Friday, August 06, 2004

Assault on Fox News

I think I may have underestimated just how much Fox News annoys liberals and Democrats, but a story from UPI (via the Corner) shows that they've just blown a gasket and gone off the deep end (excuse my metaphors). The story says that not only is gang suing Fox, a group of Democratic legislators has demanded to meet with Rupert Murdoch to discuss FNC's "bias toward Republicans." I'm almost at a loss of where to begin here. My first thought, though, is what are these people doing wasting their time, and presumably government money, on a pet peeve such as this? But I think what is really galling about this entire thing is the shameless double standard, or perhaps I should call it staggering hypocrisy. Either way, can you imagine a group of Republicans demanding ABCNNBCBS address conservative grievances over their biased reporting? Of course not, because it would never be taken seriously to begin with, and also because Republicans have more class than that. The arrogance displayed here is truly something to marvel at. Fox News must answer for its imagined slights. Again, I invite you to imagine a group of Republicans demanding this of CBS news. Dan Rather would laugh in their faces and then glower, saying, "Get out." In that situation, people would be screaming about freedom of the press, but in this case, this is all about "the responsibility of the media." Now, I've never been a fan of the arrogance and sense of entitlement the entrenched mainstream media have, but this is not the concern of lawmakers. They're free to treat news organizations with contempt, and many do. But, ultimately, news organizations are responsible to their readers and viewers, not to politicians. That's what freedom of the press is all about.

The next question to ask is, does this whining even have any basis in fact? Well, it's well known that Murdoch and FNC chief Roger Ailes are committed conservatives and that many of the FNC on-air talent leans right, especially Brit Hume, Shepard Smith, Steve Doocy, Brian Kilmeade, John Gibson, Neil Cavuto, Sean Hannity, and Oliver North. However, there is no lack of liberals at the network. Alan Colmes, Greta Van Sustren, Geraldo Rivera, and Judith Regan come to mind immediately. There are also some strong libertarians who are on the air often including Judge Napolitano, Cal Thomas, Bill O'Reilly (in the sense that he's a social conservative with libertarian sensibilities), and E.D. Hill. So, even with the preponderance of conservatives, Fox News has the most ideologically diverse on-air talent in the entire business. No other network can boast anywhere near the number of conservatives (some failing to have even one) and I don't think any have so many libertarians. Then there are the regular commentators. People are generally familiar with the conservatives who come on to provide their punditry, including Ann Coulter Laura Ingrahm, Mike Gallagher, JD Hayworth, Orrin Hatch, Katherine Harris, Bill Bennett, and many more. Note that most of these people NEVER appear on other networks, though they have expressed a willingness to do so. What needs to be examined, though, are the liberal commentators who are on ALL THE TIME to provide their thoughts on events. They include Lanny Davis, Ellen Ratner, Susan Estrich, Robert Reich, Dick Morris (a liberal, even though he dislikes the Clintons), Greg Meeks, Anthony Weiner, RFK Jr., Bill Richardson, Patricia Ireland, Ellis Henican (I apologize to him because I think I got his name wrong; he fills in for Alan Colmes frequently), Howard Dean, Ed Rendell, and many, many others who don't come to mind now because I haven't been able to watch Fox News since May. I'm certain my co-bloggers can add to this list.

In all honesty, though, the above paragraph doesn't address the specific charge in this case. I think it does, however, show that the network works hard, much harder than others to live up to the mantra of "We Report, You Decide." The charge here, though, is that "Fox News network has a deliberate bias in favor of, and often serves as an extension of, the Republican Party's policies and ideology." I would like to dismiss this as nonsense on its face, since it is, but it can be explained fairly easily. This is coming from some the perspective of some very liberal people, and at least one socialist (Bernie Sanders), who don't think conservative views are even things reasonable people can believe. Now, on most networks, there is an almost complete lack of exposure to conservative ideology, but these legislators don't really have a problem with that because they think just the way the newsroom people do: conservative views are fringe and don't really need exposure because they're not serious thought. Besides, that's what talk radio is for. So, with people of this mindset observing, any serious discussion of conservative ideas, even alongside liberal ones, will look like a conservative slant. The same way that any serious attention to conservative thought, in contrast to the liberal networks where there is none, looks like a conservative bias. When everything is overwhelmingly liberal, even a little bit of conservatism looks like an overwhelming amount.

