Pilgrim's Regress

“‘But how do you know there is no Landlord?’
‘Christopher Columbus, Galileo, the earth is round, invention of printing, gunpowder! !’ exclaimed Mr. Enlightenment in such a loud voice that the pony shied.
‘I beg your pardon,’ said John.
‘Eh?’ said Mr. Enlightenment.
‘I don’t quite understand,’ said John.
‘Why, it’s as plain as a pikestaff,’ said the other. ‘Your people in Puritania believe in the Landlord because they have not had the benefits of a scientific training. For example, I dare say it would be news to you to hear that the earth was round--round as an orange my lad!’
‘Well, I don’t know that it would,’ said John, feeling a little disappointed. ‘My father always said it was round.’
‘No, no, my dear boy,’ said Mr. Enlightenment, ‘you must have misunderstood him. It is well known tht everyone in Puritania think the earth is flat. It is not likely that I should be mistaken on such a point. Indeed, it is out of the question.’” (Lewis:20–21)

I've finally started to read C.S. Lewis's The Pilgrim's Regress, considered by some to be his best book. I especially enjoy the description of his pilgrim's encounter with Mr. Enlightenment.

Clinton to support Alito filibuster

Newsday.com is reporting that Hilary will join the drive to filibuster Alito: Sen.

Hillary Rodham Clinton on Friday announced she'll join potential 2008 presidential rival John Kerry in voting to filibuster against Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito, just as top Democratic leaders predicted the effort is likely doomed.

This just shows how much sway Kos, NARAL, Planned Parenthood, and People for the American Way have over the democratic party. Hilary will never again be able to get away with trying to adopt her husband's talking points on abortion, that is, "making abortion rare."

Senator Feinstein Reneges

From Senator Feinstein's web site

Senator Feinstein to Vote No on Cloture for the Nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.

The Democrats are intent on a scorched earth policy, reneging on every agreement made.

Oil Subsidies for Big Oil

Yesterday, I read a blog entry by a student, an acquaintance, who has declared her abandonment of evangelical Christianity. In this entry she was questioning why evangelicals are not embarrassed by the ethical lapses of the Bush administration. She ended her entry with the biblical quote, "By their fruits you shall know them," implying that evangelicals either are hypocritical in their political judgment or are too easily fooled by the president's self-proclaimed evangelical faith because of their eagerness to embrace him. She included a litany of ethical offenses.

One of these offenses was that oil companies received oil subsidies at the same time these companies were making unusually high profits. This statement was highlighted in her blog entry as if it exemplifies the "corruption" of the Bush administration. Does it? Should I, as an evangelical, be particularly embarrassed by this?

I frankly don't see why I should be. I may dispute the economic wisdom of continuing oil subsidies because I believe in free markets, but I do not see how this is an ethical issue for the Bush administration.

The best source of information I can find on oil subsidies is a report on real gas prices by the International Center for Technology Assessment, which argues that the federal subsidies for oil artificially reduces the consumer's price for gasoline from $5-$15 a gallon to whatever it currently is at the pump. Their argument is that the true cost of gas is high enough to make alternative energy sources look more attractive. This is an advocacy document opposed to subsidies. (Although their original report was first published in 1998, there is an updated version, 2005, on their web site.) The report comprehensively explains these subsidies and tries to quantify their true cost (I think they're a little overly zealous in finding subsidies.)

One could easily get into arguments over their characterization of these subsidies--for example, they believe that the industry's practice of using replacement cost rather than historical cost as a basis for depreciation of reserves is wrong; however, this is the sort of technical accounting argument one could have about many industries and is not a uniquely Republican ethical problem. Chrysler exploited accounting rules to hide their bankruptcy for a year before they requested their federal bailout during the Carter administration.

In addition, all of these federal subsidies for oil long predate the Bush administration. Here are some quotes from the ICTA's report (note the dates):

Percentage depletion allowance is one of the oldest and largest tax subsidies affecting the petroleum industry. This provision primarily benefits independent oil companies (enterprises not substantially involved in refining or retailing). Until 1975, it applied to major oil companies, but Congress has gradually narrowed the application and reduced the rate over time ... Since 1990, Congress has expanded the use of the percentage depletion deduction to include transferred property.

