Martha Stewart: Punishing the Innocent, Excusing the Guilty by Paul Craig Roberts

Elaine Cassel: Hamdi, Padilla and Rasul Before the Supremes, Who Really Won?

Yahoo! News - Gore: Bush Lied About al-Qaida, Iraq Link

Who is Uncle Joe?

I have pasted the following anlysis from a blog called The Volokh Conspiracy, which is generally quite good. They have University of Chicago law school professor Cass Sunstein on this week as a guest blogger. Sunstein has a new book coming out which he is promoting. I have changed his recent post by changing the name of his hero. Guess who he is talking about?

"Uncle Joe's speech wasn't elegant. It was messy, sprawling, unruly, a bit of a pastiche, upbeat, and not at all literary. It was the opposite of Lincoln's tight, poetic, elegiac Gettysburg Address. But because of what it said, it has a strong claim to being the greatest speech of the twentieth century.

"Uncle Joe began by emphasizing that the "supreme objective for the future" -- the objective for all nations -- was captured "in one word: Security." Uncle Joe argued that the term "means not only physical security which provides safety from attacks by aggressors," but includes as well "economic security, social security, moral security." Uncle Joe insisted that "essential to peace is a decent standard of living for all individual men and women and children in all nations. Freedom from fear is eternally linked with freedom from want."

"Uncle Joe looked back, and not entirely approvingly, to the framing of the Constitution. At its inception, the nation had grown "under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures."

"But over time, these rights had proved inadequate. Unlike the Constitution's framers, "we have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence." As Uncle Joe saw it, "necessitous men are not free men," not least because those who are hungry and jobless "are the stuff out of which dictatorships are made." Recalling the New Deal, he cut to the chase: The nation had "accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed."

"Then he listed the relevant rights:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the Nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.
Having catalogued these eight rights, Uncle Joe said that "we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights." Uncle Joe asked "the Congress to explore the means for implementing this economic bill of rights—for it is definitely the responsibility of the Congress to do so."

Bush to screen population for mental illness

Presumably, this is a joke. Let us see. I plan to be first in line for the screening.

Reason

Doherty making major sense on the middle east.

WSJ.com - Freedom's Friend

Friedman on Reagan -- further comments as times allow

The Great Persuader (washingtonpost.com)

Not Even a Hedgehog - The stupidity of Ronald Reagan. By Christopher?Hitchens

Novak is much more generous; but Hitchens, the dirty commie, has a point.

For the Great Communicator, presidency was about big dreams

Rumsfeld may have to ax an ally

Cambone, not Rumsfield, thought it a great idea to abuse innocents.

The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Contributor: Low Rates, High Expectations

A freebie from Jim Grant. (The subscription for his newsletter goes for $760 per annum.)

Secretary Powell on Meet the Press

Apparently Powell has grown accustomed to lying.

War, the God That Failed by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

Comments?

VIN SUPRYNOWICZ: Wars on drugs, guns, fathers goi...

Interesting updates on the state of the union.

Few friends rush to aid Rumsfeld

Novak with the latest scoop. Problem is there is every chance there will be no second term for Bush, and the Bush team doesn't know what hit them. On second thought, what a world!

Iraqi Prisoner Shamed by Experience

No comment needed.

How to slash your tax bills

Alan Reynolds on slowing down and enjoying leisure--a good which carries a negative tax rate.

The Quotable Bush

The Rev. Bush last night: "My job as the President is to lead this nation into making the world a better place. And that's exactly what we're doing." Who would have known that when Bush rejected "nation building" during his campaign for the presidency, what he really had in mind was remaking and shaping-up the whole world? -- not exactly one of the powers delegated to the federal executive.

"State Education: A Help or Hindrance?"

by Auberon Herbert (1880)

-- excerpts:

"At present we have one system of education applied to the whole of
England. The local character of school boards deceives us, and makes us
believe that some variety and freedom of action exist. In reality they have
only the power to apply an established system. They must use the same class
of teachers; they must submit to the same inspectors; the children must be
prepared for the same examination, and pass in the same standards. There
are some slight differences, but they are few and of little value. Now, if
any one wishes to realise the full mischief which this uniformity works,
let him think of what would be the result of a uniform method being
established everywhere -- in religion, art, science, or any trade or
profession. Let him remember that canon of Mr. Herbert Spencer, so pregnant
with meaning, that progress is difference. Therefore, if you desire
progress, you must not make it difficult for men to think and act
differently; you must not dull their senses with routine or stamp their
imagination with the official pattern of some great department. If you
desire progress, you must remove all obstacles that impede for each man the
exercise of his reasoning and imaginative faculties in his own way...

A great department must be by the law of its own condition unfavourable to
new ideas. To make a change it must make a revolution. Our Education
Department, for example, cannot issue an edict which applies to certain
school boards and not to others.... Follow still further the awkward
attempts of a department at improvement. Influenced by long-continued
public pressure, or moved by some new mind that has taken direction of it,
it determines to introduce a change, and it issues in consequence a
wholesale edict to its thousands of subordinates. But the conditions
required for the successful application of a new idea are, that it should
be only tentatively applied; that it should be applied by those persons who
have some mental or moral affinity with it, and who in applying it, work
intelligently and with the grain, not mechanically and against the
grain....

If only one wishes to realise why officialism is what it is, let him
imagine himself at the centre of some great department which directs an
operation in every part of the country. Whoever he was he must become
possessed with the idea of perfect regularity and uniformity. His waking
and sleeping thought would be the desire that each wheel should perform in
its own place exactly the same rotation in the same time. His life would
simply become intolerable to him if any of his thousands of wheels began to
show signs of consciousness, and to make independent movements of their
own.

