Olympia unchained, Part II

So the 2005 session of the Washington State Legislature has come to a close. What did the Democrats who control both houses and (hopefully temporarily) the governor's mansion so magnanimously give us?

Washington lawmakers wrapped up their ambitious 15-week session Sunday night after passing a $26 billion state budget and rescuing a big gas-tax plan to fix crumbling, crowded roads and bridges.

The budget plan requires a half-billion-dollar revenue package, including ``sin taxes'' on cigarettes and liquor. Smokes will go up by $6 a carton and the booze tax will rise by a stiff $1.33 a liter. The estate tax, called the death tax by foes, will be imposed on about 250 large estates each year.

To clarify that a bit, the estate tax had previously been struck down by the state supreme court as unconstitutional. This legislation re-enacts it in a way that, presumably, will pass constitutional muster and also raises the minimum value necessary for an estate to be taxed. Therefore, it will affect fewer estates than the previous tax would if it were still in force.

The gas tax was also a bone of particular contention. However, what this article doesn't say is that at least some Republicans voted for it. Why? Well, Senate Minority Leader Bill Finkbeiner was on the Mike Siegel show this morning and, in response to a caller who expressed her extreme disappointment that the Republicans had rolled over on the gas tax, said that he did it because the revenue from this tax will go solely to roads and that the Alaska Way Viaduct and Highway 520 floating bridge are both in need of repair or replacement. Also, in return for their support, the Republicans got the Democrats to include language providing for independent audits of the state transportation department by the state auditor, who previously didn't have the power to perform such audits. Ideally, these audits would be performed for all departments but this is what they could get.

Here's my take on it. The Republicans knew that the gas tax was going to be passed and signed regardless of anything they did. It was simply a foregone conclusion given the reality of the situation. So they did what they could to get at least something good out of it, which is the audit language. It's realpolitik at the state level and, frankly, I applaud their recognition of the inevitability of the situation and their success in wrangling at least something positive from the Democrats.

Speaking of audits, there is currently an initiative gathering signatures, I-900, which would, if passed, instruct the state auditor to conduct performance audits on state and local government agencies and entities. In the case of the transportation department, this would be somewhat redundant now, but it would also apply to every other department, and also to the local level. It is the latest from Tim Eyman, who has worked to bring several other initiatives, most involving reducing taxes or preventing tax increases, to the ballot. If I encounter someone with one of these petitions, I'm definitely signing it.

Thanking the union for their support

The budget that was just passed by the Washington State Legislature includes an interesting item. All state employees will get a 3.2% raise across the board, but those who are members of the Washington Federation of State Employees, the union for state workers, will get their raises a full two months before those employees who are not union members.

Most rank-and-file state employees were paid based on a standard salary scale for 40 years.

But the budget just passed by the Legislature is the first to include union contracts for pay and benefits, which go into effect July 1.

Workers without a union contract have to wait two months, until Sept. 1, for the same 3.2 percent across-the-board pay increase, the first since 2001.

There are some who don't think this is right.

Paying union employees and nonunion workers differently might not be legal, according to the Evergreen Freedom Foundation, a privately funded organization that has sued unions in the past.

Foundation analyst Michael Reitz referred to an appeals court decision this week, in which the court ruled against different pay rates for state employees who do similar work at colleges and in general government.

"You've got two very similar situations. It doesn't seem like it would be in the best interest of the state to set up another legislatively distinguished class of employees," Reitz said.

As you would expect, the union supported Democrats for the legislature and for governor. This is almost certainly payback on the part of Democrats for that support. However, the recent court case that the article mentions may throw a monkey wrench into the works.

It also benefits the union in other ways:

The difference sounds like discrimination to Jen Campbell, a worker in the Division of Child Support from Tacoma.

"I am shocked that the state government would allow a union or even maybe assist the union in taking control of every state employee," Campbell said.

The first she heard of the different pay raise dates was through the news media, she said. And although she will be covered by a union contract beginning in July, she wishes she weren't.

The union would love to have every state employee as a member. If that ever happens, its power will increase significantly since there won't be any other option for employees. In closing, Ms. Campbell reiterates one of the big problems with unions today:

"I don't believe the union has my best interest at heart," Campbell said. "I don't believe it uses its dues for the purposes that I think are important and valuable and moral."

Employees who have no choice but to be in a union have no real control over what union leadership does with the money they pay in union dues. Since unions are so active politically, some employees find themselves in the situation where they are unwillingly subsidizing policies and candidates that they disagree with. At least now state employees have the option of not being in the union but expect the union, and the Democrats they support, to work to change that.

Confirming judges: A third way

Dick Morris has what he considers a better option when it comes to the current fight over confirming President Bush's judicial nominees, one that doesn't require use of the so-called "nuclear option:"

The better way to proceed is to make the filibuster radioactive politically by letting the Democrats talk themselves to death. Give them enough rope and they will hang themselves by their vocal cords.

Frist just needs to end the “virtual” filibuster and make the Democrats stage a real one, replete with quorum calls, 24/7 sessions and truly endless debate covered word for word by C-SPAN for all the nation to see — and ridicule.

In short, the idea is that the Democrats should be allowed to learn the hard way that there is a political cost associated with mounting a real filibuster. This had never occurred to me, but then I admit I'm not as knowledgeable about such things as I'd like to be.

The Republican leaders, and the Democratic majority leader before them, have allowed the filibuster to be rehabilitated in the public mind by agreeing not to stage one. The gentlemanly filibusters of the modern era, where each side concedes unless one has 60 votes, have permitted virtual filibusters that incur no public wrath.

Good point, that. For many of us, a filibuster and its consequences are sort of abstract concepts. Now that I think about this, I'm not so sure I'd support changing the rules to allow a simple majority vote to end debate. Instead, let them filibuster but remind them that a true filibuster is an option that should only be used in the extreme because there are repercussions for the party who engages in one as well as their opponents. Are the Democrats willing to pay the price such an action would exact? For how long and how many times? How about we find out.

