now it's:

"It strongly confirms, independently, the results in the Nature paper," Emanuel said. "This is a completely independent analysis and comes up with very consistent results."

Worldwide, both methods show an increase in the intensity and duration of tropical cyclones, the generic name for what are known as hurricanes in the North Atlantic. But the new work shows no clear change in the overall numbers of such storms when run on future climates predicted using global climate models.

However, Emanuel says, the new work also raises some questions that remain to be understood. When projected into the future, the model shows a continuing increase in power, "but a lot less than the factor of two that we've already seen" he says. "So we have a paradox that remains to be explained."

The paper published in "Nature" appeared just before Hurricane Katrina in 2005, so it got a lot of media attention with its claim that global warming would increase hurricane frequency and intensity. Now, it appears that Emanuel is saying that the hypothesis published in 2005 is strongly confirmed -- but only a couple of weeks ago he was surprised to see that it wasn't confirmed by his new computer model.

Maybe Emanuel wanted to tamp down any skepticism about the possible link between global warming and hurricanes, since this is how the latest article ends:

In the many different computer runs with different models and different conditions, "the fact is, the results are all over the place," Emanuel says. But that doesn't mean that one can't learn from them. And there is one conclusion that's clearly not consistent with these results, he said: "The idea that there is no connection between hurricanes and global warming, that's not supported," he says.

Guess which version of Emanuel's beliefs will get the most attention in the news media.

Klotzbach and Gray Issue Hurricane Forecast for 2008

2008-04-10T16:39:00.000-07:00

As noted at Science Daily, this year's hurricane forecast has been released by professors Phil Klotzbach and William Gray of Colorado State University.

What is the probability that the "mainstream news media" will let anyone know that these experts say there is no evident connection between hurricane frequency or intensity and "global warming"?

Read the part of their report that starts on page 25. Here is an excerpt:

Although global surface temperatures have increased over the last century and over the last 30 years, there is no reliable data available to indicate increased hurricane frequency or intensity in any of the globe’s other tropical cyclone basins besides the Atlantic. Meteorologists who study tropical cyclones have no valid physical theory as to why hurricane frequency or intensity would necessarily be altered significantly by small amounts (< ±1oC) of global mean temperature change. In a global warming or global cooling world, the atmosphere’s upper air temperatures will warm or cool in unison with the sea surface temperatures. Vertical lapse rates will not be significantly altered. We have no plausible physical reasons for believing that Atlantic hurricane frequency or intensity will change significantly if global ocean temperatures continue to rise. For instance, in the quarter-century period from 1945-1969 when the globe was undergoing a weak cooling trend, the Atlantic basin experienced 80 major (Cat 3-4-5) hurricanes and 201 major hurricane days. By contrast, in a similar 25-year period from 1970-1994 when the globe was undergoing a general warming trend, there were only 38 major hurricanes (48% as many) and 63 major hurricane days (31% as many). Atlantic sea surface temperatures and hurricane activity do not necessarily follow global mean temperature trends.

The conditions which actually do have an influence on hurricane frequency and intensity are right for a bad season this year, so there will probably be many chances to mislead the American public about the effect of "global warming" on this season's storms. I would bet they won't miss any opportunity to blame it all on "anthropogenic global warming" -- that is, us.

Update, April 11: This looks like bad news for the global warming pushers in the news media. It seems that one of their scientists who had argued that global warming increases hurricane intensity and frequency is having second thoughts.

Reichler and Kim Say Reliability of Computer Climate Models Cannot Be Known

2008-04-07T17:35:00.000-07:00

Who says NASA is biased in favor of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis? They posted this among their "media alerts":

Although model-based projections of future climate are now more credible than ever before, the authors note they have no way to say exactly how reliable those projections are. There are simply too many unknowns involved in the future evolution of climate, such as how much humans will curb their future greenhouse gas emissions.

How can something which is of unknown reliability be more credible?

Apparently, the paper which is the subject of this particular "alert" concludes that current computer models do a pretty good job of simulating today's climate:

In the study, co-authors Thomas Reichler and Junsu Kim from the Department of Meteorology at the University of Utah investigate how well climate models actually do their job in simulating climate. To this end, they compare the output of the models against observations for present climate.

So, the argument is: if they can simulate today's climate, then they are "credible" as projections of climate conditions in the years to come.

True, but that bit about unknown reliability is worrisome, isn't it?

The example given doesn't dispel the worry, since the amount of change in future emissions is usually assumed for different scenarios in order to show what the projected result would be for each of them. What are the other unknowns?

And, to what extent have the current models been adjusted to get them to simulate observed climate conditions? Have they been "tweaked" to the point that they no longer follow known physical principles? (Miskolczi argues that the models do not follow physical laws.)

Head of United Church of Christ Defends Jeremiah Wright

2008-03-17T20:22:00.000-07:00

The defense of Rev. Jeremiah Wright by Rev. John H. Thomas, General Minister and President of the United Church of Christ, is amazing.

What's really going on here? First, it may state the obvious to point out that these television and radio shows have very little interest in Trinity Church or Jeremiah Wright. Those who sifted through hours of sermons searching for a few lurid phrases and those who have aired them repeatedly have only one intention. It is to wound a presidential candidate. In the process a congregation that does exceptional ministry and a pastor who has given his life to shape those ministries is caricatured and demonized. You don't have to be an Obama supporter to be alarmed at this. Will Clinton's United Methodist Church be next? Or McCain's Episcopal Church? Wouldn't we have been just as alarmed had it been Huckabee's Southern Baptist Church, or Romney's Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?

If the churches attended for a significant length of time by the others harbor a hateful man like Wright, then let's hear about it.

Thomas apparently would rather change the subject with this weak attempt to pretend that someone like Wright might be found preaching at Clinton's or McCain's preferred church.

It gets worse:

Many of us would prefer to avoid the stark and startling language Pastor Wright used in these clips. But what was his real crime? He is condemned for using a mild "obscenity" in reference to the United States.

If that's not amazing, I don't know what is. Shouting "God damn America" is not "a mild 'obscenity.'" Is this really how low Thomas has to stoop to defend Wright?

What motivates Thomas? Apparently, it is his intensely partisan political bias. Note this, which immediately follows the "mild obscenity" defense:

This week we mark the fifth anniversary of the war in Iraq, a war conceived in deception and prosecuted in foolish arrogance.

Now, it could be that Thomas suffers from paranoid delusions, and really believes that President Bush deceived us; but I don't think so.

Ironically, Thomas accuses others of partisan motives in an earlier attempt to divert our attention:

"These attacks, many of them motivated by their own partisan agenda, cannot go unchallenged," Thomas emphasizes. "It's time for all of us to say 'No' to these attacks and to declare that we will not allow anyone to undermine or destroy the ministries of any of our congregations in order to serve their own narrow political or ideological ends."

Obama is scheduled to make a speech tomorrow in which he will try to persuade people not to think ill of him for attending that church for two decades and attempting to keep his hateful preacher out of public view during his campaign. ("You get a little rough in the sermons," said Obama.)

Can Obama do better in defending himself than the weak defense offered for Wright by the head of the United Church of Christ?

If he cannot, he had better not be the Democrats' nominee.

No man who believes even half what Obama has said about unity and change in this campaign would stay in that church, but Obama stayed for two decades.

No one in the congregation shows any surprise or displeasure at Wright's hateful ranting in those videos, yet Obama wants us to think he is surprised and never heard such things personally in twenty years of attending that church.

Obama's defense so far is really hard to believe. If the video excerpts aired to date are a "caricature" of Wright, then why did the congregation react as though they expected it, liked it, and wanted to hear more? They knew Wright, and so did Obama.

Ferenc Miskolczi's New Equations

2008-03-11T14:59:00.000-07:00

As noted at Daily Tech, Ferenc M. Miskolczi has published a challenge to the prevailing greenhouse gas hypothesis in the quarterly journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Service.

In the conclusion on page 36, Miskolczi says his new equations mean the purported consensus opinion about anthropogenic global warming from greenhouse gases is not correct:

Considering the magnitude of the observed global average surface temperature rise and the consequences of the new greenhouse equations, the increased atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations must not be the reason of global warming.

Will the gashouse gang offer reasons why the new equations fail to describe what really happens in the atmosphere?

Update, March 16, 2008: "Niche Modeling" has a discussion of Miskolczi's article that is helpful.

Update, April 7, 2008: "Global Warming Skeptics" has a copy of the slides used in Ferenc Miskolczi's presentation to the conference held in March. From them, I gather that he is saying the optical thickness remains near a certain value, but I don't see an explanation of a mechanism or process that maintains that value. Is it nothing more than a "just so" idea for now? Why would the addition of CO2, for example, lead to a reduction of some other substance to maintain this optical thickness? If the atmosphere's optical thickness increases, I think he's saying that the average temperature could indeed go up -- but the thickness doesn't increase.

Update, June 22, 2008: "Niche Modeling" has followed up with several posts discussing Miskolczi's equations. The more recent posts are listed first at the link, so scroll down to get to the first post. They make for interesting reading, even when parts go zipping right over my head.

Washington's presidential primary election and caucus combination is not unique

2008-02-29T11:38:00.001-08:00

Many people have claimed that the presidential primary and caucus process in the state of Washington is unique in its combination of primary elections and caucuses to allocate delegates among the candidates.

Our Democrats don't allocate any delegates based on the votes cast by Democrats in the primary election. They use only their caucuses and conventions to allocate delegates.

Our Republicans allocate part of their delegates based on the votes cast by Republicans in the primary and part based on the caucuses and conventions.

Apparently, Washington is not unique in using both the election and the caucus process to allocate convention delegates. In Texas, the Democratic Party does something very similar to what is done by the Republican Party here in Washington, according to this McClatchy Newspapers article about a possible lawsuit involving the Democrats' process:

The letter to the two campaigns did not specify what procedures or rules might trigger a lawsuit. But one party official said the campaigns were most concerned about the caucus process, or, as the party refers to it, the "precinct conventions.''

Texas has 228 delegates, the biggest single cache remaining. But only 126 delegates are doled out based on the selection voters make at the ballot box. Another 67 delegates — more than in many states — are to be apportioned based on the number of people who participate in the caucuses that begin in over 8,000 precincts once the polls close at 7 p.m. (The remaining 35 are so-called "superdelegates'' free to support whomever they choose).

Holding caucuses on the evening of election day after the polls close is different from our parties' practice this year. Washington held its caucuses before the election, so caucus goers couldn't have known how the candidates would fare in the subsequent primary election (not that our state's Democrats give a darn about the votes cast by ordinary Democrats who don't attend the caucuses). In Texas, the early vote counts will be available while the caucuses are ongoing, for whatever effect that may have on those in attendance.

"W" focused on winning

2008-01-27T16:29:00.000-08:00

Fred Barnes has written a concise description of the change in strategy in Iraq.

Two points caught my eye. The most important person was focused on winning and understood what really strains military forces.

