Kucinich

This columnist laments the lack of media coverage for Kucinich and compares him to McGovern.

George McGovern says that he won the Democratic nomination for president in 1972 in part because no one took him seriously during 1971.

“For more than a year members of my small national staff and some of my early supporters and I had been crisscrossing the country on separate routes, finding workers and trying to make my views known,” recalled the former senator from South Dakota. “We drew scant national attention. But the reception was favorable at almost every stop.”

Yeah - THAT worked out for him, eh?

Tax Cuts

This is political genius:

WASHINGTON (CNN)—With Democrats complaining that low-income families were shortchanged in the latest round of tax cuts, Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, plans to introduce legislation this week to extend and expand the increase in the child tax credit.

Here’s why: it is an additional tax cut.  The Dems were quick to criticize the President?s tax cut because it excluded a segment of poorer people, but slow to bring forth a bill.  I suspect that was because they want the issue more than anything.  Those who had talked about correcting the tax cut’s “oversight” had said that they would “pay” for it by reducing the tax cut for the “upper class” (sorry for the generous use of scare quotes - I’m using the liberal lingo). 

Grassley has introduced a bill to add to the tax cut on an issue where the Dems have already practically pledged support.  So the Dems have two choices: 1) support the bill and expand the cut or 2) oppose it and come off as hypocrites.

Of course, the Dems don’t seem to have much of a problem with being hypocrites, but that’s for another post, as they say…

Media Rules

I know a lot of people are getting worked up over this:

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which regulates radio, television, satellite and cable, voted by three votes to two in favour of replacing existing industry rules.

These rules restrict the number and type of media outlets that any one company can own, with the aim of ensuring that a diversity of opinion and information prevails.

I’m not worried.  In the age of the internet, I seriously doubt that people won’t be able to access alternate viewpoints, as opponents suggest.  Furthermore, I suspect that if the media becomes dominated by a single viewpoint in a particular market, the market will fill the void.  The market will always respond to a demand because there’s money to be made.

Hussein and Hitler

Here’s an interesting artivle about survival myths.

My two cents: Hussein is still alive, but will be murdered before the Americans find him.

You Want Socialized Medicine?

This is what it means:

Smokers and overweight people will be asked to sign contracts with their doctors to agree a programme to quit smoking and lose weight under radical plans being drawn up by the government.

(Link via Drudge)

Crushing of Dissent

Where is the outrage from the Free-Speech Zealots???  This is what the crushing of dissent looks like?

Authorities arrested Zimbabwe’s opposition leader today and fired teargas at student protesters, vowing to crush the launch of anti-government demonstrations which the opposition hopes will mark the most significant challenge yet to President Robert Mugabe’s decades-long rule.

Morgan Tsvangirai leader of the opposition Movement for Democratic Change, was arrested at his home today, charged with contempt of court for planning an illegal demonstration, said Innocent Chagonda, his lawyer.

UPDATE: Protestors quashed.

Christian Identity vs. Islamic Fundamentalism

I was watching NBC Nightly News last night.  They did a story about what motivated Eric Rudolph.  One of the things that certainly did motivate him was the Christian Identity Movement.  It struck me how similar the Christian Identity Movement is to Islamic Fundamentalism.  They are both worldviews centered on bigotry and hate that use religion as a motivator and shield.  It also struck me how differently the press deals with these two ideologies. 

Here is a typical description of the Christian Identity Movement:

a militant, racist and anti-Semitic organization that believes whites are God’s chosen people.

I think it can be argued that this definition is also applicable to the Islamic Fundamentalists.  They are indeed militant, racist, and anti-Semitic (although technically Arabs are also Semitic).  The only difference is that they believe that Arabs are God’s chosen people instead of whites.  Yet this is how Islamic Fundamentalism is usually defined:

Islamic fundamentalism proponents define domestic and foreign policies through a strict interpretation of Islam?s basic principles.

It seems that the media is gun-shy about correctly defining Islamic Fundamentalism for what it is, yet have no compunctions about correctly defining the Christian Identity Movement.  They dance around the fact that Islamic Fundamentalism is a racist, hateful, Jew-hating ideology. 

