Define your terms:

We're on this particular subject, because all too often we've heard the term "Socialist" misused by conservatives. Bill O'Reilly, in particular, calls various support programs socialism. But that's incorrect. We currently have a Capitalist-Welfare state - like it or not. The primary definition of Socialism, according to the dictionary, is:

any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

Which nobody in the United States is supporting - pace O'Reilly.

Anyway, we thought it might be interesting to see if we could come up with a little table to get a better sense of what the different political systems were all about, and how they stood in relation to each other. This required gross simplification, and therefore the result is likely to disappoint or outrage some folks. But it's a first cut, and we expect to refine it later. That said, here is the table:

		government owns/controls
					little or nothing
					capitalism
					welfare - capitalism provides support to:			no welfare
		personal life		personal life	people		people
		business	business		business	business
political system	democratic	Calvinism	Socialism	Poindexterism	Liberalism	Bushism	Green	Libertarianism
	authoritarian	Communism	Mobutuism	Monarcy	Bismarkism	Fascism	Theocracy	Tribalism

CYA NOTE:

• Monarchy is that which was practiced a thousand years ago, when the king/emperor/sultan owned everything (and there was no commerce - or at least it was practiced outside the purview of the monarch).
• Theocracy refers to a system where Faith Based Organizations service the poor (which is quasi-governmental). Also, it's not particularly enamored by business (for moral reasons: encourages hedonism, may foster selfish attitudes, promotes "modernism", ...).
• Instead of Bismarkism, we were tempted to say National Socialism, but that term carries way too much baggage.
• We weren't happy to put Greens in the category of welfare-for-people-only, but it seemed like the best term to use for that case.
• Poindexterism refers to the control that Admiral John Poindexter's Total Information Awareness could lead to. Control of personal behavior, with minimal business oversight, in a democracy.
• Calvinism refers to the society in Switzerland at the time in history of maximum control (1600?). Everybody's life was regimented within a somewhat democratic framework. We are unaware of any modern-day, democratic, totalitarian system.

posted by Quiddity at 11/26/2002 05:09:00 PM

Insurance for me, but not for thee:

Sometime ago, we noted the Bush administration's cavalier attitude towards extending unemployment insurance for about 800,000 people. They took a hands-off approach. We read:

Congress adjourned its 107th session Friday, sending President Bush a homeland security bill but faltering in a last-ditch effort to help recession victims whose unemployment insurance is about to run out.

... House Democratic leader Richard Gephardt of Missouri and Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota asked President Bush to weigh in and press House Republicans to approve the Senate proposal. The White House insisted that Congress work it out.

And the Bush administration has also promoted "privatization" or "partial privatization" of the Social Security Insurance program. But let's make this point clear: You cannot "privatize" insurance. It's a contradiction in terms. If you privatize insurance, you're really dismantling it.

So, it looks as if the administration disdains insurance. It's everybody for himself. Sink or swim. No collective action to hedge against misfortune - right?

Not so fast!

Bush is in favor of insurance for businesses. That's why he pushed for the just-signed Terrorism Risk Insurance Act. Not only does it make terrorism available, it makes it mandatory that it be available: (from the NYTimes)

The legislation, which Mr. Bush had made a top priority, requires all commercial insurers to begin immediately offering terrorism coverage.

But there's more. The government is a partner with this program:

The bill also shields the insurance companies from the kind of astronomical losses that another attack like that of Sept. 11 could bring.

Under the bill, formally known as the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act, the government will pay 90 percent of the cost of a terrorist attack after losses are greater than $10 billion. For lesser damages during the first year of the program, the insurance companies will pay up to the equivalent of 7 percent of their premiums toward damages with the government picking up the rest of the costs. In the third year, the insurers will be required to pay up to 15 percent of their premiums with the 90 percent share for the government kicking in at $15 billion in losses.

There is no mention of a Terrorism Insurance Trust Fund, so we presume such a thing won't exist. That means if there's a big attack, some of the compensation will be paid out of general funds - i.e. by all of us. It's quite a contrast: No interest in paying unemployment insurance out of a trust fund that has $25 billion in it, yet enthusiasm for an unfunded terrorism insurance program for businesses.

Let us say at this point that we think insurance is rational and worthwhile. It is, historically speaking, an idea that's been useful to society for about 400 years. However, for reasons unknown, some on the right howl that insurance for people (unemployment, retirement) is a variant of socialism (which it isn't). Yet they cheer insurance for businesses.

posted by Quiddity at 11/26/2002 01:49:00 PM

Spell check:

This is off-topic (i.e. not current affaris), but we couldn't resist. Sometimes when writing entries, we make common spelling mistakes. In particular, we forget to remember the "i before e except after c" rule. So as a public service, we offer this handy reminder:

In our experience, an atheist will eventually abandon science, and yield to a belief in a higher being - a deity.

For more on this, go here.

posted by Quiddity at 11/25/2002 12:04:00 PM

Rittenhouse surveys the pundit world:

In a thought-provoking, 3,700 word entry (surely a record for a blog), we get a view of the hierarchies and social dynamics manifested by the species we like to call homo punditus. It's not pretty. But then, much of Nature is disturbing (always fighting, red in tooth and claw). In any event, it's a good read. We particularly liked this excerpt: (speaking about 2^nd tier personalities)

It is not without reason that Andrew Sullivan, himself one of the media’s most brazen self-propelled climbers and perhaps the industry’s most desperately scheming and self-promoting parvenu, maintains a “suck-up watch” for his would-be colleagues. Nor is it a coincidence that Sullivan in his insecurity casts “suck-up” aspersions on journalists far more talented than he.

Bravo!


posted by Quiddity at 11/25/2002 11:52:00 AM

What?

We took a look at Andrew Sullivan's website today, and this entry caught our eye:

KILLING FORTUYN: We now know the motive. It wasn't animal rights. It was opposition to Pim Fortuyn's criticism of unassimilated Islamic immigrants. It was an assassination made possible by the fusion of the multi-culti left and the medieval religious right - a fusion that threatens the very future of a free and democratic Europe.

So we read the story Sullivan linked to. The only information about motive was this:

Suspect Volkert van der Graaf said he killed the controversial right-wing leader because he considered him a danger to society.

The prosecutor's statement said Van der Graaf had said "he saw in Fortuyn an increasing danger to, in particular, vulnerable sections of society."