The chiefs had real grievances to air, and they didn't hold back. Schoomaker cited the stress on combat forces from repeated tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan. That, Bush told me, was "the main thing I remember from that meeting. That was clearly a factor in some of the people around the table's thinking . . . if you sustain our level, much less increase the level, you could, Mr. President, strain the force, which is an important consideration."

Bush agreed that strain was a problem. Then he delivered a sharp rejoinder, touching on a theme he returned to in nearly every meeting on Iraq. "The biggest strain on the force would be a defeat in Iraq," he said.

+ + +

The 20-minute speech on January 10, 2007, was not Bush's most eloquent. And it wasn't greeted with applause. Democrats condemned the surge and Republicans were mostly silent. Polls showing strong public opposition to the war in Iraq were unaffected.

But the president, as best I could tell, wasn't looking for affirmation. He was focused solely on victory in Iraq.

We have the right man in the White House.

Freddy Thompson seeks supporting role

2008-01-22T16:21:00.000-08:00

Carl Cameron says he has known for months that Fred Dalton Thompson only sought to be Vice President:

Back in March of 07 at the CPAC convention in DC several former Fred Thompson Congressional staffers told me Fred Thompson was thinking about a run. Some of his Tennessee cronies had been talking him up too.

I reported first that he was eyeing a White House bid. At the time several insiders told me OFF THE RECORD that it was largely a trial ballon to guage his popularity and float his name as a possible vice presidential nominee. I was sworn to silence.

If Cameron is correct, Thompson never expected to make a real run for the presidency -- and was surprised to find that his "trial balloon" initially soared:

...the Thompson camp was stunned by the incredibly positive response and didn’t really know how to manage it.

Thompson still supposedly wants a supporting role as someone's running mate.

Next time, if there is a next time, when Thompson says he is drawing a line in the sand, wait until the tide comes in to see if he runs away from it.

Bill Clinton Endorses Mike Huckabee: "He is a very good man."

2008-01-21T16:35:00.000-08:00

Isn't it customary to provide the names, if not a little background information, about people who endorse presidential candidates?

This Associated Press article, headlined, "Conservative black leaders endorse Huckabee," is little more than a teaser without that information.

An oar in the water

2008-01-10T14:46:00.000-08:00

So what if they were Yankees -- they were our Yankees.

Biden Knows Hillary Doesn't Know

2008-01-02T13:02:00.000-08:00

Senator Biden noticed Hillary's lack of knowledge about Pakistan. Since it comes from a Democrat, the Boston Globe apparently figured it's OK to publish. Will this be worth a small mention in any other "MSM" outlet?

Hillary Clinton doesn't know Pakistan

2008-01-01T14:39:00.001-08:00

I wonder what it feels like to depend on propaganda organs (also known as "the mainstream media") to protect your candidate from being embarrassed by her own ignorance or mistakes.

Hillary Clinton demonstrated beyond cavil that she doesn't know beans about the situation in Pakistan, but so far not one "mainstream media" outlet has mentioned it.

More road capacity relieves traffic congestion, so build it

2007-10-14T18:42:00.000-07:00

This Seattle Times editorial makes a lot of sense, but will the editors be treated as heretics for having included this statement in it?

Seattle may deny this, but the surest way to reduce congestion on roads is to build more lanes. So says a report issued by State Auditor Brian Sonntag last week, and so says human experience.

People who worship public transit services never acknowledge the obvious fact that more road capacity is the obvious solution to intolerable traffic congestion in all but the most densely populated urban areas.

The recent completion of a new bridge over the Tacoma Narrows demonstrated it for those who are too young to have seen the effects of road and highway construction in the past -- and it has been a long time since any significant road construction has been done to relieve traffic congestion.

The Seattle Times editors have seen the light, so there may be hope for us yet.

Murphy's Lawyer: SNAFU in levy lid lift ballot title

2007-09-21T18:24:00.000-07:00

Today I read a copy of the Belfair Herald edition of September 13, 2007, and got a good laugh out of this article (not available online):

Ballot language could’ve played role in outcome
By Kevan Moore

What’s in a name, anyway?

Well, when it comes to the language contained in an election ballot, it can mean the difference between winning and losing.
***
The recent attempt by Fire District 2 to collect taxes for the next six years earned 1,127 “yes” votes (49.3 percent)....
***
The question now, though, has become this: What exactly were people voting for? And, beyond that, could it have affected the way that a person or persons voted?

Fire District 2 officials contend that they submitted ballot language to the county representing a levy lid lift and that the county returned and ran ballot language that represented an excess tax levy.
***
Mason County’s Chief Civil Deputy Prosecutor Monty Cobb says that the district’s proposed ballot language was changed for several reasons.

“I pretty much rewrote the whole thing because it was vague, too long and it was biased,” Cobb said. “If the language I wrote in any way confused anybody, that’s never my intent. My intent when I rewrite is to comply with state requirements.”

Cobb, though, also says that both versions, that proposed by the district and his rewrite, represent a levy lid lift.
***
“Whether the language affected anybody’s vote, there’s no way of telling unless you go poll everybody that voted,” Cobb said.

The article is accompanied by an inset text box containing the language suggested by the fire district and the ballot title written by the county prosecutor’s office.

The fire district did choose a biased word as a substitute for “increase”: “...a proposition to restore its regular property tax levy to an amount not to exceed $1.32 per $1,000....” It would be an increase in the levy dollar amount, not a restoration of some previously lost or forfeited levy amount. But “restore” sounds so much better than “tax increase,” doesn’t it?

Here is how the county prosecutor’s office changed it: “This proposition authorizes the District to levy excess taxes on all taxable property within the District at a rate not exceeding $1.32 per $1,000....”

Mr. Monty Cobb must be new in this area, since the words “to levy excess taxes” have a particular meaning that many, if not most, people know. An “excess levy” is a property tax that is in excess of the taxing district’s share of the maximum constitutional limit on regular levies.

A “lid lift,” on the other hand, does not exceed the taxing district’s maximum share of that constitutional limit. It merely increases the regular levy dollar amount when the current tax rate can be raised without exceeding the district's maximum statutory tax rate.

An “excess levy” would be in addition to the regular levy. In this case, then, the ballot title would suggest to anyone who knows the meaning of “excess levy” that the fire district proposed to collect $1.32 per $1,000 in addition to its regular levy.

Strangely, the county auditor is quoted in the article as saying that everyone in her office thought it was an “excess levy.” Since a fire district can only seek an excess levy for a period of four years for maintenance and operations funding, the auditor and her employees ought to have wondered why this proposition proposed a period of six years. And, since excess levies must state the total dollar amount to be collected in each year, they ought to have wondered why this ballot measure didn't do so.

Since the law was just changed this year to allow taxing districts like fire districts to propose lid lifts that increase the regular levy's amount by more than the ordinary limit factor in each of six consecutive years, one would think that the fire district's people surely mentioned to someone somewhere that they were taking advantage of this new "lid lift" law.

What a mess. If just one of the people who touched this ballot measure while it was in the making had done his or her job competently, there would be no reason to wonder if the voters’ rejection occurred because of the erroneous ballot title.

The article notes that the fire district commissioners adopted their resolution and forwarded it to the auditor who then sent it to the county prosecutor. The prosecutor wrote the ballot title, and sent it to the auditor, who then gave the fire district an opportunity to review it. The fire district accepted the prosecutor's ballot title without question.

It then went onto the ballot, and the rest is a mystery. How many voters knew what an "excess levy" is, and therefore rejected the idea of such a large levy in addition to the regular levy?

It wouldn't have taken many to affect the outcome, since the ballot measure was rejected by such a slim margin. If 17 voters had voted "yes" instead of "no," the measure would have been approved.

Osama channels Karl Marx

2007-09-07T14:31:00.000-07:00

Osama bin Laden's latest taped remarks have been released. ABC News has posted a transcript.

Is Osama bin Laden suffering from schizophrenia of some sort? He jumps back and forth between old-time Communist propaganda and Salafist dogma while making his threats of "surrender or die." His recitation of history is filled with errors, yet he probably believes what he says.

I suppose the anti-capitalists will always be with us, but it surely seems strange to hear the mixture of Bolshevik and Islamist rhetoric from the purported leader of our enemies.

Dauntless in Seattle

2007-08-31T15:36:00.000-07:00

Who is this man?

Placing the blame in the wrong place
Reader comment on: Seeger Speaks — and Sings — Against Stalin
Submitted by Mike Perry, Inkling Books, Seattle, Aug 31, 2007 11:43

While Seeger is to be commended for his belated admission of remaining silent about Stalin's horrors, read more carefully, he seems to be remaining true to the broad Marxism dogma and placing blame in all the wrong places. Notice where he placed the blame in that letter. First on Stalin. The Soviet party did that in the mid-fifties, the so-called "cult of personality." Seeger is a bit late in that admission, a half-century in fact.

Read the whole thing.

If anyone finds a word in his comment about Pete Seeger and communism that is untrue, speak up.

New York Times Spins the News (So what's new?)

2007-07-18T17:49:00.000-07:00

It took a few hours to come up with a spin which would diminish the apparent significance of the news about the capture of the most senior Iraqi member of "Al Qaeda in Iraq," but the New York Times came through at last.

Posted at 5:28 p.m. (EDT) on the New York Times web site was an article that focused on the disclosure that the supposed leader of one group of our enemies was a fiction made up by our enemies to disguise the foreign control of the "resistance" or "insurgents" or whatever you would like to call the murderous moslems who are the enemies of us and the Iraqi people.

Brig. Gen. Kevin Bergner, the chief American military spokesman, told reporters that the elusive Mr. Baghdadi was actually a fictional character whose audiotaped declarations were provided by an elderly actor named Abu Adullah al-Naima. General Bergner said the information came from an Iraqi insurgent captured this month.

Not until the ninth paragraph did the NYT mention the status of "an Iraqi insurgent" who supplied this information.

The evidence for the American assertions, General Bergner said at a news briefing, was provided by an Iraqi insurgent, Khalid Abdul Fatah Daud Mahmud al-Mashadani, who was reported captured by American forces in Mosul on July 4.

And, although not attributed to anyone -- and therefore apparently the opinion of the writer or an editor -- was this cute bit as the eighth paragraph:

The struggle between the American military and Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia is political as well as military. And one purpose of the briefing today seemed to be to rattle the 90 percent of the group’s adherents who are believed to be Iraqi by suggesting that they doing (sic) the bidding of foreigners. An important element of the American strategy is to drive a wedge between Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, other Iraqi insurgent groups and the general Sunni population.

Aren't they the smartest guys around? Just in case their stupid followers don't realize it, the NYT tosses in its speculation that this may just be a ploy by the U.S. to fool the Iraqis.

I'm surprised Karl Rove isn't mentioned somewhere in the article.

Tennessee Reservist Jailed For AWOL

2007-07-17T11:00:00.000-07:00

Update, July 23: Apparently, the lawyers and the judge didn't do the basic research needed to determine the maximum lawful punishment in this case. I had presumed that multiple counts had produced the sentence, but it turns out that ignorance did it:

Brown was initially sentenced to 11 months and 29 days and fined $1,000 by General Sessions Court Judge Bob Moon. The judge said he discovered the next morning that the charge is only a Class C misdemeanor carrying 30 days and a $50 fine rather than a Class A misdemeanor.

