We are going to war:

Why? Consider the following stories: Army Acts to Add Thousands of G.I.'s to Its Gulf Force More than 15,000 soldiers will be part of the largest single ground deployment to the Persian Gulf since the war there in 1991. [T]he USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier will stay on deployment instead of returning to its homeport in Everett, Wash., next month as planned. U.S. Sending 25,000 Troops to Persian Gulf Those deployed will join 57,000 now in position for a strike on Iraq. When the movements are completed, the Pentagon will have positioned about half the 50,000 troops officials had previously indicated they would be moving to the region. They will join an estimated 57,000 troops already in position. Navy Activates Hospital Ship, in Flurry of War Preparations This is all costing a lot of money, and for that reason alone, we don't see Bush pulling back after having "invested" so much.

posted by Quiddity at 12/31/2002 11:44:00 PM

Factoid:

This has nothing to do with anything, but in a story about the health and fitness of Americans, we encountered this:

Roughly half of adult Americans do not drink at all.

posted by Quiddity at 12/31/2002 11:12:00 PM

Most oppose tax cuts:

Huh? We happened to notice this AP story today. Nearly two-thirds of respondents in an Associated Press poll said they believe it's prudent to hold off on more tax cuts.    ...   When asked about new tax cuts, a centerpiece of President Bush's domestic agenda, 64 percent said it was better to hold off to make sure the federal budget does not go into a deeper into the red. About three in 10, 28 percent, said they favored additional tax cuts to stimulate the economy, according to the poll conducted for the AP by ICR/International Communications Research of Media, Pa.

posted by Quiddity at 12/31/2002 12:29:00 PM

George Bush isn't going to like this:

In the Washington Post, we find a story that makes us wonder what the president is doing these days. Aides tell us that he's "engaged" with the issues, but with Bush pretty much out-of-sight, you how can we be sure? The president isn't the type of guy who likes to get into the messy details; he prefers to delegate tasks. But that may change soon. According to Warren Christopher, in his New York Times Op-Ed, "I am convinced that this [North Korean] crisis requires sustained attention from top government officials, including the president. It's important to remember that devising a solution for the North Korean crisis will require sustained diplomatic efforts with China, South Korea and other countries of the region. All this will take time, energy and attention." So much for the detached-CEO approach to governing.

posted by Quiddity at 12/31/2002 09:04:00 AM

A little history lesson, please:

Blogger Atrios (of Eschaton) has been looking into the Confederate heritage movement, partly as an extension of the flag debate. One outfit, known as the Sons of Confederate Veterans, has been in the news. We found this story from Eschaton's comments section. Man brings Confederate history home ... Hall is commander of Camp J. Patton Anderson, which is the Olympia chapter of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, an organization open to male descendants of Confederate veterans. Camp Anderson has grown from six to 30 members under Hall's tenure. ... [Hall said] "Most people think that the whole Civil War was about slavery, but that's just not accurate." How about we check with an authority on the situation? Perhaps Abraham Lincoln's thoughts as expressed in his Second Inaugural. In it, we find: ... On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. ... One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war ... Remember that the next time you hear that the Civil War was fought for high-minded ideals like states rights.

posted by Quiddity at 12/30/2002 04:11:00 PM

Talk is not cheap in Sullivan's eyes:

Andrew Sullivan gets all excited about Bush in his year-end round-up. Is it because of Bush's policy decisions? Hardly. Sullivan writes: This was George W. Bush's year. Slowly building toward ridding the world of Saddam's threat, shrewdly identifying North Korea, Iran and Iraq as an axis of evil, demanding democracy from the Palestinians, presiding over modest economic growth despite a terrible global outlook, winning an almost unprecedented vote of approval in the November elections, capping it all with a Philadelphia speech that was a watershed in the GOP's struggle with its own internal demons - by any measure, this was a spectacular performance. The high-point? The U.N. speech. Notice how many of the items are speeches or speech-related (like the election barnstorming). That's all our boy does reasonably well - read speeches. Forget real policy issues, like SEC enforcement, acquiescing to the hawks, environmental decisions, the budget outlook, or judicial nominations. Sullivan would have you evaluate Bush by what Michael Gerson or David "axis of evil" Frum puts under his nose to read.