Just as ridiculous as the story reported in this UPI article is how the article itself is written. It was obviously written by someone who does not like Fox News very much at all, and is likely as bitter as those about whom he is writing. The article at least notes that it's the letter from the Democrats that cites Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting as a source, rather than going directly to them, but takes their conclusions as unbiased. Of course, what's not said is that FAIR is a notoriously liberal organization that has dedicated itself to "proving" that there is no liberal bias in the mainstream media. Unfortunately for them, they haven't had much luck in that department as polls not conducted by FAIR continue to show the overwhelming majority of journalists vote Democratic and agree with Democrats, though continue to call themselves moderates. Admissions of liberal bias from ABC News' The Note and the New York Times Public Editor don't help, either.

After discussing FAIR, the article cites a study by tghe Program on International Policy Attitudes about the "misperceptions" of Fox News viewers. The problem is the study was based on outright falsehoods. The UPI article says that one of the "misperceptions" that two thirds of Fox News viewers have is that there have been links found between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Of course, these links HAVE been found. What hasn't been shown is that Saddam played a role in the 9/11 attacks, which the 9/11 commission has stated, but that is not what the study says. It dismisses the reports of talks between one of the 9/11 hijackers and an official from Saddam's government in Prague as the only evidence offered of any link. It says that this report was discredited by US intelligence officials, but since it discusses the WMD situation, which was assured us by US intelligence officials, why are the necessarily right in one case and not the other? There is much, much, more evidence, but PIPA apparently wasn't interested in looking at the many reports on that. So the study, really, is bunk. But even this can be explained. Why are Fox News viewers likely to believe a link exists? Because Fox was the only network to REPORT evidence of a link. The UPI article goes on to state that another misperception is that WMDs were found in Iraq, but it also states that no evidence of a WMD program was found, which is an outright lie, as equipment and plans for building uranium enrichment equipment was found buried all over the country. The fact is, then, that Fox News viewers do not hold "misperceptions" at all. They know facts that have been labeled as misperceptions by the PIPA when the evidence clearly says otherwise. The only bias this study proves is that of the PIPA.

The UPI article goes on to report that the Democrats also cite a "documentary" called "Outfoxed" which supposedly shows Fox's bias. It was sponsored by the Center for American Progress, which is headed by Clinton's former chief of staff (which the UPI commendably reports) and (drum roll please) Well, now we get an idea where that's coming from. Though UPI revealed the leanings of the Center for American Progress, the article fails to say that MoveOn is a far left advocacy group. Even the AP, in its story about the Vote for Change tour, was able to correctly identify MoveOn as a liberal advocacy group, but no such modifier is present here. MoveOn's complaint against Fox News is that it misrepresents itself my saying FNC is "Fair and Balanced" even though they claim it is biased. Well, this is EXACTLY what conservatives have been saying for years about CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, the New York Times, the LA Times, the Washington Post, and on and on. Those concerns were all dismissed with a wave or a comment about conservative paranoia, but when it's Fox News and complaining, well, the courts simply MUST do something.

Evidence of bias given by "Outfoxed", and subsequently MoveOn, the Democratic complainers, and the UPI article includes a memo telling staffers to mention the president's "political courage and tactical cunning" on Middle East issues. Never is it considered that perhaps that's exactly what the president demonstrated in that case. Furthermore, how often did we hear about the "political courage and tactical cunning" of Bill Clinton during his 8 years? In fact, every time the man shows his face, we're still told what a brilliant guy he is. Clinton is certainly intelligent, and, yes, politically cunning. Is saying that evidence of bias? Not if it's true. Again, this reveals more about the biases of the "documentary" than Fox News.

And finally, Walter Cronkite is trotted out to denounce Fox News. Cronkite is a committed, admitted liberal and all-around Jimmy Carter fan. So, again, his views are suspect. He then lies, saying that he's never heard of any news organization doing anything like that. Really? I think Bernie Goldberg (formerly of CBS News) would have something to say about that.

In the end, this is just another volley in the endless assault on Fox News from the left and the liberal media. They absolutely cannot stand the fact that conservatives are now given equal face time and their views accorded equal respect. They can't stand the fact that a network actually hired gasp conservative talent, and they especially can't stand the fact that Fox News is drawing viewers away from the liberal networks and has helped break the dominance of the mainstream media. The liberals then turn to complaints about bias, and with their typically short memories (see Clinton, Bill, Praising Vietnam and) are engaging in the most blatant hypocrisy after ignoring the concerns of conservatives for so long. They long for the days of, "We Report, We Decide."

Thursday, August 05, 2004

Get the word out...