The nonconventional fuel production credit provides the oil industry with another opportunity to avoid paying taxes. The federal tax code provides for a production tax credit of $5.75 per barrel of oil equivalent for certain fuels produced from alternate energy sources. ... Overall production of nonconventional fuel has not increased since the credit was first enacted in 1980.


Foreign tax credits (FTCs) were intended to enable multinational oil companies to avoid double taxation in the United States and in foreign countries where they are operating. In reality, FTCs enable some oil companies to avoid paying taxes in either jurisdiction. ... According to calculations in a study published by the Institute
for Local Self Reliance (ILSR), “if the petroleum industry could only deduct foreign taxes instead of taking a credit for them, we could [have] raise[d] an additional $3.38 billion in revenue in 1996. A recent report prepared for Greenpeace takes a more conservative approach, estimating that 50 percent of all FTCs claimed by the oil industry are disguised royalties ...

The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 (TRA) is a recent reminder that revision (and supposed reform) of the internal revenue code often contains many new distortionary tax subsidies. Tax expenditure provisions are often passed into law with the intent of being in effect for limited periods. However, subsidies that prove beneficial to oil interests tend to receive extensions
from sympathetic lawmakers. TRA contains several new provisions that will benefit the petroleum industry. The act relaxes rules on the percentage depletion allowance and the accelerated depletion provisions and will increase the annual level of subsidy by
more than $70 million.

I could go on to quote more extensively from the report. However, the point should be clear: federal subsidies for the oil industry long predate the Bush administration, and many of the hidden subsidies, such as the TRA, were expanded during the Clinton era. One could argue that these protectionist economic policies are too selective, but, again, Bush did not create the policy.

On the other hand, on November 16, 2005, the New York Times reported:

In a telling sign of the political impact of soaring energy prices, the Republican-controlled Senate Finance Committee voted on Tuesday to impose a $5 billion tax next year on the nation's biggest oil companies.

The measure amounts to a one-year windfall profits tax, a concept that most Republicans had until recently denounced as a discredited idea from the 1970's.

I believe this is terrible economic policy and will ultimately prove detrimental--this is just basic economics--but, again, to those eager to accuse evangelicals as ethical hypocrites because of Republican oil policies, this is an inconvenient fact.

Apparently this student has bought into the anti-Bush story line as well as the media's caricature of evangelicals. Let's actually look at the fruit rather than rely on someone else's description of it.

International Snowboarding Man of Mystery

From The Washington Times:

Democratic Sens. Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia and Tim Johnson of South Dakota said they will support the nomination, even as Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts phoned in for a filibuster from the Swiss Alps.
Mr. Kerry made calls yesterday while attending the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, urging colleagues to join a last-ditch effort to thwart Judge Alito's confirmation. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat, joined in Mr. Kerry's call for a filibuster.
Republicans -- eager to relive the days during the 2004 presidential campaign when they called Mr. Kerry 'an international man of mystery' -- delighted in his choice of venue.
'He shouldn't be wasting taxpayers' hard-earned money on long-distance phone charges calling for such obstruction,' said Sen. George Allen, Virginia Republican.
'I hope it doesn't interrupt his snowboarding plans,' added Joseph Cella, president of the conservative Catholic group Fidelis. He noted that American voters support Judge Alito's confirmation by a nearly 2-to-1 margin.
'While I'm sure Senator Kerry feels right at home at the plush resort, he has only further marginalized himself as a very liberal senator who is completely out of touch with middle American values,' Mr. Cella said.

Kerry just doesn't get it. The image of him snowboarding in the Alps while phoning in a filibuster is just too easy! Just as I predicted this image is all over the blogs this morning. There's also fairly unanimous opinion that this was a completely cynical fundraising ploy to satisfy the radical base of his party. Kerry wants to have it both ways yet again. He wants to get credit for calling for a filibuster, but waits for cloture to be almost a done deal so that it has no chance to succeed.

Earmarks

McCain, Coburn to Challenge Pet Projects - Yahoo! News.

This is great. The practice of earmarks has to die.

CNN.com - Sen. Kerry calls for filibuster of Alito

Everyone understands that Kerry is making a play for DailyKos support with this call, but it's hard to imagine that it will not backfire on him: CNN.com.

1) Kerry called for this filibuster after 5 Democrats had already announced they would vote for cloture, that is, after it was already clear no call for a filibuster could succeed. So, either Kerry can't add or this is a completely cynical move on his part to get credit with the lefties, whom he must think too dim to see through the charade.

