No Nonsense News

The March 23, 2006 edition of the London Review of Books contained an article titled
"The Israel Lobby." The authors of the article are John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt of the University of Chicago and the Kennedy School of Government respectively. This article details the influence of the Israel Lobby, defined by the authors as a "convenient short‐hand term for the loose coalition of individuals and organizations who actively work to shape U.S. foreign policy in a pro‐Israel direction".  From my reading of the article, it is a very good article detailing the influence of the Israel Lobby.

I found out about this article because the WSJ decided to publish two articles on the editorial page this past week denouncing the piece.

When there is such a concerted attack against an article published in a journal that is hardly even read in the United States, it makes one wonder what is going on.

The first piece (linked to a non-WSJ copy of the article that does not require registration)is by Ruth Wisse , the Martin Peretz Professor of Yiddish at Harvard University. The other piece is by Wall Street Journal editorial page write Bret Stephens.

Both articles imply that the authors are anti-semitic. This is not unexpected. I have found that anyone who criticizes Israel or the Israel Lobby can be expected to be accused of this canard.

Interestingly, both articles compared the authors to former Klansman David Duke. They said that David Duke of the Ku Klux Klan agrees with the arguments, thereby implying that the authors were like Klansmen. For those of you who don't remember, David Duke is a former Ku Klux Klan member who ran for governor as a Republican in Louisiana in 1991. He has not been particularly newsworthy since then though he apparently will be interviewed on tv to provoke controversy (sort of like Al Sharpton). Nonetheless, the media has made him into a synonym for racist. Comparing someone to David Duke has become a cheap way of calling someone a bigot.

But, why mention David Duke? Apparently he was brought on CNBC's Scarborough Report to comment on this article though neither WSJ article mentioned this fact.
Imagine, of all the people in the country they could have picked, the producers of the show picked this wacko. Given the political leanings and aspirations of Joe Scarborough, I would not be surprised if Duke was chosen to please the Israel Lobby.

But saying that David Duke agrees with something is a nonsensical argument. The Wall Street Journal would never print an op-ed that says that someone is bad because they are a Republican like David Duke or because they oppose racial quotas like David Duke. If David Duke supported supply-side tax cuts, the WSJ certainly would not be printing editorials comparing tax-cutting politicians to David Duke. This ridiculous argument was made to smear the authors as bigots.

According to Professor Wisse, "several Web sites are in the process of listing all their bloopers, distortions and omissions." It seems like a lot of attention is going towards this article on the Israel Lobby. The authors must have got it right.

Among the other ridiculous criticisms of the article by Professor Wisse is that the authors believe Americans can be manipulated by propaganda and that this is offensive because Americans are smart and can think for themselves. However, this seems to be contradicted by Professor Wisse's own resume. She has a job at Harvard endowed by Martin Peretz who publishes The New Republic and active with the Zionist Organization of America. She is the winner of the Guardian of Zion Award which is given to media people who defend Israel. And she writes op-ed pieces in the WSJ to influence people (why else do people write op-eds?) It seems to me that Professor Wisse is an award winning propagandist who lives on an endowed chair from a prominent Zionist. Yet, she pretends that she does not think Americans can be influenced by propaganda. That is what I call chutzpah.

Daniel Henninger has a column column(registration required) every Friday on the Op-Ed page. This week's column is about the relgious/secularist cultural war in America. His most asinine comment is the following:

... George Washington's Thanksgiving Proclamation put him squarely in the God box. It begins: "Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor . . ." Thank heavens Washington isn't alive today to be interviewed by Michael Moore on intelligent design, for the Father of our Country eerily invokes "that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be."

Does Henninger realize that President Washington died in 1799 and that the Origin of Species was not published until 1859? Of course Washington did not believe in evolution, just like he did not believe in DNA or the Theory of Relativity. He lived before these discoveries were made. If this is what the WSJ Op-ed page considers a good argument, it is a sad day for the paper.

The Wall Street Journal published an article (registration required) on Jewish demographics for their Friday religion column. The author called the high intermarriage rate 'alarming'. That remark is fairly offensive. Why are marriages alarming? These marriages have provided many people with happy families. Would the WSJ dare to publish an article calling an increase in interracial marriages alarming? I highly doubt it. Sadly, the editors believe that it is ok to disapprove of intermarriage between Jews and non-Jews in print.

Last night, my wife and I saw Spamalot on Broadway. This show is based mainly on the movie Monty Python and the Holy Grail. As a Python fan, I was looking forward to seeing the show. Unfortunately, it was a bit disappointing.

Most of the good jokes from the movie seemed tired and the new material was largely uninspiring. The best new material was the song "The Song that Goes Like This" that was a good spoof of those sappy songs popular in Andrew Lloyd Webber Broadway shows. The whole gay Lancelot bit was a deviation from the original movie and I do not think it worked.

For a really funny musical, I highly recommend Avenue Q.

We ate dinner at BXL Cafe last night, a Belgian restaurant in NYC. In the restaurant, there was a row of pictures of all the kings of Belgium. This lineup included Leopold II.

For those of you unfamiliar with colonial African history, Leopold II ruled the Congo Free State as his personal fiefdom. Under his rule, something on the order of 10 million Africans lost their lives. This is detailed in an excelled book called "King Leopold's Ghost."