You can see the website and the ad here. The double standard is truly unbelieveable - gets a pass on EVERYTHING!, while these men are scrutinized non-stop about their ad and their experiences. These stories sound legitimate and truthful. Hopefully this will be a strong antidote to the nonsense coming out of the Kerry campaign - which continues to shove Kerry's "honorable" record in Vietnam down our throats.

Rush today exposed a sickening double standard about Vietnam. The left compares Iraq to Vietnam all the time, yet seemingly the only thing the left can point to in support of John Kerry is Vietnam, and even half of the time there they are directing criticism at the President's service. I have qualms with the President, absolutely, but I can only take so much of this crap from the Democrats. Just the thought of these people in office again is enough for me to put aside my disagreements with the President and work to get him re-elected. There is still a better chance of Bush doing some of the things I want to see done than there is with Kerry in office.

Wednesday, August 04, 2004

Thoughts on '08

I just wanted to add my $.02 to Brian's post about the possible presidential candidates in 2008.

Kerry would, barring Lyndon Johnson-like incompetence (and I made that caveat because, hey, it's John Kerry), and if he wins in November (God forbid), almost certainly seek a second term.

Edwards is a popular character now because he's charismatic, but he seems to be all style and no substance. Not that that would necessarily stop him, I just wonder if his novelty won't have worn off four years from now.

I think Hillary is certain to run in 2008, barring a Kerry win. She's been perparing for this since 2000, or maybe all her life. She is hugely, inexplicably popular among Democrats and maintains a solid following across the country. Her election to the presidency would be a nightmare for this country, worse than her husband's eight years, and I daresay worse than John Kerry's election. Fortunately, her nomination will be certain to galvanize both Republicans and the segement of the population that just can't stand her, which goes beyond Republicans. I agree that there is a vaccuum where there should be a strong conservative candidate to face her. That is something that the GOP will have to seriously consider after we get George Bush re-elected.

I'm not sure what to make of the "Obama phenomenon." I was going to say, "Let's see if he gets elected first," but with the Republicans shooting themselves in the feet in Illinois, he will likely be in office come January. I didn't see him give his speech, but I get the feeling that he is a media darling in the same way Howard Dean was: they loved building him up, but he can't sustain himself, like Bill Clinton can, and so could just as easily be torn down by the media, like Dean.

I don't know much of anything about Granholm, so I can't really comment on her.

I've also heard Frist's name come up as a candidate, and I like the guy, but frankly, that has "Dole" written all over it. He's not presidential material.

I'm also a big Giuliani fan, and like Brian I have qualms about some of his more liberal stances, but I lok at what he accomplished in New York City before 9/11 and his leadership on it, and I can't help but think he would be fantastic. However, I just don't get the sense from him that he's interested in federal office. We'll see, though. If Giuliani was to become a candidate, I'd want him to pick a staunch conservative as a running-mate. Tom McClintock and Pat Toomey come to mind as excellent choices, but I'm afraid neither has the national exposure. I'm afraid he would be pressured to pick McCain.

I also happen to like Colin Powell, but I don't think I'd like to see him as president, nor do I think he wants to be president. I just have not been particularly impressed with Powell as Secretary of State. Not that I don't think he's a brilliant man, a great guy, and a fantastic general, I just don't feel that he's necessarily the best man for that job. On the other hand, it's possible this could be deliberate on the part of the Bush administration. Powell gets to play "Good Cop" and Bush the "Bad Cop," like Bush and Tony Blair appear to have done with Libya. So maybe I'm more ambiguous about Powell than what I wrote above, but I still don't think he wants to be president.

I would LOVE to see Condi Rice run and win. I think she's make a wonderful president, and I think she would be a great statesman (stateswoman, if we must), as Professor Smolansky might say. It would also drive the Democrats absolutely insane if the first woman and African-American president was a conservative. I think a few of them might actually implode. Unfortunately, I've been told Condi is not very political and is much more interetsed in her analytical job. And frankly, she's probably a much greater asset to this nation there. Not to say I wouldn't vote for her if she ran.

I also think Jeb Bush would be a huge mistake. He's a good guy, and from what I hear, has been a good governor, but come on, a high school civics student can see that he would be a bad choice for purely PR reasons. Hannity should be able to see that, too. He may be the most conservative Bush yet, but I think even Republicans are tiring of Bushes who run as conservatives and then are all over the place once in office. No, all you liberals out there are not going tog et me to vote against George W. Bush this year based on these thoughts. I may have my issues with some of Bush's domestic policies, but the simple fact is we're at war, Bush understands it, his team understands it, and they're fighting. Kerry (and the rest of the Democrats with the usual exceptions) does not understand it. I'm hard-pressed to find anything Kerry understands, outside of pandering and hair cuts. As Lincoln said of Grant, I say of Bush: "I cannot spare this man; he fights."