Quote of the day

Via The Federalist:

"In liberal land, the thinking goes like this: If a majority of Americans seek a change in direction they must be denied by the courts for their own good. But when a tiny sliver of the minority seeks change it must be granted them by a handful of judges for the nation's good. This phenomenon used to be referred to as the 'tyranny of the minority', but is now simply known as the New York Times editorial policy." --Lisa Fabrizio

Olympia unchained

Liberal Larry does a pretty good job of listing all the wonderful new taxes the Democrat-controlled state Senate and House are proposing. With our (hopefully temporary) Democrat governor to rubber-stamp anything they put on her desk, we're looking at some fun times.

Actually, the situation with the gas tax is a bit more complex. What I've been hearing is that Republicans have said they'll vote for that tax, and only that tax, provided the Democrats work with them to pass legislation that will allow the state auditor to perform real independent audits of the transportation department. Since we're probably going to get a gas tax, we damn sure want to know that the money isn't being wasted.

I've been wanting to post about the goings on in our state capitol for some time, but there's been so much that I just can't wrap my head around it all. The post linked above is a good start. Now I need to find a good wrapup of all the problems with the gubernatorial election last November (i.e. fraud and incompetence were rampant). Stay tuned....

The fox guarding the henhouse?

From FOXNews.com:

United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan was allowed to supply whatever documents he thought were appropriate to Oil-for-Food investigators rather than having his offices searched, according to a source close to the investigation.

The revelation comes less than a week after two investigators with the independent panel probing Oil-for-Food, Robert Parton and Miranda Duncan, resigned. The panel is headed by Paul Volcker, a former chairman of the Federal Reserve.

This is, to be honest, information from an unnamed source. Therefore, it should be taken with a grain of salt. The Volcker commission provides one:

A spokesman for the Volcker commission denied the panel, which Annan authorized to investigate the $64 billion program, had limited access. "Someone with an interest is pushing this nonsense out there. We had access to everything," said spokesman Michael Holtzman.

Given my poor opinion of the United Nations in general, and Kofi Annan in particular, I'm inclined to think that this likely happened as described by the source. However, without proof, this remains my opinion.

Regarding whether or not Kofi knew what his son was up to, the article has this to say:

Problems with turning over documents represents the latest in a series of criticisms of the conduct of the Volcker committee, known officially as the Independent Inquiry Committee. Recently, FOX News spoke with the business partner of Kojo Annan, the secretary-general’s son who himself has been the subject of scrutiny into Oil-for-Food. Kojo Annan was a consultant for Cotecna, a Swiss-based company that won a U.N. contract in 1998 to verify the goods coming into Iraq.

Pierre Mouselli, Kojo Annan’s former partner, said the secretary-general was well aware of Kojo and his intentions to do business in Iraq.

“The secretary-general did not say I am opening doors for you,” Mouselli said. “But the secretary-general saw us and, you know, he wasn’t against what we were doing.”

I consider it extremely unlikely that Kofi was unaware of what his son was doing. I personally think it's likely Kofi was in it up to his eyeballs but, again, that's just my opinion. The article goes on to detail Mouselli's statements about what Kofi did and did not know. It also notes:

Mouselli said he and Kojo Annan are no longer friends and he added that he would not get into business again with the younger Annan.

So could this be an attempt on the part of Mouselli to smear Kojo? If so, it's curious that Mouselli would make this statement on the record. Still, I suppose it's possible. Or perhaps he had good reason:

When Volcker released his report exploring the roles Kofi Annan and his son played in Oil-for-Food, he left out key details about the secretary-general’s awareness of his son’s business activities. The omission led Mouselli to hire a lawyer because he said he knows he provided those details.

“They were looking for a way of avoiding, drawing attention to facts that could be potentially embarrassing to the secretary-general. I had suspected that they were going to do a whitewash,” said Adrian Gonzalez, Mouselli’s lawyer.

Gonzalez said the committee, by keeping Mouselli’s claims out of the report, acted in an “unethical” way.

“I think they were aiming toward a result of exonerating the secretary-general, rightly or wrongly,” Gonzalez said.

Illegal aliens

I received this via email from a friend and decided I really should post it here.

Interesting thought from a Southern Californian.

Try driving around as a gringo in Mexico with no liability insurance..... and have an accident...

Enter Mexico illegally. Never mind immigration quotas, visas, international law, or any of that nonsense.

Once there, demand that the local government provide free medical care for you and your entire family.

Demand bilingual nurses and doctors.

Demand free bilingual local government forms, bulletins, etc.

Procreate abundantly. Deflect any criticism of this allegedly irresponsible reproductive behavior with, "It is a cultural United States thing. You would not understand, pal."

Keep your American identity strong. Fly Old Glory from your rooftop, or proudly display it in your front window or on your car bumper.

Speak only English at home and in public and insist that your children do likewise.

Demand classes on American culture in the Mexican school system.

Demand a local Mexican driver license. This will afford other legal rights and will go far to legitimize your unauthorized, illegal, presence in Mexico.

Insist that local Mexican law enforcement teach English to all its officers.

Good luck! Because it will never happen. It will not happen in Mexico or any other country in the world... except right here in the United States... Land of the naive! If you agree, pass it on. If you don't, go ahead and try the above in Mexico or Iran.

Soldiers expected to be cleared in shooting of Italian journalist

From Fox News:

A U.S. military investigation into the shooting death of an Italian intelligence officer in Baghdad is expected to conclude that American soldiers generally followed instructions as they fired on an approaching car, a senior U.S. defense official said Monday.

This is the incident where the car carrying Italian journalist Guliana Sgrena, Italian intelligence officer Nicola Calipari, and two other Italian intelligence officers was fired upon by US soldiers as it approached a checkpoint on the way to Baghdad International Airport. Officer Calipari was killed, and Sgrena and another officer were wounded. The article on Sgrena at Wikipedia appears to provide objective and balanced information about the incident and how the people and governments involved reacted.