posted by Quiddity at 12/30/2002 06:46:00 AM

God's will:

Man who won $315 million lottery: "I don't have luck, I'm blessed," Mr. Whittaker said ... "I just want to thank God for letting me pick the right numbers, or letting the machine pick the right numbers for me," said Mr. Whittaker, who is already a millionaire and the owner of three local businesses ... A millionaire wins the Powerball Lottery. Some attribute that to God. Forgetting for the moment the fairness of that, consider how such thinking guides social policy. If it's God's will to bestow fortune, it's likely to be God's will when misfortune strikes. So why bother helping the downtrodden? It's God's will, after all.

posted by Quiddity at 12/27/2002 09:02:00 AM

It's gotta be:

posted by Quiddity at 12/27/2002 08:30:00 AM

Buyer beware:

Dec 20 (Fines announced): Citigroup $400 mil; Merrill Lynch $200 mill (total); CSFB $200 mil; Morgan Stanley $125 mil; Goldman Sachs $110 mil; Deutsche Bank, Lehman Bros., Bear Stearns, J.P. Morgan Chase, UBS $80 mil each.

Jack Grubman: $15 mil and lifetime ban from securities industry.





posted by Quiddity at 12/20/2002 04:48:00 PM

Done with help from Samizdata.net's glossary.

posted by Quiddity at 12/19/2002 11:22:00 PM

Reviewing the system:

We saw this graphic in the news today, and a number of thoughts occurred to us:

• So, Iraq is going to be launching missiles with ranges of 5,000 miles? Who knew? (item 1)
  
  
• Looks grim if you live in Europe.
  
  
• That radar in Greenland isn't going to detect China-to-California missiles (item 3). What, if anything, is being done on that front?
  
  
• It seems you need a satellite (item 8) to let you know if a nuclear bomb has leveled an American city.

posted by Quiddity at 12/18/2002 07:11:00 AM

Moron:

Michael Kelly proves that the "liberal media" was, and is, alive and well. He cites results from Lichter's Center for Media and Public Affairs. We decided to do some exceptionally hard work and type:

Lichter's Center for Media and Public Affairs

into Google, and go to the very first link displayed. In it, we read the following:

CMPA President Robert Lichter concludes ... that election journalism doesn't reward or reflect ideology or even previous achievements ... Rather, it rewards campaigning skills.

Kelly cherry-picks number to make his case, and avoids the conclusions of those who immerse themselves in media studies.*

What a hack.

UPDATE: TBogg has more on this issue, and points out the Lichter isn't necessarily the objective fellow Kelly would like you to believe.

posted by Quiddity at 12/18/2002 05:28:00 AM

Worth a look:

Troubletown has a cartoon which is kind of like an updated Lillian Hellman / Mary McCarthy spat.    Well, sort of.

posted by Quiddity at 12/17/2002 10:18:00 PM

Scare 'em!

Rush Limbaugh doesn't like Bush's plan to extend unemployment insurance. Here is an excerpt from Limbaugh's website: (our emphasis)

There's nothing that's better than a job, and the longer you pay people not to work and not to go out and get a job, the longer they won't. Fear and need are incredible motivators. What is it that we need to revitalize the economy? More unemployment benefits? No. We need more people working.

According to Rush's "logic", we have unemployment not because there aren't jobs out there, but because people aren't looking hard enough. So much for business incentives, right? Of course it's all B.S, but that's Limbaugh for you. People having a ball on unemployment insurance? Rush implies that folks are insensitive to having higher incomes. By that reasoning, we should soak the rich, 'cause what do they care if they have an additional $100 grand?

But the important point is that for Rush and others who are comfortable, they don't give a rat's ass about people in need.

posted by Quiddity at 12/16/2002 04:11:00 PM

Tax the poor!

In a must-read article in the Washington Post, champions of a revised tax system give their reasons for increased taxes on the poor and middle-class. It's wild, and not confined to cranks outside the government. Here are some highlights:

• As the Bush administration draws up plans to simplify the tax system, it is also refining arguments for why it may be necessary to shift more of the tax load onto lower-income workers.
  