As for Zelll Miller, he's a nice guy and a good conservative, but he wouldn't run on the GOP ticket. That's why he hasn't switched parties. He's a committed Democrat, and they would never elected, so I don't think he even COULD get the nomination if he wanted to. I don't see any desire in him for higher office, either. Also, I think he wants to retire soon.

There's one more Republican who I'm always boosting who Brian left out: Colorado Governor Bill Owens. He's a solid conservative, a tough governor, and one heck of a personable guy. He has been a fantastic governor, and I think he'd make a great president. Again, his problem is national name recognition. Owens, though, is term-limited within the next few years, (his successor is likely to be his Lt. Governor, Jane Norton) and that would free him up to become prominent on the national stage in preparation for a run in the primary. We'll have to see.

Moore's Short List

I can imagine a document of this sort lying on Micheal Moore's desk:

Persons to receive complementary copies of the new movie on DVD:
Jaques Chirac
Kofi Annan
Barbera Streisand
Howard Dean
Al Franken
Janene Garofalo
Ted Rall
Kim Jong Il
Muqtada Al-Sadr (and other minutemen types)

Groups to offer complementary screenings to:
Hezbollah (they're getting me into that lucrative Lebanon market!)
The mullahs of Iran
International ANSWER
International Solidarity Movement (because they need to learn how to hate Bush a little more; balance out the hatred for Israel)

(Note: In the spirit of Michael Moore, this has no basis in fact; it just souds good. I"m honest enought o admit it's a joke, though.)

Tuesday, August 03, 2004

Tax answers

As far as I know, and I could be wrong...

- Capital Gains would be eliminated
- Write-offs would either be eliminated or limited
- The IRS can't be eliminated with a flax tax, it would only be eliminated with a VAT or a NST

Flat Tax?

Speaker of the House Denny Hassert was on Hannity and Colmes last night to talk about his new book. While he was on Hannity pressed him for details about the new flat tax bill and I am now even less impressed. They really have no idea what they want to do and it does not even seem like there is a definable plan out there. The only thing that was clear is that Hassert wants to eliminate the IRS however he does not talk about how he is going to do that. They are still kicking around ideas about VAT and Natioanl Sales taxes. I would love a flat tax bill but there does not even appear to be much beyond everyone saying we need a flat tax bill. The only concerns I have are listed below.
Do I still get a deduction based on real estate property
How are capital gains taxes assessed with the flat taxes as most investments today are not reported as income.
What happens to business who have the incentive to write off charitable contributions and things like taking clients to lunch, luxury boxes ect. They help to stimulate our economy and businesses need an incentive to do them.

I am curious Kevin if you have any thoughts on those.

What to do about Iran

Condi Rice was on O’Reilly last night talking about the upcoming problem in Iran and how the administration wants to handle it. The talk was of allowing the UN to pass a resolution sometime in September to force Iran to let the inspectors come back in. Iran knows that through November they are safe. Barring a direct attack President Bush cannot start a war in Iran and the rest of the world is not going to get off their butts to do it themselves. It appears we will go with the inspection route in Iran a little while longer and try to once again negotiate with terrorists who will not surrender. No mention was made of North Korea and there are rumors out today that the weapons are targeting us and not the surrounding neighbors (see drudge). Only time will tell and I hope for now we can avoid another war because we are desperately shorthanded on soldiers. It will be interesting to see how this plays out and hopefully the inspectors can do their job and the program will be disarmed.

Cuba and Moore

Michael Moore’s propaganda trash was played around the island of Cuba for free to all residents who could view it. As if we needed yet another reason why Americans should not be supporting this trash we are handed it through Fidel’s propaganda machine. Is it any surprise that this happened of course not. It was only a matter of time for it before even North Koreans will get to see it. Or maybe they can poison the minds of the people of Iran. This would make a great Al Qaida training video and I am sure Bin Laden cannot wait for his copy of the DVD. Hopefully this trash will go away soon but somehow I doubt that will happen.

The Heart-Warming John Kerry Strikes Again

Drudge is reporting the following comment, made by John Kerry in response to the protesters who shouted "Four more years" at a Kerry rally: "I want to thank George Bush for sending the goons here tonight to excite us to do a little more work." Of course, his wife's reaction was, "They want four more years of hell."