That's it. "A danger to society, a danger to vulnerable sections of society."

Yet Sullivan presents it as evidence that:

• Fortuyn was killed because of his criticism of unassimilated Islamic immigrants.
  
  
• The assassination was made possible by "the fusion of the multi-culti left and the medieval religious right."

Maybe there's more information out there about the assassin's motives, but from the evidence produced by Sullivan, his conclusions do not follow. Andrew is trying too hard. He should give it a rest. (Although, to be fair to Sullivan, he did manage to take a swipe at the "left", which is usually his objective - facts be damned.)


posted by Quiddity at 11/25/2002 11:00:00 AM

Picture this:

There have recently been a bunch of stories about a financial connection between high-ranking Saudis and the 9-11 hijackers. They include:

• 9-11 Hijackers: A Saudi Money Trail? (Newsweek)
• Saudis Decry Idea Princess Supported Terror (Los Angeles Times)
• The Saudi Money Trail (Newsweek)

We were confused because of the unfamiliar names and other details. Why not create a diagram to clarify the situation? So we did.



We don't think there's a smoking gun in this case. It looks like typical Saudis-helping-Saudis, but who knows for sure? One thing seems obvious: There are enough rabidly anti-American Saudis out there to make it likely that any charitable activity will en up helping a terrorist. That's the nature of their society right now - and is partly the result of the promotion of Wahhabism. Given that reality, the Saudi Princess should at least have been more circumspect about who she was sending money to.

At any rate, this flap should spur a proper investigation about Saudi connections to al Qaeda.

UPDATE: Conservative Mark Steyn thinks something going on (Pro al Qaeda embassy staffers? Strangers meeting at Los Angeles airport?). Check it out here.

posted by Quiddity at 11/24/2002 05:00:00 PM

Regulations? We don't need no stinkin' regulations!

There has been quite a fuss following the recent news about Bush's decision to relax pollution standards. From an article in the New York Times:

The Bush administration today announced the most sweeping move in a decade to loosen industrial air pollution rules. The administration said the changes would encourage plant improvements that would clean the air.

But nobody should be surprised by the action. Consider this statement made by Bush while he was campaigning for president:

The best way to achieve clean air and water was "to not try to sue our way or regulate our way to clean air and clean water."  Nov 1999

Which is exactly what law-breakers (or potential law-breakers) would advocate. Perhaps the same "don't sue and don't regulate" approach could be applied to fraudulent Wall Street analysts, manufacturers of unsafe consumer goods, purveyors of bacteria-laden food, and peddlers of insufficiently tested medicines.

posted by Quiddity at 11/24/2002 07:38:00 AM

This guy doesn't care about anything.  It's all a big joke:

We've just read Howard Kurtz' Washington Post Op-Ed which recapitulates the Daschle/Limbaugh flap.

It's awful.

He's saying that you can be very aggressive on talk radio - up to a certain point that he doesn't identify - and that Limbaugh is safely away from that threshold. That Limbaugh is not extreme, the proof being that Rush managed to land some face-time with Tom Brokaw on election night.

That's his opinion, which he's free to support - although it makes you wonder what a "media critic" with that attitude is doing anywhere.

We find this line by Kurtz particularly illuminating:

What may really rankle Daschle is that Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, G. Gordon Liddy, Oliver North and a slew of like-minded local hosts have honed radio into a scathingly effective message-delivery system.

Which, as we read it, comes off like:

What may really rankle Daschle is that a whole bunch of lying, mud-slinging, character assassins and a slew of like-minded local hosts have honed radio into a scathingly effective message-delivery system.

Kurtz ends with this: (our emphasis)

Over the years talk radio has democratized the airwaves, but occasionally also served as a conduit for hate-mongering and unsubstantiated slurs. Daschle is right in saying that words have consequences. High-decibel talkers like Limbaugh ought to be held accountable in the political arena. But those who find him insufferable should get into the ring and slug it out rather than accuse him of urging the crowd to throw sharp objects.

Two observations:

• Hasn't Limbaugh, in fact, been "hate-mongering" and peddling "unsubstantiated slurs"?  If these comments by Limbaugh about Daschle:

  • "You, sir, are a disgrace. You are a disgrace to patriotism, you are a disgrace to this country, you are a disgrace to the Senate ..."
    
    
  • "What more do you want to do to destroy this country than what you've already tried?"
    
    
  • [Daschle's speech is] nothing more than an attempt to sabotage the war on terrorism for your own personal and your party's political gain."
    
    
  • "Daschle's allies in this situation include the barbarians who run North Korea, the Islamic extremists who run Iran and the mass murderer Saddam Hussein who controls Iraq. That's the company Tom Daschle has joined."
    
    
  • "Now he's decided to roll the dice and align himself with Iran, North Korea and Hussein, In essence, Daschle has chosen to align himself with the axis of evil."

  aren't slurs, what is?   (Source: Spinsanity 1 & 2)
  
  
• And what's this about Limbaugh being held accountable in - presumably only in - the "political arena"? That means that by Kurtz' light, Limbaugh is innocent of any non-political character assassination. And even on that score, Kurtz fails to do his job. Want to talk politics? How about the issue of Global Warming? Limbaugh has suggested to listeners that it might be due to the sun getting hotter (something he says he remembers from his school days). It's true that astrophysicists expect the sun to become a red giant in a billion years (or 5), and that there might be an extremely gradual increase in output during the current "normal" phase. But that has absolutely nothing to do with multi-degree changes in less than 100 years. But you'd never know it from Kurtz.

UPDATE: On CNN's Reliable Sources, host Howard Kurtz opened the show with these words:

Tom Daschle rails against Rush Limbaugh. Is the senator demonizing the talk show host?

After all that Limbaugh has said about Daschle, Kurts wonders if "the senator [is] demonizing the talk show host". Amazing.


posted by Quiddity at 11/23/2002 06:05:00 PM

This Modern World: (apologies to Tom Tomorrow)

Rioting in Nigeria by offended Muslims leaves 100 dead. Now that the Miss World Pageant is moving to London, there will no longer be a reason for Nigeria to work hard to stop the stoning-death of women convicted of adultery under Sharia Law. That's sad.