  
• The Treasury Department is working up more sophisticated distribution tables that are expected to make the poor appear to be paying less in taxes and the rich to be paying more.
  
  
• ... outgoing White House economic adviser Lawrence B. Lindsey [said] the 12.4 percent Social Security levy should not be considered when tax burdens are calculated.
  
  
• J.T. Young, the deputy assistant treasury secretary for legislative affairs, lamented in a Washington Times opinion article: "[Higher] earners cannot produce the level of revenues needed to sustain the liberals' increasingly costly spending programs over the long-term. . . . If federal government spending is not controlled, then the tax burden will have to begin extending backward down the income ladder."
  
  
• Rep. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) has argued for two years that the nation is entering a dangerous period in which the burden of financing government is falling on too few people.

  • DeMint and his allies have called for a national sales tax to replace the income tax. For those below the federal poverty line, sales taxes paid would be refunded, but under the system, at least they will have seen the cost of government, he said.
    
    
  • The working poor would accept a higher tax burden because they would be relieved of the need to file a tax return.

UPDATE: This scheme seems more like a bargaining position than anything real. Perhaps advocates are hoping that when Bush's additional cuts for the rich are debated, opponents will say, "Okay. At least they're not raising taxes on the poor."

posted by Quiddity at 12/16/2002 08:22:00 AM

Crystal Ball version 1.4:

Inspired by the excellent work found at the Daily Kos and myDD.




posted by Quiddity at 12/16/2002 12:22:00 AM

Need to get your sheets clean for the next cross-burning rally? Use:




posted by Quiddity at 12/15/2002 12:13:00 PM

Vast Left Wing Conspiracy: (well, mostly left wing)

The editor-in-chief of The Washington Times speaks out -





posted by Quiddity at 12/14/2002 10:16:00 PM

You call that an editorial?

The New York Post had an editorial on the subject of Cardinal Law's resignation. But it was a strange one. We counted:

18 lines. The breakdown:

Statements "criticizing" Cardinal Law	3	"The resignation of Boston's Bernard Cardinal Law yesterday marked a sad moment for the archdiocese over which he presided - and for American Catholicism generally." "It shouldn't have taken subpoenas, criminal probes, lawsuits and the prospect of bankruptcy to reach this point, of course." "Law's resignation was an essential step toward that goal." [of restoring trust]
Statements of fact about the scandal	11
Forward looking statements of hope	4

Talk about a light touch!   A "sad moment"?   We've seen much harsher language in Post editorials about Hillary Clinton.

One way to pad out an editorial and avoid being judgmental is to recite fact after fact after fact - which is exactly what the New York Post did in this case.

posted by Quiddity at 12/14/2002 02:48:00 PM

Rooting around the archives:

There were some overlooked remarks made by Bush in his speech about the Faith-Based Initiative. This was also the speech where he denounced Trent Lott - and that that aspect got the most coverage. However, Bush also said these words: (our emphasis)

We've reformed welfare in America to help many, yet welfare policy will not solve the deepest problems of the spirit. (Applause.) Our economy is growing, yet there are some needs that prosperity can never fill. We arrest and convict dangerous criminals; yet building more prisons is no substitute for responsibility and order in our souls. (Applause.)

No government policy can put hope in people's hearts or a sense of purpose in people's lives. That is done when someone, some good soul puts an arm around a neighbor and says, God loves you, and I love, and you can count on us both. (Applause.)

To which we reply:

• Before addressing "problems of the spirit", how about addressing problems of the body?
  
  
• Government policy can put food in people's stomachs, heat in people's homes, medicine in people's children, and knowledge in people's brains.
  
  
• Those are needs that prosperity can always fill.

posted by Quiddity at 12/14/2002 10:44:00 AM

Keep Lott in! (part 2):

We watched Lott's apology, and call us gullible, but we think this whole affair has changed Trent. If he stays as Majority Leader, we expect him to be supportive of civil rights and affirmative action. In fact, this possiblilty has the conservative pundit Michelle Malkin quite concerned. Here is part of her most recent essay:

On Wednesday, the Senate Republican leader went on Fox News and CNN promising more race-conscious government remedies to make amends for his tacit endorsement of segregation. In interviews with Sean Hannity and Larry King, Lott cravenly pledged support for "community renewal" (more minority set-asides); said he would "put more money into education so no child is left behind" (more federal spending for failed urban programs); and boasted of his "African-American interns" and appointments (more racial preferences).