Regardless of your views on this incident, this probably comes as no surprise, though the reasons for that will vary depending on whose side you're on. It's not possible for someone who wasn't there to know exactly what happened, but I do have my own opinions based on the knowledge that Sgrena was a journalist for a Communist newspaper in Italy, Il Manifesto, which is certainly opposed to US operations and policy in Iraq. I certainly won't go so far as to say that Sgrena deliberately tried to get herself shot and possibly killed. However, when it happened I can't help but think that she saw a perfect opportunity to smear the United States. I'm willing to bet that, at the very least, she embellished the story to a degree to cast the US in a negative light.

While I naturally tend to side with the statements of US officials in cases like this, I would guess the truth is probably somewhere in the middle, though I think it likely it's closer to the US side than Sgrena's.

Sadness

Update: I heard something last night on the radio which indicates that this was simply a tragic accident and not murder. I haven't been able to find anything new on this story so far this morning. What I heard indicated that it was simply a case of one of the children falling into the pond where they were found, and the other trying to save the first one but also drowning. I'll post an additional update as I find more information. Even if it was just an accident, what I said below still stands when it comes to the killers of the Jessica Lundsford and Sarah Lunde.

The bodies of the two toddlers who were kidnapped in Georgia two days ago have been found. The investigation now turns from searching for the pair to searching for their killer or killers.

There are certain crimes for which I think the death penalty is appropriate. This is one of them. Whoever did this has proven that he, she, or they are incapable of being trusted in our society ever again. In my opinion, we simply cannot take the chance that this person or persons will ever have the opportunity to harm anyone in the future. It's not a matter of punishment so much as societal defense.

I hope they find the killer or killers and that he, she, or they are removed from this world.

And they wonder why they keep losing....

Via Mike at Cold Fury comes this post by lefty blogger Matthew Yglesias in which he "discusses" repealing the estate tax. One statement in particular evokes memories of a post a while back by another lefty blogger regarding the four contractors who were killed and whose burned and dismembered bodies were strung up on a bridge:

Speaking of which, fuck the small businessman.

The context of this sentence is the argument that the estate tax has a tendency to cause inheritors of small business to sell the business in order to pay the estate tax. Here's more:

I might be an earnest, hardworking dude who works in the store. And somebody might die and give the store to me. The store may be worth millions and millions of dollars. If so, I ought to pay tax on it. Why? Because I've just inherited millions and millions of dollars, that's why. That I'm earnest and hardworking, and that my riches came in the form of a valuable store rather than a heaping plate of gold matters not a whit. What about those sad folks forced to sell the family business? Don't cry for them. Here you are, you inherit a store worth $X. You owe $Y in taxes, with Y being less than X. So you are "forced" to sell the store, and accept "only" $X-Y as your inheritance. Note that X is a figure in the millions, and Y a small proportion of X.

Okay, fine, but what about the people employed by that business? If the business is liquidated as a result of this, they're out of a job. What if this is a business that has been in the family for a couple of generations? Doesn't that count for something? I guess Matt thinks that the inheritor and seller of the business should just be happy he has the money. After all the government was gracious enough not to take everything so he should be grateful, sit down, and shut up. Sorry, no, there is more to life than just money. If my parents spend their lives building a business, and especially if I help them do so as I'm growing up and after I become an adult, then asking me to sell that business once their gone and be satisfied with the money left over after taxes ignores and trivializes the investment of time, effort, blood, sweat, and tears that we all made in the business in order to help it grow.

To his credit, Matthew presents a possible alternative:

The government ought, perhaps, to facilitate some kind of lending arrangement so that people who prefer to keep the store and pay the tax down over time out of operating revenues can do so.

In the end, however, he reverts to type:

Repealing the estate tax is dumb. Putting it back in place would be a good idea. But a serious program to combat inequality or reduce poverty would be better. Ressentiment, my comrades, will only get you so far.

Note that he doesn't present any ideas on what such a problem would look like. Of course, we can guess: Soak the "rich" and give the money to the poor. Welcome to socialism 101. Simply taking money from those who have it (most, though not all, who earned it through hard work and smart choices) and giving it to those who don't doesn't help. The old cliche is appropriate here: Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to fish and he'll never be hungry again. I'm all for programs that help the poor, preferably funded through private charities. However, to be effective, it must teach people how not to be poor. Simply throwing money at them is a short-term solution at best and, since it teaches them how to be dependent on others and not themselves, a catastrophe at worst.

Pope John Paul II's legacy

While flying to Rome on Air Force One to attend the funeral of Pope John Paul II, former president Bill Clinton had this to say:

"[John Paul II] centralized authority in the papacy again and enforced a very conservative theological doctrine. There will be debates about that. The number of Catholics increased by 250 million on his watch. But the numbers of priests didn't. He's like all of us -- he may have a mixed legacy."

I'm now going to do something I seldom do, which is to include an opinion piece in its entirety. This one comes from today's Federalist Patriot digest email. Since they send it out free to anyone who wants it, I'm assuming that The Federalist Patriot won't mind that I post the whole thing here with proper credit.

Amid the eulogies for the Roman Catholic Church's beloved Pope John Paul II last week, the liberal media lost no time highlighting the conservative pontiff's "mixed legacy." While much of the criticism is aimed at the Pope's defense of marriage, advocacy against population control, and reinforcement of the prohibition against the ordination of women and homosexuals (read: his defense of Catholic doctrine), a good deal of the media's displeasure also stems from his rejection of "liberation theology," the Marxist movement that swept the Latin American Catholic Church in the 1970s and '80s.

(Nota bene: Roman Catholicism is incidental to this issue. This is neither a defense nor a criticism of Roman Catholicism. What's at issue here -- whatever your faith, or lack thereof -- is the hypocrisy of the Left in blatantly misrepresenting the positions of John Paul II.)