While reading the stories (1, 2) about the rioting, this caught our eye:

... many people in Kaduna [said] that their attention was drawn to the offending article in the paper, through text messages on their mobile phones.

and

People armed with sticks, daggers and knives set fire to vehicles and attacked anyone they suspected of being Christian.

Cellphones and wooden sticks! Good grief.

posted by Quiddity at 11/23/2002 12:43:00 PM

It's official:

We can now confidently report that Howard Kurtz is a complete disgrace to his profession (whatever that happens to be). He makes light of Daschle's recent complaints that Rush Limbaugh -and others - encourage hostility towards politicians which sometimes leads to threats. Kurtz notes, among other things, that Limbaugh was on NBC with Brokaw and Russert - thus confirming that Rush is no crazy right-winger and is, in fact, pretty mainstream.

Kurts asks: Has the senator listened to Rush lately?

We ask: Has Kurtz listened to Rush lately?

Kurtz also says: Sure, he aggressively pokes fun at Democrats and lionizes Republicans, but mainly about policy.

Just a reminder, Rush once made sport of Daschle's small stature - with a focus on his small feet (Hint for morons like Kurtz: that's a code for a small penis.) And then referred to Nancy Pelosi as The Hummer (2^nd hint for morons like Kurtz: that's a code for fellatio where the person strongly stimulates the man's penis).

Hey Howie! Why don't you write about that in your column?

Kurtz has the street smarts of a six year old.

If you have the stomach for it, read his column here.

UPDATE:

We checked this New York Times article about Daschle/Limbaugh, and read the following quote by Rush on the flap: (our emphasis)

"It's not just against me, but it's against you folks, the entire audience. You all now are being characterized as unsophisticated barbarians. You don't know the difference between politics and entertainment."

Which we think speaks for itself.

posted by Quiddity at 11/21/2002 10:45:00 AM

Yikes!

Senate OKs Controversial Bush Appeals Court Nominee Shedd

From Independent Judiciary (.com):

• Judge Shedd has published approximately sixty opinions in his twelve years on the federal bench. It is estimated that he has hundreds and possibly thousands of unpublished opinions and dispositive rulings. The Senate Judiciary Committee has asked Judge Shedd for those, but some of his most controversial decisions, discussed below, that were reported in newspapers have not been turned over.
  
  
• Judge Shedd authored the original district court decision in Condon v. Reno, striking down the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act, based on his belief that the federal government did not have the power to force states to guarantee the privacy of state drivers license information. 6 The Driver’s Privacy Protection Act was passed, in part, because anti-abortion extremists had used accessible driver’s license information to obtain the addresses of employees and patients of clinics that performed abortions and then posted those addresses on the Internet. Although the Fourth Circuit affirmed Judge Shedd’s decision, the Supreme Court unanimously reversed the holding in an opinion written by Chief Justice Rehnquist.
  
  
• In another particularly troubling case, Judge Shedd made several insensitive comments as he dismissed a lawsuit aimed at removing the Confederate battle flag from the South Carolina statehouse’s dome. According to press accounts, Judge Shedd suggested that South Carolinians “don’t care if that flag flies or not.” He also questioned the plaintiff’s assertion that the flag was controversial, asserting that “controversial is what anyone defines as controversial,” and he compared the Confederate flag, to many a symbol of this country’s history of slavery and discrimination, to the Palmetto tree, which is on the state flag: “What about the Palmetto tree? What if that reminds me Palmetto trees were cut down to make Fort Moultrie and that offends me?”
  
  
• In a 2-1 decision in Jones v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., Judge Shedd, sitting by designation on the Fourth Circuit, overturned a jury’s award in favor of the plaintiff against an asbestos manufacturer for causing his asbestosis and lung cancer. 10 Judge Shedd ruled that the manufacturer had the right to claim that the plaintiffs’ negligence in smoking should bar his entire claim against the company, despite the fact that the jury had found that the defendant’s product caused the plaintiffs’ illnesses.
  
  Judge Wilkinson, a conservative Reagan-appointee to the Fourth Circuit, dissented, writing that “[t]he jury has found that prolonged exposure to defendant’s product [asbestos] was a substantial contributing cause of plaintiff’s lung condition, and I do not think that the company may assert a defense of contributory negligence to escape all liability.” Nevertheless, Judge Shedd decided that North Carolina law allowed the defendant to rely on this contributory negligence defense.

Want more? Go here.

Shedd must be one of those "good conservative judges" Bush kept talking about prior to the 2002 elections.




posted by Quiddity at 11/20/2002 04:02:00 PM

Oil and water:

We read this story, and couldn't believe our eyes:

Two women's groups and a media watchdog organization asked the CBS television network not to air the Victoria's Secret fashion show, calling it a "soft-core porn infomercial."

...

Concerned Women for America, the National Organization for Women and the Parents Television Council were among several groups protesting the televised fashion show, which was taped in New York City last week.

...

Along with the airing of near-nudity, the groups said the show degrades women. "What purpose does the special serve except to overly sexualize women and use this to bolster the networks' demographics for young men?" they asked in a joint letter Tuesday to CBS President Leslie Moonves.

If you go to their websites, you will find that the CWFA and NOW strongly disagree on every other subject in the universe (especially abortion). We don't like NOW's position in this matter, but if they have to register a complaint, couldn't they at least have done it on their own?

Anything that makes the Concerned Women for America seem less ultra-far-right (such as pairing up with NOW on an issue) simply gives the CWFA more political clout.

Not smart.

posted by Quiddity at 11/20/2002 03:13:00 PM

Finally!

Croooow Blog brings our attention to Kausfiles - which we do check once in a while. (But thanks! We overlooked it.) The Mickster has gotten around to adressing Ann Coulter's "bomb the New York Times" remark. Only three months late! It all started around August 22, and here at uggabugga we bashed Kaus for not speaking up. As far as we can tell, this is the first time since then that he's made any comments about her. Interestingly, he makes his observation in a post that is Coulter-friendly. Here's what he said: (emphasis in original)

Ann Coulter has five suggestions for reviving the Democrats in a sarcastic swipe that is clarifyingly vicious (e.g. "[T]here is still plenty of room to curry more favor with the teachers' unions"). The Democrats may actually take her up on point #4. ... While I can almost never agree completely with a Coulter column -- she's not really trying to convince anyone -- there is also some truth in the following:

Of the three Democrats arguably responsible for the election fiasco – Terry McAuliffe, Tom Daschle and Dick Gephardt – surely the least culpable was Gephardt, the original phony "NASCAR Democrat." But picking up on the Clinton strategy of blame the innocent and promote the guilty, only Gephardt resigned.