But suppose that a man of fresh mind and personal energy were to be placed
at the head of our Education Department who perceived the mischievous
effect of uniformity, could not this official tendency be counteracted? It
might for a short space of time, just as some muscles of a strong man can
for some hours defeat the pull of gravitation, but gravitation wins in the
end. Such changes would only be spasmodic; they would not be the natural
outcome of the system, and therefore could not last. Moreover, for those
who understand the value of liberty and of responsibility, it is needless
to point out how utterly false the system must be which makes the nation
depend upon the intelligence of a minister, and not upon the free movement
of the different minds within itself....

From boyhood to manhood the teacher himself is undergoing examinations; for
the rest of his life he is reproducing on others what he himself has gone
through. It is needless to say, that the higher aims of the teacher,
methods of arousing the imagination and developing the reasoning powers,
which only bear fruit slowly and cannot be tested by a yearly examination
of an inspector -- whose fly will be waiting at the school door during the
few hours at the disposal of himself or his subordinate -- new attempts to
connect the meaning of what is being learned with life itself, and to
create an interest in work for work's own sake instead of the inspector's
sake, ... all these things must be laid aside as subordinate to the one
great aim of driving large batches successfully through the standards and
making large hauls of public money...

And now, leaving much unsaid, I must ask what practical steps should be
taken by those workmen who suspect that state education is but a part of
that coercive drill which one half the human race delights to inflict upon
the other half. First of all get rid of compulsion. It has been made the
instrument of endless petty persecutions. It is fatal to the free growth of
an intelligent love of education; ...to a true respect of man for man; for
each man's right to judge what is morally best for himself and for those
entrusted to him. It is an attempt to make one of those shortcuts to
progress which end by making the goal recede from us.

...It is a copy of a continental institution, taken from a nation that,
living under a paternal government, has not yet learned to spell the
letters of the word *liberty*. The example of Germany and its highly
organised state education is not alluring. ... Where you subject people to
strong official restraint, you seem fated to produce on the one side
rigidity of thought and pedantry of feeling, on the other side those
violent schemes against the possessions and the personal rights of the rich
which we call socialism. Careful respect for the rights of others, vigorous
and consistent defence of one's own rights, a deeply rooted love of freedom
in thought, word, and action -- these things are simply impossible wherever
you entrust great powers to a government, and allow it to use them not
simply within a sphere of strictly defined rights, but as a supreme judge
of what the momentary convenience requires.

...It is always difficult to introduce freedom into a system that is
founded on authority and officialism."

Excerpts from "State Education: A Help or Hindrance?" *Fortnightly Review*,
1880; in *The Right and Wrong of Compulsion by the State, and other essays*
by Auberon Herbert, Copyright (c) 1978 by Liberty Fund Inc., Indianapolis,
Indiana. ISBN 0-913966-42-8

D.A. Could Be Disbarred Over Drug Prosecutions

This is certainly novel. I thought undercover cops were trained to lie.

Pre-9/11 doings are coming to light

Jim Pinkerton writes: "If you knew that President Franklin D. Roosevelt had received a memo a month before Pearl Harbor entitled, "Japanese Determined to Attack the United States in the Pacific," and that he had done nothing about that information, would that knowledge change your perception of FDR as a wise war leader?

Roosevelt received no such memo, of course, but President George W. Bush got a blunt warning five weeks before 9/11 and he did little or nothing. He even presided over a stand- down in preparations, concentrating on other concerns."

Of course FDR could have written the Peal Harbor memo to himself, as he was determined to bully the Japanese into attacking U.S. bases somewhere in the Pacific.

Another Ayatollah

A million mistakes come home to roost:


Sistani’s Shia refuse to play their assigned role.


By Eric S. Margolis


In a remarkable example of historical irony, a scowling, black-turbaned Shia ayatollah has emerged from obscurity for the second time in a quarter century to vex and confound America’s plans for the Mideast.

Twenty-four years ago, the U.S. encouraged Iraq’s ruler, Saddam Hussein, to invade Iran and overthrow the new revolutionary Islamic government of Grand Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. The U.S. and Britain secretly aided Iraq with arms, finance, chemical and biological weapons, intelligence, military advisors, and diplomatic support in its bloody war against Iran that lasted eight years and caused one million casualties. But when Saddam Hussein grew too big for his boots, his former U.S. and British patrons brought him down. Now, over two decades later, another powerful Muslim cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali el-Sistani, is challenging America’s Mideast Raj, and Washington has reacted to this perfectly predictable event with deep consternation and confusion.

The Bush administration was assured by the neoconservatives who engineered the Iraq War that a co-operative, turban-free regime of pro-U.S. Iraqis would quickly be installed in Baghdad, led by convicted swindler Ahmad Chalabi. However, if Chalabi and his Iraqi National Congress cronies failed, so much the better, went neocon thinking. Their primary objective was to destroy Iraq, not to rebuild it; for Iraq, once the Arab world’s best educated, most industrialized nation, had to be expunged as a potential military and strategic challenge to Israel. So now the U.S. has its own West Bank in Iraq.

In the 1920s, Zionist leader Vladimir Jabotinsky called for Israel to rule “from the Nile to the Euphrates,” as the famous slogan went, by smashing the fragile mosaic of its Arab neighbors into ethnic fragments, then seizing the oil riches of Arabia. So Israel’s far Right and its American neocon fellow travelers are perfectly happy to see Iraq divided de facto into its three component ethnic parts: Shia, Sunni Arab, and Kurd. Better a feeble Iraq broken into weak cantons, like post-1975 Lebanon, than a nation united, even under a U.S.-run regime.