I think it would be unfathomable to hang a picture of Hitler at a German restaurant or Pol Pot in a Cambodian restaurant. Why is it ok to have a picture of Leopold at a Belgium restaurant? Probably its due to a lack of historical knowledge on the part of Americans and the lack of a Congo-American lobby living here. Still, it is pretty disgusting.

Today's NYT had an article on Kansas' attempt to teach a form of creationism known as "Intelligent Design" in science classes. The article described the pointlessness of debating creationists. I know what they are talking about. I remember when I was elementary kid talking to a fellow student who was a Jehovah's Witness. I was surprised to find that this kid did not believe in evolution. Nothing could convince the kid otherwise. The creationists in Kansas are no different.

The idea of having hearing about evolution is ridiculous. You don't need hearings on basic science. The hearings are only done so that the creationists on the panel can get some media exposure.

Creationists are arguing that there is a controversy with evolution and that this controversy should be taught. They accuse the scientists of not wanting to teach controversies as if the scientists are covering up some problem with the theory of evolution. Of course, there is no controversy about whether evolution happened. Nor is their controversy over whether natural selection has driven evolution.

Creationists demand that their own nonsense deserves equal treatment with hard science. They think that their ideas are worthy of debate with real scientist. Scientists should not fall for this con. Creationism deserves as much respect in a biology classroom as astrology in an astronomy class. Scientists should continue to talk about evolution but they should not let themselves get bogged down in arguing nonsense with idiots. It wastes time and does not do any good.

In today's WSJ, Tamar Jacoby has an op-ed (registration required) on amnesty for illegal immigrants. The title of the piece is called "Getting Beyond the 'A-Word'." Most Americans don't like the idea of rewarding lawbreakers. Most of the immigration proposal being tossed around in by the president or senators do just that. However, when they get labelled as amnesty proposals, they become less popular. This seems to annoy Ms. Jacoby.

Ms. Jacoby does not want to stop illegal immigation. She does this by pretending it cannot be stopped. She uses a quote by Senator Cornyn who said 'We cannot simply ... round up and remove millions or people..." Well, why not? President Eisenhower succeeded in getting rid of a million illegal aliens with Operation Wetback.

Ms. Jacoby claims that "punitive demands that they go back will only drive them underground." What it sounds like to me is that Ms. Jacoby really wants to keep these people here. She does not want anyone to attempt to use punitive measures to see if they would work.

Ms. Jacoby has been an advocate of more immigration for a long time. Rather than just say that she wants the illegals to stay because she wants more immigrants here, she pretends that we have no choice but to accept that they are here to stay. I find this kind of propaganda despicable. It is one thing to have a different opinion, but it is another to claim that there is only one 'realistic' policy.

I attended this month's .Donald and Paula Smith Foundation debate on Social Security. Two of the speakers supported the current system with higher taxes and the other two supported reform including privatisation. One of the pro-tax guys was from the NAACP. It was Hilary Shelton from their Washinton Bureau Director. The guy was a total Democratic party hack. He spent a lot of time going off on tangents criticizing the president. He also kept talking about how many black people depend on Social Security. He ignored the fact that the plans are to replace Social Security with a better financially sound system, not to do away with it altogether.

There was also David Certner from the AARP who called for higher taxes on people like me. He totally ignored he fact that his proposal would increase marginal taxes significantly and push a lot of New Yorkers into marginal tax rates above 50%. Certner also acted as if private accounts would hurt the finances of Social Security because it would reduce the funds that go into the system. He completely ignored the fact that liabilities would also be reduced. I find these kinds of distortions dishonest.

The two sensible people were Herman Cain and Pat Toomey, who ran in the Republican primaries for U.S. Senate, in Georgia and Pennsylvania respectively, last year. They made good points that Social Security is our money and that Congress voted themselves a retirement plan where they can invest their retirement money into private accounts. The only problem was that Cain spoke about how Social Security shortchanges blacks because they have a lower life expectancy. First, I think Republicans should not play the race card ever. I know that the Democrats do it all the time and a lot of Republicans want to be able to use it against the Democrats. However, that is not right and Republicans should not stoop that low. Second, I do not think the facts are on Cain's side. Blacks also have lower than average income and therefore benefit more on average than whites from the progressitivity of Social Security benefits.

Paul Krugman writes in his column how America has become a more unequal country in the last three decades. He blames government policies that favored the rich over the poor. However, from what I have seen, most of the increase in inequality is due to increases in inequality in pre-tax income (for example).

This increase in pre-tax inequality is driven by free trade with low wage countries, immigration, and changes in family structure (more two-income family and more broken families). A better trade policy, immigration reform, and more pro-family policies could do a lot of good in addressing these problems.

Another problem is simply technological progress. There is higher demand for college educated workers and less demand for workers whose jobs can be automated today than there was in the past. Also, technology allows fewer individual to reap larger benefits (See Winner-Take-All Society). I don't know what can change this, but I don't think Washington is to blame.

Today's WSJ had a fron page article about Africa. Apparently, PM Tony Blair is very concerned about Africa. This is not surprising. Unpopular politicians frequently try to distract the populace with foreign adventures. A lot of politicians convince themselves that they can 'Save the World' with their meddling. Tony Blair and GW Bush seem to be cut out of the same mold in this respect.

Still, it is amazing that anyone takes Blair seriously with the British colonial record in Africa.