2) He's placed the Democratic leadership in a tough spot. Several of his colleagues have already indicated they believe this will alienate the majority of Americans and create future problems for the Democratic party. Kerry, however, has chosen to ignore these objections, and put his fellow-Senators on the hook with the party's base.

One little side note: among the criticisms of Kerry coming from middle America was his deference to Europeans in formulating national security policy. When he flew his French hairdresser in to touch up his hair on the campaign trail, his preference for all things European was confirmed, reinforcing his image problem. Where is he now? Switzerland. He calls on his fellow Democrats to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee, a previously unprecedented act in American history, then immediately takes off for Davos. The symbolism is rich. He's phoning it in from Europe!

It seems Kerry, once again, has set himself up for resentment and ridicule. He must be politically tone deaf.

Sports Car Personality/Sedan Body

Cool!

I'm a Porsche 911!

You have a classic style, but you're up-to-date with the latest technology. You're ambitious, competitive, and you love to win. Performance, precision, and prestige - you're one of the elite,and you know it.

Take the Which Sports Car Are You? quiz.

A New Standard

From PoliPundit.com:

Every Democrat on the Judiciary Committee voted against Judge Alito, and virtually every Democrat is certain to do so on the Senate floor as well.

This is a new and unprecedented standard, and Republicans should return the favor if a Democrat becomes president.

From this day on, every Republican senator on the Judiciary Committee has an obligation to vote against any judge to the left of Attila the Hun. Indeed, every Republican senator has an obligation to so vote on any judicial nomination that comes to the floor.

If a future Democrat president wants to nominate a liberal, or even moderate SCOTUS Justice, he will only be able to do so with a Democrat Senate.

I agree completely!

Sen. Diane Feinstein claimed that the situation differs today from the Republicans' consistent recognition of a President's right to his judicial nominees, even voting overwhelmingly to confirm such out of the mainstream liberals as Ginsburg and Breyer. She claims that Democrats are justified in denying the President (and those who elected him) his rights, because "we are so much more polarized."

Duh! The Democrats have systematically engaged in wholly unprecedented tactics with regard to judicial nominees: threatening filibusters, putting holds on nominees, and smearing candidates with racism, sexism, favoring mafiosos, etc. How does this previously unheard of, uncivil, and beligerent act solve the problem of polarization? How does polarization provide the rationale for what can only be interpreted as a recklessly polarizing act?

When will Republicans learn that Democratic senators will continue to misbehave so long as they never pay any consequence ... so long as Republicans refuse to vote only along party lines with regard to judicial nominees. It's time for Republicans to act like Democrats! Make 'em pay!

Culture of Corruption

Hilary Clinton used the Democrats' "culture of corruption" smear against Republicans during her MLK speech. She also said that the Bush Administration will go down as the most corrupt in history. If she makes this a centerpiece of her campaign she'll go down in flames. The Progressive Review summarizes the legacy of the Clinton Administration in this list of records set by the Clintons.

47 individuals and businesses associated with the Clinton machine were convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes with 33 of these occurring during the Clinton administration itself. There were in addition 61 indictments or misdemeanor charges. 14 persons were imprisoned. A key difference between the Clinton story and earlier ones was the number of criminals with whom he was associated before entering the White House.

If the Democrats really want to use the "culture of corruption" story line, they're going to take down their own leading candidate for 2008.

Update: Gateway Pundit links to The Progressive Review, too, and summarizes their statistics. Here are some interesting ones.

* Number of independent counsel investigations: 7
* Number of congressional witnesses pleading the 5th Amendment: 72
* Number of witnesses fleeing the country to avoid testifying: 17
* Number of foreign witnesses who have declined interviews by investigative bodies: 19

Kelo Applied

The infamous Kelo decision expanded eminent domain to cover anything that would serve the perceived public good of a community, including expanding its tax base. What is to keep tax exempt churches from being targetted by city councils?