But while Likudniks rejoice at the destruction of their ancient enemy, the United States faces the conundrum of how to forge a seemingly democratic government in Iraq in the face of the nation’s impossible ethnic-religious calculus. Installing a brutal general to run Iraq would be far more convenient. But having found no weapons of mass destruction, the embarrassed Bush administration is now touting creation of democracy as its casus belli and so must go through the motions of democratization.

Enter Grand Ayatollah Sistani. After his rival, Ayatollah Hakim al-Bakr, was blown to bits by a huge bomb, Sistani emerged as the leading voice of Iraq’s Shia. He has so far played a cautious game, urging elections but rejecting calls by his followers for a more overtly anti-American line or armed resistance. Any fair election will give power to Iraq’s Shia, who are 60 percent of the population. If this does not happen, there will be a possible recourse to arms.

Washington has now inherited the identical problem faced by imperial Britain when, in order to control the region’s recently discovered oil, it stitched together three disparate Ottoman vilyats to create the Frankenstein state of Iraq.

Britain, following its usual colonial practice of putting compliant ethnic or religious minorities in power, filled the army, police, and government with Sunni Arabs, who made up only 20 percent of the population. Sunnis ruled Iraq from the 1920s until the U.S. overthrew the regime of Saddam Hussein.

Shia were repressed, often savagely, and economically deprived. Iraq’s ever-rebellious Kurds were kept under control by frequent punitive expeditions and regular bombing of insurgents by the RAF from its main base at Habibanyah. Iraq’s post-1958 regimes followed this practice. Today, U.S. occupation forces in Iraq are also conducting air pacification, this time against rebellious Sunni Arabs.

Interestingly, Britain’s arch-imperialist, Winston Churchill, authorized the RAF to drop poison gas on “primitive tribesmen,” meaning Iraq’s Kurds and Afghanistan’s Pashtun, a fact conveniently forgotten by Tony Blair and George W. Bush when they excoriated Saddam Hussein for “gassing his own people.”

Having been excluded from political power, Iraq’s well-organized Shia are understandably clamoring for empowerment. Most, though not all, appear to desire what they call Islamic democracy: an Iranian-style combination of elective and consultative assemblies with strong checks and balances, overseen by a supreme religious leader—Grand Ayatollah Sistani.

For Washington, which seeks to run Iraq through a small group of handpicked satraps, an Islamic government is anathema. But the Bush administration is very eager to proclaim some sort of “democratic” Iraqi government after a “handover of power” next June—in time for U.S. fall elections.

U.S. proconsul Paul Bremer’s attempt to cobble together a Rube Goldberg system of political caucuses designed to check Shia power, assure Sunni, Kurd, and Turkoman minority rights, and keep the regime under U.S. control, has failed. Ayatollah Sistani has rejected this clumsy, unworkable plan and calls for direct elections as soon as possible. UN advisors, brought in by the U.S. in an effort to paper over differences with the Shia, have backed Sistani’s call for direct elections. Ironically, after proclaiming the dawn of democracy in Iraq, the U.S. is now trying to block direct elections, thwart any form of Islamic government, and deny office to Iraqis opposed to U.S. occupation.

At the same time, Iraq’s Kurds, who now have two virtually independent mini-states in the north, are determined to create an independent nation in northern Iraq that controls the rich Kirkuk oilfields. They are dead set against losing their newfound political and economic autonomy and refuse to place themselves under either Shia or Sunni Arab rule. And having waged a bloody, two-decade struggle against their own independence-seeking Kurds, the increasingly angry Turks are not about to countenance the emergence of a Kurdish state right across the border that controls major oil fields that once belonged to the Ottoman Empire. But Kurds are America’s closest allies in Iraq, and their voices ring loud in Washington. While Kurds may agree to pay lip service to some powerless national body in Baghdad, they are unlikely to cede political rights or control of customs and oil revenues or to cease driving ethnic Arabs from the northern regions. They may also fall to tribal feuding at any time, as so often in their past.

This leaves the Sunni Arabs, who are waging a robust insurgency against occupation forces. A new cadre of Sunni Arab nationalist leaders is emerging in the anti-U.S. underground, in tandem with small but lethal numbers of militant Islamic jihadists. They, not the old, discredited Ba’ath Party, will challenge U.S. rule of Iraq. If the insurgency continues—and it shows no signs of abating—Iraq could become a second Afghanistan, an incubator for a new generation of anti-Western militants from across the Muslim World.

A resolution to Iraq’s ethnic problems defies easy answers. A Swiss-style system, with a weak central government and powerful cantons, is probably the best solution. But long-term, Iraq’s dissolution into three nations may be inevitable.

Meanwhile, the Bush administration is faced with a basic contradiction between its claims of forging a truly democratic Iraq and U.S. strategic ambitions in the region. A free vote in Iraq will produce a Shia-dominated government sympathetic to neighboring Iran. And the ultimate test of any genuine democracy in Iraq will be its ability to order U.S. forces out of Iraq, something the Bush administration will not allow.

The Pentagon plans three major military bases in Iraq from which to control the oil-producing Mideast and to protect the new “Imperial Lifeline,” the pipelines bringing crude westward from the Caspian Basin. Britain used Iraq for the same purpose. In all but name, the U.S. has become heir of the old British Empire.

Washington wants a compliant regime of Iraqi yes-men, what Algerians used to call, “beni oui-ouis,” running internal affairs under the stern gaze of American garrison troops, who will intervene, like the British imperialists, whenever the locals get out of hand or Iraqi politicians grow too independent-minded.