The article also had a quote from an African official that annoyed me. The official said, "You can't have a pocket of extreme poverty in one part of the world and rapid growth in another." I say, why not? We have had the situation for decades. The sad thing for Africans is that Africa can go to hell and most of the world wouldn't notice.

Yesterday, I was walking home from through Central Park. I exited on 72nd Street and walked up Central Park West. I passed by one of NYC's most beautiful Jazz Age apartment buildings, the San Remo when I noticed that it had the year 1930 engraved in big numbers.

The 1920's had been the decade where more of NYC's housing stock was built than any other decade. The San Remo was a product of this housing boom. Unfortunately, the San Remo also had the misfortune of opening up during the year of the Great Depression year. It and many other real estate ventures went south quickly. The San Remo was sold in 1940, along with the Beresford, another architectural gem on CPW from the Jazz Age, for $25,000 above the existing mortgage.

The main lesson from this is that real estate can also go down, way down. Even those who own nice properties on Central Park can lose their shirts.

Revenge of the Sith , the latest and probably last Star Wars film, is also one of the best. It was one of the rare movies that my wife and I get to see in the cinema now that we have a baby.

In this movie, we see the destruction of the Old Republic and the beginning of the Empire. The Republic had become corrupt and bureacratic. It also was continuously at war. Eventually people lose interest in their freedom and vote for a strongman. As Senator Amidala says in the film, "This is how liberty dies. With thunderous applause."

It is sad to say that America is not that different from the Empire. Our Old Republic is also lost. The United States seems to be on a continuous war footing with bases around the world almost always fighting someone. Countries that do not obey the United States are demonized, threatened and sometimes attacked. The idea of a limited republic seems to be long out of fashion in Washington. We are ruled by an administration which believes that everything in life is the government's business.

The one optimistic note from Star Wars is that one day the Republic is restored. Perhaps one day, our republic will also be restored.

I usually have a lot of respect for the Smithsonian Institution. It is one of the great cultural treasures of our country. It provides to the public, at no charge, access to art, science, history, and more.

One of the museums on the Mall is the National Museum of Natural History. Though not as good as the American Museum of Natural History , it is still one of the best natural history museums in the world. Unfortunately, this museum has agreed to show a documentary that opposes the Theory of Evolution.

The 'documentary' is called The Privileged Planet: The Search for Purpose in the Universe and is produced by the creationist Discovery Institute.

The Discovery Institute promotes Intelligent Design which is the theory that the world is too complex to have evolved without someone, like the Biblical God, taking an active role in the creation process. The Intelligent Design deny that they are creationists but they seem to spend all their time trying to make arguments against why evolution couldn't work..

The NYT reported on this story. Apparently the Discovery Institute donated $16,000 to the Smithsonian and that allows them to screen their film there. Unfortunately, this system allows any fringe group to get their aura of approval of the Smithsonian Institute for their nonsense. If the Smithsonian is going to remain a prestigious institution, they should learn to say no to donors with anti-scientific agendas.

The other night, I attended a debate/panel discussion on the prospects for peace in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict put on by the Donald and Paula Smith Foundation. The title of the talk was: "Israel and Palestine:
Is a sustainable resolution finally within reach?" The two speakers were two professors, Rashid Khalidi from Columbia University and Bernard Wasserstein from the University of Chicago. The speakers took the positions of pessimist and optimist respectively over the prospects of a sustainable resolution. Both were well balanced and not partisan.

Professor Wasserstein talked about how demographics and water shortages would force both sides into coming into a compromise. While peace seems reasonable to reasonable people, I don't see what makes Wasserstein think that people in Middle East are that reasonable. Overall, he seemed a bit flaky.

Professor Khalidi said that while both sides are coming together on a few issues, there are many large outstanding issues. Both the Israelis and the Bush Administration do not want to discuss a variety of important issues with the Palestinians including including the status of Jerusalem and refugees. Also, the Israelis have continued to expand their settlements in the West Bank undermining the two-state solution. I have to agree with Professor Khalidi that with important issues being ignored and settlement growing, the prospects for a sustainable solution to be in reach.

On another note, at this talk were a bunch of people who I will call Angry Zionists. These people tend to show up wherever Middle Eastern politics are discussed. They tend to cough, hiss or make other noise when a speaker says something that it is even mildly critical of Israel or the Israeli lobby. Last night, they were handing out fliers prior to the talk saying that the participants were not going to tell people certain 'facts.'

The first hour of the Smith talks are recorded and then broadcast over CUNY's cable network. Questions from the audience are asked after that. At the beginning of the event, the moderator made the announcement that the panelists would be asked questions from the audience after the cameras were turned off. One of the Angry Zionists in the audience stood up and asked why won't they allow the cameras to be on for the question period. He acted as if there was some sort of conspiracy to silence critics of the panelists. This rude behavior is all too typical of the Angry Zionists who are filled with hatred of anyone who does not buy their extremist views of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Today, the Wall Street Journal had an op-ed (registration required)piece about Tony Blair called Winston Blair. From the title alone, you know that they must love the guy. Why do they love a British socialist? Because he supported Bush' s Iraq war.

The author of the piece, William Shawcross, criticizes the opposition to Blair who claim that 'Blair lied.' In the world of the neocons, it is improper to point out that Bush or Blair were dishonest about the war in Iraq. Shawcross claims that Blair critics are ignoring important facts such as Saddam's use of WMD (chemicals) in 1988 against his own people and Saddam's murder of Iraqi citizens. However, it is Shawcross that is ignoring facts. The fact is Blair (and Bush) said Saddam posed a threat because of his WMD, WMD of which we discovered after the war, he did not have.