See Heather Wilhelm on National Review Online:

Since the Supreme Court's controversial Kelo decision last summer, eminent domain has entered a new frontier. It’s not just grandma’s house we have to worry about. Now it’s God’s house, too. “I guess saving souls isn’t as important,” says Reverend Gildon, his voice wry, “as raking in money for politicians to spend.” The town of Sand Springs, Oklahoma, has plans to take Centennial Baptist — along with two other churches, several businesses, dozens of small homes, and a school — and replace them with a new “super center,” rumored to include a Home Depot. It’s the kind of stuff that makes tax collectors salivate. It’s also the kind of project that brakes for no one, especially post-Kelo. “I had no idea this could happen in America,” says Reverend Gildon, after spending Monday morning marching in the Sand Springs Martin Luther King Day parade.

Why Isn't This Offensive?

Why do blacks not take offense at Democrats minimizing the horror of slavery through the use of absurd analogies?

According to the New York Times, Hilary Clinton equated Senate Democrats to slaves and the Republican-controlled Congress to a plantation. This strikes me as extremely offensive on many levels.

Democrats are a minority only because they have not won elections. That's very different from pure bigotry and hatred targetted toward someone of a different color. It's absurd for the rich, white, privileged and powerful to portray themselves as victims. To equate the Democrats' legislative and electoral incompetence with the sufferings of slavery is to minimize the very real horrors of slavery. It is almost to fictionalize it.

Holocaust survivors are relentlessly vigilant about analogies that minimize the real evil of Hitler's final solution. Why do blacks not react the same way to such stupid statements as Hilary's? Why, instead of recognizing this for the insult it is, do they rush to her defense?

When Bill Clinton declared himself "the first black President" because he came from a broken home, why did they embrace him rather than see this as continuing a stereotype about black families?

Newsweek's Bubble Burst

Scrappleface has a great parody of the Newsweek cover, Bush Admits He's Trapped in Bubble.

Paying for PR: The Sequel -- Shame on NBC

To confirm my point about the hypocrisy of the MSM media, there's this story today.

Which is worse, for the Pentagon to pay an independent Iraqi press to run factually accurate stories, or for NBC to run yet again demonstrably and obviously false, terrorist propaganda for free? Which is the greater threat to an independent, credible press?

Paying for PR

I must be missing something really basic. I just don't see what all the fuss is about the Pentagon paying the Iraqi press to run positive stories about the war's progress in Iraq. And, I don't see why this is such a threat to freedom of the press there. The American media's furor over this seems entirely hypocritical.

1) It is admitted by everyone on all sides that the stories are factually correct. The Pentagon is not planting false stories; they are paying the Iraqi papers to run true ones. Contrast this with the American MSM's practice of running stories based on fabricated evidence, which they call "fake but accurate." They're too stupid to get paid. Instead they pay others for the privilege, even if it's in quid pro quo favors.

2) The Pentagon is not compelling the Iraqi press to run these stories. True tyranny occurs when the press is merely an extension of the government. The fact that they have to pay shows that the press is independent. Again, the MSM comes out looking stupid by comparison. The NYT and WaPo frequently just repeat Democratic talking points even in supposed news reporting instead of analysis and opinion. They're volunteering to do it, without getting paid. It seems to me that our so-called free press is less independent than the Iraqis. The MSM is often merely a too-willing extension of the DNC.

3) The Pentagon does not have an exclusive arrangement with the Iraqi press. Though they may be paying to run these stories, there's nothing that keeps the Iraqis from running counter stories as well. Freedom of the press is compromised when only propaganda is printed. Surely, there's more question about the propagandizing role of the American MSM than the Iraqi press.

4) Almost every organization in the U.S. -- whether business, nonprofit organization, labor union -- has a PR department whose primary role is to get stories planted in the papers, and these are very successful. The press often run so-called quotes from interviews that are no more than PR-planted statements.

5) We are at war. Propaganda is increasingly a part of war.

I simply do not see what President Bush and the Pentagon have to be so apologetic about.

Sho 'Nuf

As I posted earlier, it is evident that the new Democratic strategy is to claim credit for the unfolding of Bush's Iraq policy. Democrat mouthpiece at the Washington Post David Broder writes that there are "new signs of an Iraq policy" formulated by the Democrats.

It has taken a long time, but the Democrats finally have come close to defining a sensible common ground on the issue of Iraq. ... [The] outlines of such a position emerged last week in speeches by two respected Democratic members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Joe Biden of Delaware and Barack Obama of Illinois.