But Ayatollah Sistani and the Shia will not accept a Vichy Iraqi government that excludes them from running Iraq’s foreign and domestic affairs, though that is precisely what Washington plans in June when it “hands over power to Iraqis”—most likely by expanding the existing U.S.-appointed Governing Council of Iraqi collaborators or by staging a rigged national tribal assembly, as was done in Afghanistan. Unfortunately for the Bush administration, it has not yet located in Iraq a glib figurehead like former CIA “asset” in Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai.

So Iraq’s Shia will likely find themselves on a collision course with the U.S. occupation. Younger Shi’ites may disregard their elders’ calls for caution and, not to be outdone by their Sunni rivals, take up arms. If this happens, the current insurgency in the Sunni Triangle (actually a rectangle) will appear modest by comparison. In fact, as Shia anger and frustration surge, Iraq is increasingly resembling Lebanon during its long civil war, and there appears an inexorable slide towards both a wider insurgency and inter-ethnic strife.

What should the U.S. do? The most sensible course: hand Iraq to the UN and pull out. This would produce intense neocon wailing about loss of credibility and giving in to terrorism. But in fact, the longer the U.S. stays in Iraq, the more credibility it loses, and the more it stokes terrorism.

If a total pullout is not in the cards, then the best option is to co-operate with Iraq’s Shia majority and show that the U.S. can work fruitfully with an Islamic regime. Co-operation with Islamists in Baghdad opens the way to good relations with Tehran and a major lessening of anti-American feelings across the Muslim World. But of course, the neocons will do their best to thwart such détente.

The United States has not enough men, treasure, nor intellectual energy to struggle through the morass of Mesopotamian politics and ethnic strife. Governments can usually only think of two or three things at a time, and the mess in Iraq should not be one of them. Otherwise, it will come to bedevil us and sap our energies, just as Iran did in the late 1970s and ’80s. Unless we learn from our errors and work to co-operate with the latest problematic mullah, Ayatollah Sistani, he could well be come the nemesis his predecessor, Imam Khomeini, did just two decades ago.
___________________________________________________


Eric S. Margolis is the author of War at the Top of the World: The Struggle for Afghanistan and Asia and a columnist, commentator, and war correspondent.

March 29, 2004 issue
Copyright © 2004 The American Conservative

Refusal by justices thwarts developer

More on the Wetlands issue, and the Supreme Court's failure to clarify the law. Notice the remarks of the local mealy-mouth statist:

Local conservation groups, such as Wetlands Watch, feared that the Supreme Court would rule in favor of Newdunn, giving developers a "free-for-all" to destroy wetlands, said John Blandin, the group's president. Wetlands are never truly isolated, Blandin said, because they connect to other waters via groundwater.

"Wetlands should be protected," he said, "and the Corps should have jurisdiction."

He likes wetlands on other people's property and thinks they should be protected. Therefore, the Feds should have jurisdiction, the Constitution, the statute, and the intention of Congress to the contrary notwithstanding.

Private Guards Repel Attack on U.S. Headquarters (washingtonpost.com)

'Highway' pork: No rep left behind

How sick is this? Of course, the Orange Beach anti-market crowd (along with the "pro-market crowd") gets its bicycle paths, etc., out of the highway appropriations, supposedly financed from the federal excise taxes on tires and gas. It is, of course, the case that the so-called transportation trust fund, always being in hugh "surplus," is being used -- "borrowed" -- to fund the welfare-warfare state.

Meanwhile, the interstate highways rot into disrepair.

More Class Action Abuse

Lawyers took home 10 times more than their clients in a $350 million settlement with AT&T and Lucent Technologies Inc. that ended a class-action suit in Madison County, according to figures provided recently by Lucent.

The lawyers who filed the case said at one point that they represented about 29 million people who had leased telephones from the companies for far more than it would have cost to buy them. But only about 92,000 class members made claims, collecting a total of $8.4 million, said John Skalko, a spokesman for Lucent.

Meanwhile, the 44 lawyers from four firms who pursued the class action in Madison County Circuit Court got $84.5 million in fees and expenses.

Some Doctors Turn to Cash-Only Policies

Just like we do it in my practice! A professional and a client--no third party payor dictating the relationship.

Supreme Court Sidesteps Wetlands Disputes (washingtonpost.com)

The Supremes refuse to enforce their own previous interpretation of the Clean Water Act and how it can be applied to so-called wet-lands (a term nowhere to be found in the statute). So now, given the Supreme Court's refusal to follow up on its 2001 decision about a gravel pit in Illinois, apparently -- at least in those circuits -- every man's property is actually part of the "waters of the United States."

Update from the New York Times:

Without comment, the court turned down three cases challenging federal regulatory power over wetlands that are not directly connected to navigable waterways. Landowners, supported by the building industry, contested the government's interpretation of the Clean Water Act in light of a 2001 Supreme Court decision that rejected federal jurisdiction over isolated ponds visited by migratory birds.

According to the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers, that decision was a narrow one that did not remove federal jurisdiction over wetlands that are part of the drainage area or tributary systems of navigable waterways. The plaintiffs and their allies pressed for a broader interpretation of the 2001 ruling.

One, John A. Rapanos, a Michigan landowner who acted without a permit to fill wetlands that were 20 miles from a navigable river, was criminally convicted and now faces a 10-month prison sentence. His appeal was Rapanos v. United States, No. 03-929. The others were Deaton v. United States, No. 03-701, and Newdunn Associates v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, No. 03-637.