Necessary disclaimer: I don't think she should have made that joke about Timothy McVeigh and the New York Times. [Still, canny of you to wait until Media Whores Online had closed down before posting this item-ed] 10:57 P.M.

So, Kaus likes to read commentary that is "clarifyingly vicious". Here is a selection of Coulter's sparkling wit that presumably amuses Kaus:

• First, the Democratic Party needs to have a lot more anti-war rallies in which Jesse Jackson embraces Ramsey Clark and liberals go around calling one another "comrade." The public cries out for the opinions of doddering old Stalinists in berets.
• Democrats need to start demanding one teacher, one teacher's assistant, one backup teacher's assistant and one auxiliary backup teacher's assistant for every student. Instead of a ratio of 20 students to 1 teacher, they should insist on .03 students for every teacher.
• Everyone knows Democrats haven't the first idea how a squirt gun operates, much less complicated missile technology.

Impressive! That certainly would have wowed them at the Algonquin roundtable. Step aside, Oscar Wilde! Pack you bags, Noel Coward. There's a new wag in town.

OBSERVATION: Kaus posted his remarks about Coulter in an entry dated Friday, November 15, 10:57PM. For the subsequent 72 hours we can't find any comments in the Fray section about Coulter or Kaus-on-Coulter. Perhaps nobody cares anymore about what Mickey has to say.

That sounds right.

posted by Quiddity at 11/19/2002 10:45:00 PM

Homeland Security Bill:

Passed in the Senate on Tuesday, November 19.

One issue that temporarily caused problems was the inclusion of several provisions by the House which were deemed favors for special interests. One of them is mentioned in this Reuters story:

Vaccine makers will gain stronger protection against liability for possible side effects from their products under legislation that passed the Senate on Tuesday.

...

Democrats failed in an effort to strip the vaccine provision and other sections in a homeland security bill they viewed as a pay-off to special interests supportive of Republicans.    ...    Republicans said that would close a loophole trial lawyers have exploited by filing lawsuits alleging that thimerosal, a mercury-containing preservative that was used in vaccines, is linked to autism.

...

Companies that have been sued over thimerosal include Wyeth, GlaxoSmithKline Plc and Eli Lilly and Co.. No scientific studies have shown a link between thimerosal and autism. Edward Sagebiel, an Eli Lilly spokesman, said the company supported the vaccine provision in the bill. "We believe the legislation as passed would help protect manufacturers from lawsuits that are without merit or scientific evidence," he said.

The legislation covering vaccines was a contentious issue, and will be revisited early next year. Even Trent Lott made this concession:

Minority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., phoned House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill ... and won his pledge that next year Congress would reconsider the three provisions the moderates opposed, senators said. The agreement secured support by Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, both R-Maine, Lincoln Chafee, R-R.I., and Ben Nelson, D-Neb. One provision would legally shield drug companies already sued over ingredients used in vaccines, which Democrats said included claims that mercury-based preservatives have caused autism in children.

We were curious how the story would be reported on the national network broadcasts. So we checked a couple:

CBS Evening News:

Mentioned the House provision about vaccines, and the politics surrounding it.

ABC World News Tonight:

Reported that the Homeland Security bill was passed in the Senate. Did not mention the issue of vaccines or any other aspect of the House-added special-interest provisions.

However....

Peter Jennings had the time to report this critical issue:

There was actually big news in poetry today. It had to do with money, which is rare in poetry. The heir to the Eli Lilly pharmacutical fortune - Ruth Lilly - has given $100 million dollars to Poetry magazine, even though for years the magazine rejected Ms. Lilly's poems. Growing up in a very sheltered environment, she did, like other children, discover the world through poets - and the magazine was apparently kind with its rejection letters to her.

Can you believe it?


posted by Quiddity at 11/19/2002 09:35:00 PM

Ugh!

Spinsanity brings to our attention various attacks on the new Democratic House Majority Leader - Nancy Pelosi.

We consider ourselves unshockable, but this item raised our eyebrows:

... the harshest attack came from radio host Rush Limbaugh, who yesterday compared Pelosi to Republican majority leader Tom DeLay, noting that they were both their party’s whip in the last Congress. After observing that DeLay’s nickname is "the hammer" for his ability to round up votes, he said, "They never called her the hammer. She had the same job DeLay did. She’s the hummer. Whatever she is. Now she’s the top dog. No, I can’t say that."

Remember that the next time someone from Bush's "change the tone" administration chats it up with Limbaugh.

posted by Quiddity at 11/19/2002 07:38:00 PM

Can you believe it?

On the PBS NewsHour, there was a segment devoted to the judicial nomination process and the politics surrounding it. After the setup piece, it went in-studio:

MARGARET WARNER: Joining us now to discuss what the elections will mean for all the presidents' judicial nominees are Ralph Neas, president of People for the American Way, a liberal advocacy group, and Michael Schwartz, a vice president of Concerned Women for America, a conservative advocacy group of women and men. Welcome, gentlemen.

Who is Michael Schwartz and what kind of guy is he?

We went to the CWA website, and found this item about the recent bankruptcy bill:

WASHINGTON, D.C. --- Concerned Women for America joined with pro-life allies today in claiming a huge victory as Congress voted down last night a bankruptcy protection bill that contained pro-abortion language. The language had been inserted by liberal Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) in a conference committee compromise but was soundly rejected in the House of Representatives by a vote of 243-172.

“This is the result of prayer,” said Michael Schwartz, vice president for government relations at CWA.

CWA is a wildly religious-first organization (which is their prerogative) but you wouldn't know it from what their spokesman said that evening.

There you have it. PBS is reduced to bringing on a weirdo to debate serious issues like judicial nominations.

posted by Quiddity at 11/18/2002 08:20:00 PM

David Frum tries to fool you:

Background: Al Gore comes out in favor of Canadian-style single-payer healthcare.

David Frum (former speechwriter for G.W.Bush) writes an essay in the National Review Online where he complained about the Canadian healthcare system.