Biden, the committee's senior Democrat, said in New York that it is time to scale back U.S. ambitions in Iraq and reduce troop commitment while shifting security responsibilities to the Iraqis. ... What must happen to make it possible, they agree, is a significant acceleration in the training of Iraqi security forces and in the civil reconstruction projects needed to give Iraqis a sense of hope—both of which will require a change in priorities and an improvement in operations by U.S. forces.

John Henke reacts.

So, after 2 years of debating Iraq policy, the Democrats have decided that training Iraqi security forces to take over and reducing US deployments as they do—"as Iraq stands up, we will stand down"—is the best course in Iraq? And this epiphany, David Broder writes, may have "pointed the administration and the country toward a realistic and modestly hopeful course on Iraq."

What the...?!?!?! This has been the strategy all along. . . . This was the strategy Bush enunciated in August of 2003, September of 2003, May of 2004, and many other times. It was the strategy outlined in this May 2004 "Fact Sheet: The Transition to Iraqi Self-Government".

The Democrats have not come up with a new Iraq Policy. They've jumped onboard the Bush administration's existing policy, with the novel new suggestion that we stay the course...but try harder.

Henke has links to the original Bush statements on his blog.

Cindy Sheehan's Book Signing

You have to admire AP/Reuters creativity in making it look like Cindy Sheehan still has an audience. Compare photos of the actual response to her book signing with the one they ran (at bottom).

Show and Tell: A Photo Essay

Great pictures of Iraqi school shildren at Michael Yon's site.

The Opinionated Bastard

Donald Sensing's summary comes from this blog: The Opinionated Bastard: I scooped the New York Times

Dem Election Strategy

Donald Sensing has an analysis of Democrat strategy on his blog, OneHandClapping.

He begins with a summary of the original DoD strategy for the war in Iraq:

The war plan, for good or ill has never been to occupy the country. It’s always been the plan for the Iraqis to provide security in their own country. ...

Instead of installing a puppet government, we’ve spent 2.5 years building up an Iraqi one. ... In other words, instead of going into Iraq and trying to run the country … we’ve done the minimal amount of work to keep Iraq in a holding pattern until the Iraqis could run it.

[Quoting a DOD source:] We can confirm that the plan is, in fact, to reduce the size of Coalition Forces in country in 2006. It’s big news inasmuch as the Iraqis are increasing the size and strength of their footprint and, by the same token, we’re reducing ours.

Now, many Democrats previously acknowledged that this has been the plan all along. Joe Biden, for example, harangued Condoleeza Rice during her confirmation hearings about the lack of speed in training Iraqi troops. His questioning made no sense unless all agreed that this was the plan for ultimate withdrawal.

It has also been very clear from the beginning that specific milestones were to be achieved before withdrawal: appointing an interim government, drafting a constitution, holding elections for a permanent government. President Bush has been unwavering -- some would say stubborn -- in his commitment to these milestones. Now that these milestones are nearing achievement, some level of withdrawal can be contemplated.

Sensing continues:

So, knowing that the plan was to redeploy troops beginning next year, the Democrats decided to get in front of the wave: Demand the troops be sent home NOW and then when the Pentagon announces the plan to redeploy, take credit for it.

The two prongs of the attack serve two purposes. The “Bush lied us into war” wing satisfies the huge numbers of the party’s base suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome. The “declare victory and go home” attack preserves, however weakly, the party’s appeal to traditionally patriotic Democratic voters, of which there are also huge numbers. Doubtless the Dem leadership sees the attacks as a two-fer.

The appeals to both wings are intended to garner huge dividends in November 2006.

With any president but George W. Bush, they’d be wrong. But GWB is the easiest president to blind side that I have seen in my life. The fact is, the Dem plan is working like a dream for them. GWB has been simply flattened by this one-two punch. For someone whose allies say can play rope-a-dope politically better than M. Ali could in the ring, he and his advisors have been amazingly inept in meeting this strategy.

Be prepared next year for the Democrats to take credit for and campaign on rescuing the country from the Iraq quagmire as US troop levels are reduced. And if the security situation in Iraq does not permit significant reductions, well, that will work fine, too. It’ll be back to the charges of mismangement of a manipulated war.

Journalists such as Nina Easton of the Boston Globe are already talking about how the Republicans are modifying their stance in response to pressure from the Democrats. This is revisionism.