Counterterrorism (by Government) is Impossible

At last the topic of 9-11 has shifted onto productive ground. Thanks to the efforts of former counterterrorism official Richard Clarke, some thought is being put into the government failures behind the attacks. "Your government failed you," he says. Precisely, and in many more ways than he or anyone else at these hearings is willing to say.

Here is the problem. The core failure goes way beyond anything the current government managers—however inept, distracted, or corrupt—can correct. If you tell your dog to make you dinner, for example, you can observe later that the dog failed to do so, and have great regrets about this. But what you learn from this experience and how you proceed are the crucial questions. Does the dog need better tools, more scoldings, and a professional trainer? Better to observe that the dog is not the right one for the job. In the same way, the government is not the right one for the job of providing security for the American people.


The lesson of 9-11 is this: the government cannot protect us. No changes in policy as recommended by a commission or by current or ex-government officials are going to change that.

The conclusion of the commission investigating the policies leading up to 9-11 will be the same as from every government commission: a recommendation that the government should have done more and should do more in the future. Both Clarke and his critics presume that the war on terrorism is something that the government can fight, and the debate is over whether the government had done enough prior to 9-11 to sort through intelligence findings, name al Qaeda as the key problem, and anticipate the attacks.
Bush's critics are thrilled to hear Clarke restate what has long been known: the Bush administration was obsessed with Iraq to the exclusion of the radical Islamic threat.

There can be no question about this administration's Iraq fixation. The Bush regime had it in for Iraq for a whole range of reasons, from personal vendettas to oil to regional political issues and probably a few others we are not privy to. It certainly cries out for explanation why this poor country, ruled by a man the US had long backed, suffering under sanctions for a decade after an unjustified war, should be invaded and occupied even though it represented no threat to the US.

Clarke believes Iraq was a distraction, and he is surely right. He also believes that more should have been done sooner to counter genuine terrorist threats, that the attacks on Afghanistan should have taken place earlier, that Bin Laden should have been taken out earlier, that the military and the spooks should have taken more liberties in zapping the bad guys before the bad guys zapped us.

The solution implied in this approach is something no American should favor. It implies not less warmongering but merely a different form of imperialism, focused on one country instead of another, this set of intelligence data instead of that, while not even addressing the question of why the US might be the subject of attacks at all. It is even possible that more Clarkeian-style counterterrorism would have inspired more attacks sooner, but we'll never know since there are no controlled experiments in the relationship between politics and the real world.


How do corporations deal with the problem of information overload? They rely on market signaling and the decentralized planning of millions of private individuals to provide guidance.
And despite all the partisan wrangling about the Clarke message and the hearings in general, the upshot is a message that perfectly accords with something that every bureaucrat and politician wants to hear: that government needs a freer hand, that it did not do enough, that it needs more resources, that it should not be hamstrung in any way. What are government commissions for, except to announce such findings and create a cover for Congress and the White House (whoever happens to occupy it) to demand ever more money and power?
The real question to ask is whether it could have been any other way. Say the US has killed Bin Laden. Cheney is of course correct that this would not have prevented 9-11. Even if it had, there would have been other attacks of a different sort. Or say the US had entirely destroyed Al Qaeda (whatever that would mean): Albright is correct that the ideology behind Al Qaeda's existence is still everywhere to be found because it represents not a peculiar conspiracy by a few, but a response to US policy in general.

The government can spend many years and billions of dollars preventing attacks that have already occurred by doing things it might have wished it had done years or decades ago. But note that there has been no discussion at all of the actual policies that everyone knows inspired the attacks and made them easier to carry out.

Just to mention a few: the stationing of troops in Saudi Arabia, the sanctions against Iraq, the continuing intervention in the ever-lasting Israel-Palestine conflict, the propping up of secular dictatorships all over the Arab world, the raising up and funding of Islamic radicals to counter Soviet influence in Afghanistan, and the regulatory prohibitions in the US against permitting airlines to manage their own security issues. The US government cannot pursue all these policies and then react in shock when it turns out that some people exploit them with violent intent.

Many observers of these policies predicted that something along these lines would take place. You don't need to be a "counterterrorism" bureaucrat to see it. The response to the events of 9-11 around the world was very telling. While the world felt awful for America, most everyone (except Americans) believed that something like this was inevitable. As for who was responsible, the enemies of the US have become countless. The government's response was to make ever more enemies, which is what the recent US policy in Iraq has done.

In other words, the only real way to prevent terrorism is to do less in the way of government policy and more in the way of private provision and trade, which would be far easier to do if the warfare state would stop fomenting trouble all around the world.

How can the market provide security? This gets us into another huge area, and nothing I could write in a column would fully convince anyone of such a radical thesis, so let me merely refer you to the book, The Myth of National Defense, edited by Hans-Hermann Hoppe, which shows that security is not a unique good that must be provided by the state (even if you don't own it, there is no good excuse not to read it).

Let me mention just one issue that has impressed many people who are following the hearings: that of information overload. There are so many bits of intelligence data that are flying in and out of government offices, how can policy makers possibly assess the relative seriousness of various threats much less prepare coherent responses to them?

Contrary to what the government implies, this is not a problem unique to the public sector. A typical multinational corporation faces an information problem just as serious: data flying from every country concerning a million different topics and conditions, every one of which could have a profound effect on profitability the very day it is received.

How do corporations deal with the problem of information overload? They rely on market signaling and the decentralized planning of millions of private individuals to provide guidance, and they depend heavily on the minute-by-minute feedback mechanism as provided by prices. The government has no such institutions at its disposal, neither to convey information, nor assess its accuracy, nor provide ongoing feedback on how it responds to conditions.