Malkin doesn't like that sort of thing. Also, she's worried that Lott will be gung-ho for a minimum wage increase, expanded affordable housing and a prescription drug benefit. Horrors!

No wonder arch-conservatives are screaming for Lott's head. They don't want a compromised Majority Leader.


posted by Quiddity at 12/14/2002 10:10:00 AM

Republiconfederates:

Stone Mountain Confederate Memorial Carving to get facelift - news item.




posted by Quiddity at 12/13/2002 12:06:00 AM

Thanks a Lott:

The current Trent Lott / Thurmond imbroglio is causing immense damage to Republicans and right-wingers. For example, on the conservative Hugh Hewitt radio show, a Lott supporter called in to bemoan the fact that Harry Truman "didn't support the military" and had advisors like the "terrible" Dean Acheson. Therefore, Thurmond and the Dixiecrats were the better choice! It's become that goofy.

We say, keep Lott in!    First of all, the Democrats couldn't have a better get-out-the-vote machine than Trent's mouth. Second, we're not so sure his replacement would be better for the U.S. policy-wise, or for Democrats politically. You've gotta wonder when some right-wingers are looking at Lott's dilemma as something they can take advantage of.

posted by Quiddity at 12/11/2002 07:34:00 PM

The Washington Times -- America's Newspaper (at least that's what they say about themselves):

In covering the Trent Lott situation, the Washington Times publishes a story with this headline:

Black lawmakers upset with Daschle

But that was misleading. Here's a breakdown of the story:

Who	Lott	Thurmond	Daschle	Bush/Fleischer	Black lawmakers on Daschle	Black lawmakers on Lott	Other Lott critics
# times mentioned	10	3	5	4	2	7	3

posted by Quiddity at 12/11/2002 07:37:00 AM

Sex laws:

In Slate's Explainer this week, there is a discussion about sodomy. One reference provided is http://www.sodomylaws.org/ which has a state-by-state breakdown of the statutes. We looked at a few, and most of them were uninteresting, but Arizona's caught our eye. This is the now recinded law (13-1412, Lewd and Lascivious Acts, Drafted in 1901; Repealed in 2001):

A person who knowingly and without force commits, in any unnatural manner, any lewd or lascivious act upon or with the body or any part or member thereof of a male or female adult, with the intent of arousing, appealing to or gratifying the lust, passion or sexual desires of either of such persons, is guilty of a class 3 misdemeanor.

Let's distill those words a bit. We get:

A person who commits a sensual act upon an adult with the intent of gratifying passion or sexual desire is guilty of a class 3 misdemeanor.

This statute is unusual because most other states outlaw the mechanics of sodomy by listing prohibited contact between various enumerated body parts. But Arizonans, bless 'em, got right down to the point and declared it against the law for an adult to experience sexual pleasure under certain conditions. That kind of thinking (anti-pleasure) also is behind our current drug laws.

How peculiar humankind is. Outlawing acts that result in sexual pleasure, yet not at the same time outlawing acts that result in anxiety, emotional distress, and any number of unpleasant feelings.

posted by Quiddity at 12/11/2002 06:54:00 AM

Speaking through gritted teeth?

These are the entire statements:

Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill:

"I hereby resign my position as secretary of the treasury. It has been a privilege to serve the nation during these challenging times. I thank you for that opportunity."

A privilege to serve the nation, but no mention of a privilege to serve the President.

President George W. Bush:

"My economic team has worked with me to craft and implement an economic agenda that helped to lead the Nation out of recession and back into a period of growth. I appreciate Paul O'Neill's and Larry Lindsey's important contributions to making this happen. Both are highly talented and dedicated, and they have served my Administration and our Nation well. I thank them for their excellent service."

