About time = Israel wields the stick

It's about time someone called the Palestinians on this ridiculous charade that the US and the EU call the "Roadmap for Peace". Considering the Palestinians' utter failure to meet their requirements under the Madrid and Oslo treaty frameworks, no one with any sense could expect them to meet their obligations under the Roadmap. Nonetheless, the feckless and immoral international community has always looked the other way when the PA's state-supported terrorists bomb Israeli civilians inside Israel (or repeatedly attempt to do so) and called upon Israel to give more concessions. No more.

Today, Sharon said Israel would not adhere to the Roadmap.

About time someone wielded the stick. Now let's watch the international community fall all over itself to condemn Israel yet again.

Whisky in the Jar (and Help from the PaMonk)

As The Monk noted, he went to Scotland but wanted to square this circle: how to procure as many Scotch whiskies as possible for his collection and enjoyment, all of which should be hard or impossible to find in the US, whilst adhering to US duty-free import regulations. Priority for independent bottlers -- companies that buy casks from distilleries and bottle them without norming the taste. Most distilleries sell the majority of their distillate for use in blended whiskies. Those that produce single-malt scotches use only malt whisky (from barley) from one distillery (i.e., Glenmorangie) but they can blend different casks together to get a specific taste that ensures a 12-year old Macallan has a uniform taste. Independent bottlers buy casks from the distilleries and do not "normalize," thereby ensuring the uniqueness of each vintage.

The Monk picked up six whiskies, three of which are unavailable in the US, two of which are nearly impossible to find and one which is difficult. And here's how he did it legally: (1) Two 20 cl advance samples from independent bottler Douglas Laing & Co., producer of the Old Malt Cask line of whiskies -- a Clynelish (rhymes with sign-leash) and a Bunnahabhan; (2) a 20 cl straight-from-the-cask (and poured on the premises) vatted malt from Cadenhead -- a combo of Caol Ila and either Lagavulin or Laphroaig (the seller said he wasn't allowed to say which); (3) two half bottles from independent bottler Gordon MacPhail -- a Scapa and a Linkwood; and (4) a full-bottle Signatory bottling of a 1989 Cragganmore distillation -- one of less than 400 bottles available. Total booze = 2 litres, one for the Monkette2B, one for The Monk. But because The Monk is law-abiding, he had to make some choices. Ah, the need for temporary cloning of one's self as the next great invention . . .

PaMonk needs to help out his favorite youngest son. Two words for possible Xmas presents: Longmorn and Springbank. Both available at your duty-free (I hope) when you leave your lovely trip; the Longmorn is first choice because a Monk knows where to find Springbank in the US. If no Longmorn, then Springbank 100 (EU only, I think).

Journos aren't special -- the CBS collapse

Here's one of the themes of bloggers v. journos that has been making the rounds among the bloggers themselves and has now been publicized by the WSJ's John Fund (link in title): who are the bloggers?

Bloggers are, by and large, not journalists nor journalistic in the average understanding. Instead, they come to the blogosphere with vastly different skills and life experiences than journalists themselves, and there are no necessary qualifications for journalists. Powerline.com wrote about this in August. The Powerliners are attorneys, as are many other bloggers, The Monk included. Attorneys need to be able to deconstruct an argument, construct one that is logical and persuasive, and support their positions with research and analysis. A journalist needs no such skills to excel.

The Monk was a journalist in college. Rank amateur? No. I wrote for one of the most nationally lauded college newspapers in the country; I managed two different departments and wrote for all four content sections: Editorial, Sports, News, Lifestyles. My editors above me, my contemporaries and my subordinates have become reporters for national and regional newspapers. I covered the biggest stories in UVa sports during my tenure and I did it well. I wrote about national and international issues, established sources and had prominent people returning my phone-calls like any "professional" journalist -- from the commissioners of the Big Ten and SEC to UVa's head basketball coach to leading sports commentators. All that time, I was an 18-21 year old kid in a college that has no "journalism" program and I was balancing my coursework with my 40-60 hours per week that I dedicated to my work for the newspaper.

So if you really think that there is anything special that Dan Rather or Mike Wallace or Walter Cronkite does in preparing a story that a 20-something with no college courseload couldn't handle, think again.

Over the Line

Texas reliever Frank Francisco committed a nearly unpardonable sin last night when, enraged by fans' heckling, he threw a chair into the stands and injured a fan. There is no place for that in the game. Fans can be very nasty but they've paid (handsomely, in most cases) to watch the game and root for their team. Physical action against fans can only be countenanced when it's done in self-defense. MLB needs to deal with Francisco strictly but fairly - suspension for the rest of the season seems appropriate.

Trawling for Clintonites

Former Clinton press secretary Mike McCurry has now joined the Kerry advisory staff. This follows recent additions Joe Lockhart, Paul Begala and James Carville. Kerry can hire the entire Clinton administration and it won't change the fact that he is a prototypical NE liberal with little charisma and appeal. Perhaps the campaign was reacting to last week's Washington Post/ABC News poll that showed Kerry's favorable rating had slipped to 36%, or 18 points in five weeks.

Compared with historical Gallup ratings, Kerry is behind Vladimir Putin, running neck and neck with Martha Stewart and just ahead of Joe McCarthy (the Senator, not manager of the Yankees) and OJ Simpson. Ouch.

Back and better than ever!

The Monk has returned from his all-too-short trip to Scotland. Fine country, quite beautiful, much good stuff to drink (and take home for later enjoyment), and we had good weather all around. Worst thing: paying about $80 for 13.5 gallons of gas my last day with the car. Yipes.

Blogging will be light as The Monk gets back on his feet (which wasn't helped by British Airways' f-up yesterday that forced The Monk to miss his connection to the US; thank goodness AA came through with some rerouting to get me and the Monkette2B home at a decent time today), so I'm looking forward to more contributions from the Wongdoer. He did a fine job minding the store whilst I was away, especially on Rathergate.

For more on Rathergate, by the way, check out National Review Online (link at left) -- they're all up in arms. And of course you must read Mark Steyn's take.

Day by Day Cartoon - Farewell

The Monk and I have enjoyed Chris Muir's Day by Day strip since its inception. The Monk calls it Doonesbury of the Right and it's particularly well done. Due to unfortunate circumstances Day-by-Day is going on hiatus. His last strip is, fittingly, done for September 11th. His hiatus message is on Sept. 12.

Good Luck.

Give 'em hell, Zell

Georgia Senator Zell Miller (D) responds to critics. This is a WSJ subscriber only piece so I'll summarize:

Critics: John Kerry and Dick Cheney opposed some of the same weapons systems
Zell: Timing is everything. JK opposed them during the Cold War, DC only after cold war and when modernizing the military

Critics: Zell said nice things about JK
Zell: Timing, again. That was before the 9/11 attacks and before the Democrats and JK became manically obsessed with bringing down the President

Critics: Zell is a racist
Zell: worked for three governors, not only Lester Maddox; attempted to remove Confederate emblem from state flag, appointed an African-American attorney general, appointed more African Americans to the state judiciary than all other governors combined, including Carter.

CORRECTION: the piece is available on Opinion Journal, just go to Monday Sept. 13.

Thanks Seattle

The Monk groused that Yankees might not be in first place by the time he got back from holiday. Well glad to say I've managed to hold the line for him thanks to Seattle for splitting a series and slowing down the Boston dreadnought. Oh and thanks for John Olerud too. Though the idea of a staff of Mussina, Duque, Vazquez and Lieber in the playoffs must be giving Joe agita.

Kerry frothing on North Korea

John Kerry is willing to say anything to get himself elected. The senator called the New York Times Sunday (unusual) and proceeded to rant for 15 minutes about North Korea in a voice described as "nearly shaking with anger".

Kerry belittles Bush administration efforts to involve Russia, China, Japan and South Korea in trammelling the nuclear ambitions of the North. Whence Kerry the champion of multilateralism?

Furthermore, according to the Times, When Mr. Kerry was pressed about how he would handle the threat of a North Korean nuclear test if he was in the Oval Office, he declined to be prescriptive, other than to say that the issue would probably have to be taken to the United Nations Security Council. "Hypothetical questions are not real," he said. Sounds like his patented "I would do everything differently."