The lesson we should take from 9-11 is that the government cannot protect us. It is utterly inept, and no changes in policy as recommended by a commission or present or ex-government officials are going to change that.

----

Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. [rockwell@mises.org] is president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, and editor of LewRockwell.com. He is the author of Speaking of Liberty. Comment on this article on the blog.

I'll Never Retire

We baby boomers may as well get used to the proposition that our life's work will not end in the type of retirement that we see the "Greatest Generation" has arranged for itself. But that is not so bad.

The financial system and the global recovery: what lies ahead? (BIS Speeches 18 Mar 2004)

Toronto Sun Columnist: Eric Margolis: "Ex-KGB men tighten their grip on Russia "

Is Anybody in Charge?- by Justin Raimondo: "Is Anybody in Charge?
Former anti-terrorism adviser Richard Clarke exposes White House's criminal negligence "

Bruce Bartlett: Outsourcing reality

"There is a growing backlash against outsourcing--sending domestic work to foreign businesses--that erupted in the Senate last week, where anti-outsourcing legislation was adopted on a 70 to 26 vote. Opponents of outsourcing cheered, but investors are becoming aware that these actions threaten profits and stock prices."

Too easily persuaded into an unnecessary war

Here is an interesting take: Bush ran against nation building and foreign adventurism, but then hired the same old crowd that had worked for his father.

Scalia Defends Hunting Trip With Cheney

Scalia is not one to be intimdated by the typical media attempt to push him around.

Bush's Budget Director Treated for Smoke Inhalation

(2004-02-03) -- White House budget director Joshua B. Bolton was briefly hospitalized today and treated for smoke inhalation and lacerations after a freak accident involving the Bush administration's $2.4 trillion budget proposal for 2005.

"Mr. Bolton was preparing to do a presentation about the budget when he was overcome by the smoke, fainted and actually shattered one of the mirrors which cut him in several places," said an unnamed senior administration official. "We're still working to confirm rumors that Mr. Bolton may have been juggling chainsaws at the time."

Mr. Bolton had been preparing to explain to Republican lawmakers how President Bush's budget adheres to the conservative values of smaller government and fiscal restraint.

The 2005 budget proposal projects a $521 billion deficit, with spending increases for the departments of Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Justice, Labor, State, the Veterans Administration and the IRS. The expenses of war in Afghanistan and Iraq are not included in the $2.4 trillion total, and neither is the Homeland Security department's $2.5 billion Project BioShield.

Jude Wanniski's Take: Trent Lott Promised a Smoking Gun

He also cites a July 2002 Washington Post story that lays out what everyone who was paying attention at the time knew: Iraq was no immediate threat to anybody:

Despite President Bush's repeated bellicose statements about Iraq, many senior U.S. military officers contend that President Saddam Hussein poses no immediate threat and that the United States should continue its policy of containment rather than invade Iraq to force a change of leadership in Baghdad.

The conclusion, which is based in part on intelligence assessments of the state of Hussein's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and his missile delivery capabilities, is increasing tensions in the administration over Iraqi policy.

The cautious approach -- held by some top generals and admirals in the military establishment, including members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff -- is shaping the administration's consideration of war plans for Iraq, which are being drafted at the direction of Bush and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.

The senior officers' position -- that the risks of dropping a successful containment policy for a more aggressive military campaign are so great that it would be unwise to do so -- was made clear in the course of several interviews with officials inside and outside the Pentagon.

High-level civilians in the White House and Pentagon vehemently disagree. They contend that Hussein is still acting aggressively, is intimidating his neighbors and is eager to pursue weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them.

These officials say time is not on the side of the United States. "The whole question is, how long do you wait with Saddam Hussein in possession of the capabilities he has and would like to have?" said Richard N. Perle, head of the Defense Policy Board, a Pentagon advisory group.

Bush, Marriage, and Iraq

New York Times: Education Is No Protection

Bob Herbert has discovered "offshore outsourcing." Amazing. What has Paul Craig Roberts wrought?

Making Sense on Marijuana

James Jackson Kilpatrick exposes Ascroft for the jerk that he is.

What's Wrong with the Democrats

You may have to scroll down to 1-24.

City Journal Winter 2004 | The ADA Shakedown Racket by Walter K. Olson

An unconstitutional federal statute wreeks much havoc.

Will George Soros Panic the Market?

Place your bets. I bet "no." Read his stuff.

Sarbanes-Oxley Is Business Disaster - Insight on the News - National

Star Parker: Reflections on Martin Luther King

"Civil rights movement" trumped by the Welfare State? Actually, the original civil rights movement was ended by the Supreme Court's refusal to enforce the "privileges or immunities" clause of the 14th amendment. "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." Supposedly made a part of the Constitution in 1868, this clause was shamelessly declared a dead letter by the Supreme Court (in a 5-4 decision) in the Slaughter-House Cases rendered in 1870. Suffice it to state that the "police powers" of the States have been enormously expanded since that date -- in spite of an explicit bar to their expansion.

The Demonized Seed

As a Recreational Drug, Industrial Hemp Packs the Same Wallop as Zucchini. So Why Does the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency Continue to Deny America This Potent Resource? Call It Reefer Madness.

Call it Crazy. Call it typical statist behavior.

APP.COM - High time to change strategy in drug war

As a child growing up in a period when the Jim Crow South was under increasing pressure from Northern moralists and the Eastern media, I was always curious why the moral leadership of the South -- such as local ministers and business leaders -- did not step up to the plate and offer the black population its due: voting rights, desegregation of truly public places such as the government schools, and peace from the tyranny of the local police powers.