Shawcross does not like Little Englanders who did not care about foreign affairs. It is not the Little Englanders who oppressed Ireland, pushed dope on the Chinese, attacked the Boers for their gold, and put much of the known world under their thumb. Given a choice, I'll take the Little Englanders over the British Imperialists anyday.

Christopher Hitchens and James Taranto debate the value of the Religious Right in America in today's Op-Ed page. Christopher Hitchens would have been an odd sight in the WSJ a few years ago. But his support for the war in Iraq has made him quite popular among the WSJ crowd.

Taranto seems to think that the Democrats are on the wrong side of issues like witholding medical treatment for the terminally ill. This is just not true. Most Americans do not want the government making these decisions for them. The vast majority of Americans opposed Congress meddling in the Schiavo matter.

Many on the Religious Right favors nonsense like creationism. Others want to bully everybody into praying like them with their school prayer plans. Why should secular people like Taranto want to cozy up to the Religious Right? It is because the Bush administation is basically backed by a neocon-Religious Right alliance. Without the Religious Right, there would be no President Bush and no neocon foreign policy. While Hitchens is not willing to be nice to the Religious Right just because they support the war in Iraq, Taranto and his neocon friends are. Taranto and the neocons are willing to entertain a lot of nonsense from the Religious Right as long as they support their foreign policy. Prayer in school for bombs on Iran. A friendship made in heaven.

Not surprisingly, the WSJ(registration required) thinks we need more immigrants. This time, we need more H1-B visas. Only 65,000 are issued annually and they get snapped up quickly. The WSJ claims that we need more because labor demand is so high. The truth is that business interests want cheap labor and if immigration was up to the business interests, we would have millions of people streaming across the border to work at lower wages than Americans. Demand will always be higher for cheaper labor. But in the world of the WSJ editorial page, nonsense is presented as evidence.

The WSJ also seems upset that not enough Americans want to study science and engineering. Perhaps more Americans would go into these fields if the wages were not driven down by immigrants. Basic economic logic once again eludes the WSJ.

The WSJ editorial page opines (registration required) once again in favor of more immigration. They also seek to justify illegal immigration claiming that as long as America is rich and Mexico is poor, there will be a lot of illegal immigration. They pretend that enforcement cannot work. This seems odd when enforcement has not been tried. How many restaurants are shut down for hiring illegal labor? How many parts of the U.S.-Mexico border remain unguarded? Until the federal government takes the issue seriously, one cannot say that we can 'never reduce the flow the illegal flow with punitive measures.'

The WSJ also wants illegal aliens to get drivers licenses. I guess national security takes a backseat to helping cheap labor in the U.S.

The WSJ does not want to support the simple partiotic solution of enforcing the law, sending the illegal aliens home and guarding our border. The WSJ prefers cheap labor for all.

Today, the NY Times calls for higher taxes. In a rehash of yesterday's Krugman op-ed, they make the crazy claim that the proposed cuts in Social Security are worse for the middle class than for the upper middle class.

The NY Times wants to raise taxes rather than control spending. They think that the cap on the Social Security tax should be raised from $90,000 to $150,000. That amounts to an increase in taxes on people who earn $150,000 of more than $7,000 a year. That is not a small increase. People who earn $150,000 are not rich. Certainly not if they live in a high cost high tax location like New York City. You would think the NY Times has an idea how much the cost of living is here.

Also, why should people who earn over $90,000 bear almost all of the tax increases? Essentially, it is a soak the upper middle class policy. The NY Times calls this 'fair.' I call it stealing from Peter to pay Paul.

Not according to the National Review Online. In today's column, David S. Oderberg argues that George W Bush (the born-again Methodist) understands Catholic morality than the late Pope did. Now, I am not a big fan of the dead Pope. However, I am willing to defend the fact that John Paul II understood Catholic morality better than the not deeply intellectual, born-again Methodist president of the United States.

The gist of the article is that Oderberg dislikes the fact that the Pope 'never seems to have met a war he didn’t abhor'. Oderberg claims that the Pope was at odds with traditional just war theory. But Oderberg provides no evidence that any recent wars were just. I guess as a National Review Online reader, one is supposed to assume that the war on Iraq was just. I have no doubt that the Pope disagreed with the justness of that war, rather than not understanding Catholic just war theory.

In the neocon worldview, supporters of Iraq War are good, opponents of the Iraq War are bad. Even the National Review's dearly beloved dead pope needs to be taken down a notch.

The WSJ editorial pages argues that America's savings rate is not so bad. They note that people have seen an increase in household value which is not included in the savings rate. They also think it is wrong to reduce the country's savings rate by the capital gains tax paid when an asset is sold.

The WSJ editorial page should know better. Asset appreciation is not income. Savings comes out of income. Savings happens when people defer consumption. When a house increases in value, no income is saved.

However, if a house is sold, people pay more taxes in the form of the capital gains tax. Taxes reduce the income that a household has leaving less money that can be saved. The only way it would be appropriate to not take into capital gains tax is if when calculating household wealth, to value the wealth on a post-capital gains tax basis.

Paul Krugman's column in today's NYT distorts the Bush Administration's Progressive Price Indexing proposal for Social Security. This proposal was first put forth by Bob Pozen, a Democrat, who is currently head of the mutual fund firm MFS.