This is the same Kerry who boasted at his convention that he wouldn't seek anyone's permission before defending the United States.

It was said that Jimmy Carter was a kind and decent man who should not have been President. Well, John Kerry should not be President.

Rathergate Update

The CBS ship is taking water and listing badly. A few more torpedoes over the weekend:
- Colonel Walter Staudt who allegedly pressured Colonel Killian to 'sugarcoat' Bush's performance had been retired for 18 months as of the date of the memo.
- Major General Bobby Hodges (ret.) who 'authenticated' the memos for CBS:
1. never saw the memos
2. CBS had read him 'excerpts' over the telephone
3. did not 'authenticate' them.
- CBS was highly selective when deciding who to source for the story
- CBS doesn't have the original memos which makes their handwriting analysis worthless

Meanwhile, a CBS mouthpiece is still deriding bloggers as guys who write in their pajamas.

Rathergate - CBS won't bite the bullet

It seems the CBS is circling the wagons and standing by their 60 Minutes story. Their statement:

"This report was not based solely on recovered documents, but rather on a preponderance of evidence, including documents that were provided by unimpeachable sources, interviews with former Texas National Guard officials and individuals who worked closely back in the early 1970s with Colonel Jerry Killian and were well acquainted with his procedures, his character and his thinking." "In addition, the documents are backed up not only by independent handwriting and forensic document experts but by sources familiar with their content," the statement continued. "Contrary to some rumors, no internal investigation is underway at CBS News nor is one planned."

Preponderance of evidence indeed. Are the documents false or not??? And let's hear from their experts.

Check the transcripts - Cheney speech

Let me apologize for being late on this. The Kerry partisans have been screeching bloody murder about how Vice President Cheney used scare tactics in a speech in Iowa a few days ago. Well, when one checks the transcripts, Cheney didn't didn't come near to saying "Vote for Kerry and you die" which is what Maureen Dowd from the NYT ed page alleges. Please excuse the length but reproduced below is the context with key phrases italicized:

"Now, he's (Kerry, ed.) said that he would use military force. He'd like to do it in the fairly traditional way, when the U.S. is attacked. My argument would be, we've already been attacked. We suffered 3,000 casualties. And the success of our efforts, and something that I think every American cares about, our ability to be able to ensure that our children and grandchildren are going to be able to live in a safe and secure world depends upon the basic fundamental decisions we're making now.

We made decisions at the end of World War II, at the beginning of the Cold War, when we set up the Department of Defense, and the CIA, and we created the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and undertook a bunch of major policy steps that then were in place for the next 40 years, that were key to our ultimate success in the Cold War, that were supported by Democrat and Republican alike -- Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower and Jack Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon and Gerry Ford and a whole bunch of Presidents, from both parties, supported those policies over a long period of time. We're now at that point where we're making that kind of decision for the next 30 or 40 years, and it's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on November 2nd, we make the right choice. Because if we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we'll get hit again, that we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States, and that we'll fall back into the pre-9/11 mind set if you will, that in fact these terrorist attacks are just criminal acts, and that we're not really at war. I think that would be a terrible mistake for us.

We have to understand it is a war. It's different than anything we've ever fought before. But they mean to do everything they can to destroy our way of life. They don't agree with our view of the world. They've got an extremist view in terms of their religion. They have no concept or tolerance for religious freedom. They don't believe women ought to have any rights. They've got a fundamentally different view of the world, and they will slaughter -- as they demonstrated on 9/11 -- anybody who stands in their way. So we've got to get it right. We've got to succeed here. We've got to prevail. And that's what is at stake in this election.

Clearly what Cheney is saying here is that your vote this election is a choice between passive defense or aggressively hunting terrorists where they live before you're attacked. And that the choice that we as a nation make will resound for decades with one being a lot more risky than the other.

He's right on point.

BULLSPIT

It is becoming quite clear that the CBS' Bush memos are forgeries. CBS is apparently conducting an internal investigation with rumors that Dan Rather will apologize on the air if the allegations are true. Ted Koppel on Nightline (click title of post) interviewed both Lt. Colonel Killian's widow and son and both are strongly debunking the story (in addition to dozens of experts). Dem hack Chris Lehane is now feverishly trying to distance the Kerry campaign from the story and suggesting that Karl Rove may have leaked the memos himself.

Potentially more damning is this piece about CBS internal dissension on the memos' authenticity. Read the comments, they are hilarious.

Kudos to the folks at PowerLine who broke the story. Sobering to think that not many years ago the CBS allegations would have been taken as gospel and much harder, if not impossible, to disprove.

Ben Barnes' memory

Ben Barnes, former Texas House Speaker, is a big Kerry booster. He claims to have pulled strings to get President Bush into the Texas Air National Guard in 1968 and now 'regrets' what he did. He was featured on 60 Minutes yesterday as well. His claims, which the Democrats are desperately spinning, are quite weak and, surprisingly, hard to corroborate.

CBS 60 minutes memos forged?

The mainstream media has been gleefully relating how the newly unearthed memos by CBS 60 Minutes II support accusations that President Bush acted dishonorably during his National Guard service and that pressure was put on his superiors to give him preferential treatment.

I am not a conspiracy theorist but the blogging community has done some extensive investigation which seems to indicate that the memos have been forged. From someone who did his high school term papers on a typewriter these memos do look dodgy.

Two of the most compelling arguments that these memos are fabrications are from Little Green Footballs and Small Dead Animals.

hat-tip: saw this first on Captain's Quarters

Bet on the Aussies

Terrorists in Indonesia exploded a car bomb outside the Australian embassy in Jakarta today which killed eight weeks before the Indonesian and Australian elections. Observers believe that the attack was designed to remind Australians the price of being a staunch ally of the United States and, presumably, to encourage them to vote out Prime Minister John Howard. If the terrorists are hoping for Spain redux, they've got it dead wrong.

The President's National Guard Service - the FACTS

The liberal mass media (yes that's probably redundant) aided and abetted by retreads like Begala, Carville and Estrich are bellowing to the skies about Bush's National Guard Service. The fact is, W served honorably from 1968 to 1972, gathering four times the required amount of points guardsmen needed over that period. Then he asked his superiors for permission to work on a political campaign. Not unusual. approved. Read it all, send it to friends.

hat-tip: neal boortz

Carter Conned in Caracas

More evidence that the mad dove from Plains was grossly negligent in calling the Venezuelan election clean. Sadly, the State Department acquiesced as well. The result is we have gone a long way in ensuring that a volatile, harsh, and rabidly anti-American dictator will remain in power indefinitely causing grief for many Venezuelans.

Essentially Carter acquiesced to Chavez government demands that audits not be random (!) A statistical study now indicates 99% probability that elements of the election were fraudulent. Some excerpts from the WSJ editorial:

The new study was released this week by economists Ricardo Hausmann of Harvard and Roberto Rigobon of MIT. They zeroed in on a key problem with the August 18 vote audit that was run by the government's electoral council (CNE): In choosing which polling stations would be audited, the CNE refused to use the random number generator recommended by the Carter Center. Instead, the CNE insisted on its own program, run on its own computer. Mr. Carter's team acquiesced, and Messrs. Hausmann and Rigobon conclude that, in controlling this software, the government had the means to cheat.

This result opens the possibility that the fraud was committed only in a subset of the 4,580 automated centers, say 3,000, and that the audit was successful because it directed the search to the 1,580 unaltered centers.

Mr. Hausmann...also "found very clear trails of fraud in the statistical record" and a probability of less than 1% that the anomalies observed could be pure chance. To put it another way, they think the chance is 99% that there was electoral fraud.

The authors also suggest that the fraud was centralized. Voting machines were supposed to print tallies before communicating by Internet with the CNE center. But the CNE changed that rule, arranging to have totals sent to the center first and only later printing tally sheets. This increases the potential for fraud because the Smartmatic voting machines suddenly had two-way communication capacity that they weren't supposed to have. The economists say this means the CNE center could have sent messages back to polling stations to alter the totals.