Similar moral issues are involved in the "war on drugs." Why is it that local religious leaders, the press -- which is normally so willing to being "progressive", and others in position to have influence -- and the obligation -- are unwilling to point out the corrupt, insidious, and ugly nature of this program? It is an obvious fact that the feds are corrupting the local police authorities with their federal grants and so forth; the effect is to turn the local police into a subsidiary of the federal authorities. Where is the opposition from the local leadership? Is it not clearly wrong to lock up non-rights-violating persons? Why is moral blindness such that otherwise reasonable people claim to think to the contrary?

MSNBC - No proof links Iraq, al-Qaida, Powell says

No proof; but who cares? Once one has grabbed a tiger by the tail, second guessing by others is not appreciated.

Arms Search: U.S. Withdraws a Team of Weapons Hunters From Iraq

What? Can this be true? Why is it that the phrase "pretext for war" is a pretty standard part of the language?

The Ditches of Wonderland

Another great piece by James Jackson Kilpatrick, this one on the refusal of Federal courts to reign in the Corps of Engineers and its nonsensical -- and unconstitutional -- interpretation of its wetlands regulatory authority.

Happy New Year

She [America] has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart. She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama the European world, will be contests of inveterate power, and emerging right. Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force.... She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit.... [America’s] glory is not dominion, but liberty.

John Quincy Adams, 1821

Blair 'Knew Iraq Had No WMD'

Of course, Blair -- and Bush -- knew they were making a phony case. And one is hard pressed to find a war that was not similarly contrived.

QUANDOQUE BONUS DORMITAT HOMERUS! YOU BET

If you are not keeping up with the continued writings of James Jackson Kilpatrick, you are missing out on a real treat. Jackson, of course, is the author of The Sovereign States, Notes of a Citizen of Virginia, a classic of your editor's youth.

Jim Bradley, knowledgeable on the Austrian theory of Business Cycles, predicts Inflation Now, Deflation Later

I don't think he means deflation in any literal sense, just a credit contraction. Check out the prudentbear.com website.

To Your Health--Tax-free Health Savings Accounts

John Goodman finds a silver lining in the Medicare legislative debacle. I will look into this further and get back.

The Story Behind the All Night Medicare Vote

Stephen Moore's first-hand account of the Bush Administration's duplicity in the medicare debacle concludes:

"I really believe that if we could have won this vote against the most powerfulwhip operation in the history of House and a popular Republican president, it would have been a shot across the bow at the Republican establishment that conservatives are sick of the spending splurge that is going on inside Washington these last few years. The budget has grown by 27% in two years a faster rate of growth in the budget than at anytime since LBJ’s presidency. Republican leaders in the White House and the Congress seem entirely unconcerned about the orgy of spending and debt. They are in denial. A deserved defeat of this bill would have dropped an ice cold bucket of water on their heads and helped them snap out of it. So close!

"I’m convinced this is a phyric victory for the Republican party bosses. The bill could blow up in the Republicans’ laps when seniors see the details of the carved up turkey they’ve just been served. Worse, the bill threatens to further demoralize fiscal conservative voters who are infuriated by the GOP’s massive expansion of government. I know I’m demoralized. As Mike Pence told me last week, “We Republicans seem to have forgotten who we are and why voters sent us here.”

We now have two big government parties in Washington. And we only have 25 Republicans in the House and 4 in the Senate who are trying to pull the Republicans in an anti-big government direction."

That sounds like things are about as bad for (small government) Republicans as the year 1935 as the fascist New Deal steamroller went full bore. And Bush's domestic policy reeks of the me-tooism of an Alf Landon, the original progressive, compassionate conservative.

Expert Warned That Mad Cow Was Imminent

The New York Times story (free registration) starts out as a slam on the USDA for failing to take the mad cow disease sufficiently serious (actually the re-write guy trys to lay it on the administration rather than the careerists, but we know who runs things). Thereafter, the story gives some interesting facts. Conclusion: Eat veal and avoid processed ground beef products.

No limits for House appropriators who pile on pork

Novak reports on business as usual in Washington DC, as our public servants rob the country in order to drive us all into the poor house. Where even the most junior back-bencher learns the first rule of the Potomac: One must go along to get along.

Court Backs IRS Political Disclosure Law

Tax exempt="tax subsidy." To not be taxed is to be subsidized. If you want to assert your 1st Amendment rights, you may be required to give up your "subsidy." Clear enough?

A federal appeals court has upheld a law requiring some nonprofit political groups to report contributions and expenditures to the IRS, saying the Constitution does not guarantee what amounts to a tax subsidy.

"Congress has enacted no barrier to the exercise of the (political groups') constitutional rights," the court wrote. "Rather, Congress has established certain requirements that must be followed in order to claim the benefit of a public tax subsidy."

Billionaire Soros, Independent Groups Target Bush

These are the target groups whose 1st amendment rights are going to go through the wringer.

Court Blocks Changes to Clean Air Act:

A federal appeals court on Wednesday blocked new Bush administration changes to the Clean Air Act from going into effect, in a challenge from state attorneys general and cities that argued they would harm the environment and public health.
The rule would have made it easier for utilities, refineries and other industrial facilities to make repairs in the name of routine maintenance without installing additional pollution controls. And people wonder why the US has blackouts. As companies defer maintenance, the actual consequence of the delay -- or denial of the rulemaking -- will lead to dirtier air.