Just an observation…

Cancer a WMD?

It is according to this guy.  This is another shameless abuse of the language.  Words have meaning.  For instance, “weapon” means “An instrument of attack or defense in combat.”  It has to be wielded by someone.  A disease cannot be a weapon unless intentionally used as such.  Ergo, cancer is not a ?weapon? of mass destruction.

WMD Proof

This could be interesting.

“Over the coming weeks and months we will assemble this evidence and then we will give it to people,” he said. “I have no doubt whatever that the evidence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction will be there.”

Hmmm….

Oops

Witkowski, the city’s former safety director, submitted 400 signatures Tuesday for the 13th District seat - twice the number necessary - but did not include the date of the election or the office sought on the petitions, as required.

So city elections officials declared the petitions invalid. Witkowski is considering an appeal to the state Elections Board.

I guess it isn’t really news anymore when a politician plants his head up his hintern.

Repeal the 17th Amendment

90 years ago today, the 17th Amendment to our Constitution was passed.  Unlike many others, I trace the growth of the Federal government’s size and power not to FDR’s New Deal, but to the passage of the 17th Amendment.  The removal of the States’ voices from the Federal Government removed a vital buttress against the expansion of Federal power.  It was only a matter of time until someone came along and exploited this absence of a check.   As John MacMullin states:

As such, the core of the problem with federal preemption lies in the passage of the 17th Amendment which abrogated the state legislatures’ right to appoint United States Senators in favor of popular election of those officials.  This amendment created a fundamental structural problem which, irrespective of the political party in office, or the laws in effect at any one time, will result, over time, in expanding federal control in every area.  In addition to preemption issues, it caused a failure in the federalist structure, federal deficit spending, inappropriate federal mandates, and federal control over a number of state institutions.

We should repeal this Amendment as soon as possible.  You would think that the State legislatures would band together to push for repeal.  I suspect they are too accustomed to suckling at the Federal teat to realize that this beast eats her young.

Another Failure of the UN

This story makes me sick to my stomach.  The UN continues to sit around bickering while women and children and hacked to death and eaten. 

“There were many people wounded from bullets lying on the ground,” she said.

“The Lendu were going about with machetes, chopping off one arm from the shoulder and then the other. Some people were screaming but most were silent. Then I saw them. Their arms had already been cut off.”

The militiamen calmly cooked the flesh over an open fire before throwing their victims, some of whom were still alive, into the flames. “They were both moving, although very weakly,” Ruta said. It is accounts like this that have galvanised the horrified world into action.

The United Nations Security Council meets today to finalise plans for a rapid reaction force, led by France, which could be in Bunia by as early as next week. Tony Blair has hinted that Britain could send several hundred soldiers to the region later.

The latest violence in one of the Democratic Republic of Congo’s bloodiest provinces erupted in the first week of May as Uganda withdrew its troops in compliance with a peace plan to end the five-year war.

Despite the presence of the 700 UN peacekeepers already in Bunia to monitor the withdrawal, rival Hema and Lendu tribesmen fought viciously for supremacy in the town.

The peacekeepers had repeatedly warned the UN that a bloodbath was likely and requested reinforcements.

They were ignored. Lacking the firepower, equipment or mandate to intervene, they retreated powerless to their compound and watched.

The UN seems to have a habit of doing nothing when it counts (Iraq, Kosovo, Zimbabwe, Congo, etc.)

(Link via Mr. Mustard)

UPDATE:  The NY Times has some more background on the Congo.

Abortion and the L.A. Times

This is an internal memo sent by John Carroll - Editor of the L.A. Times.  (Story via Charlie Sykes

To: SectionEds
Subject: Credibility/abortion

I’m concerned about the perception—-and the occasional reality—-that the Times is a liberal, “politically correct” newspaper. Generally speaking, this is an inaccurate view, but occasionally we prove our critics right. We did so today with the front-page story on the bill in Texas that would require abortion doctors to counsel patients that they may be risking breast cancer.