None of this would matter if the auditing process had been open to scrutiny by the Carter observers. But as the economists point out: "After an arduous negotiation, the Electoral Council allowed the OAS [Organization of American States] and the Carter Center to observe all aspects of the election process except for the central computer hub, a place where they also prohibited the presence of any witnesses from the opposition. At the time, this appeared to be an insignificant detail. Now it looks much more meaningful."

NYPD- pretty good job

The NYPD did a damned good job over the Republican Convention. The 35,000 strong force had to police NYC as usual, deal with hundreds of thousands of protesters peppered with agitators, anarchists and whatnot who threatened to cause all sorts of trouble and prevent terrorists from hitting THE most inviting target of the year (including the Olympics). Given that backdrop the fact that some protesters were held a bit longer than they should and were not held in a pleasant atmosphere (were they expecting the Ritz or would they have preferred Rikers?) is, in a native New Yorker's view, eminently forgivable.

Day 3 in Auld Reekie

The Monkette2B and I are in Edinburgh, heading out for the northern highlands of Scotland tomorrow and later to the east coast and Aberdeen. To date, we've been riotously soused, and exceedingly sore. The latter because Edinburgh is a city built on numerous hills and they all go one direction: UP. We're wanderers more than museumgoers, so we've wandered about the town a fair bit, taken numerous panoramic photos, visited the Castle and Palace of Holyrood House (the first two of about 10-15 castles/palaces we'll see), climbed Calton Hill, taken a ghost tour and shopped for whisky (no "e" in whisky in the UK or Ireland, must've used their extra vowels on colour, odour, valour, etc.).

I'll give more of a report later, especially when we're back in the 'States.

But why is it called Auld Reekie? Seems the Scots cherished their freedom so much they kicked out the Romans (remember, Hadrian's Wall was built to keep the Scots from invading SOUTH, not the Romans from returning North) before the Romans could bring some of the best of Roman civilization: central plumbing. Thus, Edinburghers until the late 1600s had no indoor plumbing -- instead they'd toss their human waste from their homes yelling "Gardey loo!" as a warning (from gardez l'eau -- beware the water). Nasty. Much has changed in 300+ years.

Murdering children

If you read nothing else today - READ THIS (click title). Mark Steyn on the Beslan abomination.

Medicare Part B Premium Increase - the FACTS

The anti-Bush camp is trying to make hay of Friday's announcement from the Department of Health and Human Services that announced the premium increase for Medicare Part B for 2005 decrying both the magnitude of the dollar increase as well as the timing. The truth is that the magnitude of the increase has been roughly known (and published) since March and allegations that the administration orchestrated the release of the statement with the advance of Hurricane Frances is puerile.

The facts:
- Medicare Part B covers physician services, outpatient hospital services, certain home health services, durable medical equipment and other items. The montly premium for 2005 will be $78.20, an increase of $11.60 (17%) over the $66.60 premium in 2004.
- The Part B premium paid by individuals is calculated via formula established by law
- As indicated by the HHS press release linked by the title, a significant part of this increase is due to the new prescription care coverage and additional preventative services newly offered.- The Part B premium paid by individuals covers about 25% of the cost of the program while general revenue pays for the balance
- By law the Part B premium increase may not exceed any beneficiary's cost of living adjustment in their Social Security check. (For the great majority of beneficiaries, the Social Security cost of living increase is likely to be significantly greater than the premium change)

Here is an AARP research piece on Social Security COLAS and Medicare Part B.

US Employment Recovering

The month employment report for August was released yesterday. [For our readers who aren't as familiar with financial markets this report has been and continues to be the KEY monthly economic report to which the markets pay rapt attention.] Non-farm payrolls (farming jobs are excluded to volatility) increased by 144,000 jobs in August and payrolls for June and July were revised modestly upwards. The unemployment rate sank one-tenth of a percent to 5.4%. This is good news for the economy especially since August historically tends to be a weak hiring month. This report makes it highly likely that the Federal Reserve will nudge interest rates up another 25 basis points at the September 21 meeting. The market expects this and a failure to do would actually be a surprise and cause significant alarm in the markets- neither of which is desirable as far as the Fed is concerned.

The Anti-Bush campaign has brayed constantly about how the Bush recovery has created fewer jobs that previous recoveries. While this is true there are very good reasons why this is happening which the Democrats NEVER explain (assuming they understand it). I'll briefly go into two of the reasons.
One, productivity growth even into the recession has been fairly strong. Increases in worker productivity is generally very good since it allows growth while holding down inflation. However, higher productivity has a countervailing effect on employment growth -- more productive existing workers means less need to higher new workers.
Second, firms are still psychologically recovering from the Bubble and are extremely reluctant overall to make major hiring commitments and continue to be hawkish on expenses. (I work for a large bulge-bracket investment banking firm where, despite excellent profitability, hiring has been 'reluctant' and expenses monitored very carefully.) Essentially businesses are loath to hire unless they absolutely have to which means sooner or later there will be significant growth in hiring. It may come in Q4 or Q12005.

W's speech - Big Ideas, good ideas

The President delivered a very strong acceptance speech at the convention. What particularly struck the author were the big ideas esconced in the speech as well as certain deftly executed ripostes against the opposition. For full text click here.

Big Ideas:
- Why this election is the most important since 1984. "I believe the most solemn duty of the American president is to protect the American people. If America shows uncertainty and weakness in this decade, the world will drift toward tragedy. This will not happen on my watch."

- The OTHER reason why the Iraq conflict was justified and necessary. "So we have fought the terrorists across the earth not for pride, not for power, but because the lives of our citizens are at stake.--- And we are working to advance liberty in the broader Middle East, because freedom will bring a future of hope, and the peace we all want. And we will prevail...Free societies in the Middle East will be hopeful societies, which no longer feed resentments and breed violence for export. Free governments in the Middle East will fight terrorists instead of harboring them, and that helps us keep the peace."

- Why the enemy is indiscriminately killing in Iraq. "Others understand the historic importance of our work. The terrorists know. They know that a vibrant, successful democracy at the heart of the Middle East will discredit their radical ideology of hate. They know that men and women with hope, and purpose, and dignity do not strap bombs on their bodies and kill the innocent. The terrorists are fighting freedom with all their cunning and cruelty because freedom is their greatest fear and they should be afraid, because freedom is on the march."

- The idea has worked superbly before. "Fortunately, we had a resolute president named Truman, who with the American people persevered, knowing that a new democracy [Germany, ed.] at the center of Europe would lead to stability and peace."

- Attitudes. "Another priority for a new term is to build an ownership society, because ownership brings security, and dignity, and independence." Bravo. Not just for Social Security and retirement but applicable universally.

Good ideas:
- American opportunity zones
- small firms combining to buy cheaper health insurance (this is a really good idea- this is the crux of diversification. It's the same principle why an individual mortgage is risky but a pool of risky mortgages can be rated AAA)
- a community health center in every county
- medical liability reforms
- Expanding Pell Grants (this helped the wongdoer and countless others through college)

Stuff I liked:
- Fiskes John Kerry for calling Great Britain, Poland, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Denmark, El Salvador, Australia, and others "a coalition of the coerced and bribed"
- factoid that we spend, as a nation, six billion hours annually in tax related matters. Using very rough numbers (150 mio workers; 2,000 working hours/year = 300 bio hours worked) That's 2% of the nation's time annually
- lauds Dick Cheney's contribution early and conspicuously. Many thought that Cheney would be 'dropped' from the ticket. Sorry, W is a discerning man of integrity.

Stuff I didn't like:
- 62 minutes - hope enough of the big and good ideas hit home
- blanket support for religious charities (am a separation of church and state nutter and worried about religious charities that are fronts...)

For a professional's take on the speech, see NRO's Jay Nordlinger's excellent contribution here.

Miller Time

Senator Zell Miller, Democrat from Georgia, gave a superb and stirring speech at the Republican Convention last night. It was brief and crystallized the key reasons why this is such an important election and why the President, rather than John Kerry, is the right choice to lead us in these dangerous times. Take the time, read it and tell people to read it. Some excerpts:

In 1940 Wendell Wilkie was the Republican nominee.
And there is no better example of someone repealing their "private plans" than this good man.
He gave Roosevelt the critical support he needed for a peacetime draft, an unpopular idea at the time. And he made it clear that he would rather lose the election than make national security a partisan campaign issue.