The plan works as follow. Under the current system, the starting Social Security benefit at retirement is a function of both lifetime wages and the average wage in the economy. Afterwards, the starting amount is increased with at the rate of inflation. The proposed Progressive Price Indexing will no longer have the maximum Social Security benefit increase with wages in the economy. However, for the 30% of the people at the bottom, the current system remains unchanged. Those in the middle get a reduced benefit but not as much as the maximum.

The effect of this is to improve the solvency of Social Security. It eliminates about 70% of the deficit. I am not crazy about it because it puts all the burden on the upper income people. Nonetheless, it is better than raising taxes and it has a chance of passing.

Paul Krugman tries to make this reform as somehow hurting the middle class more than the rich. He says that the reduction in benefits is a larger proportion of pre-retirement income than for the rich.

Paul Krugman's point is actually quite ridiculous. He says that those who earn 60% above average will get a reduction equal to 13% of pre-retirement income and those who earn triple the wage will get a cut equal to 9% of pre-retirement income. But, the cut to those people will be 30% larger in absolute terms. Since Social Security benefits are capped, as the pre-retirement income increases above a certain point, the cuts will obviously shrink as a fraction of pre-tax income.

The current system is broken. The solution is either going to be higher taxes or fewer benefits. There will always be someone who does not like fixing the system. Paul Krugman prefers whining than offering a constructive solution.

H.L. Mencken would have been happy to know that his pessimism about mankind has proven right. The people of the Bible Belt still resent Darwin's theory of evolution nearly a century and a half after the publication of the Origin of Species. This week, the morons that inhabit Kansas, are trying to role back the teaching of basic science. They prefer teaching creationism under the rubric of 'Intelligent Design'.

Why can't people accept science? H.L. Mencken explained it in this column written from Dayton, TN while covering Scopes Trial:

The inferior man's reasons for hating knowledge are not hard to discern. He hates it because it is complex -- because it puts an unbearable burden upon his meager capacity for taking in ideas. Thus his search is always for short cuts. All superstitions are such short cuts. Their aim is to make the unintelligible simple, and even obvious. So on what seem to be higher levels. No man who has not had a long and arduous education can understand even the most elementary concepts of modern pathology. But even a hind at the plow can grasp the theory of chiropractic in two lessons. Hence the vast popularity of chiropractic among the submerged -- and of osteopathy, Christian Science and other such quackeries with it. They are idiotic, but they are simple -- and every man prefers what he can understand to what puzzles and dismays him.

The popularity of Fundamentalism among the inferior orders of men is explicable in exactly the same way. The cosmogonies that educated men toy with are all inordinately complex. To comprehend their veriest outlines requires an immense stock of knowledge, and a habit of thought. It would be as vain to try to teach to peasants or to the city proletariat as it would be to try to teach them to streptococci. But the cosmogony of Genesis is so simple that even a yokel can grasp it. It is set forth in a few phrases. It offers, to an ignorant man, the irresistible reasonableness of the nonsensical. So he accepts it with loud hosannas, and has one more excuse for hating his betters.

The Nuclear Option is what people have been calling the attempt by President Bush and Senate Majority Bill Frist to get rid of filibustering for judicial appointees. It would allow a majority of Senators to approve a judge rather than the tacit approval of 60 Senators. Conservative judges who Senator Schumer does not approve of may get a chance to be appointed. A lot of conservatives are happy with this idea. But they shouldn't be.

Being a conservative means that you should support traditional rules. Filibustering is one of those rules. Filibustering has been used to obstruct both good and bad legislation. It tends to slow things down in the federal government. That is another reason why conservatives should support filibustering. Whether filibusters are used for good or bad purposes is unknown ex ante. What we do know is that it is better not to rush things and that not getting something done is not always such a bad thing.

Filibusters help protect minority interests against the masses. This is another thing that conservatives should support.

There will be unintended consequences of ending the filibuster. When a liberal Democrat eventually gets elected president, as one day the pendulum will swing back, the liberals will have the upper hand in appointing judges. There will no longer be a filibuster to stop them. Republicans might whine, but that is all they will be able to do since they already used the nuclear option.

I am opposed to the income tax and redistributionist policies as much as the typical WSJ editorial page writer. Nonetheless, I think that the WSJ editorial on the progressive income tax was a bit deceptive. The WSJ shows a chart which shows that, compared with 1979, the rich pay a larger share of the tax burden while the poor pay a smaller share of the tax burden than they did in 1979. The WSJ concludes that the tax system has become more progressive over time.

This is an incorrect interpretation of the chart. One can have the same tax system but an increase in pre-tax inequality leading to a similar result. In fact, if pre-tax income inequality increased significantly, even if the tax code became less progressive, the rich could wind up paying a larger share of the total tax burden simply because they have so much more money.

According to the U.S. Census, income inequality has grown significantly over the last few decades. The share of income of the top 20% has grown significantly from 41.4% to 47.2% between 1979 and 1999 and even higher today. This increase would be expected to boost the share of income tax paid by the richest 20%. Similiarily the share of income earned by the lowest quintile fell from 4.2% to 4.2%. Likewise, this would be expected to decrease the amount of tax paid by this income decile.

I wish that when the WSJ writes editorials on important issues like these, they would be more careful about not ignoring basic facts. It would make their arguments more credible. Right now, this editorial seems like nothing less than pure propaganda.