Meanwhile, Brown's attorneys, Hillary Stewart and Hallie McFadden, took the case to Judge Stern, who ruled it was an illegal sentence and released Brown from jail after he had served one day.

The original sentencing judge accepts the blame that is due him:

Judge Moon said, "Brown's attorneys never spoke to me, and I had no idea the attorneys had taken the case to another judge in another court so very quickly. The judgment was corrected and announced in open court the very next morning. Nevertheless, the buck stops with the judge in sentencing, and, although the prosecutors misinformed me of the classification of the offense, I take full responsiblity."

Now, what say the lawyers who didn't figure out what took me only about 15 minutes on the Web to learn before my original remarks about this case?

"D'oh" seems appropriate, if an abject apology sticks in their craws.

As for the decision by defense counsel to take the matter to another judge, the fact that the second judge reduced the sentence to one day in confinement rather than the 30 days authorized by Tennessee law indicates that judge shopping probably occurred. Judge Moon had made his opinion of the seriousness of the offense known. Judge Stern apparently felt it was not at all serious. (Does Stern usually act in other than stern ways during sentencing? I wonder what Stern's opinion of the war against terrorism is.)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

In Chattanooga, there is a type of case I don't recall having seen before. An Army Reserve member (presumably also a member of the Tennessee National Guard) has been tried, convicted and sentenced by a civilian court for absence without leave ("AWOL").

Apparently, there were quite a few offenses on trial, since Tennessee code section 58-1-613 defines absence without leave as a class C misdemeanor, and section 40-35-111 sets the maximum punishment for such an offense as 30 days in confinement and/or a $50 fine.

Note the sentence imposed on young Mr. Brandon Brown in General Sessions Court:

AWOL Reservist Gets Maximum Jail Time
posted July 17, 2007
A 19-year-old who repeatedly did not report to Army Reserve duty has been given a maximum workhouse sentence of 11 months and 29 days.

Brandon Brown, 19, of 775 Flat Top Mountain, Dunlap, appeared before General Sessions Court Judge Bob Moon on Tuesday morning.

The defendant’s sergeant testified that he had made personal visits to the soldier on four occasions attempting to convince him to return to duty.

Judge Moon obviously considered the offenses to be somewhat serious under the circumstances:

Judge Moon said, “I had much rather have seen you come before me as an honorable soldier instead of a dishonorable inmate. Our military, and especially our reserve officers, are spread thin in the defense of our country and coping with the environmental disasters within our country. Therefore, there is no place for a coward or a deserter anywhere in the ranks of our military.

For now, it seems like a mirror image of the long ago practice of requiring enlistment to avoid confinement for civilian offenses, but it may revert to something like the older model later (assuming Brown isn't administratively discharged in the meantime):

"You are receiving a maximum jail sentence for your conduct unbecoming a soldier in the United States Army and for failing to honor your contract and obligations with the United States.

"Due to the significant shortage of soldiers, I might review your case in the coming months and let you tell me then which role you have enjoyed the most, a soldier or an inmate.”

If all that was involved was weekend drill, I suspect the answer can be provided by Brown in weeks, not months.

How Soon Would Al Qaeda Attack US?

2007-07-13T11:29:00.000-07:00

As stated in this earlier post, Al Qaeda's strategy wouldn't include another attack within the U.S.A. in the foreseeable future since such an attack would be likely to stir us up. If they know us, they would want to leave us alone at home -- expecting that we would be more likely to withdraw from Iraq and perhaps most of southeast Asia when the majority of Americans feel no immediate need to take or continue military action.

Are we getting to the point that the foreseeable future includes an attack within our borders?

Maybe, since the Democrats apparently succeeded in persuading a majority of Americans that the situation in Iraq is not only hopeless but not worth American lives and money.

Note how this report published in the Chicago Tribune indicates that Al Qaeda has infiltrated the U.S.A. --

al-Qaida Works to Plant U.S. Operatives
By KATHERINE SHRADER
Associated Press Writer
Published July 13, 2007, 5:51 AM CDT
WASHINGTON -- Al-Qaida is stepping up its efforts to sneak terror operatives into the United States and has acquired most of the capabilities it needs to strike here, according to a new U.S. intelligence assessment, The Associated Press has learned.

And, in this article, note how the Democrats immediately put their own cynically negative "spin" on the interim report submitted to Congress yesterday:

Democrats shun Bush's positive view
Leaders call report proof that war is now a futile effort
By Aamer Madhani and Mike Dorning
Washington Bureau
Published July 13, 2007
WASHINGTON -- Soon after the Iraq report card arrived on Capitol Hill on Thursday, skeptical Democrats depicted the Bush administration's positive outlook as a cynical attempt to put a fine gloss on an increasingly grim situation.

The reaction marked at least one profound measure of how the balance of power on the war has begun to shift, with Congress taking an increasingly aggressive posture in its push to force President Bush to bring troops home -- a posture punctuated by Thursday's House vote to require the withdrawal of U.S. forces beginning within 120 days.

If Al Qaeda leaders decide that an attack within the U.S.A. would be more likely to push us over the edge and cause our withdrawal from Iraq (much like the bombings in Spain preceded Spain's withdrawal), then we are in great danger.

How much farther can the Democrats go before Al Qaeda decides an attack in the U.S.A. would be consistent with their strategy?

Maybe we will only know after the attacks occur, but it seems more probable than not that the Democrats have chosen a partisan political strategy that increases the danger for us.

If attacked again within our own borders, how will Americans react? Of course, the Bush haters will be angry at the president -- just as they direct all anger and blame at him when our enemies attack Americans in Iraq. But, how will those who aren't unhinged by hatred of President Bush behave?

Al Qaeda leaders will be pondering that question and, in their effort to answer it, looking closely at how we now behave.

Another prediction of global cooling

2007-07-11T23:33:00.000-07:00

This would be something to see -- global cooling that may occur before the Goracle can ruin everything with his hype:

There are indications, given both the 80-year and 180-year cycles, that the sun will be much less active over coming decades. The majority of solar cycle methods suggest the next cycle will be less than the last one, which itself was 20 percent less than the prior cycles. NASA (Hathaway), based on the observed slowing of the sun’s plasma flow, predicts that cycle 25, which peaks in 2022, could be the quietest in centuries. Remember that quiet cycles are cool cycles.

Also, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation increasingly shows signs of descending back into its cold mode. This, too, should result in global cooling. The Atlantic may have another decade to go before it cools again.

These three factors suggest a cooling is about to begin. In fact, there are a number of measures, such as ocean heat content (which has not increased in the last 4 years), satellite-derived atmospheric temperatures, and ocean and land temperatures, which are all showing a cooling period over the last 5 to 8 years. It is possible either 1998 or 2001 will end up being the peak of this current warm cycle.

The cooling possibility mentioned in the Canadian article cited in this earlier post may be based on sound fact and reasoning.

Hat tip: Sound Politics commenter "Mike H" (comment 4)

Joe Hill never had it so good

2007-07-01T22:49:00.001-07:00

The next time you hear someone complaining about Washington state taxes, it would be a good bet that the complainer is not a state employee represented by a union.

As the Seattle Times reports today, those guys are raking it in -- not shelling it out:

Many state workers are getting the biggest raises they've seen in nearly two decades — maybe the biggest ever — under new contracts negotiated by Gov. Christine Gregoire's office and approved by the Democrat-controlled Legislature.

Thousands of workers are getting double-digit increases. Some raises exceed 25 percent. In all, increases in salaries and benefits for some 111,000 state workers will cost nearly $1.6 billion in state, federal and other funds over the next two years.

How long will it take for taxpayers to wise up?

A Tale of Two Port Districts

2007-06-30T11:59:00.000-07:00

The Port of Bremerton avoided having to win voter approval of a tax increase by doing the minimum required by law to notify the public, but the Port of Vancouver must obtain voter approval of an identical new property tax levy.

According to a piece on the opinion page of the Port Orchard Independent:

Then, at their Jan. 10, 2006, meeting, Huntington and the other two commissioners voted to direct the staff to publish a legal notice stating their intention to levy higher taxes.

The legal notice of intent to levy a tax increase in 2007 through 2012, starting at a rate of 45 cents per $1,000 of assessed value, was published in the Kitsap Sun on Jan. 12, 2006.

That legal notice supplied the starting point for a period of time within which taxpayers residing in the district could have forced the port commissioners to put the new property tax on the ballot for the voters to decide whether it would be levied.

If, within 90 days after publication of the legal notice, a petition had been submitted to the county auditor containing a sufficient number of signatures, then the port commissioners could not have levied the higher property tax without approval by a majority of voters.

Is it any wonder, then, that the commissioners chose not to issue any press releases or otherwise alert the public about their plans?

Apparently no one who was inclined to act on it read the legal notice of intent, so no petition drive was mounted -- and the taxpayers learned of the 150 percent tax increase when their 2007 tax bills arrived in February.

Down in Vancouver, Washington, it's a different story. The Port of Vancouver issued a press release announcing their intent to levy the higher tax. As reported by the Clark County Auditor's office, a successful petition drive required the port commission to obtain voter approval of the tax increase (or forget about it):

On Monday, May 7, 2007, the sponsors of a petition to require a public vote on the Port of Vancouver Industrial Development District levy, approved by the Port District Commission on February 5, 2007, submitted their petition of 635 pages containing 11,484 signatures to the Clark County Auditor’s Office. An additional 38 petition pages containing 418 signatures were submitted after Monday, May 7 but prior to the May 10, 5 PM deadline for submitting petition signatures. This resulted in a total of 673 petition pages containing 11,502 signatures being submitted.

To be considered sufficient, the petition is required to have a number of valid signatures equal to or greater than eight percent (8%) of the total number of ballots cast by Vancouver Port District registered voters in the last gubernatorial election, which occurred on November 2, 2004. At that election, 114,072 ballots were cast in the Vancouver Port District. Eight percent or at least 9,126 registered voters in the Port District would need to sign the petition in order for it to be sufficient and require a public vote on the levy measure at the August 21, 2007 primary election.

On Monday, May 14, 2007 the Clark County Auditor’s Office halted the canvassing and verification of the petition signatures. A total of 11,321 petition signatures had been canvassed at that time. A total of 9,659 of the signatures canvassed were verified as being the valid signatures of voters currently residing in the Vancouver Port District. As a result of exceeding the 9,126 number of required signatures, the petition was certified as sufficient. The certification of sufficiency of this petition will now be submitted to the Vancouver Port District Commission for their action of calling for a special election for the voters of the district to approve or reject the Industrial Development District levy.

In the primary election held this August, voters in the Vancouver port district will decide whether to approve a higher tax; while those in the Bremerton port district will decide whether the only commissioner up for re-election (Mary Ann Huntington) ought to be returned to office after the end of this term.

That's quite a difference.

And it's apparently all due to the fact that no one who thought the new tax was newsworthy had been watching the Port of Bremerton commissioners closely enough.