Shortly before Wilkie died he told a friend, that if he could write his own epitaph and had to choose between "here lies a president" or "here lies one who contributed to saving freedom", he would prefer the latter. Where are such statesmen today?
Where is the bi-partisanship in this country when we need it most?
Now, while young Americans are dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrat's manic obsession to bring down our Commander-in- Chief.
...
Twenty years of votes can tell you much more about a man than twenty weeks of campaign rhetoric. Campaign talk tells people who you want them to think you are. How you vote tells people who you really are deep inside.
Senator Kerry has made it clear that he would use military force only if approved by the United Nations. Kerry would let Paris decide when America needs defending.
I want Bush to decide.
John Kerry, who says he doesn't like outsourcing, wants to outsource our national security.

Best of The Key Monk

I've been at this for about 4.5 months and will be taking a long-needed vacation Thursday. After nearly 700 posts (about two for every reader ;-)), I guessed that there would be enough good comments that I could compile a "best of" listing. I think I'm right.

To that end, I've put together this list of essays and comments, with a small taste for each. No entry is very long. I hope you read and enjoy.

MAY 2004:

Memorial Day [on visiting a national cemetary] -- "True heroes don't seek heroism, but instead perform their duty to the best of their ability with courage, integrity and determination."

Shibboleth -- "The Geneva Convention is now a shibboleth for the Left. Its terms and requirements are not examined; its application and exemptions are irrelevant."

Sports bias -- "There's media bias in sports journalism, and lots of it. Just watch ESPN or read Sports Illustrated regularly and it becomes pretty obvious."

Gonzo goes bonkers again [on Abu Ghraib overreaction] -- ". . . if you exalt abuse of tens of prisoners as more horrible than the Nazi regime, if you excuse the depradations of Ho Chi Minh (Sontag/Chomsky), Pol Pot (Chomsky), Stalin, Saddam (Pilger, Scheer, Rall, Kingsolver), Osama (Chomsky, Sontag, Kingsolver, Walker, Doctorow) and if you believe that Israel's treatment of Palestinians is equivalent on any scale and in any manner to the treatment of Jews under the Nazi regime, you are objectively evil."

More proof -- "Simple concept here: the WMD agents Saddam had could kill millions but could fit in an average two-car garage. Think about stuffing your garage with standard-sized bags of popcorn, then hiding those bags throughout the state of Texas. How long would it take someone to find the bags? That's what Saddam essentially did."

JUNE 2004:

Iraq -- two days early: "Acting one step and two days ahead of the Islamicist nutters, whom the press expected would launch a new round of violence Wednesday, the US formally returned sovereignty to the Iraqi people earlier today."

Private rights and public office [on the Jack and Jeri Ryan divorce claims] -- "Even in the US, with our First Amendment's Free Press Clause, the press' interest in any given subject is determined by the 'people's right to know.'"

Media bias -- the truth that won't go away: "A new study of media bias is startling for what it reveals about the media compared to some liberal havens -- i.e., the media may even be more Bush-hating than Berkeley, California or Cambridge, Massachusetts."

Poverty and affluence in the US and Europe -- "Europe and its standards of living, leisure time, insurance, etc. are held up by liberals and Europhiles as exemplars of what America should strive toward emulating. But that notion is farcical in the extreme."

Lies and half-truths about Reagan -- "The anti-Reagan spin has begun. Here are the most notable half-truths and misleading statements about Reagan: (1) he abandoned his principles, became "pragmatic" about what could be done, then tried to achieve his goals; (2) he did nothing viz. AIDS; (3) he trebled the national debt; (4) Iran-Contra is a stain on his legacy; (5) he was a racist."

Ronald Wilson Reagan, 1911-2004 -- "Reagan cured stagflation, jumpstarted a horrendous economy, presided over the best economy in the history of US peacetime, restored American greatness and exceptionalism, DEFEATED COMMUNISM, won the Cold War and did it despite hesitant allies (not including the UK), an unfriendly House of Representatives (where all revenue bills must be initiated under the US Constitution), and a dubious but hopeful populace."

JULY 2004:

John Kerry = not qualified to be commander in chief
-- "John Kerry disqualified himself from the presidency today. He stated that he wants Osama bin Laden tried in one of the three states where the 19 murderers landed the 9-11 airplanes: Virginia, Pennsylvania, or New York. This is the stupidest suggestion by a presidential candidate since Walter Mondale promised higher taxes in 1984. . . "

Proliferation Security Initiative [on US efforts to prevent proliferation of WMDs] -- "This work by the Bush Administration is hugely important and receives no publicity from the press, and naturally no credit from the Democrats for whom every coalition Bush knits together is fraudulent . . . "

Did Clintonism Really Work? -- "Ultimately, upon any examination of the Clinton record, the state of the country during the Clinton presidency was akin to an embalmed corpse -- it looked decent on the surface, but the inside was empty, useless and noxious."

Bad Taste on the Internet -- "If Alexandra Kerry ever sees The Monk in a tux, he would be perfectly ready to hear that a similarly dressed chimp would be distinguishable only by height. But be REAL, whole internet sites devoted to AK's chest? Waste of bandwidth."

It's about time, judicial nominees version -- "Never before have appellate and district court nominees been filibustered by the Senate. The Republicans must be tough for once and actually get something done. Otherwise, there's no value in having them in charge."

Small woman, big heart [on the Monkette2B] -- "Yesterday I return home hearing the Monkette2B shouting at one of the Monkcats. Seems that the boy Monkcat found himself a new toy, a baby bird (sparrow or finch family member), and decided to pluck it from our front yard . . ."

These aren't mine, but they're worth a read, so I compiled them in a post (with links): Jonah Goldberg's Bastille Day columns.

Jumping to conclusion [on the WMD in Iraq search] -- "The Senate Intelligence Committee has proven itself an oxymoron."

AUGUST 2004:

What Reveleance has Andrew Sullivan? -- "If you take off all of August to go to the beach and fail to blog about numerous momentous occurrences during the campaign season, do you have any relevance anymore?"

Kerry's Resume Padding -- "Everyone understands the concept of the person who claims achievements that he did not attain. That is a cardinal sin in politics -- you have overstated your achievements, you are not trustworthy, how can you occupy the most important political office in the world?"

Statistics and misleading information -- Democrats' claims of successful economies -- "". . . sometimes you need to try to explain the big picture to the left."

Electoral College and American stability -- "The Electoral College, and the winner-take-all allocation on a state-by-state basis, is one of the great mechanisms of the US system."

Kerry to Bush: Save me from myself [on Kerry calling for Bush to end Swiftie ads] -- "Ultimately, the Bushies may be hoping that Kerry hangs himself with his whining and his VERY unPresidential demeanor. But they need to connect to dots for the voters in Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Minnesota and Iowa."

John Kerry's Wimp Factor -- "This is not a LEADER. Instead, this is a small animal cornered and fearful. Imagining how Kerry would react in a real crisis does not inspire confidence."

Are you better off now than you were four years ago -- ". . . the rhetorical flourish of 'are you better off now . . .' is just simplistic nonsense. The real question is whether Bush lived up to his promise from the 2000 Republican Convention: 'They've had their chance, they have not led; we will.' The answer is undoubtedly yes."

The Cold War -- "The Cold War for 36 years was really bilateral politicking through proxy wars (think of it as the Great Game in the nuclear age). Only in 1981 (and really in 1983-onward) was the Cold War actually a head-to-head engagement and the Soviets not only lost, the US won."

A decent list, if The Monk says so himself.

Thanks for helping me become a better blogger to Jon Henke at QandO, Dr. Joyner at Outside the Beltway, Charles Johnson at Little Green Footballs and Ric and Debbie Frost -- the first bloggers to link me.

The Wongdoer has the controls for the next week-plus. I'll chime in with some quick travelblogging and return full time on Sept. 14.

Cheney speech reaction

I saw most of this whilst the Monkette2B was talking with her momma. I like Cheney. After eight years of Clinton, Cheney reminded the US that an actual adult could be in the White House, and had worked in one before (Ford and Reagan Administration). Plus, he's tougher than anyone the Democrats have on their side.