The Economist seems to be upset that the French might vote against the European constitution. The Economist say that a "A French no would lead to a nasty period for the European Union." But why should that be?

The European Union does not need a new constitution. The EU has survived well without one for decades (as the EEC) and could survive without one successfully for many more. A new constitution is not something that ordinary Europeans seem to want. It seems to be more a project of politicians and bureacrats than of the people. Rejection of this constitution would be a wise move by the French voters.

The Economist fears that a rejection of the constitution would encourage more countries to ignore EU directives. But maybe the real problem is that the EU is giving too many bad directives.

Centralization is over-rated. Europe is great because of all the national and regional cultures. I like Catalonia and Tuscany and Provence. I would not want these regions agglomerated into some standard Euroland. The European Union is only good if it helps preserve what is great about Europe. When the EU becomes an end rather than a means, it should be rejected. Hopefully, the French voters on May 29th will see that, too.

The NY Times has recently added the new post of Public Editor which is filled by Daniel Okrent. Okrent's column appears in the Week in Review section and deals with such issues as media bias in the NY Times. The NY Times has a well deserved reputation for media bias. However, it is great that they admit this and have someone at their paper talk about it. Okrent probably upsets some people at the NY Times by talking about bias. But upsetting people is sometimes a good thing (Fox News could use a little internal dissent about their 'fair and balanced' new coverage).

I brought this up because of the piece on Sunday. In this week's column, Daniel Okrent discusses the NY Times'coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He talks about how the NY Times gets complaints from both Israeli and Palestinian advocates about bias in the NY Times. I have certainly met people in that category in New York political circles. There are many people who think the NY Times is anti-Israel. But what they mean when they call the NY Times anti-Israel is that the NY Times is not showing Israel in its best light all the time.

I think that, on the whole, the NY Times' coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian coverage is pretty balanced. Okrent is right to point out that one cannot write an article on the conflict in the NY Times without making someone mad. It is truly sad that honest discussion of the news elicits nasty letters and name calling. The NY Times deserves praise for covering the issue in a relatively balanced way and additional praise for discussing how hard it is to cover this conflict.

In Yesterday's WSJ, Lauren Weiner reviews David S. Reynolds' new biography on John Brown called 'John Brown, Abolitiionist'. Lauren Weiner does not like how Reynolds compares Brown favorably to Abraham Lincoln. She counters that Abraham Lincoln, unlike John Brown, acted according to a coherent principle: "You don't violate the rights of some individuals to vindicate the rights of others."

Unfortunately, Abraham Lincoln had very little respect for the rights of other individuals. Lincoln established America's first draft and income tax. He suspended habeas corpus and imposed censorship on newspapers. If there is one thing that is true about Lincoln, he did not let the rights of others interfere with his war policies. Given the carnage of the Civil War, John Brown's activities seem quaint compared with Lincoln's.

I am an admirer of and sometimes financial contributor to the Cato Institute. They provide policy solutions that argue for less, rather than for more government. Unfortunately, there are times where society is better off having some intelligent interventionist policies. One of these is energy independence.

The United States imports approximately 60% of its petroleum. This amount is expected to continue to rise. Some two-thirds of known reserves are in the Persian Gulf region, a politically unstable and fairly hostile portion of the world. The U.S. economy has suffered from 3 oil shocks (1973, 1979 and 1990) over the last 32 years. The current run up in oil prices does not yet equal those, but it could, especially if something goes wrong in the Middle East. Energy is also a significant portion of our trade deficit which is putting the U.S. further into debt. Therefore, it seems to be in the national interest wean America off high energy consumption.

The folks at the Cato Institute disagree. In an op-ed in the WSJ this past week, the authors argue against an energy conservation policy.

The authors of the op-ed piece talk about the pork-barrel nature of earlier energy conservation programs and the cost-ineffectiveness of many of these programs. They conclude that government "can intelligently pick winners in energy markets or promote conservation in an economically reasonable manner is belied by an avalance of real-world evidence." However, Europe and Japan have significantly better fuel efficiency in passenger vehicles, the biggest users of petroleum products. For example new passengers cars in France get 47% more miles to the gallon than new American cars. The Europeans and Japanese apply high taxes to gasoline and the market responds by buying fuel-efficient cars. This shows that an intelligent policy can reduce petroleum consumption.

I am not advocating higher taxes, but smarter taxes. If something has to be taxed to generate revenue, it is better to tax things bad for society (gasoline, tobaccom alcohol) than things good for society (labor income, investment income).

Strangely enough, I agree with the neoconservatives like Frank Gaffney and James Woolsey who have been promoting this. They understand that America's high demand for oil hurts our geopolitical position vis-a-vis the Saudis.

Today, the New York Times editorializes on the Minuteman Project. They refer to the concerned citizens who are patrolling the Arizona border as 'gunslingers.' Why are they 'gunslingers'? Because they are from cowboy country or something? It is true that the patrols are armed, but carrying guns is not unsual in that part of the country. Given that the 'coyotes' who ferret illegal aliens across the border are often armed, it hardly seems unreasonable.

The NY Times also thinks it is wrong to prevent people who have drivers licenses from states that give them to illegal aliens to "not be able to use their licenses to board airplanes." After 9-11, one might think we should make it harder to sneak over the border and get an ID, not easier.