Typical of the Leftmedia invective, NPR commentator Marcos McPeek Villatoro lovingly recalled liberation theology as "a brand of Christianity that stressed human rights and social reform ... firing up Latin American Catholics who lived under the yoke of right-wing dictatorships. ...[But John Paul II] soon silenced the Latin American theologians I so admired." Villatoro continued, "Perhaps the clearest expression of John Paul's distaste came when he visited Nicaragua in 1983. On the tarmac at Managua Airport, he wagged a reproving finger in the face of Ernesto Cardinal, who was a priest and a member of the leftist Sandinista government. Cardinal was at that moment kneeling on the tarmac to welcome this same Pope, the one who had spoken so passionately of the need for political change in Poland. Many people saw that incident on television, I saw it up close. ... I confess, this is not the moment to revisit how I felt about the Pope back then. It is not the time to air old grievances or spark new division."

But that is precisely what Villatoro did. His sarcasm was especially evident when, in his commentary's conclusion, he quoted the prayer In Paradisum from the Old Catholic funeral mass: "May the choir of angels receive you, and with Lazarus, who was once poor, may you have everlasting rest."

Elsewhere, NPR noted, "While John Paul encouraged political change in his homeland and Eastern Europe, he was much harsher with Latin American priests who had embraced leftist-inspired liberation theology to combat social injustice. ... One of his most difficult trips was to Nicaragua in 1983, where the revolutionary Sandinista leaders in power included five priests -- whom John Paul promptly suspended. Raising his voice above hecklers in the crowd, the Pope lashed out against those he believed undermined the unity of the church."

NPR's Martin Kaste refers to liberation theology as "political activism" that "stressed human rights and economic reform" -- not bald-faced Marxism. Brazilian Marxist and ex-priest Nevu Furrin, in an interview with Kaste, defended liberation theology, saying, "Jesus didn't die of a fever...of a heart attack or old age. He was assassinated, the victim of a political conspiracy, and that realization is at the foundation of liberation theology. I think Christianity has always had a revolutionary perspective, since its origin, and it can't live without revolution." Furrin continued his harangue, "[The Vatican] criticized this aspect of liberation theology, but at the same time, the Pope supported the same kind of thing in his home, Poland, with the Solidarity Movement. Why couldn't the Pope see the profound connection between the two movements?"

Why not indeed? The Polish Solidarity Movement, itself congealed by the Pope's historic visit to Communist Poland in 1979, was an anti-Marxist, pro-democratic movement aimed at dislodging Poland from the Soviet-controlled Eastern bloc. The Solidarity Movement embodied the concepts of individual liberty, free enterprise, and self improvement. Liberation theology, on the other hand, embraces collectivization, the subordination of the individual in favor of the group, and the forced redistribution of wealth and property without fair compensation. Furthermore, Marxism is profoundly anti-religion, and all these "priests" knew it.

Solidarnosc, the Polish Solidarity Movement, was formalized as a workers' union in 1980 and later as a political party, though its roots go back to the anti-Soviet Polish intelligentsia of the 1950s. Embarrassingly for the Soviets, Solidarity represented workers' opposition to the Communists' so-called "workers' paradise" and powerfully demonstrated to the world that Poland had a working class, not a proletariat. In 1980, the Soviet Politburo named Solidarity -- then ten million members strong -- as a dangerous "anti-socialist movement" and ordered a violent crackdown against the movement, driving Solidarity underground.

On 31 August 1985, the fifth anniversary of Solidarity in Poland, President Ronald Reagan said of the movement, "Solidarity has not died, nor have the principles for which it came into existence become any less urgent in the minds of the Polish people. Despite all oppressive measures, provocations, imprisonment, police brutality, and even killings, this, the only free trade union in the entire Communist world, has continued its struggle by peaceful means to persuade its government to provide all elements of the society a role in shaping Poland's destiny. Although Solidarity's voice has been muted by being forced underground, its message -- whether via underground radio, clandestine publications, public demonstrations, or by simple word of mouth -- continues to be heard clearly throughout Poland and throughout the world, wherever there are people who value freedom."

With the support of the Catholic Church, and under the leadership of Lech Walesa, Solidarity grew and continued to embody the most cogent and sustained opposition to the corruption and inefficiency of Communist Poland and proved key to the ultimate downfall of Polish Communism -- and the entire Soviet bloc. Solidarity helped usher democracy into Poland. When elected Free Poland's first president in 1990, Walesa oversaw Poland's first free parliamentary elections in 1991 and orchestrated the slumping state-run economy's transition to the free market.

Only in the eyes of the jaded Left could the Pope's support of an anti-Marxist movement and his condemnation of a pro-Marxist movement be seen as contradictory, much less hypocritical. But a media either so ignorant or so unabashedly biased as to call his consistent opposition to Marxism hypocritical deserves neither credence nor respect. No matter one's religion, or lack thereof, any clear thinker will stand in awe of this man who single-handedly did so much for the cause of liberty. The media, on the other hand, need only to look in the mirror to see hypocrisy. Forty years of fawning over Fidel Castro belies their incessant preaching on compassion for the oppressed and "disenfranchised" (to coin a term) of the world. What is extremely clear, then, is the media's hypocrisy, not the Pope's.

For the curious, what did the Pope really say when he "lashed out" at Ernesto Cardinal and those -- including Marcos Villatoro -- gathered in Nicaragua? "Dear brothers and sisters," he said, "keep in mind Christian unity can only be saved when each is capable of giving up on his own ideas, plans and commitments -- even good ones -- for the greater good of communion with the bishops, with the Pope and with the entire church." How scathing. How condescending. How hypocritical.

Or, then again -- how gentle, how appropriate, how utterly consistent.

Does Kerry need to better verify his sources?

I don't know if this is true, but it sure would be a laugh if it is. Recently, Kerry was citing alleged examples of voter intimidation. Among them:

Kerry also cited examples Sunday of how people were duped into not voting.

"Leaflets are handed out saying Democrats vote on Wednesday, Republicans vote on Tuesday. People are told in telephone calls that if you've ever had a parking ticket, you're not allowed to vote," he said.