NOTE: In the Washington Post article, they quote Bush, but omit the 2nd and 4th sentences without designating it with ellipses. So all one reads is:

"My economic team has worked with me to craft and implement an economic agenda that helped to lead the nation out of recession and back into a period of growth. Both are highly talented and dedicated, and they have served my administration and our nation well."

Isn't that considered bad journalism?

posted by Quiddity at 12/07/2002 07:17:00 AM

Keep your journalistic distance!

We read an MSNBC story about the resignation of Paul O'Neill and Lawrence Lindsey. This excerpt caught our eye: (our emphasis)

Q&A with Tim Russert

RUSSERT: I pointed out to some folks at the White House that it was about a week ago that Paul O’Neill, in an interview with the Financial Times, said that reform of the tax code system was more important than tax cuts. That rebounded around the corridors of the Bush administration, because it suggested that he wasn’t on the team.

What's Russert doing "pointing out" things to the administration? Can't they do their job without Tim's help? And Tim, are you ingratiating yourself with the powers that be?

posted by Quiddity at 12/06/2002 11:22:00 PM

The boys in the band of New York Times bashers:


Simulated Picture (Mickey Kaus on left, Andrew Sullivan on right)

Move mouse over image (Javascript enabled browsers).

posted by Quiddity at 12/05/2002 10:21:00 PM

Watcha lookin' at?

Hey Johnny Poindexter! Instead of having your all-seeing eye focused on the United States, why don't you take a peek at the lee side, and put your technical snooping to work examining bank and credit-card account data, bridge-toll records, e-mail messages, tax and medical records, pay-per-view movie titles, travel reservations, Internet activity, and pharmacy records throughout the Eastern Hemisphere. You know, where the terrorists come from, are funded, and find refuge. Instead of tracking a bus driver's purchase of dog food at Wal-Mart, look into those Saudi charities!

posted by Quiddity at 12/05/2002 08:00:00 PM

Separated at birth?

"The much-respected journalist" Mickey Kaus	Andrew Sullivan
Wednesday, December 4, 2002, at 10:01 PM PT (and later)	Thursday, December 05, 2002, at 2:41:22 AM
The NYT's idea of damage control: Don't apologize -- slime your writers! ... It's a surefire morale booster! ...	I It's been a big week at the New York Times. My sources tell me morale is at or about bottom as Howell Raines continues his manic attempt to corral news stories and now columns to reflect a party line.
While kausfiles fiddles, Slate's Jack Shafer has completely taken over kf's traditional ecological niche, feasting on the steady diet of embarrassments thoughtfully provided by Howell Raines' New York Times.	Even a Raines defender, Jack Shafer, has given up, while Raines' critics, ahem, are feeling vindicated.
If Boyd's memo is an example of his idea of "logic," I really want to read the columns he killed because "the logic did not meet our standards."	[A] piece was turned down, according to Boyd, because its logic wasn't sound enough. I will resist the temptation to point out that they publish Maureen Dowd twice a week, but this line is just as dubious.
Aren't the in-house dissenters from your campaign against male-only clubs just like those Southern whites who made excuses for segregation? Or actually defended it? Yeah, that's just what they're like!	[re: A column that did run in the Times about Augusta] A column that analogizes the club to a Confederate Army Camp?
I agree with Shafer -- show us the columns! Let us judge if they're so badly reasoned and illogical.	Here's the only way in which the Times can now prove to their readers that their columnists actually are free to argue what they believe: run the two columns and prove me wrong.
Update: .... Andrew Sullivan has a sophisticated exegesis here

There were other similar bits, but we got tired of reading Kaus and Sullivan.

posted by Quiddity at 12/05/2002 12:52:00 AM

Bully for you:

What do bullies do?

They set a very low threshold for "offense" and then pounce aggressively.

Let's look at a recent example:

• Daschle comments on the war on terror:

  14 November 2002
  "We haven't found bin Laden. We haven't made any real progress in many of the other areas involving the key elements of al Qaeda. They continue to be as great a threat today as they were a year and a half ago. So by what measure can we say this has been successful so far?"