Cheney personifies the grim determination aspect of what the US must do in the next few years as it takes further steps to eliminate the terror threat. He is serious, intelligent and has a full grasp of reality unlike Edwards. He carved up Lieberman in the 2000 debate; he carved Kerry tonight. The text of the speech is linked above.

Captain Ed thinks Cheney gave a good speech but that it lacked passion and inspiration in the delivery. That's fair, but Cheney doesn't need to be impassioned, he needs to be solid, stalwart, steady and calm. He is the "gravitas" -- that annoying characterization that is STILL a plus for Bush in comparison to the flip-flopping Kerry and the featherweight Edwards.

FLASH!!!

Nearly half of New York City residents and more than 40% of all New Yorkers are nuts, according to a new Zogby poll (click title).

Good thing I left 16 years ago.

Sullivan MAKES SENSE!!!

Stop the presses! Andrew Sullivan issued a coherent, logical and trenchant proclamation on his website! The Monk nearly crapped kittens when he read it.

Here it is in its entirety (regarding night two of the Repub. Convention):

HIGHLIGHT OF THE NIGHT: Elisabeth Hasselbeck's ass. I know I'm not the best authority in these matters, but I think the C-Span cameraman had the same insight.

For Mrs. Hasselbeck's other end (and a beautiful one it is), see here.

And for the full picture (it's clean): check out this page.

Reinforced belief: Worst Candidate Ever

The Illinois Republican Party deserves to be relegated to the pits of irrelevance somewhere between the Greens and the "Reform" Party. Choosing carpetbagging dope Alan Keyes as a Senate candidate was bad enough, living with him is worse.

Keyes called VP Cheney's daughter a selfish hedonist because she is a lesbian. Talk about sh'ting where you eat. Unfortunately for Cheney, he's both too much of a gent and too responsible to fly to Chicago and whack Keyes in the nose. Of course, if that happened, suddenly Keyes would be acceptable to the Congressional Black Caucus and they'd call for investigating the incident as a hate crime.

h/t Outside the beltway

Schwarzenegger's speech

Click the title to access the full text. Great stuff about the American dream, the Soviet nightmare and the lure of capitalism to someone who grew up under socialism.

Actually watched it = reaction

I actually watched the speeches in primetime convention coverage tonight, primarily because I wanted to see what Schwarzenegger would say. And the California governor did not disappoint. He delivered an excellent speech that stressed security and the immigrant-in-America success story, reminded us of the ideal of America that registers in the minds of those who wish to come here, and showed why it is important to keep President Bush in his current office. Schwarzenegger delivered a speech with heart and humor as a professional, and much better than most other politicians could ever hope to do.

But so much for keeping up momentum. The Bush twins are cute but . . . not erudite. They tried to keep it light, but I'm only 34 and I whiffed on a couple of the pop culture references (the Monkette2B didn't -- she knows what the "young people" are into). Nonetheless, Barbara the Younger is niiiiiiiiiiice.

Thereafter, Mrs. Bush after a nice intro from her husband -- a husband's intro, not a presidential one, and that was the proper note to strike. She did ok -- dignified, reserved and pleasant all at once -- although alot of it was fairly bland. After Schwarzenegger, any other speaker would have had a hard act to follow. Nonetheless, the First Lady (or prospective First Lady) should not make headlines, and Mrs. Bush did not.

8791

What's 8791? It's 1978 backwards. And that's what this season is turning into for the Yankees.

In '78 the Yanks came from 14.5 back and beat the RedSax for the AL East. In '04, the RedStiffs have gained 7 games on the Yanks in 15 days and are now only 3.5 out. Javy Vazquez is awful; Mooooooosina is poor, Brown is iffy, El Duque and Lieber are acceptable. Compare that to Pedro (v. good), Schilling (near excellent), Wakefield (solid), Lowe (coming around) and Arroyo (the best sub-.500 pitcher in the AL).

I said yesterday it's 50-50 that the Yanks won't be in first place by Sept. 13. The Yanks may not be in first place when the NFL season starts on Sept. 9. What a colossal failure in the making and topped off tonight by their worst loss ever.

John Kerry = Jimmy Carter II

As I've said before here, John Kerry is a warmed over Jimmy Carter and the Manchurian Candidate of the peace-at-all-costs Left.

For those of you who need further proof, read how Kedwards would negotiate with Iran over its nuclear capabilities, despite its clear statements that it intends to obtain nuclear weapons, and how Kedwards would "ensure" the participation of the Europeans despite their COMPLETE FAILURE to "negotiate" with the mullahs. Read also how these fine multilateralists would chase China, Russia, So. Korea and Japan from the bargaining table with North Korea and capitulate to the No. Kor. demands for bilateral negotiations. Click the link in the title for Jonathan Rothenberg's fine analysis.

Nip this garbage in the bud -- defeating terrorism

The Dems are already going loopy with glee because Bush reportedly said the war on terror cannot be won.

Of course, the REAL STORY is different from the Democratic spin. Instead, Bush said a war on terror may not be won -- a fair point if you define winning as either obtaining surrender of terrorists or complete eradication of terrorism, but a bit too stark for an election campaign.

The fact is Bush's comments belie his shorter statement. Why? Because he essentially defines how terrorism can be defeated: by finding terrorists and rooting them out and by CREATING DEMOCRACY -- a condition that makes terrorism unacceptable. That defeat doesn't mean terrorism will be completely eradicated (Nazism and communism have not been either).

Michelle Malkin (link in title) has the statement and its context.

Giuliani speech (reaction)

The text of Giuliani's speech is linked in the title of this post. It is most notable because Giuliani understands the minds of the terrorists: these are not reasonable and civilized people upon whom sweet reason will have its desired effect. Instead, any action other than stomping out the terrorists themselves is effectively appeasement -- a sign of ultimate weakness and a signal that the appeaser FEARS the appeased. Giuliani traces the historical reaction to terrorism pre-Bush and, in the process, makes the strongest and most cogent argument for the Bush Doctrine since Bush's State of the Union address in 2002:

Terrorism did not start on September 11, 2001. It had been festering for many years.

And the world had created a response to it that allowed it to succeed. The attack on the Israeli team at the Munich Olympics was in 1972. And the pattern had already begun. The three surviving terrorists were arrested and within two months released by the German government.

Action like this became the rule, not the exception. Terrorists came to learn they could attack and often not face consequences.

And after Italy released the terrorists who attacked the Achille Lauro cruise ship, Giuliani noted:

terrorists learned they could intimidate the world community and too often the response, particularly in Europe, was "accommodation, appeasement and compromise."

And worse the terrorists also learned that their cause would be taken more seriously, almost in direct proportion to the barbarity of the attack.

Even more beautiful is Giuliani's complete smackdown of Arafat:

Terrorist acts became a ticket to the international bargaining table.

How else to explain Yasser Arafat winning the Nobel Peace Prize when he was supporting a terrorist plague in the Middle East that undermined any chance of peace?

Giuliani said "was" but Arafat still supports the terrorist plague he created decades ago. And Giuliani also noted the essence of leadership and why John Kerry has no idea of it:

John Kerry has made it the rule to change his position, rather than the exception. In October, 2003, he told an Arab-American Institute in Detroit that a security barrier separating Israel from the Palestinian Territories was a "barrier to peace."

A few months later, he took exactly the opposite position. In an interview with the Jerusalem Post he said, "Israel's security fence is a legitimate act of self defense."

The contrasts are dramatic. They involve very different views of how to deal with terrorism. President Bush will make certain that we are combatting terrorism at the source, beyond our shores, so we can reduce the risk of having to confront it in the streets of New York.

John Kerry's record of inconsistent positions on combatting terrorism gives us no confidence he'll pursue such a determined course.

President Bush will not allow countries that appear to have ignored the lessons of history and failed for over thirty years to stand up to terrorists, to dissuade us from what is necessary for our defense.

He will not let them set our agenda. Under President Bush, America will lead rather than follow.

And that, in a nutshell, is why Kerry must not be elected.