The "Tuesday/Wednesday" example sounds suspiciously similar to an article from the satirical publication, The Onion, as well as a post at the satirical website Scrappleface.

Of course, even if one or both of these are the source of that claim, it was probably a mistake on the part of a Kerry staffmember. Still, it's demonstrative of just how far Kerry, his supporters, and Democrats in general will go to cast doubt over the election results, though more to affect future elections than the one that he lost.

It's all Israel's fault (and the US's too)

The UN is at it again, blaming Israel and the US for the lack of reform in the Middle East:

The creation of Israel and the US support for its policies in the West Bank are partially to blame for the lack of reform in the Arab world, according to a UN-sponsored report released Tuesday.

The Arab Human Development Report 2004 (AHDR) cited the creation of the Jewish state as one of the roots of authoritarianism in the Middle East, along with the discovery of oil and the support for dictators by the superpowers during the Cold War.

Pardon me while I go have the hernia I got from laughing so hard fixed up. Be right back....

That's better. So, this is a joke, right? Unfortunately, it's all too real. I will grant the point that the superpowers did support dictators during the Cold War, but it wasn't just the US doing it (hence the 's' on the end of the word "superpowers"). Also, our support for Saddam Hussein was to prevent Iran from becoming even more powerful than it was at the time. Although we were propping up a dictator who we would ultimately take down, I would say the alternative of an Iranian victory over Iraq would have been even worse.

The article continues:

Israel rebuffed the claims. "For too long too many people in the Arab world have used Israel as an excuse to justify behavior that cannot be justified," said Mark Regev, spokesman for the Foreign Ministry. "You can't have democratic elections because of Israel and you can't give equal rights to women in Saudi Arabia because of Israel. This is of course a cop out."

Israel, of course, isn't responsible for this at all. It has been the target of unrelenting aggression, and sometimes outright war, ever since it came into being in 1948.

In the most controversial part titled Towards Freedom in the Arab World, the report stated that the Israeli occupation of the territories and the US occupation of Iraq both created excuses for Arab governments to postpone democratization and they strengthened extremist groups which advocate violence.

Created excuses? Excuse me? So that somehow excuses Arab governments from their agressive actions against Israel? Huh?

Let me see if I can craft an analogy.

• I hate the guy living next door, even though he's never done anything to hurt me.


• My hatred is so complete that I can't resist the urge to beat him up whenever I can.


• Because of this, I am unable to concentrate sufficiently on my job, and am therefore not advancing in my career.


• All of this is my neighbor's fault. If only he would move, or let me kill him once and for all, all these problems would be solved.

This leads me to ask: Are these people on crack?

Well, maybe only somewhat. It's not all bad:

Despite its reproach for the US and Israel, the AHDR was ultimately most critical of the Arab governments, which earned it US praise.

"Overall we welcome the recognition reflected in this report of the challenges that Arab society faces and the need for reform," said Sullivan.

In its scathing analysis of the obstacles to legal and political reform, the report warned the leaders of the 22 Arab states that if they don't reform fast, violence could erupt. "If the repressive situation in Arab countries continues, intensified societal conflict is likely to follow."

Examples of repression include restrictions on opposition political parties, the press, free expression and the persistence of emergency legislation and military tribunals.

Pressure for political change is building in the Arab world, the report warned.

Here's another take on the situation, this time from Al Jazeera. I'm including it because it expands on the points in the previous excerpt as follows:

A UN agency has warned that Arab governments could face unrest and even revolution if they fail to move rapidly towards democracy, pinning partial blame on the US and Israel.



The UN Development Programme in a report - the third in a series of assessments of the Arab world - said on Tuesday that partial reform was no longer viable.

"If the repressive situation in Arab countries continues, intensified societal conflict is likely to follow," said the Arab Human Development Report 2004.

It also refers to some positive events that have already taken place while cautioning that it's still not enough:

"Some Arab governments have begun to open themselves cautiously and selectively to opposition forces," the report observed. The press release referred to this year's presidential election in the Palestinian territories and the municipal elections in Saudi Arabia.

It also acknowledged Egypt's decision in February to allow multi-candidate elections for president.

The release said that while there have been some "real and promising" moves towards greater freedom this year, "overall the pace of progress has been disappointingly limited".

Wow, I never thought I'd quote Al Jazeera but I guess there's a first time for everything.

Regardless of all this, the simple truth is that Israel is the only functioning democracy in the Middle East (although Afghanistan and Iraq are well on their way to joining it). If only its neighbors could put aside their ideology and learn to live in peace with Israel, the region would be so much better off. Israel has taken the desert and made it bloom. It is a hotbed of technological innovation. It is the only country in the region about which these things can be said. If it had true friends as its neighbors, can you imagine how much those neighbors stand to benefit from trade with Israel? I don't know if this will ever truly happen, but it sure is nice to dream.

Better pictures

Over at The Mudville Gazette, Greyhawk is compiling a list of pictures and links which are far more worthy of the Pulitzer Prize than the ones that were actually chosen.

Florida residents can now defend themselves in public

Update: Kim du Toit weighs in on the issue, as I expected he would.

The Florida State House of Representatives passed legislation, which had already been passed by the State Senate, addressing citizens' right to self-defense:

The bill essentially extends and codifies a right Floridians already have in their homes or cars, saying that there's no need to retreat before fighting back. People attacked in their homes generally don't have to back off. But in public spaces, deadly force can only be used after trying to retreat.

As usual, the proponents of victim disarmament and empowerment of criminals are incensed:

Opponents said the idea will legalize shootouts in the streets.

"This bill creates a wild, wild west out there," said Rep. Eleanor Sobel, D-Hollywood.

The "wild west" argument has been used every time a state or local government has made it easier for citizens to carry and use weapons for self-defense. And every time it has been proven groundless.