Response: Several commentators disagreed with his conclusions, including the The New Republic's &c. - which wrote:

[Frum's] entire argument is that the Canadian system is inferior to ours because Canadians are forced to wait for health care. And he provides statistic after statistic to prove it. But with all due respect to Frum's authority on the matter, there are two massive flaws in his analysis. First, Canada only devotes about 9 percent of its GDP to health care, while the United States spends 14 percent (and rising fast). If the United States imposed a single-payer system that cost 14 percent of its GDP, it would no doubt be vastly superior to Canada's.

Frum's rejoinder:

This line of defense is often heard in Canada itself. I sometimes think that the words, “We need more government funding,” should appear on Canada’s coins in the spot where the words “E Pluribus Unum” appear on America’s. Here’s the answer.

a) The gap between America’s spending on patient treatment and Canada’s is not as big as the raw percentages might suggest. For example, America’s 14% figure includes the cost of the vast American medical research program. The budget of the National Institutes of Health alone - $27 billion in fiscal 2003 – is larger than the total healthcare expenditures of the provinces of Ontario and Quebec combined. (The provinces are the main funders of Canadian healthcare; Ontario and Quebec are the two biggest provinces, home between them to more than half of Canada’s population.) Canada does little medical research. In healthcare as in defense, Canada piggybacks for free on America’s costly efforts.

[Frum follows with three additional explanations.]

Our analysis:

Frum tries with his first point (a) to get the reader to believe that differences in spending is substantially due to funding for medical research. He cites the figure of $27 billion, which sounds like a lot. To the uninitiated, it might seem to be responsible for the difference in healthcare spending: 5% of GDP (14% - 9%). But what is $27 billion in a $10 trillion economy?

That's right, a whopping 0.27% - nowhere remotely near the 5% differential. (It's 1/18^th of 5%)

What other arguments by Frum should we look forward to? Domestic spending on toothbrushes by Hispanics north of the Mason-Dixon line compared to retail sales of dental floss in Saskatchewan for indigent Fortran programmers?

Hey, whatever works. Right Dave?

This example is instructive of the "honesty" that people like Frum peddle.

We are sorely tempted to give Frum the nickname of "Mr. Eighteen", because when he tosses out a number to make a point, you should bear in mind that it's probably off by a factor of 18.

posted by Quiddity at 11/18/2002 10:57:00 AM

Gadfly:*

Back in September, Republican (!) congressman Ron Paul assembled a list of 35 questions about Iraq, the war on terrorism, and other related subjects. Of interest are the following:

15. Are you aware of a Pentagon report studying charges that thousands of Kurds in one village were gassed by the Iraqis, which found no conclusive evidence that Iraq was responsible, that Iran occupied the very city involved, and that evidence indicated the type of gas used was more likely controlled by Iran not Iraq?

21. Is it not true that, contrary to current claims, the no-fly zones were set up by Britain and the United States without specific approval from the United Nations?

31. Is it not true that a war against Iraq rejects the sentiments of the time-honored Treaty of Westphalia, nearly 400 years ago, that countries should never go into another for the purpose of regime change?

* Merriam-Webster: a person who stimulates or annoys especially by persistent criticism

UPDATE: On November 19, Slate's Explainer discussed the issue of the no-fly zones. Bottom line is that Iraqi attacks on American and British warplanes in the "no-fly zone" are not a breach of the United Nations Security Council resolutions.

posted by Quiddity at 11/18/2002 07:50:00 AM

SULLILLOGICAL: In Sullivan's most recent posting*, Andrew writes:

SAN FRANCISCO DEMOCRAT: ... I find "San Francisco Democrats" as a phrase truly horrifying ...

In my mind, the phrase conjures up all the illiberalism ... that has made San Francisco unlivable for many people. ...

Plenty of gay residents of San Francisco feel the same way about their hyper-liberal metropolis.

*warning: he sometimes changes these things

posted by Quiddity at 11/18/2002 07:10:00 AM

Burying your lede(s):

This morning, Harry Shearer brings to our attention a New York Times story for this Sunday. Headline: Agencies Monitor Iraqis in the U.S. for Terror Threat Total words: 1333 Paragraphs: 28 Tenth/Eleventh paragraph: [There is] a focused effort to assess whether the regime of Saddam Hussein has engaged in any actions, through alliances with Middle Eastern terrorist organizations or efforts to obtain weapons, that could threaten American interests in this country or abroad. ... The officials said the monitoring had not detected any specific threats in the United States or against American interests overseas. Last paragraph: The Bush administration has said it has evidence of contacts over the years between Iraqi intelligence and Qaeda operatives, and there have been reports that some Qaeda operatives moved into Iraq after fleeing Afghanistan. But American intelligence officials say there is no evidence that Iraq has become involved in Qaeda terrorist operations, and the Bush administration has never found hard evidence that Iraq played any role in the Sept. 11 attacks. Yet Bush claimed it 11 times during the 2002 election campaign.

posted by Quiddity at 11/17/2002 10:18:00 AM

What it's all about:

We read in the New York Times that Government Plan May Make Private Up to 850,000 Jobs.

We doubt that the money saved is all that much. Even the administration isn't sure. From the article:

The administration was vague about how much money its initiative might save. The president's budget said savings were on the order of 20 percent, and other officials said 30 percent, enough to save many billions of dollars a year in a $2 trillion federal budget.

As far as we're concerned, this is union-busting. Pure and simple.

Public employee unions are a political force, and they usually support the Democrats. That's why Bush want's them cut down.

posted by Quiddity at 11/15/2002 08:24:00 PM

Where is it?

We can't find Andrew Sullivan's Dish on the Washington Times' breakfast table this Friday morning. (At least not online.) Has the noble experiment been terminated? If so, will Sullivan now add the Washington Times to his enemies list? Will he introduce a Blankley Award? Does anybody care?

posted by Quiddity at 11/15/2002 08:18:00 AM

Names please!

There is a bit of a buzz being generated about the following remarks:

• Pat Robertson: "Adolf Hitler was bad, but what the Muslims want to do to the Jews is worse." .
• Jerry Falwell: The prophet Mohammed was "a terrorist".
• Jimmy Swaggart: Said that Mohammed is a "sex deviant" and a pervert and demanding that Muslim students in the US be expelled.

The response from the administration?