I wonder who knew what the Port of Bremerton commissioners intended to do back when it was still possible to stop them. (If the Kitsap Sun news staff paid any attention to legal notices published by government entities in their own newspaper, they would have known. Did they?)

Sunspots: Budget matters are too hard for the Sun

2007-06-21T15:51:00.000-07:00

Perhaps the day will come when the Kitsap Sun can report (or editorialize) on government budget issues without making significant errors, but this wasn't the day.

The Kitsap Regional Library board of trustees is mulling over its options after voters rejected a large property tax increase to bring revenues into line with spending.

In today's edition, the Sun reported on the latest discussions -- with this as the lead paragraph:

With a looming budget shortfall of $2.1 million hanging over their heads, members of the Kitsap Regional Library board of trustees have already put in place some cost-saving measures they hope will get them through the remainder of 2007.

The "looming budget shortfall" would occur in 2008, if a property tax "lid lift" is not approved by voters later this year. As the agenda for the KRL trustees' study session on June 7 illustrates, this year is not the problem (except for the fact KRL is consuming its reserve funds to cover the deficit after increasing spending by about 30 percent since 2005).

There is no need to make spending cuts to "get them through the remainder of 2007." Their reserves will do that.

The problem is that KRL would arrive at 2008 with an unavoidable need to cut spending back nearly to the levels existing in 2005, unless a lid lift is approved to increase revenues by more than 30 percent.

Any cuts made now in projected spending for 2007 would simply leave a little more in their reserve funds to carry them into 2008.

Having avoided telling its readers what the rejected tax increase would have paid for, the Sun now says:

These cost-cutting measures are only a preview of what's to come for the system if an additional funding source isn't found before the 2008-09 fiscal year.

KRL budgets and financial statements are prepared for each calendar year, since roughly 95 percent of KRL revenue comes from the property tax -- which is levied on a calendar year basis.
There is no "2008-09 fiscal year."

And, unless some wealthy benefactors come along and make large donations, there is no "additional funding source" to be found.

If the property tax isn't increased by more than 30 percent, then KRL cannot continue to spend far more than its annual revenue.

The expansion plans which the Sun apparently knew about, but chose not to report before the election in May, have to be put on hold. Now, the Sun tells its readers:

The measure that was denied last month would have covered such costs for the expansion of three area libraries.

Knowing about projected expansions might have been helpful in explaining why KRL asked for a 70 percent increase in tax revenue, but the Sun didn't say anything about it until now.

These budget issues are apparently just too hard for the Sun to handle.

Reporting the "who, what, when, where, and how much" facts ought to be easy for people who want to report the news, so what's the problem?

Global Cooling in 2020 and Beyond?

2007-06-21T11:01:00.000-07:00

This article in the Canadian National Post contains a succinct statement of the role played by the sun in causing the Earth's warming and cooling periods:

Our finding of a direct correlation between variations in the brightness of the sun and earthly climate indicators (called "proxies") is not unique. Hundreds of other studies, using proxies from tree rings in Russia's Kola Peninsula to water levels of the Nile, show exactly the same thing: The sun appears to drive climate change.

However, there was a problem. Despite this clear and repeated correlation, the measured variations in incoming solar energy were, on their own, not sufficient to cause the climate changes we have observed in our proxies. In addition, even though the sun is brighter now than at any time in the past 8,000 years, the increase in direct solar input is not calculated to be sufficient to cause the past century's modest warming on its own. There had to be an amplifier of some sort for the sun to be a primary driver of climate change.

Indeed, that is precisely what has been discovered. In a series of groundbreaking scientific papers starting in 2002, Veizer, Shaviv, Carslaw, and most recently Svensmark et al., have collectively demonstrated that as the output of the sun varies, and with it, our star's protective solar wind, varying amounts of galactic cosmic rays from deep space are able to enter our solar system and penetrate the Earth's atmosphere. These cosmic rays enhance cloud formation which, overall, has a cooling effect on the planet. When the sun's energy output is greater, not only does the Earth warm slightly due to direct solar heating, but the stronger solar wind generated during these "high sun" periods blocks many of the cosmic rays from entering our atmosphere. Cloud cover decreases and the Earth warms still more.

The opposite occurs when the sun is less bright. More cosmic rays are able to get through to Earth's atmosphere, more clouds form, and the planet cools more than would otherwise be the case due to direct solar effects alone. This is precisely what happened from the middle of the 17th century into the early 18th century, when the solar energy input to our atmosphere, as indicated by the number of sunspots, was at a minimum and the planet was stuck in the Little Ice Age. These new findings suggest that changes in the output of the sun caused the most recent climate change. By comparison, CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet's climate on long, medium and even short time scales.

Would the Goracle call this an inconvenient truth? Of course not. Al Gore would deny the science and continue to bray about his faith-based views on climate change.

While Gore and his acolytes peddle their nonsense, here is the problem which we ought to be considering:

Solar scientists predict that, by 2020, the sun will be starting into its weakest Schwabe solar cycle of the past two centuries, likely leading to unusually cool conditions on Earth. Beginning to plan for adaptation to such a cool period, one which may continue well beyond one 11-year cycle, as did the Little Ice Age, should be a priority for governments.

If it is true that the sun is brighter now than at any time in thousands of years, we may need all the "greenhouse effect" we can get to give us time to adjust to the next cooling period. The earth has been locked in ice ages for most of the time in the past million years. Our current warm period is the exception, not the normal condition of the Earth's climate.

Situation in Anbar province appears to have been turned around

2007-05-28T11:51:00.000-07:00

The traitors among us cannot be happy about this report in the Chicago Tribune:

By all accounts, the results in Anbar have been impressive: Where barely 200 police officers had served in Ramadi, the provincial capital, last summer, now there are more than 8,000. The number of attacks on U.S. forces dropped from 108 a week last year to seven during the first week of May.

They were jumping with joy late last year about the leaked intelligence assessment done in August 2006 and supposedly updated in October or November:

The U.S. military is no longer able to defeat a bloody insurgency in western Iraq or counter al-Qaeda's rising popularity there, according to newly disclosed details from a classified Marine Corps intelligence report that set off debate in recent months about the military's mission in Anbar province.

The Marines recently filed an updated version of that assessment that stood by its conclusions and stated that, as of mid-November, the problems in troubled Anbar province have not improved, a senior U.S. intelligence official said yesterday. "The fundamental questions of lack of control, growth of the insurgency and criminality" remain the same, the official said.

By making it seem certain that the U.S.A. would withdraw soon, the traitors among us encouraged the continuation of killing in Anbar province.

Now that things appear to have been turned around in Anbar province, naturally the traitors among us will treat that province as unimportant and the recent developments as meaningless -- as they search for something else to put in their "news" reports.

Anbar province was only "newsworthy" when the traitors among us could publish discouraging accounts of how we had lost all and must withdraw.

What will Reid, Pelosi, Dean, Murtha, etc., do now? What will they now feed their propaganda machine in their struggle for America's defeat?

How many more Americans will die because the traitors among us encourage our enemies?

A View of the Central Front

2007-05-23T12:20:00.001-07:00

If only the majority in the Democratic Party could think the way former Senator Kerrey does:

The key question for Congress is whether or not Iraq has become the primary battleground against the same radical Islamists who declared war on the U.S. in the 1990s and who have carried out a series of terrorist operations including 9/11. The answer is emphatically "yes."
+++
Those who argue that radical Islamic terrorism has arrived in Iraq because of the U.S.-led invasion are right. But they are right because radical Islam opposes democracy in Iraq. If our purpose had been to substitute a dictator who was more cooperative and supportive of the West, these groups wouldn't have lasted a week.

Here comes Kitsap County's request for a property tax increase

2007-04-29T22:12:00.000-07:00

Kitsap County government personnel apparently have their own peculiar ideas about the effect of limits approved by voters on government's power to impose tax increases.

When voters approved Initiative 747 back in 2001, it seems likely that they wanted relief from the 8 to 9 percent annual increases in property tax levies that had been possible up to that point.

Under the limits of I-747, property tax revenue collected by Kitsap County has increased by an annual average of 4 percent since 2001 -- much better for taxpayers than the 8 to 9 percent annual increases possible (and done) before I-747.

Ben Holland, director of administrative services for Kitsap County government, sees things differently.

First, he believes that something other than tax relief was the point of the initiative:

The initiatives passed, Holland said, because "citizens are demanding efficiency" in government.

That is one way of looking at it, I suppose. Get more efficient, because voters don't intend to keep giving local government 8 or 9 percent annual increases in property tax revenue.

Second, Holland (Or was it the reporter who chose the word?) believes that the limits approved by the voters ended up "costing" the county government money:

I-747, which went into effect in 2002, requires state and local governments to limit property tax levy increases to 1 percent per year, unless a larger increase is approved by voters. The effect of I-747 has been a not-so-gradual decrease in property tax rates for the general fund over the past six years. The amount collected per $1,000 of assessed property value has dipped from $1.42 to 89 cents since then, costing the county $18.5 million over the past five years.

Believe it or not, that figure of $18.5 million is the difference between the county's general fund property tax levies in 2002 through 2006 and what those levies could have been if they had been increased by an average of almost 9 percent each year.

Now, who do you suppose would feel that an extra $18.5 million in tax increases would have "cost" them if it had not been for I-747?

I think it would be the people who pay the taxes. It "costs" government nothing when government cannot get the tax increases government bureaucrats want. It costs taxpayers who must pay the taxes -- not the government that receives those revenues.

This is going to be a strange few months, as the county tries to build up its rationale for a tax increase.

Stand by for more of the balderdash about "1 percent a year" limits on the government's levy increases as a result of I-747.

Of course, the actual increases have averaged about 4 percent a year for the county's general fund -- but that doesn't sound as dire as 1 percent, so don't expect Holland or his crowd to admit it unless forced to do so.

Anti-American Feelings in Germany or Something Else?

2007-04-16T16:28:00.000-07:00

What would have happened if the instructor had simply told his pupil to imagine that neo-con Americans were coming to imprison his mother? Would plain old anti-American feelings have been okay?

We'll never know, I suppose, since the instructor mixed race into the equation.

From the Chicago Tribune:

The clip shows an instructor and a soldier dressed in camouflage in a forest. At first, the instructor tells the soldier to imagine gunning down terrorists trying to hijack an airplane. The soldier fires several rounds.

Then the instructor tells the soldier, "You are in the Bronx. A black van is stopping in front of you. Three African-Americans are getting out and they are insulting your mother in the worst ways. ... Act."

The soldier fires his machine gun and yells an obscenity several times in English between bursts. The instructor then tells the soldier to curse even louder.

That is some really strange military training. If the Germans have more animosity toward Americans of whatever skin pigmentation than toward terrorists, I guess they need to "think outside the box" during training to get the necessary level of emotion into it. What's next? Thinking inside a padded cell?

Don't think of a pale horse

2007-03-17T08:54:00.000-07:00

This is an unusual bit of advice from the folks who have responsibility for our security:

FBI sees 'no plot' in school buses
By Jerry Seper and Matthew Cella
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
March 17, 2007

Members of suspected extremist groups have signed up to drive school buses nationwide, federal authorities said yesterday in a law-enforcement bulletin, but the FBI said there was no reason for parents or children to be concerned.