They're also making the obligatory flawed analogy with other recent events:

The sponsor, Baxley, also led the failed legislative effort to keep Terri Schiavo alive by blocking the removal of her feeding tube - and decried a growing "culture of death."

"For a House that talks about the culture of life, it's ironic that we would be devaluing life in this bill," said Rep. Dan Gelber, D-Miami Beach. "You are telling people when they are in the midst of an emotional moment ... you can stand your ground until death happens."

No, dumbass, we're telling people that they don't have to accept their own maimings or deaths at the hands of assailants just because we don't want to violate the rights of said assailants. By initiating violence against another, an attacker violates the rights of his victim and thereby forfeits his own right not to have violence done to him. This bill doesn't devalue life, it affirms the value of the lives of law-abiding citizens and their right to self-defense.

President Bush finally comes right out and tells the truth about Social Security

Yesterday, speaking at West Virginia University, President Bush finally said in plain language the truth about the so-called Social Security trust fund:

have just come from the Bureau of Public Debt. I want to thank Van Zeck, Keith Rake, and Susan Chapman. Susan was the tour guide there at the Bureau of Public Debt. I went there because I'm trying to make a point about the Social Security trust. You see, a lot of people in America think there's a trust, in this sense -- that we take your money through payroll taxes and then we hold it for you, and then when you retire, we give it back to you. But that's not the way it works.

There is no "trust fund," just IOUs that I saw firsthand, that future generations will pay -- will pay for either in higher taxes, or reduced benefits, or cuts to other critical government programs.

The office here in Parkersburg stores those IOUs. They're stacked in a filing cabinet. Imagine -- the retirement security for future generations is sitting in a filing cabinet. It's time to strengthen and modernize Social Security for future generations with growing assets that you can control, that you call your own -- assets that the government cannot take away.

I personally would much rather the Social Security tax I'm paying go into a private account. Heck, I'd rather put it in my 401k plan to be honest. The opposition to privatizing Social Security is sometimes just plain stupid. For example, Hans Reimer, the political director of the organization Rock the Vote said:

To us, it's totally black and white. This is the first generation ever that would be asked to pay for their own retirement and Social Security at the same time. This is what private accounts do. They saddle young people with an unfair burden.

Huh? What he apparently doesn't realize is that this "first generation" would not be paying any more than anyone else. The only difference is that some of what they pay would go into a private account and the rest to the regular Social Security fund (which means, of course, it would end up in the general fund, replaced by another of those IOU's).

I don't know if Social Security reform has a chance of happening during this administration. But at least the President is still talking about it and working to make it happen. Yes, Social Security isn't in immediate danger; it will be able to pay full benefits for a while. Currently more is coming in than is being paid out in benefits. The difference, as noted above, is then "borrowed" by the general fund and replaced with treasury bonds. Some think that qualifies as a "trust fund" but that's an illusion as the government is literally borrowing from itself. It's similar to my borrowing from my 401k account. I have to pay back the "loan" with interest, and that interest goes into the account so it's still mine, but that interest doesn't equate to profit. Those bonds will have to be repaid, with interest, and that payment and interest will come from taxpayers. In effect, the government is borrowing from us and then paying us back, using our own taxes to do it. Sounds like a profitable "trust fund" to me....

The Pulitzer Prize for terrorist sympathy?

The prize for Breaking News Photography, according to the citation for the award is:

For a distinguished example of breaking news photography in black and white or color, which may consist of a photograph or photographs, a sequence or an album, Ten thousand dollars ($10,000).

Awarded to the Associated Press Staff for its stunning series of photographs of bloody yearlong combat inside Iraqi cities.

The pictures can be found here. Take a look and then come back here.

Did you look at them all? What did you notice? Rusty Shackleford at The Jawa Report breaks it down:

5 of the 20 photos were taken by journalists who were working with terrorist forces. 11 of the 20 photos would likely cause anti-American inflamation. Only two show Americans in a positive light. Three more show the victims of terrorism.

...

To their credit, at least three photos show the victims of terrorism. See, fair and balanced.

No photos show U.S. troops rebuilding Iraq. No photos show U.S. troops playing with kids in the street. No photos show the results of the first democratic election in Iraq. No photos show the thousands of freed prisoners from Saddam's tyrranical rule.

Gaijinbiker at Riding Sun expands on this:

I looked at the twenty photographs and broke them into groups on the basis of content. Here are my results:

• U.S. troops injured, dead, or mourning: 3
(2, 3, 11)
• Iraqi civillians harmed by the war: 7
(4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 13, 18)
• Insurgents looking determined or deadly: 3
(6, 15, 20)
• US troops looking overwhelmed or uncertain: 3
(7, 12, 14)
• US troops controlling Iraqi prisoners: 2
(16, 17)
• Iraqis celebrating attacks on US forces: 2
(1, 19)

Equally telling is what the photos don't show:

• US forces looking heroic: 0
• US forces helping Iraqi civillians: 0
• Iraqis expressing support for US forces: 0
• Iraqis expressing opposition to insurgents: 0

Yes, the photos are impressive and are worthy of individual recognition. But, taken as a group, it becomes difficult to believe the Pulitzer committee is not expressing their opinion of the war in Iraq and attempting to influence public opinion.

There's also the little matter of photo number 20 and how the photographer came to be on the scene at just the right time. I won't go into detail as Powerline and others have already addressed it depth.

In 2002, the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Jimmy Carter. The chairman of the prize committee, Gunnar Berge, admitted openly that, at least in his view, the prize was intended as a political message: "With the position Carter has taken on this, it can and must also be seen as criticism of the line the current U.S. administration has taken on Iraq." Of course, the Nobel Peace Prize had previously been awarded to Yassir Arafat and we all know just how committed to peace he really was.

The Pulitzer Prize for photography is not as blatant as Carter's Nobel prize. I'll even admit that it's possible the Pulitzer committee wasn't trying to make a political statement with their choices as many of my fellow bloggers are convinced. But even if they weren't, I still can't help but think that they could have chosen a more balanced set of photographs. Surely there are many images of positive events in Iraq that are just as dramatic.