• Secretary Powell: "This kind of hatred must be rejected."
• President Bush: "Some of the comments that have been uttered about Islam do not reflect the sentiments of my government or the sentiments of most Americans. Islam, as practiced by the vast majority of people, is a peaceful religion, a religion that respects others."

Strong words!

Not really. No person or group was called out by name. Reuters headlined their story: Bush Takes on Christian Right Over Anti-Islam Words. But how do we know that? Maybe Bush was upset with comments by (recently deceased) Jewish activist Irv Rubin.

We'll believe Bush has a backbone when he chastises prominent members of the religious right by name.

posted by Quiddity at 11/15/2002 07:44:00 AM

How to attack Pelosi: A primer.

We took a look at David Horiwitz' Front Page Magazine website to see what the weirdos were up to. Sure enough, there was a hit piece on Nancy Pelosi by Lowell Ponte. It went like this:

Wow! Hot stuff. We decided to look into the remarkable claim that: The Progressive Caucus is a subdivision of the Democratic Socialists of America.

So we checked out the Washington Times story by Balint Vazsonyi. It reads (in part):

We did a Google for ourselves, and here is what you get:

Some observations:

• With very rare exceptions no Democrat would willingly be labeled a socialist.
• The "fact" that 58 members of the U.S. House of Representatives formed a subdivision of the Democratic Socialists of America and called it the Progressive Caucus apparently was established simply from reading the Google summary.
• The main link is dead, and Vazsonyi didn't bother to examine the Cached entry. If that was done, you get the following unremarkable page:

Which is simply an informational page. The only live connection we can find between the Progressive Caucus and the Democratic Socialists of America is that Bernie Sanders (quasi-socialist, VT) is a member of the Progressive Caucus, and he has spoken to the DSoA.

Let's review the right-wing logic:

• Pelosi is a member of the Progressive Caucus (membership also includes such wide-eyed radicals as: Rep Henry A. Waxman, Rep Eleanor Holmes Norton, and Rep John Lewis).
• The Progressive Caucus had an informational page on the DSoA website.

  WorldNetDaily claims that: "Until 1999, the website of the Progressive Caucus was hosted by the Democratic Socialists of America." We're not so sure. Is having a couple of pages about the Progressive Caucus considered hosting? We believe the Progressive Caucus had no problems with the publicity, but doubt very much that they wanted a formal association with the DSoA, let alone being a subdivision.

• Therefore the Progressive Caucus is a subdivision of the DSoA. FALSE
• Therefore Pelosi is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America. FALSE
• The Democratic Socialists of America are the U.S. arm of the Socialist International. MAYBE, WHO KNOWS?
• Therefore Pelosi is a member of the Socialist International. FALSE
• Therefore Pelosi carries the torch for Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, V.I. Lenin, Leon Trotsky, and Josef Stalin. FALSE

We know that Front Page Magazine, the Washington Times, and World Net Daily are oddball publications. Unfortunately, these are the breeding grounds where falsehoods are nutured. So we thought we'd be proactive and get the low-down on the Pelosi story before it grows out of control.

posted by Quiddity at 11/14/2002 10:49:00 PM

Ruben Bolling gets it:

In the current Tom the Dancing Bug, we see how absurd it was to chide Democrats for not having an economic vision/program. The Democrats were opposed to Bush's tax cut, but the punditocracy demanded that the Democrats do more. But why? If the Republican policy is unwise, reversing it should be enough. There is no automatic requirement for Democrats to come up with an alternate policy. Yet the notion of no-policy-Democrats-are-inadequate was widely accepted.

These days, when reading about politics (not unlike an Ann Coulter book) you have to     challenge     every     single     word.

posted by Quiddity at 11/14/2002 08:11:00 AM

Pitching for another term as Fed chief?

We read that Alan Greenspan doesn't want the Bush tax cuts repealed. He said, "It would probably be unwise to unwind the long-term tax cut, because it is already built into the system."

Built into the system! Who is he kidding? Clinton's tax rates were "built into the system" for seven years. Why didn't Alan complain in 2001 that Bush's proposed tax cuts were upsetting the then built-in tax schedule?

Because Greenspan shares the smaller-government outlook of the right wing. The Libertarian/Randian view.

Unanswered by Greenspan: What about the "built in" obligations to retirees post-2010?

He also said monetary policy (interest rates controlled by the Fed) can be more responsive to economic conditions, and that fiscal policy (government spending) is not very effective. Which is a way of saying that the government shouldn't try to stimulate the economy - and that no Federal help should be extended to the out-of-work.

As Krugman wrote in early 2001, Greenspan "crossed the line" when he endorsed Bush's tax cut. Back then, the Fed chairman was saying that it was better to tax less and spend less (on things like prescription drugs), which is a political choice, not an economic issue. This guy is the most irresponsible Fed chief in recent memory.

ADDENDUM: In the same story, we read that: Mr. Greenspan also expressed confidence that the United States could shoulder the costs of a war with Iraq, arguing that the economic impact would be significantly less than that of the wars in Korea and Vietnam.

Less than Vietnam. That war is estimated to have cost, at a minimum, $140 billion. Or about $500 billion in today's currency.

But wait! Bush's tax cuts are going to reduce tax receipts by $200 billion / year by 2012. The Fed chief is blithe about the costs of war, yet concerned about a tax rollback.

Alan Greenspan is not making sense.

posted by Quiddity at 11/14/2002 07:13:00 AM

Salute!

Our good President salutes those in uniform this Veterans Day. On his impromptu visit to the 20-year-old black granite wall honoring the fallen in Vietnam, Bush encountered a group of veterans. "Thank you for serving," he told them. "God Bless you all."

And we salute Bush for having his Department of Veterans Affairs issue guidance* to its field officials to cease outreach activities. We read that VA official, Laura J. Miller, has advised field directors that funding shortfalls are to blame for the decision to eliminate marketing activities. "Actuarial projections indicate a widening gap in the demand versus resource availability." In addition, Miller predicts an equally bleak future under the Bush Administration, "Growth in enrollments and consequent demand is expected to continue."

But hey, that's what happens when tax cuts are a higher priority than medical care for veterans.

* in August 2002

posted by Quiddity at 11/11/2002 07:40:00 AM

Apt definition:

Peggy Noonan, in her current column, writes about how, over the years, the Democrats established programs for the poor, the elderly, the handicapped, etc. Then she goes on to say:

Mr. Bush stole the Democrats' free lunch. That's what compassionate conservatism is.