Imagine that. Just try not to think of a rider on a pale horse, once you know that murderous moslems may be seeking jobs (or even holding jobs) as school bus drivers.

Is "the surge" working?

2007-03-11T20:10:00.000-07:00

Time may be running out for the Democrats in their effort to surge toward defeat in Iraq.

Via Power Line: Robert Kagan's Washington Post column provides some food for thought:

Leading journalists have been reporting for some time that the war was hopeless, a fiasco that could not be salvaged by more troops and a new counterinsurgency strategy. The conventional wisdom in December held that sending more troops was politically impossible after the antiwar tenor of the midterm elections. It was practically impossible because the extra troops didn't exist. Even if the troops did exist, they could not make a difference.

Four months later, the once insurmountable political opposition has been surmounted. The nonexistent troops are flowing into Iraq. And though it is still early and horrible acts of violence continue, there is substantial evidence that the new counterinsurgency strategy, backed by the infusion of new forces, is having a significant effect.

And, Kagan gives news reporters something to ponder as well:

No one is asking American journalists to start emphasizing the "good" news. All they have to do is report what is occurring, though it may conflict with their previous judgments. Some are still selling books based on the premise that the war is lost, end of story. But what if there is a new chapter in the story?

The terrorists can certainly blow people and things up in various places, but there is reason for us and the Iraqis to hope that the reign of terror in Iraq will dwindle as time goes by.

Can the Democrats find a way to keep this effort from continuing and turn things back to hell on earth for the Iraqis -- and later for us, too? They will certainly try.

The proper reaction to attacks

2007-02-26T13:11:00.000-08:00

So often we see so-called anti-war activists use the deaths of our military men and women as excuses to quit the fight.

It is probably too much to expect that people not in the fighting would react the same way that buddies of the fallen react, but we could at least not take the opposite approach.

Here is an occasion when fighting men reacted to the enemy's attack on their platoon leader by redoubling their own attack:

Several of the younger Marines, weeping like children, ran to his side. Some of the older Marines briefly considered a mercy shooting. But Lummus kept urging them forward: “Dammit, keep moving!,” he uttered. “You can't stop now!”

According to the official report. “Their tears turned to rage. They swept an incredible 300 yards over impossible ground... There was no question that the dirty, tired men, cursing and crying and fighting, had done it for Jack Lummus.”

It's worth reading the whole thing.

Elementary, you ink-stained wretch

2007-02-24T20:56:00.000-08:00

Do newspaper reporters and editors have to flunk an elementary arithmetic test as a condition precedent to entering their particular lines of work?

Notice how this article in the Kitsap Sun approaches their favorite cause, i.e., higher taxes:

Libraries Seeking More Bang for Their Book Buck
On May 15, voters will be asked to increase the property tax rate by 18 cents, to maintain Kitsap Regional libraries.

By Andrew Binion
February 24, 2007

Bremerton

Facing increasing demand for services and decreasing dollars, the board that oversees the library system serving most of Kitsap County voted Thursday to ask taxpayers for more money.

Notice that the headline claims the Kitsap Regional Library seeks "more bang for their book buck," but this phrase is not being used in the ordinary sense. The library isn't seeking to become more efficient, and thereby get "more bang for its buck." Instead, the library is simply seeking more bucks from the taxpayers.

Notice also that the lead paragraph claims the library is "facing...decreasing dollars."

Now, read what the ninth paragraph in this article has to say about the library's revenue:

During the years from 2001 to 2006, total revenues rose by about 3.1 percent a year while expenditures increased by 8.77 percent a year. To cover increasing costs, the district has used reserve dollars.

The significance of 2001 is that it was the last year in which the library could increase its property tax levy by roughly 8 to 9 percent a year. In 2001, the voters approved Initiative 747, which lowered the limit on annual increases in regular levies. Since 2001, the average annual increase in the library's tax revenue has been about 3.5 percent. (The "total revenue" increase of about 3.1 percent resulted from a reduction in non-tax revenue. When the library spent its reserve funds, it no longer received the interest income. Other sources of non-tax income have not increased, so there has been a slight decline in this part of total revenue.)

So, the library's tax revenues have been increasing since 2001, but not as much as they had before Initiative 747 was approved by the voters. And, although non-tax revenue has not grown since then, total revenues have increased by an annual average of 3.1 percent.

But wait, didn't the lead paragraph claim that the library was faced with "decreasing dollars"?

How can this be? They have been getting more dollars, but the reporter claims they have been getting fewer dollars.

The answer seems to be one of two things. Either the Kitsap Sun is attempting to mislead, or neither the reporter nor the editors can do elementary arithmetic -- even as elementary as recognizing that an increase is not a decrease.

Soon, the editorial opinion piece urging voters to approve the increase will appear in the Kitsap Sun. Will it, too, misstate the situation by claiming that the library has suffered a decline in its total revenue?

Jackasses plan to strand the troops

2007-02-14T16:24:00.000-08:00

The height of cynicism? More like the depths, but John at Power Line otherwise describes the Democrats' betrayal quite well:

So the Democrats will do their best to make the United States' effort in Iraq fail, but without taking responsibility for that action, and then try to benefit politically from the country's defeat. Nice.

Damned jackasses.

Humor and Wisdom about Climate Change (Or is it "Global Warming"?)

2007-02-11T11:38:00.000-08:00

Mark Steyn, columnist for the Chicago Sun-Times, takes a critical look at global warming/climate change/whatever policies, and leavens it with humor:

Most of us aren't reading the science, or even a precis of the science. We're just reading a constant din from the press that "the science is settled," and therefore we no longer need to think about it: The thinking has been done for us. Last week's U.N. IPCC "report," for example, is not the report, but a political summary thereof. As David Warren wrote in the Ottawa Citizen:
"Note that the IPCC report's conclusions were issued first, and the supporting research is now promised for several months from now. What does that tell you?"

Indeed. However, when you do read the actual science, you quickly appreciate that it's not by any means "settled" -- that there all kinds of variables. To quote the Finnish-Dutch big shots:

"There is general agreement that variations in the global (or hemispheric) tropospheric temperature are, at least partly, related to those in solar activity (e.g., Bond et al., 2001; Solanki and Krikova, 2003; Usoskin et al., 2005; Kilcik, 2005)."

Therefore: "Variations of the mean tropospheric temperature must include stratosphere-troposphere interaction." However: "A detailed mechanism effectively transferring stratospheric heating into the troposphere is yet not clear."

Whoa, whoa, come back. There's no point skipping ahead: The illustrated excerpt on page D27 from Roger Ebert's Anthology of Great Lesbian Movie Scenes was swiped by the delivery boy.

Accompanying this humorous look at the actual science and the raving proponents of doing something to avoid what they are sure will be catastrophe, Steyn makes the point that all of us, ravers or not, need to keep in mind. If the change is relatively small, and if the human contribution to that change is also relatively small (compared to the natural effect of things we neither control nor add to, like the sun's varying levels of energy emission), then we should avoid wrecking our economies and instead prepare to adapt. We will need the resources of thriving economies to adapt to the change.

It Was Wiser to Suspect Saddam Hussein

2007-02-03T17:10:00.000-08:00

In his review of a book by Frank Rich, Christopher Hitchens includes a concise statement of Saddam Hussein's support of international terrorism -- and notes that when a majority of the American populace appeared to suspect Hussein of having some part in the September 11th attacks, they were wiser than many in the anti-war crowd (Emphasis added.):

Theater of War
A review of The Greatest Story Ever Sold: The Decline and Fall of Truth from 9/11 to Katrina, by Frank Rich

By Christopher Hitchens
Posted January 9, 2007
[This article appeared in the Winter 2006 issue of the Claremont Review of Books.]

###

For another instance of Rich's pseudo-forensic style, you might try the following:
"I don't think we ever said—at least I know I didn't say that there was a direct connection between September the 11th and Saddam Hussein," Bush said in the spring of 2006. That is technically true, but it is really just truthiness: Bush struck 9/11 like a gong in every fear-instilling speech about Iraq he could.

Now, "truthiness" is a laugh-word invented by Steven Colbert who (along with his friend Jon Stewart and the other heroes of Comedy Central) is the beau ideal of what Rich considers to be the ironic. In this book and in his regular column, he gives "truthiness" a workout whenever he can. He clearly wishes he had coined it himself, and he has kept it going for perhaps a touch longer—may I hint?—than even Colbert might wish. Let us examine it in the present case. The administration did not, in point of fact and as Rich concedes, ever make the case that Saddam Hussein had sponsored the assault of 9/11. It did, however, strongly imply that he might have an interest in, or enthusiasm for, this kind of activity. And many Americans when polled were found to suspect him of an even more direct connection. Well, Saddam Hussein had sheltered the Iraqi-American fugitive who mixed the chemicals for the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. He had allowed the internationally-wanted criminal Abu Nidal to use Baghdad as his headquarters. He had boasted of paying a bounty to the suicide-murderers of Hamas and Islamic Jihad. The man who hijacked the Achille Lauro cruise ship, a certain Abu Abbas, who was responsible for rolling Leon Klinghoffer in his wheelchair off the vessel's deck and into the Mediterranean, had to be released when apprehended because he was traveling on an Iraqi passport. A diplomatic passport. The Baghdad state-run press had exulted at the revenge taken on America on 9/11. This does not exhaust the "truthiness" of the suggestion that Saddam Hussein might have to be taken seriously as a sponsor of nihilistic violence. Could one even suggest that those who thought so might be intuitively and even objectively wiser than those who thought it crass to mention Saddam Hussein and "terrorism" in the same breath? Not without being jeered at by Rich, who either does not know any of the above facts or who chooses not to include any of them in his proudly truth-centered narrative.

Even now, many of the passionate anti-Bush crowd occasionally repeat the lie -- claiming that Bush misled the people and caused them to believe that Saddam Hussein had a role in "9/11." But, it is obvious to anyone whose mind is not clouded by paranoia and hatred that suspecting Hussein of having had a connection to those attacks was anything but unwise. It was also rational to conclude that he presented a threat to us in the future -- which is, of course, the actual reason stated by the President in justifying the removal of Saddam Hussein.

Najaf Puzzle

2007-01-30T17:35:00.000-08:00

Over at The Fourth Rail, Bill Roggio has some interesting bits about the big battle near Najaf.

And, of course, The New York Times has now chimed in with an effort to belittle and denigrate the efforts of Iraqi Army and police personnel who led the attack on the bizarre cult and foreigners who had intended to attack Shiites:

January 30, 2007
Missteps by Iraqi Forces in Battle Raise Questions
By MARC SANTORA
BAGHDAD, Jan. 29 —Iraqi forces were surprised and nearly overwhelmed by the ferocity of an obscure renegade militia in a weekend battle near the holy city of Najaf and needed far more help from American forces than previously disclosed, American and Iraqi officials said Monday.