_________
More reactions:

Captain Ed
Outside the Beltway
Allahpundit
Right on Red
California Yankee

Rudy Giuliani Rocks

America's mayor nails John Kerry and John Edwards in one fell swoop (Courtesy In The Bullpen (link in title)):

My point about John Kerry being inconsistent is best described in his own words when he said, “I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.”

Maybe this explains John Edwards’ need for two Americas - - one where John Kerry can vote for something and another where he can vote against the same thing.

Beauty.

Meanwhile, Right On Red dissects Rudy's ability to comprehend the necessity to be strong in the face of terrorism and act BEFORE another attack with Kerry's faux strength claiming that the US would strike back if attacked. I've dissected Kerry's fundamentally flawed thought process here and the Republicans have immediately sent the message that they will draw this distinction that vastly favors Bush throughout the Convention. And they should.

Let's see if this works

Trying to get some changes up and running on the site. I've added an advertisement bar above but the first ads Google sent me were a bunch of liberal crap from Kerry-affiliated 527s. If I keep getting that kind of bs, I'll rip Google a new one. I thought Googles was going to examine the page to see compatible adverts. That Kerry and Dem garbage won't fly.

UPDATE: at 2:46 I decided I'm not going to have a bunch of left-wing scheisse on this site, therefore I'm taking down the Google ads until I get some response from Google indicating that they'll work with me on this. You want Kerry pimping, go to Air America's site.

What relevance has Andrew Sullivan?

If you take off all of August to go to the beach and fail to blog about numerous momentous occurrences during the campaign season, do you have any relevance anymore?

Tom Maguire at Just One Minute cut his vacation to jump in with some blog posts when major stories broke regarding John Kerry's campaign, the Swifties' allegations, etc., as seen here.

The Instapundit can't stop blogging, even when he's out in the woods somewhere with the Instabrood.

Sullivan meanwhile hangs out in his hammock (with his palm out for contributions) for 27 days whilst the Swifties eviscerate Kerry's integrity, Captain Ed elucidates Kerry's willful biographical misrepresentations, Bob Dole blasts his former colleague and the blogosphere eats the old media's lunch on the story of Kerry's lack of integrity.

Today, Sullivan is back in rare form charging without proof that Karl Rove is the power behind the Swifties (nothing about the MoveOn.org or Media Fund or America Coming Together and their direct connections with Kerry), charging Marvin Olasky and the woman who will give the invocation at the RNC opening tonight with bigotry because they won't support gay marriage, overblowing a Bush malapropism into a freudian slip, etc.

Personally, his blog was better whilst he vacationed.

Submitted to the Traffic Jam.

Mississippi learning: enforcing the law in the Magnolia State

Back in the day, The Monk worked for a law firm that defended asbestos-related injury cases. Asbestos is a mineral that was used in fireproofing and the damage it cause to unprotected miners who dug it out of the ground in Quebec and Australia and the US was tremendous. It was included, in varying amounts, in numerous fireproofing products including bricks, wallboards, sprays and more. In its neutralized form, it's harmless -- that is, when contained within bricks or wallboards it won't hurt you. When you break a brick or tear out wallboard, asbestos particles are freed up and can go into your lungs where they are akin to small needles cutting through the lung tissue.

Asbestos has not been used in construction in the US for more than two decades. And whereas the initial asbestos injury claimants had injuries that ranged from bad to deadly, more than 90% of the current plaintiffs are healthy. Yes, there are many sick claimants, most notably those who have mesothelioma -- a quick-acting cancer that is caused by embedded asbestos in the lungs.

Nonetheless, the vast number of unsick plaintiffs means that plaintiffs' lawyers need to aggregate the claims in order to benefit from bringing them. That leads to massive joinders in lawsuits of hundreds of claimants from numerous different areas (or even states) who were exposed to asbestos under differing circumstances all lumped into one lawsuit to bring pressure on defendants to settle. This is a practice frought with potential for corruption. And Mississippi, with its lack of procedural controls and a permissive Supreme Court had been one of the most favorable states for asbestos claims . . . until recent tort reforms.

Now the Mississippi Supreme Court (see link in title) has not only clamped down on massive joinders, but also on some of the plaintiff attorney tricks that prevent defendants from being able to investigate the plaintiffs' cases and challenge the joinders that seek to extract huge settlements. The pendulum swings back . . .

Hat tip: Point of Law and Overlawyered.com

Kerry's resume padding -- updated

Now there's information that Kerry is padding his war heroism (in addition to his serial self-promotion as a veteran). As the Sun-Times report in the title of this post indicates, there are now three additional issues with Kerry's citations.

First, he claims to have received three different commendations to accompany his Silver Star (one is the norm) and John Lehman, the Secretary of the Navy who allegedly penned one of those commendations, denies having written one.

Second, Kerry's website claimed that he received a Silver Star with combat V (for valor). But the Sun-Times report says that those were not (and are not) issued. Combat V citations may accompany higher awards, but not the Silver Star.

Third, his website carries a Defense Department form that grants Kerry four campaign stars in Vietnam. A vet gets one campaign star for each of the Defense Department "named" campaigns. But Kerry only participated in two of the 17 named campaigns (as designated by the DoD) in Vietnam.

Here's The Monk's take: I know that the military vets will decry Kerry's self-attribution of the Combat V to his Silver Star but this is a point of military minutiae that civilians won't get. More important from a political and personal standpoint is the doubling of the campaign stars. This reflects the resume-padding and self-aggrandizement that permeates the Kerry persona. Everyone understands the concept of the person who claims achievements that he did not attain. That is a cardinal sin in politics -- you have overstated your achievements, you are not trustworthy, how can you occupy the most important political office in the world?

Update: Paul at Wizbang derides the Combat V issue because the Silver Star is, by definition, an award for valor (see here for details). The Bronze Star will have a V for valor because it can be awarded for either meritorious service or heroism (see here). But that raises the question of whether the write-up is erroneous or someone made a clerical mistake. If the write-up is erroneous, and Kerry authored the written support for the combat V, then he needs to explain why he wrote his report the way he did.

Ultra-Liberal when he wants to be

Captain Ed notes that Kerry is more liberal under Republican presidents than he was under Clinton (the only Democrat president in Kerry's Senatorial career), according to National Journal's examination of his voting record.

What is the point?

First, Kerry abandons his principles in favor of prevailing party loyalty. For six of Clinton's eight years, Kerry was in the minority party, therefore he had to compromise for Clinton to help the president pass legislation that would also appeal across the Senate aisle. But during the Bush (papa y hijo) and Reagan presidencies, he could (and did) tack as far left as he wanted -- out toward the Wellstone/Kennedy fringe.

Second, when combined with Kerry's lack of leadership in policy issues during his 20-year Senatorial career, the junior senator from Massachusetts is clearly revealed as a follower of the far left of his party. His Americans for Democratic Action ratings support this conclusion.

Ultimately, this shows how Kerry would, despite his rhetoric and bluster, cater to the collection of left-wing interest groups that are the real powers behind the Democrats -- Ralph Neas, Nan Aron, ADA, ACLU, AFL-CIO, etc. Not a good sign for anyone who expects a president to actually LEAD the country.

He's just another Jimmy Carter.

Dissecting the 9-11 Commission Report

There are a notable few judges in American history who have had, or will have, tremendous effect upon the shape of the law who were not (or will not be) Supreme Court justices. The list includes past judges Roger Traynor and Learned Hand and current judges Guido Calabresi and Richard Posner.

Posner partially revolutionized tort theory with his examination of the relationship between law and economics. He is perhaps the most prolific theorist on the bench, he writes numerous opinions as part of his full-time job as a judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, and he has authored books, articles and law review essays galore.

In this week's New York Times Book Review, Judge Posner turned his perspicacious eye on the Report of the 9-11 Commission . . . and eviscerated it. He states his most important conclusions early (all emphases in excerpts added by TKM):

[T]he commission's analysis and recommendations are unimpressive. The delay in the commission's getting up to speed was not its fault but that of the administration, which dragged its heels in turning over documents; yet with completion of its investigation deferred to the presidential election campaign season, the commission should have waited until after the election to release its report. That would have given it time to hone its analysis and advice.

. . . The participation of the relatives of the terrorists' victims (described in the report as the commission's ''partners'') lends an unserious note to the project . . . One can feel for the families' loss, but being a victim's relative doesn't qualify a person to advise on how the disaster might have been prevented.