The solution of course is simple and obvious. The feds should protect the border and deport illegal aliens. Unfortunately, the NY Times is clueless.

Today was the Greek Independence Day Parade. This is the annual event where Greek people celebrate Greek Independence by tying up traffic in Manhattan. This event brings up several questions: 'Who cares about Greek independence anyway?' 'Is this parade worth causing inconvenience to tens of thousands of people?' 'Should a grand boulevard like Fifth Avenue be used to celebrate the independence of some European backwater?' 'If Greece is so great, what are all these Greeks doing here in the first place?'

Some might say, what about the Irish and St. Patrick's Day? Well, there are two differences. One, is that people know when St. Patrick's Day is so people know to avoid Fifth Avenue. Second, St. Patrick's Day is day where people who are not even Irish may choose to partake in Irish culture by having a few beers. But, who celebrates Greek Independence Day. The Greek Independence Day is certainly not as bad an event as the Puerto Rican Day Parade, but why can't it be moved somewhere else away from people?

I bring this up because my wife, baby and I were trying to cross Fifth Avenue this afternoon so we can get to the Upper East Side. The Keystone cops would not let people cross the street until there was a 'break.' After about 10 minutes, one woman crossed anyway with her dog. A couple minutes later, my wife and I went for it with a lot of other New Yorkers. The police seemed annoyed but did not stop anyone. Just like the Minutmen, sometimes it is necessary to take the law into your own hands.

Today in the Sunday 'Style' section, there was a ridiculous article on what the author, Jennifer 8. Lee (yes, her middle name is a number), calls 'man-dates'. She thinks that there is something awkward when straight men have dinner or see movies together and coins the term 'man-date' to describe this. Pehaps Ms. Lee does not know any straight men who are not dating anyone and have friends. However, it is certainly common for guys to hang out with their friends. Some even eat food or see a movie. If this passes for journalism at the NY Times, then quality control is even worse than imagined.

Some of my readers may be familiar with the Minuteman Project. For those who are not, the Minuteman Project is a group of concerned American citizens who want to do something to stop the flow of illegal aliens into America. In Arizona, several hundred volunteers are patrolling the border. When they see an illegal alien trying to cross the border, they contact the understaffed Border Patrol. What could be wrong with this?

A lot according to the Treason Lobby. Some group called the Border Action Network Border Action Network wants the government agencies to make sure that the Minutemen uphold the law. But of course, that is what the Minutemen are doing. They are trying to help enforce immigration law, something that the Border Action Network apparently would like to see undermined.

Of course, one cannot talk about the Treason Lobby without mentioning the the ACLU. The ACLU wants to 'observe' the activities of the Minutemen. What it sounds like is that they want to harrass concerned American citizens trying to protect America from foreign invasion. What about the illegal alien problem? Not a concern of the ACLU. They could not care less of illegal aliens come to America to rape and murder Americans or the open border allows terrorists to sneak across. The ACLU is looking for trouble by trying to 'get' the Minutemen. For example, they put out this bogus press release based on an earlier AP story. This was followed up by a press release from the Associated Press showing it was bogus. Does the ACLU rescind their earlier story? Not at the time of that I am writing this two days later. What this demonstrates is that the ACLU is not concerned with the actual goings on of the Minutmen. They care solely about trying to smear American citizens protecting their country.

The worse treason is not in the Border Action Network, the ACLU, or any other anti-American left-wing group but is in the White House. President Bush refuses to uphold the immigration statutes. He rather put our troops in Iraq than protect our own southern border. President Bush referred to the concerned citizens of the Minuteman Project as vigilantes. Maybe if President Bush did his job and protected the United States, we would not need the Minutemen. Until our federal government does this, let us give thanks to the Minutemen.

Yesterday, my wife and I saw Melinda and Melinda. The movie was surprisingly good for a recent Woody Allen film. The movie begins at a table where some people are talking about tragedy versus comedy. What unfolds is a story told by them as a tragedy and a similar story as a comedy, both starring a woman named Melinda.

In the comedy, Will Ferell plays the Woody Allen role. He is very funny and acts and talks like Woody Allen. The only problem is that Woody Allen was a short, unattractive guy getting to say those lines. It would have been better if someone more Allenesque played the part. But, this is still better than The Curse of the Jade Scorpion where Woody Allen is Helen Hunt's love interest. Woody Allen is too old to be playing a young woman's love interest. It is too creepy. One might say that in real life he is with a much younger woman, but that is creepy, too.

In the movie, some of the characters who behaved badly say lines reminiscent of what Woody Allen and Soon-Yi may have said to Mia Farrow. I am not sure if Allen is doing this in defense of his behavior or because he has rationalized his bad behavior.

There seems to be a lot of people crediting the Pope with all sorts of achievements (I don't have time to list all the links). One of them is the defeat of communism. While the Pope stood up to the communists, to suggest that he was deserves a lot of credit is overblown. What about the dissidents and people of Eastern Europe who rose up to kick out the communists in 1989? Did they credit the Pope back then? No says Marc Fisher in Slate. Too bad the WSJ won't publish this.

Bill Gross of PIMCO has his monthly Investment Outlook up on the PIMCO website. Bill Gross points out that the double-digit annual increases in a variety of asset prices in recent years had a lot to do with the fall in real interest rates. Unfortunately for the bullish, real rates bottomed out last year. PIMCO thinks they will stay low but just staying low is not enough to give the high rates of returns of the past. The likely result is low nominal returns and even lower real returns on assets in the near future.