The apparent bias of the writer and/or the desk reveals itself in the third paragraph, which characterizes such bills in Texas and elsewhere as requiring “so-called counseling of patients.” I don’t think people on the anti-abortion side would consider it “so-called,” a phrase that is loaded with derision.

The story makes a strong case that the link between abortion and breast cancer is widely discounted among researchers, but I wondered as I read it whether somewhere there might exist some credible scientist who believes in it.

Such a person makes no appearance in the story’s lengthy passage about the scientific issue. We do quote one of the sponsors of the bill, noting that he “has a professional background in property management.” Seldom will you read a cheaper shot than this. Why, if this is germane, wouldn’t we point to legislators on the other side who are similarly bereft of scientific credentials?

It is not until the last three paragraphs of the story that we finally surface a professor of biology and endocrinology who believes the abortion/cancer connection is valid. But do we quote him as to why he believes this? No. We quote his political views.

Apparently the scientific argument for the anti-abortion side is so absurd that we don’t need to waste our readers’ time with it.

The reason I’m sending this note to all section editors is that I want everyone to understand how serious I am about purging all political bias from our coverage. We may happen to live in a political atmosphere that is suffused with liberal values (and is unreflective of the nation as a whole), but we are not going to push a liberal agenda in the news pages of the Times.

I’m no expert on abortion, but I know enough to believe that it presents a profound philosophical, religious and scientific question, and I respect people on both sides of the debate. A newspaper that is intelligent and fair-minded will do the same.

Let me know if you’d like to discuss this.

John

A positive direction for the Times if this story is true.  Maybe that other Times should heed this advice.

UPDATE:  Confirmation.

Wages and the Free Market

This story provides a wonderful opportunity to chat about wages and the free market.

They may work in the same office, but they inhabit worlds in vastly different orbits.

Abdul Durrant, 44, who has five children, earns ?5 an hour as a cleaner at HSBC’s gleaming new tower in London’s Docklands. Sir John Bond, chairman of the bank’s board, took home a total of ?1.88m in the past 12 months and saw his pension pot increase by ?272,000 into the bargain.

The story goes on to paint a sympathetic picture of the janitor and decry the “excesses” of executive pay.

The question is, “What should each of these men be paid for their services?”  The answer is “the least amount that the market will bear.” 

Janitors provide a valuable service, but the simple truth is that it takes very little skill to be a janitor.  As such, if this janitor believes that $5 an hour (I’m using dollars even though the story talks about pounds because I can’t find the dang pound symbol on my keyboard) is too little for the service he provides, he can quit.  The company will easily be able to replace him with another person who will perform their janitorial duty with equal care and diligence for that same $5 an hour.  So is it a good thing for the company to pay the janitor more than his market value?  No, because it would be a disservice to 1) the owners (shareholders) of the company who would suffer a lesser return on their investment and 2) the company’s customers who would have to pay a higher price for the company’s goods than would otherwise be charged.

The flip side of the argument is the executive’s pay.  The same rule applies.  The company should pay the executive only as much as the market demands to attract and retain an executive of equal caliber.  An executive has a much greater impact on a company than a janitor.  The decisions that executives make affect thousands of people and millions - sometimes billions - of dollars.  Executives are highly educated and highly skilled decision-makers.  Furthermore, executives take on a much higher risk of liability for their decisions.  For instance, if a janitor decides to use generic glass cleaner instead of Windex, a violation of company policy, who cares?  If an executive makes bad or illegal decisions, they can be personally sued for a fortune.

The simple truth is that wages are subject to all of the same market forces that everything else is, and that is as it should be.

Every White Person In America Is A Racist

At least according to this guy.

“See how pervasive these kinds of myths are?” he asked. “Racism is something that every white person in America has to admit.”

Wise’s candor drew praise from several audience members during a question-and-answer session after his formal presentation, with one African-American woman commenting, “I think you should be commended for your honesty. And I think we’d all be a lot better off if more white people would do the same thing.”

White liberal guilt on display.