Can you imagine what would happen if President Bush called Kerry supporters "goons"? George W. Bush isn't just the president of the people who voted for him. He's the president of every American, like it or not. If John Kerry wants to be the President of the United States, he should start acting like he cares about every citizen of this country and not just the ones who will be voting for him in November. It's bad enough that candidates use the tactic of name-calling on each other. It's even worse when one candidate calls the supports of his competition "goons".

Useless gestures made by campuses.

It does not matter if it is college or high school both will waste time in pointless activities to erase what they are perceiving as the moral failings of students (They are correct in the moral failings part but have the solution wrong)

Frosty with regards to your drinking survey I am sad to say that I agree with you. I think it is a waste of time and will not deter anyone from doing anything. This only severs to punish people such as yourself who are generally good honest people that are not breaking the law by consuming alcohol under age. To the idea that they need to take such a blatantly loaded survey and assign solutions that are not related to the problem is a waste of time. I mean why not have the whole campus do this since this is not just an athlete problem. The answer tot hat is because the response would be a near mutiny. People would fight the administration tooth and nail and the people who don't drink would have their time wasted in this pathetic effort. I want to know how much money they spent to figure out that non greeks drink less than greeks. What a concept and such a waste to figure out.

When I was in High School I had an Education Representative bullshit post. This post was allowing me to represent my groups to the student government in exchange for me doing services for them. It lasted about four weeks and ended with me telling the government what a useless bureaucracy it was and I ended up ruining my senior year. One of my jobs was to plan the Red Ribbon week ceremony and the anti drug assembly. 6000 dollars was spent on an assembly that for the previous two years students booed and they were almost sent back to class at both assemblies. This is nuts!!!!!!!! Why would you spend money like that. I wanted to cut the budget by 2/3 do a token assembly and put the money into programs students would enjoy. I saw this as a waste of money and accomplishing nothing. I mine as well have suggested we execute someone. I was so unpopular that I ended up in a great deal of trouble and it simply did not work. It did not matter I was gone shortly there after although the distraction did cost me an election because I was so busy fighting them and the club that I had a surplus for was back in ruin at the end of the year. (Damn spending liberals with no idea about how to bring revenue in). Anyway that is just another useless gesture that your drinking exam reminded me of.

Hacking Case

I am pleased to see the police in Salt Lake City making the right move against the man who killed his wife. Mark Hacking is no longer a person of interest but a suspect in the murder of his wife. Now is this not common sense. He says he is home in bed when he is seen on convince store cameras. He lies about his medical school acceptance and his wife finds out about it. He throws away the mattress and buys a new one a half hour before reporting she is missing. Then he tries to set up this pathetic crazy plea where he no longer knows right from wrong and he is running around naked outside a hotel. Your damn right this man is crazy. He should be in prison for murder and so he cannot hurt productive members of society.

This whole thing has really made me hate defense attorneys. Here are people who are defending someone who is so clearly guilty and doing a bad job of it. There is reasonable doubt in Scott Petterson (not) however the prosecution sure is falling apart fast. So with regards tot hat maybe something is funny there. In this case it is even more clear cut then Petterson and we have attorneys who actually try to defend it. It is very sad. These scumbags who would probably defend a 9/11 terrorist are fine with defending this murder. It really does just make me sick.

Monday, August 02, 2004

Correction to 2008

I have been informed that Jennifer Granholm was born in Canada and cannot be considered for President. My friend who pointed this out to me believes that the race will be between HILLARY (yes the Dick Morris Brand) and Rudy. Thanks Brian F.

National Intelligence

The National Intelligence Director that President Bush discussed creating today is a step forward in the right direction. This office will reorganize all of the intelligence agencies and create a new one that will enforce what the intelligence brings out (basically an MI 5). I like that it will not be cabinet level and I do agree that this will free it from political influence and the president still can choose to meet with this person every day even if they are not cabinet level. I think both Andy Card and Condi Rice said the right thing when they said the number one qualification was that the person be trusted by the president. This person is going to have to deliver analysis to the president and the president must be able to trust this analysis. I know the reporter wanted to know (Senator, Military, Academic) but I think they are right in saying the trust factor comes first. There will be all three of those below him for that kind of analysis but this man has the final say on what to stand by. I also agree that he has to have control over the budget. DOD has 80 percent of the intelligence budget, CIA 10 percent and the other 10 is divided between misc agencies. This is crucial for determining who is the most effective and getting money to those who are the most effective. This will allow work to be continued by those who are doing well and those who are not will be forced to reinvent and work there way back up.