Yes!

posted by Quiddity at 11/08/2002 07:57:00 AM

A new era:

Now that the Republicans are going to control Congress and the White House, we look forward to the era of Personal Responsibility:

• You will be personally responsible for saving enough for retirement.
  
  
• You will be personally responsible for all your medical bills - even when you get old.
  
  
• You will be personally responsible for the full tuition costs of college - when state/federal subsidies are eliminated.
  
  
• You will be personally responsible for your own safety - so go out and purchase a gun or two.
  
  
• You will be personally responsible for having enough money to tide you over when you get laid off - don't count on (much) unemployment insurance.
  
  
• You will be personally responsible for figuring out which companies are reporting honest financial figures - so brush up on your accounting skills before investing.
  
  
• You will be personally responsible for any debts you have, even if you run into unanticipated difficulties - bankruptcy is not (really) an option anymore.
  
  
• You will be personally responsible for whatever happens should you choose an incompetent doctor - when caps on lawsuits are instituted.
  
  
• You will be personally responsible for establishing connections with the rich and powerful in order to be successful in life - this is not a meritocracy anymore.

posted by Quiddity at 11/07/2002 05:34:00 AM

Back off!

In the wake of the mid-term election there has been a lot of grumbling about top Democrats. Terry McAuliffe and Richard Gephardt and Tom Daschle are most often mentioned. We agree that McAuliffe and Gephardt have much to answer for. But Daschle, in our opinion, has done a pretty good job in the circumstances. Remember, it was because of him (and Reid of Nevada) that Jim Jeffords jumped. After that, Democrats controlled the calendar and chaired the committees for almost two years. The result? Delay of Bush's agenda, and modification - for the better - of legislation. Also, being Senate Majority Leader is one of the more difficult jobs out there (especially with a one-seat margin and Zell Miller "on your side"). So give the guy a break.

  Not as bad as people would have you think.


posted by Quiddity at 11/06/2002 11:38:00 AM

A few items:

• Where is that emerging Democratic majority? Didn't see it on Tuesday.
  
  
• NBC invited Rush Limbaugh to participate in their election night coverage, where he was given several minutes to pontificate (5min 20sec virtually uninterrupted). That was a huge portion of their one-hour program (excluding commercials and local election updates, it's more like 40 minutes). Congratulations to NBC for bringing in a guy who recently called Mondale and Lautenberg "cadavers" and who regularly refers to the Democratic leadership as "creeps".
  
  
• The Supreme Court's 2000 Bush-Gore ruling was said to dispirit Democrats. Then there was the steamrolling for the tax cuts. Then there was September 11. Now this election. Is there any energy left to go on?
  
  
• Tim Russert tells the truth. On NBC's Today show he mentioned that Bush had campaigned very hard. Then he said:

  "People voted for the President over their economic concerns."

• Small satisfaction: It doesn't appear that any races were decided as a result of the Greens.
  
  
• Everybody is saying that now that the Republicans have control of Congress and the White House, there will be "no excuses" should there be problems in the next couple of years. Oh yeah? Look for any difficulties to be blamed on the Democrats - at least in right-wing AM land.
  
  
• We repeat ourselves. Remember this item about DNC head Terry McAuliffe?

  Terry McAuliffe, the Democratic national chairman, said today that his No. 1 goal in the Nov. 5 elections was to defeat Gov. Jeb Bush in Florida.  24 OCT 2002

  Moron.
  
  
• Did you know? In the Mississippi Senate race, the two candidates were a Republican incumbent (Cochran, who won) and a Reform challenger (O'Hara). No Democrat ran. What's with that?

posted by Quiddity at 11/06/2002 07:29:00 AM

Go away:

Go away. You failed to achieve the most important objective for 2002: keeping the Senate Democratic.

posted by Quiddity at 11/05/2002 09:21:00 PM

Truth and fiction:

From the Los Angeles Times (link) front page, lead story, November 4:

Allies Find No Links Between Iraq, Al Qaeda

Evidence isn't there, officials in Europe say, adding that an attack on Hussein would worsen the threat of terrorism by Islamic radicals.

"We have found no evidence of links between Iraq and Al Qaeda," said Jean-Louis Bruguiere, the French judge who is the dean of the region's investigators after two decades fighting Islamic and Middle Eastern terrorists. "And we are working on 50 cases involving Al Qaeda or radical Islamic cells. I think if there were such links, we would have found them. But we have found no serious connections whatsoever." Even in Britain, a loyal U.S. partner in the campaign against Iraq, it's hard to find anyone in the government making the case that Al Qaeda and the Iraqi regime are close allies.

The criticism in Europe reinforces the misgivings of some U.S. congressional leaders and intelligence officials about hawks in the Bush administration who allege that Iraq could have even played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks. Critics say that the evidence is weak and that intelligence agencies are feeling political pressure to implicate Iraq in terrorism. In the last two months, Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and others have periodically revived and expanded on the allegations.

From the White House website, Bush's comments about Saddam Hussein: (Campaign speeches only. For period of October 10 - November 04.)

1. OCT 28 Remarks by the President at New Mexico Welcome
   "This is a person who has had contacts with al Qaeda."
   
   
2. OCT 28 Remarks by the President in Colorado Welcome
   "He's got connections with al Qaeda."
   
   
3. OCT 31 Remarks by the President at South Dakota Welcome
   "This is a guy who has had connections with these shadowy terrorist networks."
   
   
4. NOV 01 Remarks by the President at New Hampshire Welcome
   "We know he's got ties with al Qaeda."
   
   
5. NOV 02 Remarks by the President in Florida Welcome
   "We know that he's had connections with al Qaeda."
   
   
6. NOV 02 Remarks by the President in Atlanta, Georgia Welcome
   "He's had connections with shadowy terrorist networks like al Qaeda."
   
   
7. NOV 02 Remarks by the President at Tennessee Welcome
   "We know that he has had contacts with terrorist networks like al Qaeda."
   