In addition to The Jawa Report, the following blogs have also commented on this:

Michelle Malkin
Michelle Malkin again
Powerline
Blackfive

Meet the new rig

Update

It wasn't long before I discovered that my new computer was having the same problem as the previous computer. I had originally thought it was the motherboard, which is partly why I got a new system, but now know that it was the 40GB IBM DeskStar hard drive. That drive had been in the previous computer, and the computer before that. All three computers that drive was in had problems. I did some web research and it is apparently a known issue with that line of hard drive. It's now a paperweight.

I recently replaced the 120GB IDE drive with a 250GB SATA drive. The 120 I put in an external enclosure that allows me to hook it up to a USB port. I now have 120GB of portable storage goodness.

At the same time I replaced the two off-white optical drives with a new DVD burner and a CD burner/DVD ROM combo drive. I can theoretically burn two CD's or burn one CD and one DVD simultaneously. The best part is that they have black bezels so they match the color of my case. I also replaced the white floppy drive with a black multi-format card reader. Now I can pop the compact flash card from my camera into the front of the machine and access the stored images directly.

Since I now know that the motherboard in the old computer is good, I plan on resurrecting it. I'll get new RAM for the new machine, put the old RAM back in the old machine, put the old optical drives back in, and get an inexpensive hard drive. I need to reconfigure a couple of fans as well. Once it's up I'll probably use it as a game server, or a system where I can mess around with various operating systems and software without worrying about losing any data if I have to scrape the drive.

(Original post follows)

So I broke down and upgraded the computer. I had a partial system assembled by a local shop, bought a new video card at CompUSA of all places (the local shop building my system didn't have what I wanted and CompUSA had a good enough price on it), and put it all together. All in all, here's what's new in it:

• MSI K8N Neo4 Platinum/SLI motherboard


• AMD Athlon64 3500+ Socket 939 CPU


• Coolermaster Centurion 5 aluminum case


• Antec NeoPower 480 power supply


• Zalman CNP S7000b-Cu CPU cooler


• ATi Radeon X800XL video card

In addition, I used the existing RAM from my old system (Corsair XMS DDR400/PC3200), the existing hard drives (WD 120GB and IBM 40GB), and the existing optical drives.

For grins, I ran 3DMark2001SE sort of as a guage of raw power improvement. It's an older benchmark and doesn't take advantage of some of the new rendering capabilities of current hardware. It showed a full 50% increase. 3DMark2005 gives a score in the 4800's which is in line with what I've seen in reviews of my new video card, a little better in fact. This motherboard will let me tweak all kinds of stuff but I think I'll just leave it alone as it's plenty fast now. The main improvement in the games that I'm playing is that I'll be able to run them at 1280x1024 resolution, which is the native resolution of my LCD monitor, rather than at a lower resolution. I can also run some games at higher quality, such as Half-Life 2, Doom 3, and Unreal Tournament 2004.

It's also noticeably quieter. The power supply has a single 120mm fan instead of two smaller fans. The case has a 120mm fan in the back and an 80mm fan in the front. I've replaced the front fan with an even quieter one I was using in the old system. The CPU cooler is known for making little noise. The fan will speed up some when the system is under load, but even then it's not obnoxious.

The motherboard is capable of SLI, which is where you can put in two nVidia video cards and have them work together. Basically each one handles rendering half of each frame. I'm not using that as I have an ATi video card. I chose this motherboard instead of the Neo4 Platinum (non-SLI) because this one had much better onboard audio. It comes with a Creative SoundBlaster Live! built-in. It sounds good, and I'd say it's even better than the SoundStorm on my old motherboard.

The new case is smaller than the old, and has better airflow. However, being mostly steel and not aluminum (which I wasn't aware of when I bought it), it's heavier. Still, that means it's sturdier and is likely quieter as it doesn't flex as much with vibration of the fans and hard drives. The only lights on this computer are the LED's on the front of the optical drives, and the power and hard drive access indicator LED's on the front of the case. I thought about putting one of the lighted fans from the old system in the front of this case but they have aluminum frames and the front fan uses screws that screw directly into the fan frame so only plastic frame fans will work.

I've had a few hiccups but I've hopefully got all the kinks wired out. At the very least it should last me another year or so. I do plan on putting in a couple of serial-ATA drives, possibly later this year. For now, the hard drives from the old system appear to be doing the job.

Washington State Estate Tax

The Washington State legislature is considering reinstating a state-level estate tax. The state has had an estate tax, also known as an inheritance tax, since 1901 but the State Supreme Court abolished it in February on Constitutional grounds. In the ruling, they said any new estate tax would have to be the result of new legislation and so, naturally, that's what the Democrat-controlled legislature is going to do. As expected, Governor Gregoire (for how long, we don't know yet) will sign it into law.

What really got me was this comment from Gregoire:

"Those who are rich in Washington state are rich because we have a great state," Gregoire said when she announced her intention to partially reimpose the estate tax. "The economy has allowed them to prosper. ... Why not have them pay for education for the children of our state?"

Translation: Those who are rich are rich because the government let them become rich. Pure. Unadulterated. Socialism. People who become rich do so through hard work and smart choices. Also, the image that proponents of the estate tax want you to form in your mind is that of the so-called idle rich. These are people who simply have a lot of cash sitting in investment accounts and they're living a life of leisure without doing any work. While there are some people who fit this definition, the vast majority of rich people are hard-working. They are business-owners, and their businesses provide jobs and power the economy. Their wealth is in the value of the businesses they own, not simple cash or securities. Take, for example, this man:

"I would support a higher sales tax, even an income tax in this state, rather than having a death tax installed," said Don Root, who wants his sons to carry on his Seattle-based manufacturing and design company after he dies.

Reinstating an estate tax at the same time the federal government is poised to abolish it would cause successful Washington businesses to leave the state, taking a lot of good jobs with them, said Root, whose company employs roughly 450 people in Washington.