Or that is what the WSJ says in today's editorial about the Robb-Silberman Report. The editors at the WSJ believe that the intelligence failure with Iraq had to do with the "'climate of conformity' across the entire intelligence community that firmly believed that Saddam still had WMD." Yet, not everyone believed it. For example, Scott Ritter did not believe it. He was dismissed as some sort of turncoat, but he was right and the others were wrong.

The Robb-Silberman said:

Overemphasis on and underperformance in daily intelligence products. As problematic as the October 2002 NIE was, it was not the Community’s biggest analytic failure on Iraq. Even more misleading was the river of intelligence that flowed from the CIA to top policymakers over long periods of time—in the President’s Daily Brief (PDB) and in its more widely distrib­uted companion, the Senior Executive Intelligence Brief (SEIB). These daily reports were, if anything, more alarmist and less nuanced than the NIE. It was not that the intelligence was markedly different. Rather, it was that the PDBs and SEIBs, with their attention-grabbing headlines and drumbeat of repetition, left an impression of many corroborating reports where in fact there were very few sources. And in other instances, intelligence suggesting the existence of weapons programs was conveyed to senior policymakers, but later information casting doubt upon the validity of that intelligence was not. In ways both subtle and not so subtle, the daily reports seemed to be “selling” intelligence—in order to keep its customers, or at least the First Customer, interested.

The WSJ ignored the fact that the intelligence agencies were producing reports that the administration wanted. Was the administration encouraging this type of selective reporting? The report does not say.

The recent Foreign Affairs issue has an article called "The Overstretch Myth" by David H. Levey and Stuart S. Brown pooh-‘poohing the notion that the U.S. has become overstretched. The authors claims that despite the record foreign debt and current account deficits, “The dollar's role as the global monetary standard is not threatened…”

The authors completely ignore the hollowing out of American industry due to the overvaluation of the dollar versus Asian currencies. Whole industries are being shifted to Asia. America keeps importing more without exporting more. With a currency overvalued against Asian currencies, America has a competitive disadvantage in the production of more and more goods and services. As Asians manufacture more goods, they get better at it. This is what economists call learning by doing. The effect is that America's competitive advantage worsens more.

The authors think that capital gains and home value appreciation should be considered part of savings. This is not true. Savings is income that is deferred from consumption. Capital gains and home value gains are not savings.

The authors think America can preserve its currency as the world's favorite reserve currency even with its record borrowing. But when the world becomes awash with dollars, it has to go down. And no one will want to hold too much of a declining asset. There is also another substitute today in the Euro.

The U.S. also becomes vulnerable if it is in deep in debt. If the U.S. needed to fight a war, the Chinese government could pull the plug and refuse to finance our economy. America may be forced to choose between higher interest rates with a weak currency and its own defense. Our foreign policy would be determined by what our creditors are willing to put up with, not what is good for the U.S.

The authors conclude that “The biggest threat to U.S. hegemony, accordingly, stems not from the sentiments of foreign investors, but from protectionism and isolationism at home.” The authors do not explain why this is so. I guess people are supposed to nod their heads and agree that protectionism and isolationism are the worse things. Maybe these are the only solutions to the record trade deficit. If we reject them, then there is no way to change our course. We must stay on the road we are on even if it leads to national bankruptcy.

The coverage of the death of the Pontiff is almost uniformly hagiographic. Kudos to Christopher Hitchens for reminding readers of the sexual abuse in the Church and John Paul II's lack of concern about it. Still, where is H.L. Mencken when we need him. He knew how to write an obituary about a 'revered' religious leader and statesman.

The Pope probably has not been personally involved in any of the sex scandals in which the Roman Church has been embroiled. And many of these problems started long before he was Pope. But the Pope presided over a Church plagued with one scandal after another. These occurred in LA, Boston, Ireland, and other parts of the world. For most of this time, he seemed to relinquish any responsibility for what went on.

For example, it took several years for the Pope to remove Boston's Cardinal Law after some of the scandals in the Boston Archdiocese were revealed. And what happened when Law was removed? He gets a cushy post in Rome and retained the title of Cardinal.

The Pope seemed more concerned about protecting the priests and the Chrurch's reputation than innocent children. For all those who think the Pope was a wonderful man, actions speak louder than words. Good riddance I say.

In this week's Economist , the National Alliance party in Italy is referred to as the "formerly neo-fascist New Alliance." This is not the first time they refer to the National Alliance as former neo-fascists. For example, here , and here .

While factually true, so what? They are no longer neo-fascist, so why keep drudging up the past? Would The Economist have preferred they stayed neo-fascist?

The Economist does not call the Democratic Party the formerly pro-slavery Democratic Party or the British Labour Party the formerly pro-nationalizing the British economy British Labour Party.

This bias against conservative parties is further evidence of the leftward drift of The Economist.

Note: The Economist links require a subscription.

James Taranto think not and he should know. Today, Taranto opines on the Schiavo matter in the WSJ:

"Liberalism once championed the interests of society's most vulnerable members. Today it increasingly champions their 'right to die.'"

According to the doctors who studied Terri Schiavo, her cerebral cortex was mostly gone and replaced with spinal fluid. Like many of the commentators who opposed the disconnection of the feeding tube, Taranto ignores a pretty basic fact about the case.