Much more troublesome are the inclusion in the report of recommendations (rather than just investigative findings) and the commissioners' misplaced, though successful, quest for unanimity. Combining an investigation of the attacks with proposals for preventing future attacks is the same mistake as combining intelligence with policy. . .

I've been critical of the 9-11 Commission, and I've also decried the politicization of the 9-11 Commission Report by claiming that its recommendations should be examined critically before they're implemented.

Posner also criticizes the substance of the Commission's report, as well as its process:

At least the commission was consistent. It believes in centralizing intelligence, and people who prefer centralized, pyramidal governance structures to diversity and competition deprecate dissent. But insistence on unanimity, like central planning, deprives decision makers of a full range of alternatives. For all one knows, the price of unanimity was adopting recommendations that were the second choice of many of the commission's members or were consequences of horse trading. The premium placed on unanimity undermines the commission's conclusion that everybody in sight was to blame for the failure to prevent the 9/11 attacks. Given its political composition (and it is evident from the questioning of witnesses by the members that they had not forgotten which political party they belong to), the commission could not have achieved unanimity without apportioning equal blame to the Clinton and Bush administrations, whatever the members actually believe.

and he notes a lack of imagination in the Report itself:

Apart from a few sentences on the possibility of nuclear terrorism, and of threats to other modes of transportation besides airplanes, the broader range of potential threats, notably those of bioterrorism and cyberterrorism, is ignored.

Posner's real criticism is for the FBI as he notes its "dismal" counterterrorism record and its failure to respond even when Director Louis Freeh called for more attention to terrorist threats.

Overall, an interesting and intelligent review. That's to be expected from Posner.

Kerry Meltdown Watch?

Little Green Footballs debuted its Kerry Meltdown Watch this weekend because the gaffes just keep on coming.

On Thursday, Kerry went to swing-state Wisconsin and referred to the Green Bay Packers' stadium as LamBERT Field (scroll down to 8/26).

On Friday, Kerry sent some dupes to Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney's office to try to deliver the same idiotic letter that Max Cleland and more Kerry sycophants tried to deliver to President Bush's Crawford, Texas ranch calling on Bush to make the Swiftiies stop their ads against Kerry. In Boston, Kerry's delegation was met by a group called "Veterans for Working Senators" that decried Kerry's failure to be as honorable as Bob Dole. Dole resigned his Senate seat in 1996 to run for President.

Kerry has missed 64% of votes and nearly 90% of roll calls. The vets called for Kerry to resign or give back the pro rata share of his pay for missing the Senate sessions.

On Thursday, Kerry made a classic Kerry bungle. Kerry gave a speech in West Palm Beach, Florida, and a local TV reporter asked him what he'd do against Castro. Kerry claimed he'd been tough on Castro (not true) and cited his vote for the Helms-Burton bill that called for sanctions against US companies that did business with Cuba. One problem: Kerry voted against Helms-Burton. Kerry's aides explained that Kerry voted for Helms-Burton in its "pure" form. In other words, he voted for strangling Castro economically before he voted against it.

LGF has more, and will assuredly add to the pile.

Statistics and misleading information = Democrats' claims of successful economies

The Oyster at Right Hand Thief is my unofficial liberal ombudsman on the 'Net (and he's impossible to dislike because he's a Yankees fan). Today, he points me to the post on his blog linked to in the title to this post. A pile of statistics that "proves" Democratic president = better stock market and better economy than Republican president since 1901. The fact that this is a tremendous overgeneralization (even within the 1960-2002 data subset he also relies upon) and is without context in terms of world and domestic events really should go without saying. But sometimes you need to try to explain the big picture to the left.

I apologize at the top of this because I'm really not going to be able to dig up all the stats I want that will prove that Reagan had the best economy in the history of the US, and Carter and FDR (pre-Pearl Harbor) had two of the worst. Indeed, much of this rejoinder will be off the top of my head with some help from my trusty Encyclopedia Brittanica 2004 CD-ROM (it adds the specifics as to policies of the presidents, see below). But here's a shot at an answer, which will not wholly debunk the Oyster's point, but will cut the legs out from his premises.

First, we need to cut the abstractions and identify the Presidents in question. For the Republicans: Teddy Roosevelt, William H. Taft, Warren Harding, Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Richard M. Nixon, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush. That's a varied bunch that includes two of the top 10 presidents (TR, Reagan) in history and the two who are often called the worst (Harding, Nixon), and the one who failed to resuscitate the country after Black Monday (Hoover).

For the Democrats: Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. This bunch has less variation than the Republicans. FDR is considered one of our best (although I think he's vastly overrated); ditto Truman. Carter was one of the worst in US history. None of the others is really horrible.

Second, we need to cut through one concept that is pure rubbish: the notion that the President has ultimate power over the success of the economy. Examples will follow on both sides.

Third, there is a fallacy underlying this whole exercise by Oyster (and the Michael Kinsley half-truths he peddles) -- the notion that Democrats and Republicans have remained consistent in either economic policy and principles in (1) the past 100 years and (2) the 42 years from 1960-2002. Neither hidden premise is true.

Fourth, the stock market measurement. A good stock market is a measure of confidence, not a reflection of economic health. Key case in point -- the Clinton stock market that cratered early in the Bush presidency. Anyone who argues that the collapse was proximately caused by any Bush policy or action is completely wrong, primarily because no Bush policy had been implemented when the Internet bubble burst. Moreover, as this in-depth report of the House of Representatives Joint Economic Committee shows, stock ownership was a rarity among the US public before the mutual fund revolution in the late 1980s and through the Clinton Administration. Indeed, the number of households that owned ANY stock in a publicly traded company increased TENFOLD from 1980 to 1998. Of that increase, the vast majority occurred under Reagan and Bush (from 4% of households owning stock to more than 30% when Clinton took office). And as an aside, the person most responsible for this stock ownership revolution is not a president, but a CEO (former) -- John Bogle of Vanguard.

Fifth, the level of tax revenues as a percentage of GDP does not measure economic performance, so Kinsley's use of the statistic is meaningless. Tax revenues as a percentage of GDP has been relatively steady since the end of World War II -- basically in the 18-21% range no matter what the top marginal rates were at the time and no matter how good or bad the economy performed. Even after the Reagan tax cuts, the gross receipts of the government increased and the GDP % of taxes remained relatively steady. Why? Because the rising tide DID lift all boats. Moreover, the President who had the HIGHEST peacetime taxes-GDP ratio is Clinton, and it's not even close.

Sixth, the inflation rate information that Oyster cites is completely misleading. From 1930-49 we had negative inflation due to the Depression (1930-41) and price controls during WWII (1942-45). That's 13 years of Democratic rule ('33-'45) where inflation was not a factor because the economy was awful. See here for more information. Take the inflation rate from 1960-02 and the Democrat inflation rates are much higher than Republican inflation rates.

Now, we'll go blow-by-blow and president by president.

First, TR. He was really the second Republican president of this century but he took over after McKinley was assassinated in 1901. TR's legacy is as a "trustbuster" -- that is, his economic policy fought against consolidation of key industries into the hands of a small number of companies. By libertarian thought, that's not exactly business-friendly. Moreover, TR was a proponent of the "Square Deal" that imposed greater regulation on businesses and created some new regulatory agencies like the Interstate Commerce Commission. Most of these regulations were beneficial in some manner (especially slaughterhouse regulations). Nonetheless, TR had a generally good economy as the US expanded.

Taft did not have as successful an economy as TR. One big reason, he supported a protectionist tariff bill that slowed trade and stalled the economy. Lesson -- free trade helps the economy (note that if you ever consider voting for Kedwards' protectionism).

Wilson lowered the tariffs enacted under Taft, and that helped the economy. The economy also soared in World War I as the US's war footing required industry to reach its production peaks. Harding reversed much of the Wilson progress by enacting that bane of economic growth -- protectionist tariffs. He also limited immigration, thereby cutting off supplies of additional labor.