Book Review Mauritius Command by Patrick O'Brian

The Mauritius Command by Patrick O’Brian is a continuation of the Master and Commander series and falls number 4 of 21. This book is based on the historical battle in 1911 where the British retook the islands of Mauritius. The book is another slam dunk and develops the characters further while providing for some decent action. The naval battles are very well done and of course who does not love reading about the French losing. I would say this was the best of the four I have read.

You left out Steve Forbes

Flat taxman extraordinairre


I had a long discussion today about the players in 2008 and who would be inline on both sides of the fence. I thought I would throw them out here and see if anyone has anyother people or thoughts on these people.


John Kerry: Provided he wins he will be in a strong position to run again. If he loses however he will be the next Al Gore and can join the sidelines. His presidency will be disastrous for America so he may be facing the same firestorm George Bush is in 4 years but only time will tell.

John Edwards: Edwards even if Kerry loses could try for the nomination again and have a decent shot as long as it is not too bad of a loss to George Bush. If Kerry wins this kid will be put off until 2012 where he would be a natural for the nomination and hopefully will suffer the fate of Al Gore (I am terrified of trial lawyers)

Hillary Cliton: Hillary is the greatest terror the democrats can unleash on this world and I do believe she would run in 2008 if Kerry does not win the election. If not I think she has the determination to hold off until 2012 and make a run for it then. This would be disastrous and for those who need references see my previous Hillary post. The lack of republican candidates does make Hillary a threat should George Bush win in 2004.

Barack Obama: He held the hotspot at this years convention which has been a stepping stone to prominence in the past. I was fairly impressed with this mans speech and he does seem to have integrity and a brain (two things hard to find in liberals). He has a very good education record that does not include the reckless spending that someone like Hillary would engage in. I am not a fan of his economic views and like most democrats he disavows the idea that tax cuts do not work. Out of the list of likely contenders he is higher on my list then any other democrat at the moment.

Jennifer Granholm: This woman is the governor of Michigan and I was not to aware of her but one of my friends thinks she is a strong candidate that could become a major player in 2008. I am not sure I agree with all of it but I do think it is worth consideration. She has made some very impressive economic gains in Michigan since 9/11 and does seem to be a smart governor.

Al Gore: Just kidding


Bill Frist: He has been suggested and I am not really a huge fan. I don’t think he has the power to beat any of the main democrats who are out there and running

Rudy Guliani: This has been suggested before and despite some of his more liberal stances I would love him to be our president. He is an effective leader who could reenergize and revitalize the nation.
Colin Powell: I believe it was Rush recently who was talking about Colin Powell being President. Another one that I would like to see as I really have respect for all that this man has accomplished. I don’t know if Powell himself wants to be President though.

Jeb Bush: Hannity likes to suggest Jeb Bush and personally I think this would be the worst idea in the world. I think the nations is sick of the bushes and I am not sure I would want Jeb in either. I would have to review more about him but I doubt he would be very high on my list.

My personal picks that aren’t as likely

Condi Rice: I love this woman. I think she is brilliant and articulate and could also unify this nation. If we are going to have a first female president/African American president I would hope it would be her.

Zell Miller: Not to likely but I really do love this guy. He has great stances, a good sense of humor, and is a fiscal conservative (hallelujah).

Only time will tell but it does raise the interesting question of are we heading for a spiral of presidential candidates that no one knows and a repeat of 10 primary candidates or will a natural order resume itself.

I will believe it when I see it

With regards to the Flat Tax that is being proposed I will believe it when I see it. I too rejoice at the idea and would love to see how this is going to play out. My personal feeling is that we will not end up getting the flat tax because the liberals are going to whine their hearts out and filibuster stopping any forward progress on this issue. A flat tax is a brilliant idea and would simplify the tax code greatly. It would create a lag in work load for accountants and possibly hurt some job growth but in the long run I would argue that the benefits out way the negatives here.

Tax articles and Air America

Here comes the onslaught of tax-related information. This one will be short though...

This is called "Simplifying Federal Taxes: The Advantages of Consumption-Based Taxation." I am in the middle of reading it right now...its not short but its a solid introduction to the basics.