Not surprisingly, Bill Roggio the blogger takes a more cautious approach to gathering information about a confusing situation and expressing opinions than does the "reporter" for The New York Times. The Times cannot let a hint of success by the Iraqi Army against a surprisingly large and violent group take hold in the public consciousness.

Iraqi Army Pulls Its Own Weight in Najaf

2007-01-28T19:51:00.000-08:00

According to The New York Times, one of the biggest single battles in Iraq in several years occurred in Najaf – and the men doing most of the fighting against the “militants” were in the Iraqi Army. Could it be that the Iraqis are approaching the point at which their own army is ready to provide security?

January 29, 2007
250 Are Killed in Major Iraq Battle
By DAMIEN CAVE
BAGHDAD, Jan. 28 — An American helicopter was shot down and at least 250 people were killed near the city of Najaf on Sunday in what appeared to be one of Iraq’s deadliest battles in years, Iraqi officials said.

For 15 hours, Iraqi forces backed by American helicopters and tanks battled hundreds of gunmen hiding in a date palm orchard near the village of Zarqaa, about 120 miles south of Baghdad, by a river and a large grain silo that is surrounded by orchards, the officials said.

Col. Ali Numaas, a spokesman for the Iraqi security forces in Najaf, said that the fighting stopped just after 10 p.m. and that most of those killed were militants. An employee at a local morgue said at least two Iraqi policemen were among the dead.

The “militants” apparently had intended to kill as many Shiites as possible:

Asad Abu Ghalal, the governor of Najaf Province, said the fighters in the orchard were Iraqi and foreign, some wearing the brown, white and maroon regalia of Pakistani and Afghan fighters. He said they had come to assassinate Shiite clerics and attack religious convoys that were gathering in Najaf, one of Shiite Islam’s holiest cities, and other southern cities for Ashura, a Shiite holiday that starts Monday night and runs through Tuesday morning.

Also, there were some other foreigners who intended to kill Shiites:

Elsewhere in the heavily Shiite south, there were other signs of potential strikes on Ashura. Officials in Karbala said the police arrested three men on Sunday — a Saudi, an Afghan and a Moroccan — who were found on the road between Najaf and Karbala with a suicide bomb belt and explosives in their car. The officials said the vehicle had been hollowed out so it could be used as a car bomb.

As the useful idiots in the U.S.A. wring their hands over the “civil war” in Iraq and demand that we abandon Iraq, it is important to notice that our enemies among the Islamic radicals come from places other than Iraq and join in the killing with the intention of provoking the Shiites into a chaotic “civil war.”

When our enemies choose a strategy to defeat our plan to establish a democratic republic in Iraq, it is best not to play along and help them. Our enemies expect to win their first objective (getting us to withdraw in an isolationist funk from Iraq and other Islamic areas) by creating chaos in Iraq and letting the fifth column here in America persuade us it's a "civil war" in which we shouldn't be involved. Unfortunately, they are getting a lot of help from the knowing and unknowing traitors among us.

News from Anbar Province

2007-01-21T19:50:00.000-08:00

Bill Roggio is back in Iraq's Anbar province for a little while. This entry is encouraging -- the Iraqis are willing and able to take the fight to the enemy.

Al Gore Dodges Inconvenient Interview

2007-01-21T19:27:00.000-08:00

Al Gore apparently would rather not answer pointed questions about his global warming ideas.

It's a lot easier to claim falsely that his critics are ignorant people who refuse to accept scientific facts than it is to try defending his ideas.

Have Bill Will File, Wire Simpson, Covington

2007-01-20T17:16:00.000-08:00

Could this headline in the Kitsap Sun online edition hint at an editor's opinion of Rep. Simpson?

Speedway Backers Find a Starting Gun for Hire in Olympia
By Steven Gardner
January 20, 2007

Olympia

Supporters of a NASCAR-ready speedway in South Kitsap have a sponsor in the Washington House of Representatives — for a bill that is not expected to specify Kitsap County as the track site.

State Rep. Geoff Simpson, D-Covington, said Friday he would likely introduce a bill that provides state funding to help build a speedway for NASCAR and other races.

In the print edition, the headline was a little more bland: "Speedway Gets a Starting Gun in Legislature." Maybe the person who did the print edition headline realized there is nothing in the article to hint at any "hired gun" status.

There is no Lake Wobegon

2007-01-16T21:05:00.000-08:00

Charles Murray is trying again to get his point across:

Today's simple truth: Half of all children are below average in intelligence. We do not live in Lake Wobegon.

Efforts like "No Child Left Behind" may eventually make unavoidable the need to determine just how much can practically be done -- and may be helped along by incessant demands for more spending on public education. There is a point beyond which no amount of additional money spent on schools will change the outcome significantly.

As Murray notes, we don't know where that point is:

Some say that the public schools are so awful that there is huge room for improvement in academic performance just by improving education. There are two problems with that position. The first is that the numbers used to indict the public schools are missing a crucial component. For example, in the 2005 round of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 36% of all fourth-graders were below the NAEP's "basic achievement" score in reading. It sounds like a terrible record. But we know from the mathematics of the normal distribution that 36% of fourth-graders also have IQs lower than 95.

What IQ is necessary to give a child a reasonable chance to meet the NAEP's basic achievement score? Remarkably, it appears that no one has tried to answer that question. We only know for sure that if the bar for basic achievement is meaningfully defined, some substantial proportion of students will be unable to meet it no matter how well they are taught.

In Washington state, many people are worried about the idea of basing a high school diploma on the statewide test known as the Washington Assessment of Student Learning. They can foresee having to refuse to give diplomas to a large number of students who cannot pass the "WASL."

But, if they cannot (or will not) do the academic work that receiving a diploma supposedly recognizes, why give them meaningless diplomas?

Before taking money away from other purposes (including the purposes to which the taxpayers would put that money if they keep it for their own uses) and spending it on public schools, shouldn't we at least admit that we need to answer the most basic question?

Israel may have to choose

2007-01-06T17:13:00.000-08:00

This may be true, but why leak it to the press?

Revealed: Israel plans nuclear strike on Iran
Uzi Mahnaimi New York and
Sarah Baxter Washington

ISRAEL has drawn up secret plans to destroy Iran’s uranium enrichment facilities with tactical nuclear weapons.

Two Israeli air force squadrons are training to blow up an Iranian facility using low-yield nuclear “bunker-busters”, according to several Israeli military sources.

Iran's leaders constantly promise to wipe Israel off the map, and they are openly developing a supposedly "peaceful" nuclear energy program which could give them the material for the bomb.

What would you do if you were leader of Israel? Wait to counterattack after thousands of your fellow countrymen are killed by Iran's first strike? Or hit Iran first to prevent further development of their weapons program at least for the time being?

It's a Hobson's choice. If they wait, they die. If they strike first, they live for awhile longer; but the Islamic radicals (and their fellow travelers) will not go away -- and would point to Israel's first strike as justification for developing their own weapons.

Maybe the leak was motivated by a desire for others to choose to take action, given the terrible choices available to the Israelis:

Israeli military commanders believe conventional strikes may no longer be enough to annihilate increasingly well-defended enrichment facilities. Several have been built beneath at least 70ft of concrete and rock. However, the nuclear-tipped bunker-busters would be used only if a conventional attack was ruled out and if the United States declined to intervene, senior sources said.

Israeli and American officials have met several times to consider military action. Military analysts said the disclosure of the plans could be intended to put pressure on Tehran to halt enrichment, cajole America into action or soften up world opinion in advance of an Israeli attack.

Neither we nor the Israelis have good choices available to us in this situation, but the insane men in charge of Iran actually like the bad choice they have already made.

Jayna Davis Pans Rohrabacher's Report

2006-12-30T14:51:00.000-08:00

Well, that congressional subcommittee's report apparently won't make for interesting reading after all.

Jayna Davis is sharply critical of Rep. Rohrabacher's effort to chase after false leads while all but ignoring the leads Davis had uncovered long ago:

Congressman Rohrabacher’s personal inquiry into my research has been cursory, limited to a phone conversation with the former CIA Director Jim Woolsey and brief interviews with only two of my witnesses, whom he has publicly described as "credible."

In Summer 2005, bombing convict Terry Nichols told Rohrabacher in a face-to-face interview that the substance of evidence outlined in The Third Terrorist "could be correct." Upon exiting his prison meeting with Nichols, the congressman told me in a recorded phone conversation that I had developed "the heaviest evidence of foreign complicity," yet my 368-page copiously documented book warranted only five paragraphs in his final report, neglecting to mention any and all major elements of my investigation.
###
I say without compunction that Congressman Rohrabacher has issued a shamefully incomplete report on the Middle Eastern connection to the Oklahoma City bombing, and in so doing, has performed a grave disservice to the truth and the slain of April 19, 1995.

Read the whole thing. It seems that no part of our government has any intention of closely investigating the circumstances uncovered by Davis. I wonder why.

McVeigh, Nichols, et alii

2006-12-25T12:30:00.000-08:00

They apparently want little attention to be given their report, since the news comes out on Christmas. According to the AP via CBS News:

(AP) A two-year congressional inquiry into the Oklahoma City bombing concludes that the FBI didn't fully investigate whether other suspects may have helped Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols with the deadly 1995 attack, allowing questions to linger a decade later.

At the end is a nod to Jayna Davis, who did an amazing job of assembling evidence showing that Nichols and McVeigh bombed the Alfred P. Murrah building in Oklahoma City with the assistance of foreigners -- including some who had come from Iraq.

Rohrabacher's report cites several leads the subcommittee believes weren't fully investigated, including:
# # #
_ Information from a former TV reporter concerning an Iraqi national who was in Oklahoma around the time of the bombing.

It is a strange situation, based on Davis's work. It looks as though the people who helped McVeigh and Nichols didn't mind letting people know of their existence, yet no group ever claimed "credit." It also looks as though some of the 9/11 terrorists knew of the previous presence of those individuals in Oklahoma -- almost like they were hinting at a connection to them. But why?

If only the FBI had done a reasonably thorough job, we might be able to do more than merely hazard a guess as to the answer.

Oh, well, the subcommittee's report will be released "as early as Wednesday." It will be interesting to see what they say about Davis's work.

Anbar Sunni Tribes Fight "the Resistance"

2006-12-23T21:08:00.000-08:00

Anbar province in Iraq is supposedly a hopeless case for the Multi-National Force. Remember Col. Devlin's intelligence assessment made in August and leaked in November?

Occasionally, there are news reports from Anbar. Here is one from the BBC:

The tribal chiefs in the Iraqi province of Anbar joined forces in September in an attempt to defeat al-Qaeda.

They set up the Salvation Council for Anbar and claim to have reduced the numbers of weapons and foreign fighters coming into the area.

The restive Sunni dominated area has been a centre of activity for foreign jihadis linked to al-Qaeda.

"Joined forces in September" -- that would be after Devlin's assessment of the dire situation.

Here is the explanation of their motivation according to their own leader:

The head of the council, Sheikh Faisal al-Goud, told the BBC, however, that there were still thousands of al-Qaeda fighters operating in al Anbar province alone.