Coolidge is an icon to some conservatives, and for good reason. Under Coolidge (and his Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon, yes, that one), Congress lowered the income taxes first permitted by the XVI Amendment (proposed under Taft and enacted under Wilson) and the tariffs that had strangled economic growth. Coolidge thought the government needed to get out of the way of businesses and let them pursue profit; under his tenure the costs of regulation decreased along with income taxes and estate taxes.

Hoover is most connected with not just the Depression but with the alleged failure of a laissez-faire economy. The Great Depression began on his watch, but the worst part of the Hoover years is that the Depression was not halted. Instead, Hoover agreed to the Smoot-Hawley tariff that raised import duties and initiated an international trade war. FDR lowered tariffs in 1934 but severe damage had been done.

FDR grew the economy . . . but did so in 1942-45. The Depression ended after the US war machine ramped up production. Indeed the US economy was still in trouble in 1940 after seven-plus years of FDR's Keynesianism. See here, here and here about debunking Keynes and the actual end of the Depression. Truman presided over the postwar boom. Ike also benefitted from postwar boom, which slowed toward the end of his second term.

To improve the economy in 1960, JFK advocated LOWERING PERSONAL INCOME TAXES. Indeed, Reagan and Bush fils would later echo JFK's reasoning. Indeed, employment rates improved as did the economy thanks to JFK's lower-tax plan, which LBJ actually pushed through Congress in 1964. LBJ's lasting negative legacy = the Great Society and increasing the welfare state.

Nixon abandoned his principles on economics: in response to the recession of 1970, he took the US off the gold standard (not negative in long run), and imposed wage and price controls. The immediate effects jump-started the economy temporarily, but the Oil Embargo of 1973 and continuing decline of the world economy in response to the semi-protectionist effects of Nixon's policies stalled economic growth for the rest of the decade. Ford failed to revoke the controls Nixon put on the economy, as did Carter.

Carter did nothing of use: under his reign social security taxes were increased (costing businesses and workers), the wage and price controls that were disastrous were not revoked, he dithered through the second oil crisis in 1979 and did nothing to push the economy forward. Somehow 21.5 million jobs were created in the Carter years, but unemployment remained steady. Carter sat back as the economy worsened to become the worst post-Depression economy in US history.

Reagan worked to kill the escalating inflation that had restrained the economy since 1965. He and Fed chairman Paul Volcker instituted Milton Friedman's monetary theories. In 1981 and 1982, Reagan allowed Volcker to put the country through a deeper recession in order to curb double-digit inflation (which has not topped 5% since). Reagan also cut tax-rates, thereby increasing the percentage of taxes paid by the wealthiest Americans -- when wealthy Americans have less incentive to hide their money (read: lower top tax rates), they do not. Reagan's roaring '80s economy is to his great credit.

Bush pere inherited a strong economy that would trend toward the 10-year recession again (see 1960, 1970, 1980). His response to raise taxes in order to avoid halting the government (and failing to face down the Democrats in Congress) cost him reelection, but the economy began trending upward once again in 1992 (no relation to the tax-hike).

Clinton made two good calls viz the economy: NAFTA and welfare reform. More importantly, Clinton was an ardent free trader, much more so than the current President. His peace dividend that he inherited after the fall of the USSR in 1991 contributed greatly to Clinton's economic successes and his ability to generate surpluses in the US budget.

Bush inherited the 10-year recession, this one spurred on by the collapse of the Internet bubble. As most commentators and anti-Bushies, Kinsley completely discounts the horrific, albeit temporary, effects of 9-11 on the economy (eliding this fact, he purposely cuts his analysis at 2002, before the 2003 recovery began). Indeed, Fed Chairman Greenspan's lowered interest rates and Bush's tax cuts helped create one of the softest recessions and swiftest reversals toward economic growth in recent history.

The upshot of all this analysis? First, free trade helps the economy. That's reason one to vote against Kerry and his ridiculous fair trade notions. Second, lower marginal income tax rates will help the country out of recessionary periods. Third, recessions tend to come every 10-12 years -- economies are cyclical, not president-driven for the most part. Fourth, presidents generally have ability to help improve a flagging economy with lower taxes and use of monetary policy tools. And FIFTH, it's not the party of the President that matters, it's what he advocates as policy that counts.

Thought for the day

Watching the Yankees stink up another one today makes The Monk believe it's 50-50 that they won't be in first place by the time The Monk returns from vacation on Sept. 13 (leaving Sept. 2). They led 2-1 bottom 7, now trail 6-2 (watching in top 8 now). They blew a 3-1 seventh inning lead against Seattle on Aug. 15 and lost 7-3, blew a 9-3 lead against Minnesota and barely won 13-10, blew a 3-2 lead Wednesday against Cleveland and lost. Problem #1 = the starters need to go strong through 7. Mooooosina blew up in the bottom of the 7th today; Brown had a minor hiccup on Aug. 15 and the 'pen blew it, El Duque lost his way in that Minnesota game. Problem #2 = Quantrill is pitching BP.

Freedom of thought infringement of the day

This is ominous.

A woman whose claims of recovered memories of abuse (read: as reliable as "rebirthing") were critically examined by a U. Washington researcher in an academic journal has sued the researcher. So much for academic freedom.

The researcher is Elizabeth Loftus, Ph.D., a psychologist who defends people wrongly accused of sexual abuse. The recovered memories concept fits hand in glove with the notion that children bury their memories of sexual abuse, have trouble later on and then find out through memory recovery techniques that the problems trace back to being abused.

But as LA Weekly notes: What drives Loftus is not, as her detractors believe, a perverted desire to keep sexual predators free to wreak havoc on young innocents, but rather a passionate belief that, during social hysterias, the presumption of innocence becomes subsumed under a tidal wave of lock-’em-all-up-and-throw-away-the-key rhetoric.

Indeed, that lynch-mob mentality has led to no less than three notably awful miscarriages of justice: Gerald Amirault and family, the LA prosecutions in the mid-1980s and the prosecution of the day care center owner in New Jersey in the late 1980s. Now, the Jane Doe lawsuit referenced in the title link essentially would allow (alleged) victims to sue contrary experts for having OPINIONS that dispute the victim's claims.

It would be a pernicious outcome if Loftus loses.

Pre-convention Poll data

There are a pile of new pre-GOP convention polls out today and one notable poll from yesterday where the LA Times for the first time in this election season had Bush leading Kerry.

Outside the Beltway (link in title) has the full rundown of the polls from Fox, LA Times, MSNBC, USA Today and a dog-bites-man result from the WaPo.

The national polls matter very little because of the Electoral College, therefore state-by-state information is what counts. The LA Times poll today shows Bush opening leads in Ohio, Missouri and Wisconsin. That last one is most important: Wisconsin is the ONLY state that Al Gore won where Bush has had a lead since Kerry clinched the Democratic nomination. This is crucial because (1) recent polls indicate a decent-sized Kerry lead in Florida, (2) most polls show W. Virginia and New Hampshire regressing to Kerry, (3) polls in the midwest have shown Bush gaining some strength. Ultimate outcome, if Bush holds Ohio and flips Wisconsin, Michigan and either Minnesota or Iowa he can win without winning Florida.

Two caveats: (a) the state polls do not survey military voters and Florida has many active duty military voters; (b) the LA Times state polls were of REGISTERED voters, not LIKELY voters and RV polls are less accurate than LV polls.

An excerpt from the LA Times poll story:

The surveys also show that voters in all three states pick Bush over Kerry when asked which man is most likely to develop a plan to succeed in Iraq and who would be more qualified to serve as commander in chief. Voters in all three states also gave Bush a big lead when asked which would best protect the nation from terrorism.

One other point: BlogoSferics notes that the LA Times polls have notoriously oversampled Democrats, therefore these results may be worse than they seem at first look.

Poverty in America

The media is ramping up the class warfare stories because liberals generally think the middle class (much of whom used to be poor and worked its way out of it) should care. But the middle class is concerned about its own situation and has worked hard to maintain it.

Nonetheless, the impoverished in the US are not, in general, the starving waifs that you see in Oxfam commercials imploring you to give money to third-world poor. The Monk has seen impoverished people outside of the US, and it is wretched. As the Heritage Foundation report linked in the title of this post shows, however, most of the US poor are not nearly that bad off.