Also, after reading about that idiot Stuart Smalley's new cable show on the Sundance Channel (wow, ratings bonannza there), I decided to listen to Air America for a while. I was disappointed that I missed Franken - he's on opposite Rush - so now I am listening to some person named Randi Rhodes, who of course just said that the "Bush boys" are best buddies with the Saudi Royal Family. Following that, she is telling Bush to move the convention. Why? I don't know, because its hard to follow talentless, inarticulate knuckleheads like this Randi Rhodes when they start babbling. Take a listen, it will certainly make you laugh.

Well now its time for streaming commentary from yours truly... Now she is criticizing Bush for announcing that he is calling for the new intelligence director. Funny, because 5 minutes ago she was saying Nader should leave America because of the fools that are going to vote for him because the only hope for us to be "safe" is to watch John Kerry's inauguration. Kerry supports the position of the national security advisor, and not only that he said he would have implemented ALL of the commission's recommendations IMMEDIATELY. Also, apparently the fate of our nation is held by the Saudi Royal family because they hold all of our debt. Hmm, I don't really think that's true. I'm thinking about calling into this woman to argue with her. The number for Air America to call-in live is 1-866-303-2270.

Now she is saying Bush doesn't deserve to live in the White House because he wouldn't appreciate the artwork. What! Apparently, she says the President must not be affected by that painting of Kennedy looking down in a thoughtful pose, otherwise he would move the convention to Texas??? As well, the President has probably never been in the Dish Room. Aah, ok.


The 18th Amendment has already been repealed-it authorized Prohibition. The foul amendment that authorizes the income tax is the 16th.

But wait, what do we have here? The Democrats told me that the Constitution has never been amended to restrict rights. And yet here are two amendments that do just that. Gosh, why would they lie like that?


So I started to take this annoying alcohol quiz...and this is how the thing started. I took a pre-test so they could see how to structure my quiz...and this is how they started the first section. "As a non-drinker, just as you would want them to understand your decisions about drinking, you should understand their decisions." NO! When I use the word "liberalism" now to curse this quiz, I direct it not at classical liberalism but at politically correct American liberalism (the stuff we have to put up with in schools). This thing I have to do represents the worst of liberalism. I don't need to "understand" anything. You cannot tell me what I have to understand and what I don't have to understand. Someone wants to drink, fine! They better not get drunk though, and if they do they better be locked in a room, because if they hurt me or someone I love they will have to face the full extent of the law, and they will deserve it. Why? Because 99.9% of these people understand the risks of alcohol, and they know what they will face in the way of consequences if they break the law.

Here's an example of what I have to do...question in bold, followed by my answer.

When you were growing up, how did your family feel about drinking? Was your family environment positive or negative? Do you remember anything that happened in your family that made a strong impression on you and affected your decisions about drinking?

My parents rarely drink. My mother is a nurse and told me stories about the alcohol related cases in the ICU. Hence, I don't drink. On another note, what kind of question is "was your family life positive or negative?" That's an annoying PC question that lacks substance. As someone who doesn't drink and comes from a family who doesn't drink, I still resent the attacks on personal liberties like this seems to want to accomplish, as does those "The Truth" commercials.

I ran through my alloted space or I would have ranted more.

Luckily, I got another chance. Now I was shown 5 alcohol ads, and I had to pick which one was most appealing to me...

Please share any thoughts or feedback you have about this exercise:

Pretty much stating the obvious. I'm sorry, I hope I don't continue to annoy whoever has to read this stuff, but honestly, of course I was going to pick the sexual one. I'm not going to pick the guy dreaming about beer, nor the cozy one, because they are probably talking about shoes.

Now the guy is telling me that "Work hard, play hard" doesn't really work for students. Aah, thanks Lehigh, I didn't realize this one. Why are all athletes forced to take this? Maybe, maaaaaaaybe freshmen could get some use out of it (doubtful though), but you aren't telling me anything new here.

Interestingly, he just said white people drink more than minorities. Surprisingly, he followed that by saying that GREEKS drink MORE than non-Greeks! Man this is useful.

Jubilation at the thought...

I'm so happy right now! The thought that there will at least be a national dialogue on this subject is great. The abolition of the 16th amendment - amazing! A flat tax or national sales taz - amazing! Value added tax - sorry to say I haven't studied this at all, but I will start to very soon. David, you will have a full report on all of this when I can get it, and hopefully I can write a good article for the newsletter on the subject, assuming it will be an issue.

Interestingly, New York closed the Holland Tunnel going into Manhattan. This new terror threat is rather interesting, and I would have to think that this is a threat unlike the others in the past 2.5 years if we are taking such a drastic step as to close the Holland Tunnel. Stuff like this renews my love for transportation, because these are the problems which we will have to deal with in the future, and I would love to be a part of the solution.