"We are fighting the terrorists because they have caused the violent chaos in the country, the instability. They are killing innocent Iraqis and killing anyone who wants freedom and peace in Iraq," he explained.

And, of course, "balance" in news reporting requires an alternative explanation from someone who needs to be removed from society:

Driving a wedge between local Sunnis and the extreme jihadists of al-Qaeda has long been an aim shared by the Americans and the Iraqi government.

But in a sign of how disunited the Sunnis are, a prominent Sunni figure considered close to the insurgency - Sheikh Harith al-Dari of the Muslim Scholars' Association - has criticised the tribesmen as bandits fighting what he called the resistance.

"Bandits" was a label commonly used by the Communists in the Soviet Union and China to identify people who resisted the so-called revolution. Could the "scholars" have stumbled onto the same lingo by mere coincidence?

The United Kingdom Expects the Worst

2006-12-21T14:48:00.000-08:00

It appears that Al-Qaeda intends to murder people in Great Britain sometime soon. (Via little green footballs)

When they are ready, they will come after us.

A Snowless Autumn On Some European Ski Slopes

2006-12-17T12:55:00.000-08:00

How soon they forget.

Of course, it must be "global warming," not just natural variability in weather conditions:

Ski resorts across the European Alps are becoming increasingly worried as current bad snow conditions threaten the all important Christmas holiday period.

This autumn has been one of the worst on record with high temperatures and little snowfall.
Many resorts have had to postpone their openings and the main ski races have been cancelled because of a lack of snow.

With millions of skiers heading to the resorts over the next week there are concerns that the open runs will be very busy and people could be put off from booking again at Christmas and the New Year, costing the multi-million pound industry heavily in lost revenue, and threatening jobs.

Climate change

Many believe global warming is to blame for the lack of snow.

If, next December, people are freezing in lower than average temperatures again, will anyone in the news media remind people of this silliness about global warming's effect on the ski slopes in the autumn of 2006? No, of course not. The "climate change" propaganda only goes in one direction.

Baker and Hamilton's Iraq Coffee Klatsch

2006-12-10T20:52:00.000-08:00

This Washington Post editorial deserves an award for getting straight to the point and getting it right:

An Unlikely Offensive
The Iraq Study Group imagines a Middle East that doesn't exist.
Sunday, December 10, 2006; Page B06
THE IRAQ Study Group's recommendations for shifting U.S. military tactics in the war are specific, focused and aimed at incremental improvement over the next few months; they are also close to what the Pentagon and Iraqi government already were hoping to achieve. By contrast, the group's diplomatic strategy is sweeping -- and untethered to reality. The Bush administration could and should adopt some version of the military plan, though it would be right to ignore the unrealistic timetable attached to it. But to embrace the group's proposed "New Diplomatic Offensive" would be to suppose a Middle East very different from what's on the ground.

They called themselves the "Iraq Study Group," but their work product is roughly the same as could have been expected from a coffee klatsch.

Blethen the Rapacious Capitalist

2006-12-09T11:03:00.000-08:00

The publisher of The Seattle Times, Frank Blethen, included one of his own essays in the Dec. 8 edition.

It appears to reveal that Blethen is one of the "rapacious capitalists" Thomas Jefferson decried (at least, according to Blethen -- I haven't yet found the source of Blethen's Jefferson quote).

Here's the beginning of Blethen's essay:

Guest columnist
America's democracy at risk
By Frank A. Blethen
Special to The Times

Almost all democracies the world has seen have died within 300 years of their founding.

Most implode from within.

At 230-some years, America has moved dangerously close to the fail-safe line for our survival.

We are in the later stages of one of the most important battles that will determine whether we survive.

It is the battle that pits democracy against the powerful. The powerful, who seek to co-opt our free press, control the news, and control the access to news, journalism and information.

It is a battle our country has fought before, but never with today's consequences.

It is a battle Thomas Jefferson clearly understood when he wrote that he "foresaw the days American democracy would have to fight the rapacious capitalists."

And, here's an "online book review" (admittedly a less than certain source of information) which indicates that Jefferson's words have been misconstrued by Blethen and his probable source:

He [Richard K. Matthews] constantly makes use of quotes which purport to demonstrate Jefferson's opposition to capitalism, which all the while only express his [Jefferson's] repugnance to wealth acquired through the machinery of the state, and not through the market.

I suspect that Blethen's source is the book discussed in the review -- published in 1986, written by Richard K. Matthews, and titled "The Radical Politics of Thomas Jefferson."

Maybe some day I will come across a copy, so I can look in the third chapter to see if Blethen's "rapacious capitalists" quote is there.

If my guess is correct, Blethen is one of those capitalists Jefferson spoke of -- one who wants to use government to acquire (or keep) his wealth, rather than simply compete in the market. As Blethen put it in his essay:

• We need new legislation, controlling and limiting in some fashion the ownership of newspapers.

Blethen's family has owned The Seattle Times for more than a century, and he wants Uncle Sam to protect his family's ownership of the newspaper from market forces.

Doesn't that make him a rapacious capitalist who tries to use government power to increase his own capitalist wealth, power and influence?

We have met the enemy, and he is a friend of the "M(isleading)ainstream Media"

2006-12-03T15:22:00.000-08:00

Read this article by Boston Herald columnist Jules Crittenden:

The AP, of course, has been delivering unbalanced reports about U.S. national politics for some time, as when President Bush, whom AP reporters despise, is barely allowed to state his case on an issue before his critics are given twice as much space to pummel him. The AP, once a just-the-facts news delivery service, has lost its rudder. It has become a partisan, anti-American news agency that seeks to undercut a wartime president and American soldiers in the field. It is providing fraudulent, shoddy goods. It doesn’t even recognize it has a problem.

And, buy this book (or beg your library to get it -- the price is pretty high):

BLACKSBURG, VA., November 30, 2006 -- Jim A. Kuypers, assistant professor of communication in the College of Liberal Arts and Human Sciences at Virginia Tech, reveals a disturbing world of media bias in his new book Bush's War: Media Bias and Justifications for War in a Terrorist Age (Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. 2006).

Convincingly and without resorting to partisan politics, Kuypers strongly illustrates in eight chapters “how the press failed America in its coverage on the War on Terror.” In each comparison, Kuypers “detected massive bias on the part of the press.” In fact, Kuypers calls the mainstream news media an “anti-democratic institution” in the conclusion.

Media bias is corrupting our society. Foolish people like this "Young Democrat" actually believe the balderdash published by organizations like the Associated Press.

Most of us have little ability to counter the poisonous effects of media bias, but we can do some good by encouraging people like Professor Kuypers to publish credible criticisms. I know, it costs money to encourage him and others to fight the good fight; but what else can you do?

St. Nick in Austria, Switzerland and Germany

2006-11-29T18:03:00.000-08:00

Long ago I heard of Saint Nicholas Day (December 6), but I haven't seen it celebrated. Likewise, I knew as a boy that a lump of coal and a switch were the "gifts" left for boys and girls who weren't good -- but they were to be left in the stocking by Santa Claus.

Here is another look at Christmas traditions in an area where Saint Nicholas Day is celebrated:

While Santa rules in the far north, the jolly elf has little tradition in Austria and surrounding countries. As in past years, some booths at Vienna's main Christmas market are again plastered with stickers depicting Santa with a diagonal red bar across his fluffy white beard - the work of a group in Austria, Switzerland and Germany that sees Santa as a symbol of the commercialization of Christmas and a threat to local traditions.

Instead, kids grow up with traditional Dec. 6 visits from St. Nicholas or Nikolo - a bearded, mitered figure in bishop's garb dating back to the 4th century who hands out sweets to good girls and boys. Christmas is reserved for the "Christkind" or Christ Child, who sneaks into homes and deposits presents under the tree and sometimes brings the tree itself.

As for naughty kids, there is St. Nick's sidekick, who in Austria goes under the name of "Krampus" - a hairy behorned figure who gives them lumps of coal and threatens them with a swipe of his switch unless they mend their ways.

Notice how Santa is opposed as a commercialization of Christmas, but they "keep Christ in Christmas" by having the Christ Child instead of Santa deliver gifts. How do they avoid commercializing the Christ Child?

A "Two-fer" in Iraq for the Fifth Column

2006-11-28T15:37:00.000-08:00

According to the Washington Post, a military intelligence report attributes a big part of our problems in Iraq's Anbar province to the perception that the U.S.A. will pull out of Iraq before the job is done:

True or not, the memo says, "from the Sunni perspective, their greatest fears have been realized: Iran controls Baghdad and Anbaris have been marginalized." Moreover, most Sunnis now believe it would be unwise to count on or help U.S. forces because they are seen as likely to leave the country before imposing stability.

Not only are members of Al Qaeda emboldened by the steady drumbeat in America in favor of retreat, but also the Sunnis in Iraq are choosing to help Al Qaeda rather than rely on us:

The report describes Iraq's Sunni minority as "embroiled in a daily fight for survival," fearful of "pogroms" by the Shiite majority and increasingly dependent on al-Qaeda in Iraq as its only hope against growing Iranian dominance across the capital.

It's hard to win a war when the "fifth column" is so large.

Divisive Leftists in Mexico

2006-11-20T16:56:00.000-08:00

At least leftists in the U.S.A. haven't gone this far yet in their efforts to divide Americans and cripple the government:

Obrador 'inauguration' in Mexico

The defeated left-wing candidate in Mexico's presidential election, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, has held an unofficial swearing-in ceremony.

During his "inauguration" in Mexico City, Mr Lopez Obrador said he was launching a "parallel government".

He claims [he] was the victim of fraud in July's election - a view shared by millions of Mexicans.

But some of his supporters think his alternative inauguration is ill-advised and politically irresponsible.

What's the Spanish word for "divisive"?

CO2 times 4

2006-11-11T20:27:00.000-08:00

The latest scare story on global warming and carbon dioxide emissions is out.

According to The Independent (UK), the rate of growth in carbon dioxide emissions was four times greater in the past few years than it was in the '90s. And, note who is responsible for a big part of that growth:

Data on carbon dioxide emissions shows that the global growth rate was 3.2 per cent in the five years to 2005 compared with 0.8 per cent from 1990 to 1999, despite efforts to reduce carbon pollution through the Kyoto agreement.

Much of the increase is probably due to the expansion of the Chinese economy, which has relied heavily on burning coal and other fossil fuels for its energy.

China was not required by the hallowed Kyoto Protocol to do anything at all to reduce its emissions, as everyone who recognized the senselessness of the Kyoto Protocol noted.

Neither were India and Brazil, among others, and here's what NewScientist.com reported:

One likely contributor is China, whose emissions slowed at end of the 1990s before rising again. China is now the world’s second largest emitter of greenhouse gases after the US. On Tuesday, the International Energy Agency released a report predicting that it would become the world’s top emitter by 2030 (see World
faces 'dirty, insecure' energy future).

Other growing developing countries, such as India and Brazil, are also fast becoming large emitters.