• Limbaugh attacks:

  15 November 2002
  "You are seeking political advantage in the war on … You, sir, are a disgrace. You are a disgrace to patriotism, you are a disgrace to this country… Way to demoralize the troops, Senator! What more do you want to do to destroy this country than what you've already tried? … What do you want your nickname to be? Hanoi Tom? Tokyo Tom? … You sit there and pontificate on the fact that we're not winning the war on terrorism when you and your party have done nothing but try to sabotage it… It's nothing more than an attempt to sabotage the war on terrorism for your own personal and your party's political gain."

• Limbaugh is questioned about his behavior on Howard Kurtz' Reliable Sources:

  30 November 2002
  KURTZ: I want to come back to it, but first I want to ask you this. As you well know, some of your critics say that you can be inflammatory, that you can be mean spirited and Exhibit A lately is what you had to say about Tom Daschle about his criticism of the war on terrorism. I just want to read it.

  What more do you want to do to destroy this country than you've already tried? Do you want your nickname to be Hanoi Tom, Tokyo Tom?

  Pretty rough stuff.
  
  LIMBAUGH: To the arena of ideas, and he threw the brick, Howard. One of the things I think people who don't listen to me regularly and therefore can't listen in context, need to understand is I don't attack anybody. I defend.
  
  KURTZ: That's not an attack?
  
  LIMBAUGH: No, it's a defense. He attacked my president. He attacked our effort in the war on terrorism.

posted by Quiddity at 12/04/2002 11:44:00 PM

What a jerk:

Kaus writes this on Sunday, Dec 1:

Raines Staying Silent in Debate on Augusta Crusade, Day 6!
Ever since NYT Executive Editor Howell Raines has come under attack for his forced, feverish crusade regarding the Augusta National Golf Club's men-only membership policy, he has been silent on the issue, apparently hoping the complaints of a few Web writers and the New York Observer will be smothered by public indifference!

Wow, no comment for six whole days!

But how long did it take Lil' Mickey to say anything about Ann Coulter's "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building" remark?

It wasn't six days. It took eighty-eight days.

For a sharp appraisal of Kaus (this time on his Kerry-bashing), we recommend this at Lean Left.
Excerpt:

This is what we can expect from the right wing hacks (and, yes, Kaus is a right wing hack. He may not have always been one, he may not have started out as one, but he is definitely one now. No serious political commentator would pen this kind of meaningless tripe.

posted by Quiddity at 12/03/2002 09:42:00 AM

Kooky Krauthammer:

From Presidential Campaigns by Paul F. Boller Jr. (1985 Oxford University Press)

1896
[William Jennings] Bryan was the first presidential candidate to attract the attention of professional psychologists. On September 27, the New York Times published an editorial entitled "Is Mr. Bryan Crazy?" ... The same issue of the Times featured a letter by "an eminent [psychologist]" announcing that an analysis of Bryan's speeches led inescapably to the conclusion that the Democratic candidate was unbalanced and that if he won the election there would be a "madman in the White House." (pg. 176)

1912
Some people questioned T.R.'s sanity. Dr. Allen McLane Hamilton discussed the subject in the New York Times. Dr. Morton Prince wrote a long paper about it. "T.R. would go down in history," declared Prince ... "as one of the most illustrious psychological examples of the distortion of conscious mental process through the process of subconscious wishes." (pg. 199)

1964
Goldwater's sanity, like Bryan's in 1896 and T.R.'s in 1912, was partisanly called in question. The magazine Fact polled 12,356 psychiatrists on the question, "Is Barry Goldwater psychologically fit to be president of the United States?" Only 2,417 replied: 1,189 said "no," 657 said "yes," and 571 said they didn't know enough about it to answer. Both the American Psychiatric Association and the American Medical Association dismissed Fact's poll as yellow journalism and criticized the editor for trying to pass of the personal political opinions of psychiatrists as therapeutic expertise. [our emphasis] (pg. 318)

From Talking Points Memo by Josh Marshall

2002
Isn't there something tasteless and shameful about a psychiatrist -- or a no-longer-practicing psychiatrist -- lazily questioning a public figure's mental health because he disagrees with that person's political views? Here's Charles Krauthammer from yesterday on Fox News Sunday ...