It's not as if his sons will be able to sit on their butts and watch the money roll in. They'll have to work for it by running the business. They'll be earning that money.

If the estate tax forces the heirs of a business-owner to liquidate the business in order to pay the tax, just how in the hell does that help the economy? The proposed legislation affects only those whose estates are worth two million dollars or more, but this is not a hard limit to exceed when you own your own business.

Gregoire is not the only one supporting reinstating the estate tax. The father of the country's wealthiest individual, and a wealthy man in his own right, is also onboard:

"The question is, why are people wealthy?" [William] Gates [Sr.] said at a news conference last week. "They worked hard, they're smart, and they are American ... (with) a police force that works, a court system that works, a market system that makes it possible to dispose of what you own. Economists tell us that having a stable market adds 30 percent to the value of everything you own."

Gates is a leading voice in the campaign to preserve the estate tax through Responsible Wealth, a national network contending that concentrated wealth tends to turn into concentrated political power and is therefore bad for democracy.

At a forum last week in Olympia, Gates said Washington's tax system puts a disproportionate burden on poor people.

One of the best ways to shift the tax burden from low-income and middle-class residents to those who can best afford it is to restore Washington's estate tax, he said.

Of course Mr. Gates does not have to worry about whether or not his son will inherit anything when he dies. And in the case of Bill Gates Jr., when he dies it's not as if Microsoft will have to be liquidated to pay the estate tax. But a smaller business, where one person essentially owns it all, does not have that luxury.

I do agree that wealthy people have a greater social obligation to help those less fortunate, for indeed I do recognize that fortune plays a role though not the only one, and usually not the major one. Yet I'd rather see that obligation fulfilled through charitable giving rather than government-mandated wealth redistribution. That, after all, is what an estate tax really is and, as such, is socialism pure and simple.

Alaska Governor Murkowski on drilling in the ANWR

Frank H. Murkowski, the Governor of the State of Alaska, has penned an opinion piece for the Seattle Times. In it, he attempts to explain why drilling for oil in the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve, which has recently been approved by Congress, is a good idea and won't adversely affect the environment. I've included some excerpts with commentary below. First, he provides us with an interesting number:

Washington's five oil refineries process billions of dollars of Alaska crude, supplying consumers throughout the Northwest with energy. Washington alone consumes 18 million gallons of petroleum daily. Apparently, not everyone is traveling to their destinations on bicycles. If Alaska's crude oil were not available, Washington state would be getting its oil supply from Middle Eastern nations in foreign ships with foreign crews, built in foreign shipyards.

Most of Washington State's power comes from hydroelectric dams but electricity doesn't power cars (yet), nor the trucks, trains, and ships which move goods from one place to another and form part of the backbone of the nation's economy.

Alaska's environmental standards are the highest in the world, and yet Washington Sens. Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray — opponents of ANWR drilling — have repeatedly declined my invitations to visit ANWR and see firsthand this area of national importance.

All I can say about this is that I am totally not surprised.

Advances in directional drilling make the footprint in ANWR extremely small. Use of only 2,000 acres for ANWR development is authorized in the House energy bill, yet ANWR is 19 million acres, about the size of Colorado.

Hmmm... Let's do some math here. Two thousand out of 19 million is 1.0526315789473684210526315789474e-4 according to my calculator. This equates to roughly 0.01 percent. That's right, a hundredth of a hundredth. We're talking a virtually neglible amount of area here. Now, admittedly, this is not the entire portion of the ANWR that Congress in 1980 said could be developed for oil exploration if Congress authorizes it. That area is the coastal plain which is about 1.5 million acres. Yet even that is only about 8 percent of the total area of the ANWR.

Governor Murkowski goes on to provide another interesting number:

Federal biologists began surveying the Central Arctic caribou herd in 1978, after the Alaska pipeline began operation. Since then, the herd has grown from 5,000 to over 32,000 animals. Alaska has proven it can be responsible; wildlife in ANWR will continue to coexist with cautious oil and gas exploration.

Life is adaptable. Yes, it has limits but as long as we're cognizant of those limits and work to stay well within them, there's no reason why development of this area will cause any sort of ecological disaster.

Yet more interesting numbers:

Critics falsely claim ANWR will only produce six months of oil. This incorrectly assumes ANWR would be the only oil field in operation in the world. In fact, ANWR oil will make significant contributions to the nation's energy supply for decades, replacing what we import from Saudi Arabia for the next 20 years. To bring this statistic home, ANWR alone would supply the state of Washington with all of its oil needs for 15 years.

Some estimates use the most pessimistic production figures by counting only 3.5 billion barrels of oil. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates between 12 billion and 32 billion barrels exist in the ANWR "1002 area," of which between 6 billion and 16 billion barrels are recoverable using current technology.

Just to be clear, the "1002 area" he's talking about is the entire 1.5 million acre coastal plain. The small 2000 acre area currently being opened won't produce all that oil.

Some say ANWR will take at least seven years to begin production. That delay is because of the comprehensive environmental-impact study necessary to ensure that the environment is protected.

Yep, we're just going to rush in and rape the environment. And if you believe that one, well you know the punchline.

Like all Americans, I support research and technological development in alternative energies so that in the future we can reduce our energy dependence. But we must be realistic — right now the world moves on oil and that will be the case for years to come. Until the arrival of new energy technology, oil from ANWR can significantly help in easing our dependence on foreign imports.

Producing oil in Alaska means high-paying careers for American workers, not foreigners. Companies friendly to our country will profit, rather than governments that would prefer our demise.

While hybrid vehicles, alternative technologies such as fuel cells, and alternative fuels like biodiesel, ethanol, and hydrogen will help, they're not going to displace oil as the king of energy any time soon. They will take years, probably decades, to become pervasive. In the short term at least we need to reduce our dependency on foreign oil while these new technologies are being developed. The plan to extract oil from a portion of the ANWR balances conservation with responsible use.