The Independent included one fact that is rarely reported, since it shows how impossible it would be to solve the problem (assuming arguendo that it is a problem needing a solution) by limiting carbon dioxide emissions anytime soon:

Professor Bill McGuire, director of the Benfield Hazard Research Centre in London, said: "This is more very bad news. We need a 60 to 70 per cent cut in emissions, but instead, emission levels are spiralling out of control. The sum total of our meagre efforts to cut emissions amounts to less than zero."

Try cutting emissions by that much without extraordinary technological changes to replace the power no longer generated by combustion of fuels. It isn't possible, unless you want to live in a stone-age, subsistence-farming society -- and even that would barely do it.

Attempting to "cap" emissions through government regulation offers no promise of success.

Does Al Qaeda Know US?

2006-11-11T15:29:00.000-08:00

This report by CBS News provides food for thought.

Al Qaeda plans more attacks in Europe, but why? Their strategy surely involves splitting off the few allies or potential allies of the U.S.A. If they can work it right, attacks in Europe will succeed as they did in Spain -- they will persuade the Europeans to hunker down and hope to be left alone.

Al Qaeda has for several months been sending its men out of Afghanistan, but why? The Taliban can maintain the level of violence needed to discourage Americans -- and can do so without appearing to be anything other than a local resistance to the fledgling democratic republic which the U.S.A. and our allies support. The propaganda value of an indigenous "resistance" will help Al Qaeda persuade Americans to abandon all hope in Afghanistan.

Many people talk of the "lessons of Vietnam." Al Qaeda leaders apparently believe they understand lessons of Vietnam that are useful to them.

They want western governments to abandon the Middle East and Southwest Asia. Splitting off Europe from the U.S.A. and convincing Americans that Afghans (and Iraqis) are a lost cause would tend to produce the isolationist sentiments in America and Europe that Al Qaeda wants.

If Al Qaeda really does know us, they won't attack us within our own borders for a while. They will kill our armed forces personnel when they can overseas, since that may persuade us to bug out. They won't give us reason to come after them with a vengeance again -- until they are ready.

More Greenbacks for Greens?

2006-11-10T23:10:00.000-08:00

As reported by The Seattle Times, the Democrat majorities in Congress may give the "greens" more greenbacks:

With Democrats now in power, Dicks outlined an ambitious environmental agenda. He said he would use the power of the purse in Appropriations to help clean up Puget Sound, provide more money for Mount Rainier and Olympic national parks and force the EPA to enforce pollution standards.

Dicks also wants to hold hearings on the impact of global warming, particularly on Puget Sound fish and wildlife.

"The state is one of the big winners in this election," said Heather Weiner, a longtime D.C. environmental lobbyist now based in Seattle. "It's all about the chairmanships and all about appropriations, all about the money."

Assuming the other 49 states go along with it, perhaps more money will be spent in Washington state on parks, the sound, etc. I wonder how big their wish list is, and whether they can do much of it without tax increases.

Seymour Hersh vamps for another Pulitzer Prize

2006-11-04T11:49:00.000-08:00

Has Seymour Hersh lost touch with reality? It's more likely that he simply feels no obligation to be truthful in the pursuit of his political goals.

As reported by The McGill Daily, his speech to the students in Montreal, Canada, included this calumny:

If Americans knew the full extent of U.S. criminal conduct, they would receive returning Iraqi veterans as they did Vietnam veterans, Hersh said.

“In Vietnam, our soldiers came back and they were reviled as baby killers, in shame and humiliation,” he said. “It isn’t happening now, but I will tell you – there has never been an [American] army as violent and murderous as our army has been in Iraq.”

Notice how the editor felt it necessary to insert "[American]" into what was actually said by Hersh. Perhaps there is yet some recognition that massacres of noncombatants were conducted as a matter of strategy and policy as recently as the 20th century by Communists and others who have no regard whatsoever for human life -- and are still being done on purpose by Islamic radicals.

A statement attributed to John F. Kennedy comes to mind: "Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names."

Seymour Hersh is a name to remember. His vicious lies about the American military personnel in Iraq show beyond any doubt that he is our enemy.

Voting a la Venezuela

2006-10-28T20:44:00.000-07:00

The old joke about what communists think of democracy is "one man, one vote, one time."

Maybe they're working on a new line -- one man, approximately one vote, maybe.

The federal government is investigating the takeover last year of a leading American manufacturer of electronic voting systems by a small software company that has been linked to the leftist Venezuelan government of President Hugo Chávez.

Coming soon to a vote counting place near you?

Wedge, wedge, who sees the wedge?

2006-10-20T16:14:00.000-07:00

If the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, wanted to drive a wedge between the U.S.A. and western European countries during his speech today, would it help or hurt his purpose to have the news media make that purpose plain?

Notice how Ahmadinejad's statements were reported differently by European and American news sources. The Europeans (except for Agence France-Presse) pointedly noted the threat was aimed at them, not the U.S.A. The Americans (even Fox News) blurred that distinction (except for The New York Times).

Taking Aljazeera first, since it is neither European nor American and thus may give the words the meaning intended by the speaker, the following excerpts may seem repetitive, but notice how the intended target of Ahmadinejad's threat is described in each.

Aljazeera:

In a speech to mark Jerusalem day, the Iranian president said Europe was stirring up hatred in the Middle East by supporting Israel and warned it "may get hurt" if anger in the region boiled over.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said in a speech broadcast on state radio: "You should believe that this regime [Israel] cannot last and has no more benefit to you. What benefit have you got in supporting this regime, except the hatred of the nations?

"We have advised the Europeans that the Americans are far away, but you are the neighbours of the nations in this region. We inform you that the nations are like an ocean that is welling up, and if a storm begins, the dimensions will not stay limited to Palestine, and you may get hurt."

The Times (UK):

"You should believe that this regime (Israel) cannot last and has no more benefit to you. What benefit have you got in supporting this regime, except the hatred of the nations?" said Mr Ahmadinejad, addressing European countries in a speech on state radio.

"We have advised the Europeans that the Americans are far away, but you are the neighbours of the nations in this region. We inform you that the nations are like an ocean that is welling up, and if a storm begins, the dimensions will not stay limited to Palestine, and you may get hurt."

The Guardian (UK):

"We have advised the Europeans that the Americans are far away, but you are the neighbours of the nations in this region," he said. "We inform you that the nations are like an ocean that is welling up, and if a storm begins, the dimensions will not stay limited to Palestine, and you may get hurt. It is in your own interest to distance yourself from these criminals ... This is an ultimatum. Don't complain tomorrow."

Reuters:

"We have advised the Europeans that the Americans are far away, but you are the neighbors of the nations in this region. We inform you that the nations are like an ocean that is welling up, and if a storm begins, the dimensions will not stay limited to Palestine, and you may get hurt."

BBC:

"You imposed a group of terrorists... on the region. It is in your own interest to distance yourself from these criminals... This is an ultimatum. Don't complain tomorrow."

The "ultimatum" was directed at European states in particular.

"We have advised the Europeans that the Americans are far away, but you are the neighbours of the nations in this region," Mr Ahmadinejad said.

"We inform you that the nations are like an ocean that is welling up, and if a storm begins, the dimensions will not stay limited to Palestine, and you may get hurt."

Agence France-Presse:

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has predicted Israel would collapse and warned that its allies face the "boiling wrath" of the people if they continue to support the Jewish state.

The renewed assault on Israel by Ahmadinejad -- who has been castigated by world powers for his frequent anti-Israeli outbursts -- came as tens of thousands marched through Tehran in an annual pro-Palestinian protest.

"This regime (Israel) will be gone, definitely," Ahmadinejad, who has previously called for Israel to be "wiped from the map" and described the Holocaust as a myth, told the protestors.

"You (the Western powers) should know that any government that stands by the Zionist regime from now on will not see any result but the hatred of the people," he added. "The wrath of the region's people is boiling."

"Efforts to stabilise this fraudulent regime have completely failed, thank God ... This regime has lost the rationale of its existence," the president said.

Ahmadinejad described his warning as an "ultimatum" for Western powers. "You should not complain that we did not give a warning. We are saying this explicitly now."

"If a hurricane starts be rest assured that the dimensions of this hurricane will not be limited to the geographic borders of Palestine," he added. "This regime (Israel) will take its supporters to the bottom of the swamp."

"The best solution is for you to take all the components of the regime and take it away," Ahmadinejad said.

International Herald Tribune (version "A"):

Ahmadinejad, speaking to a crowd of hundreds of thousands in Tehran, threatened any country that supports Israel, and said the U.S. and its allies had "imposed a group of terrorists" on the region by their support of the Jewish state.

"It is in your own interest to distance yourself from these criminals... This is an ultimatum. Don't complain tomorrow," he cautioned. "Nations will take revenge."

International Herald Tribune (version "E"):

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad warned Friday that Western countries and particularly Europe would be hurt by popular fury against their support of Israel.

In a speech carried live by Iranian radio, Ahmadinejad told European countries, "People in the region blame you for any crime or invasion against any country and will take revenge on you."

"You should know that the rage of people is boiling and is like an ocean that is welling up," he said. "Once its storm begins blowing, it will go beyond the borders of Lebanon and Palestine and it will hurt European countries."

ABC News:

In Iran, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Friday called Israel's leaders a "group of terrorists" and threatened any country that supports the Jewish state.

"You imposed a group of terrorists … on the region," Ahmadinejad said, addressing the U.S. and its allies. "It is in your own interest to distance yourself from these criminals … This is an ultimatum. Don't complain tomorrow."

CBS News:

Ahmadinejad also called Israeli leaders a "group of terrorists" and threatened any country that supports the Jewish state, as millions of Iranians took to the streets for anti-Israel protests.

"You imposed a group of terrorists ... on the region," Ahmadinejad said, addressing the U.S. and its allies. "It is in your own interest to distance yourself from these criminals... This is an ultimatum. Don't complain tomorrow."

The New York Times:

TEHRAN, Oct. 20 —President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad warned today that Western countries, particularly in Europe, will be hurt by popular fury caused by their support of Israel.

Referring to European nations, Mr. Ahmadinejad said, “People in the region blame you for any crime or invasion against any country, and will take revenge on you.”

“You should know that the rage of people is boiling and is like an ocean that is welling up,” he said in a speech broadcast nationally on radio. “Once its storm begins blowing, it will go beyond the borders of Lebanon and Palestine, and it will hurt European countries.”

USA Today:

Speaking to tens of thousands of supporters at a pro-Palestinian rally in the capital, Tehran, the Iranian leader addressed Israel's allies: "It is in your own interest to distance yourself from these criminals... This is an ultimatum. Don't complain tomorrow."

Fox News:

Ahmadinejad, speaking to a crowd of hundreds of thousands in Tehran, threatened any country that supports Israel, and said the U.S. and its allies had "imposed a group of terrorists" on the region by their support of the Jewish state.

"It is in your own interest to distance yourself from these criminals... This is an ultimatum. Don't complain tomorrow," he cautioned. "Nations will take revenge."

What bias would cause this general difference in reporting? It seems likely that the Europeans would notice that they are the intended targets of the threat, but not all of them reported it that way. American news reporters surely could tell that Europe was the target, yet they almost all avoided saying so.