I'm a psychiatrist. I don't usually practice on camera. But this is the edge of looniness, this idea that there's a vast conspiracy, it sits in a building, it emanates, it has these tentacles, is really at the edge. He could use a little help ...

posted by Quiddity at 12/03/2002 08:19:00 AM

Attention must be paid:

Why do we have taxes?

1. To pay for government programs.
   
2. To influence behavior (e.g. deductions for energy conservation, giving to charities,...)

That sounds unexceptional, which it largely is. However...

Our attention has been directed to the Wall Street Journal's editorial page. There, they published an editorial, "The Non-Taxpaying Class", which said, among other things:

Over the past decade or so, fewer and fewer Americans have been paying income taxes and still fewer have been paying a significant percentage of income in taxes.

[...]

Who are these lucky duckies? They are the beneficiaries of tax policies that have expanded the personal exemption and standard deduction and targeted certain voter groups by introducing a welter of tax credits for things like child care and education. When these escape hatches are figured against income, the result is either a zero liability or a liability that represents a tiny percentage of income.

[...]

... as fewer and fewer people are responsible for paying more and more of all taxes, the constituency for tax cutting, much less for tax reform, is eroding. Workers who pay little or no taxes can hardly be expected to care about tax relief for everybody else.

... the last thing the White House should do now is come up with more exemptions, deductions and credits that will shrink the tax-paying population even further.

Let us be absolutely clear on this matter:

Instead of having taxes based "on the merits", as it were,

the Wall Street Journal is advocating a tax schedule that will directly influence how people vote.

We don't allow public service announcements that say, "Vote for Proposition 16" or "Fred Young for Mayor". We shouldn't accept tax policies that are designed to influence how people vote. That's anti-democratic.

Gedankenexperiment: Can you imagine the howls from the right if the tax code was amended so that you got a $500 deduction if the state you resided in had tough gun control? Or free condoms for the kiddies? Or ...

NOTES:
Ed Meese has chimed in recently with an affirmation of the WSJ position (no surprise there).

E.J.Dionne has commented on the WSJ editorial, and CalPundit ran the numbers on the "Lucky Duckies" (who aren't that lucky, after all).

Paul Krugman weighs in as well.

posted by Quiddity at 12/02/2002 10:18:00 PM

Our take:



UPDATE: We couldn't resist. Here's Mickey Kerry.....



posted by Quiddity at 12/02/2002 02:31:00 PM

Commission to investigate 9-11:

This is all we have to say about the appointment of Henry Kissinger as chairman:

Not our first choice.

TRIVIA FANS: That line is inspired by a comment James Baker made in 1988. When first informed that George H. W. Bush had selected Dan Quayle as his running mate, an obviously peeved Baker said this: "He's not my first choice."    We've always liked that way of expressing an opinion.

posted by Quiddity at 12/01/2002 10:53:00 PM

We did it before, and we'll do it again:

Last week, there was quite a fuss kicked up by a Newsweek story about the wife of the Saudi ambassador, and money from her bank account that may have found its way to a couple of hijackers of Flight 77 - the plane that flew into the Pentagon. (We diagramed the relationship.)

Today Newsweek has another story, this on money and connections involving the International Islamic Relief Organization. Connections that involve the bin Laden group, and possibly the Saudi Embassy in the United States. So, to make things clear, we present the information in the form of a diagram:



Once again, a direct connection looks implausible. However, we don't doubt that some money is given to the charities with the unstated assumption that a portion will go to terrorists. The question is, who are those people giving for that purpose, and how do you prove it?

posted by Quiddity at 12/01/2002 03:37:00 PM

How smart is the right?

Noted blogger and mega-brain Glenn Reynolds links to this Fox News story about the Cato Institute suing Washington D.C. over gun laws. This excerpt caught our eye: (2nd paragraph!) "The Second Amendment provides an individual right for a person to bare arms, not a collective right, not a right of the states, not a right of the militia, but a right on each and every person," said Bob Levy, a senior fellow in constitutional studies at CATO. Hey Glenn! Do you ever read the crap you link to?

UPDATE: Fox corrected the story (in the link above), but we captured the page and the original version can be viewed here.

posted by Quiddity at 12/01/2002 07:54:00 AM