Sunday, August 01, 2004

GOP to Propose Elimination of IRS?

Drudge is reporting that Bush is planning to announce the eradication of the IRS as a goal for his second term. In addition, "The Speaker of the House will push for replacing the nation's current tax system with a national sales tax or a value added tax, Hill sources tell DRUDGE."

This initially really excited me, but I was concerned by a few things. Some of those concerns have shown up in the comment thread about this at LGF (which I recommend reading).

First and foremost, will a shakeup like this, though positive, have an adverse effect on the War on Terror? I'm aslo dubious as to whether the IRS can really be eliminated. Even if we radically simplify the tax system, someone has to collect the money, cash the checks, and play accountant. But perhaps we can eliminate most of the IRS bloat.

A couple of the comments on LGF mentioned important points. First, if this goes through, the 16th Amendment needs to be repealed, other wise we could wind up with sales taxes and income taxes simultaneously. I would be extremely annoyed and disappointed if this is simply pandering by the Republicans to get votes.

Make sure you read comment #57 in that thread, as he has the skeptical angle covered. I'll be very interested to see the reaction from the Corner, Instapundit, and of course, Rush and Hannity. Oh, Kevin, I expect a full report.

the threat of Hillary Clinton

Well Hillary Clinton is one of the most terrifying people in politics today and Dick Morris Rewriting History confirms most of what I feared about the first lady. I have been researching a lot on Bill Clinton and while he habitually cannot keep it in his pants he is not much of a person to break financial laws. Most of the financial scandals that assailed the administration were the cause of his wife Hillary. With a record like this can we actually trust this woman in the Oval office or even a part of the Senate? Now I am a firm believer that the city of New York lost their mind when they voted for Hillary Clinton. Rudy’s dropout and the mistakes on the part of the republican candidate aside the people of New York in a moment of liberal lunacy elected this madwoman. Now Bill Clinton of course helped by pardoning 14 Puerto Rican terrorists to make it appear that Hillary was supportive of their cause and she had the offices of the President behind her which make any election easier.

Dick Morris talks about the part of Hillary that is hidden from public view in four parts. First is the politician who is very smart and canny. She is a good political operator and an effective campaign manager; however that is what she remains a manager. Hillary Clinton is not a leader and should not be allowed to obtain this countries highest office ever. The ideologue in Hillary is the part we should fear second most. This part of Hillary is the one that gives her the socialist strength that she has and makes her dangerous to the capitalist in this country. John Edwards wants to raise our capital gains tax and stifle the incentive to invest. Hillary Clinton would create a “utopian society” similar to what Marx envisioned. This sixties nut job protestor wants equality at any cost and is willing to go to great lengths to get it. There is Hillary the material girl who is responsible for financial scandals and the stealing of furniture and art work from the white house in which the Clintons got away with a bout 86000 dollars worth. This Hillary will go to great lengths for more then financial security and go about to the point of being the most secure and well off in the world. Finally we get to the worst part of Hillary’s hidden self the Inquisitor who would harm any enemy who gets in her way and go to the extremes to discredit them and take them out. Vernon Jordan (committed suicide[bullshit]) and the filegate scandal all were a part of this façade of Hillary. She will use any means at her disposal to take down her enemies and make sure they stay down.

This has led to the brand HILLARY. This brand is a synthesis that has been glossed over by her book Living History and used to create the false persona HILLARY. HILLARY will become the person that we will see in the future and one in power it will be a question of which face(s) becomes present to haunt the American public on a reign of unequaled liberal terror. Hopefully such an eventuality will not come to pass and while we are safe in 2004 it may not be so in 2008.

Bin Laden's Vote

Recently a fox news show devoted about 10-15 min to the idea of who would Bin Laden want to win the election and I have to admit that the no conclusion result is fairly logical.

Reasons why Bin Laden wants Kerry: Softer on terror then Bush and will work with the UN more whose bureaucratic response will not be useful. Kerry cannot energize the people the way that bush has and has the democratic stigma of being unable to deal with terror as it arises.

Reasons why Bin Laden wants Bush: Bush represents the western aggression and energizes more people to join Al Qaida and similar organizations. Although Bush manages to kill more recruits they are still growing in numbers and providing a division in the western world. With the western world fighting itself Al Qaida gets more freedom to run.

Which is right at the moment I did find both arguments convincing and I wish I had made this sooner so I could remember all the points but those were the basics as I remember them in the honor of fox news I will report and you decide.