   
8. NOV 03 Remarks by the President in Minnesota Welcome
   "This is a man who has had contacts with al Qaeda."
   
   
9. NOV 04 Remarks by the President at Missouri Welcome
   "This is a man who has had al Qaeda connections."
   
   
10. NOV 04 Remarks by the President at Arkansas Welcome
    "He's had contacts with al Qaeda."
    
    
11. NOV 04 Remarks by the President in Texas Welcome
    "This is a man who has got connections with al Qaeda."

Plus this speculation:

• OCT 14 Remarks by the President in Michigan Welcome
  "... we need to think about Saddam Hussein using al Qaeda to do his dirty work, to not leave fingerprints behind."
  
  
• NOV 03 Remarks by the President in South Dakota Welcome
  "And, not only that, he is -- would like nothing better than to hook-up with one of these shadowy terrorist networks like al Qaeda, provide some weapons and training to them, let them come and do his dirty work, and we wouldn't be able to see his fingerprints on his action. "
  
  
• NOV 03 Remarks by the President at Illinois Welcome
  "He is a man who would likely -- he is a man who would likely team up with al Qaeda. He could provide the arsenal for one of these shadowy terrorist networks. He would love to use somebody else to attack us, and not leave fingerprints behind. "

posted by Quiddity at 11/04/2002 07:20:00 PM

Bush Barnstorming schedule:

Updated here.
posted by Quiddity at 11/04/2002 03:50:00 PM

Economics and politics:

Remember back in 2000 when a number of scholars predicted an easy win for Gore? They came to that conclusion based on a formula that tied economic performance (among other things) to election returns.

The formula was wrong.

Does that mean that economic issues are less salient these days? Seems likely. Thus, we are somewhat skeptical of those who think the recent economic news will cause a last-minute break towards Democrats. It might happen, and that's our hope, but we cannot but help thinking back to the failed prediction for 2000.

posted by Quiddity at 11/03/2002 08:57:00 AM

Finally!

From the Independent:

'Only technology revolution can save the Earth'

Diplomacy has failed – meaning that only a revolutionary advanced technology will save the Earth from relentless global warming driven by greenhouse gas emissions, scientists warned yesterday.

...

[The Earth] would need dramatic leaps in technology, such as working fusion reactors ...

How much are we spending on fusion research? According to this DOE document (pdf, page 50), it's only $250 million. Detail:

Fusion Energy Sciences (FES) seeks to study plasmas, the fourth state of matter, and understand and control the process of fusion that can produce an enormous release of energy. FES facilities include the DIII-D at General Atomics in San Diego, the Alcator C-Mod at MIT, and the National Spherical Tokamak Experiment in Princeton.

That's it. 1/4 of a billion dollars for what will be the inevitable energy source of the future. And in the meantime, we're spending over $300 billion on defense. Priorities, anyone?

posted by Quiddity at 11/02/2002 08:36:00 AM

Then and now:

We recently came across this old historical fact:

A severe and able Federal Judge, Issac Parker was nicknamed "The Hanging Judge" because of the many men he sent to the gallows. During his 21 years on the bench at Fort Smith, Judge Parker sentenced 160 men to die and hanged 79 of them.

Which got us wondering about our current President's stint while governor of Texas. It turns out that in 6 years:

152 people have been executed during Bush's tenure as governor. Texas Governor George W. Bush is the most-killing Governor in the history of the United States of America.

In 1/3 the time, Bush executed twice as many people, making him times more "productive". Compared to our current President, the Hanging Judge was a lightweight.

posted by Quiddity at 11/02/2002 07:53:00 AM

Who are you trying to kid?

From Slate, an essay by Daniel Gross about Harvey Pitt's recent troubles:

How did somebody widely regarded as both smart and savvy make such a hash of his job?

There's a case to be made that Pitt, who is neither corrupt nor stupid, was condemned to failure by his experience as a D.C. lawyer and lobbyist.

He has stumbled because he is behaving like a corporate lawyer in a political job ...

... more than a year into his tenure, however, it's clear that Pitt doesn't quite grasp that he now represents a different set of people.

Pitt's larger disinclination to speak truth to power might also be traced to his profession.

posted by Quiddity at 11/01/2002 03:07:00 PM

Noonan channels Wellstone:

MEMO
To: Democrats
From: Paul Wellstone
Date: Oct 30, 2002

...

Imagine Trent Lott died in a plane crash last week. Please--stop cheering. That's the problem.

...

When the rally [at my funeral] was over, I grieved. And I have to tell you--this is very personal to say, but where I am it's the soul that counts ...

...

Let me be very candidly specific. Some of you need to get a good psychologist and a good holy man or woman, a priest or rabbi or minister--or how about all three--and figure out why you're turning everything in your life into politics. Because I have to tell you what I know: Politics is the biggest, easiest way in all of America to avoid looking at yourself, and who you are, and what fence needs fixing on your own homestead.

A lot of you are in politics not beacuse you want to lead, but because you want to run. From yourselves.

...

That's what I have to say. Hope I didn't anger you; I just meant to warn you.

Paul

[emphasis added]

posted by Quiddity at 11/01/2002 06:27:00 AM

Harvey Pitt:

You've no doubt read the stories about Pitt's failure to notify the SEC commissioners about William Webster's involvement with U.S. Technologies (Rittenhouse, Krugman). But here's an interesting angle found in the Financial Times story:

Mr Bush has stood by the SEC chairman. One former official who advises the White House and US Treasury, said on Thursday: "The Bush people do not want to replace him but they worry they will have no choice. There are some heavy contributors who are really angry and some people who support Harvey . . . on a technical basis now worry about him stylistically."
[emphasis added]

Who are these "heavy contributors"?

UPDATE:

From the Wall Street Journal:

As Pitt launches SEC probe of himself, criticism mounts

Nov 1, 2002, (Wall Street Journal /FT Information via COMTEX) --Securities and Exchange Commission chairman Harvey Pitt has sought an internal investigation by the agency's inspector general into the appointment of ex-Federal Bureau of Investigation Director William Webster as chairman of the new accounting oversight panel. The request for a probe comes after a report from The New York Times revealed that Mr. Pitt knew about Mr. Webster's audit committee work for U.S. Technologies, an investment company facing lawsuits for alleged fraud and improper accounting, but did not inform the Bush administration and other SEC members. Mr. Pitt said that his critics were only trying to gain political mileage prior to next week's elections.

[emphasis added]

posted by Quiddity at 11/01/2002 01:14:00 AM