The George W. Bush - Libertymeter

With the passage of the Drug Benefit boondoggle, wrapping up the complete socialization of health care for those over 64 -- or rather the socialization of benefits, the profits remain, temporarily, private, the Liberty Meter drops 2 more points to the Left.

FEC Leader: Political Groups Face Limits (washingtonpost.com)

AP wire story, quoting the incoming Republican chairman, suggests that the Federal Election Commission may assert its jurisdiction over any organization or group which attempts to influence a federal election. And under the O'Connor ruling there is no longer a "bright line" between explicitly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate and mere commenting on current issues -- the mere comment can be construed as attempting to influence the election.

Thus, any such group would be automatically characterized as a PAC (political action committee) and would be subject to the rules, contributuion limits ($5000), reporting requirements, and regulations of the FEC.

What hath O'Connor wrought?

The Supreme Court's Double Standard

Nat Hentoff sums up the Supreme Court's anti-Free Speech decision of the so-called Bipartisan Election Reform Act. That's twice in a month or so that Sandra Day O'Connor has joined with the predictable left-statists to change the course of political history by a 5-4 margin. The other case, involving the Court's approval of racial preferences, is probably the more far-reaching in a negative way as it promises to promote animosity and back-lash reactions among those who perceive they are being wronged by these policies.

The Bush Betrayal

According to David Boaz of Cato, "Federal spending has increased 23.7 percent since Bush took office. Education has been further federalized in the No Child Left Behind Act. Bush pulled out all the stops to get Republicans in Congress to create the biggest new entitlement program -- prescription drug coverage under Medicare -- in 40 years.

"He pushed an energy bill that my colleague Jerry Taylor described as "three parts corporate welfare and one part cynical politics . . . a smorgasbord of handouts and subsidies for virtually every energy lobby in Washington."

"It's a far cry from the less-government, "leave us alone" conservatism of Ronald Reagan."

In Court v. Congress, Justices Concede One (washingtonpost.com) (This link probably requires free registration.)

"Legal realist" Cass Sunstein gets it all wrong about the "Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002" and the Supreme Court. In the first place, both Congress and President Bush were on public record as being (at best) indifferent as to the act's constitutionality, so the idea of giving any "deference" to their so-called judgment in passing and signing the legislation is completely misplaced.

Randy E. Barnett on Raich v. Aschroft on National Review Online The 9th Circuit has ruled that the Commerce Clause does not extend to medical merijuana grown privately and not intended to be sold. A modest victory for the principle of federalism.

Steve Chapman, an acquaintance dating back to 1978, on the difference between Ronald Reagan and Bush the Younger

The curious issue is what has happened to the early Cheney, who, in my recollection, was a smart and reasonable person.

GOP pulled no punches in struggle for Medicare bill Novak reports on the corrupt Medicare bill passed by a browbeat House of Representatives.

Fed chief nixes targets on his watch

Make of this what you can. Novak remains the premier reporter of our time.

The nomination of Janice Brown, a female black California Supreme Court Justice, is analyzed here by Clint Bolick in Reason Online

Richard Rahn: A think tank oxymoron? - Commentary

Interesting and insightful analysis from the former chief economist at the national Chamber of Commerce. Richard wears an eye-patch to gives his views a specific product differentation -- at least that is what I used to tell him.

Patrick J. Buchanan: The end of the imperial project

Dissection of an expensive episode in "nation-building.

Bush & Co. Use the Orwell Sales Strategy
Column by James Pinkerton, former speech-writer for Ronald Reagan and an old acquaintance of mine.

Jack Kemp: A Wirtschaftswunder for California
Hey Governor Riley, this would work in Alabama as well!

James Jackson Kilpatrick -- Ex-Drunks and the Current Law

Here is the 9th Circuit in high form.

The Bruce Ramsey in the Seattle Times: Opinion: Let the neo-cons bellow, just bring the troops home

THE BIG LIE

John Pilger has the goods on the WMD pretext for a very expensive and foolish war.

That Alabama Tax Vote

This from Christopher Westley' who teaches economics at Jacksonville State University:

Last Week, voters in Alabama resoundingly rejected Gov. Bob Riley's tax plan by a margin of more than 2 to 1. The plan would have resulted in the largest tax increase in state history. "[The referendum's results were] pretty resounding. There's no mistaking the voters' message," David Lanoue, chairman of the political science departChristopher Westley, Ph.D., teaches economics at Jacksonville State Universityment at the University of Alabama, told the Birmingham News. "I think the top reason is voters simply don't trust their politicians in Alabama."

And voters elsewhere owe voters in the Heart of Dixie a debt of gratitude. Said Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform: "[E]very Republican governor who thinks of raising taxes next year will walk past Traitor's Gate and see Bob Riley's head on a pike. The voters in Alabama have saved taxpayers from California to Maine billions of dollars."

So you have to hand it to Alabama's electorate. When given the chance, it makes its opinion known loud and clear, even in the face of a massive and global campaign by elite opinion. On the question of new taxes, Alabama voters respond no differently than voters anywhere else in the world when given the chance. Their answer is now (and has always been): No. This is why political elites try to keep tax increases off ballots.

The results of the vote should not have surprised anyone. In fact, In fact, they reflect a growing anti-tax movement that public officials and the mainstream press are trying hard to ignore. Last November, voters in Massachusetts almost passed a referendum that would have eliminated that state's income tax. In 2001, anti-tax protests at the state capitol in Tennessee grew violent, causing shaken state legislators to reconsider new tax proposals. Given these sentiments, even the most Herculean efforts to increase the government's claim on private wealth were doomed to fail.

As a result, Riley sacrificed much political capital. Alabama voters are simply not going to support such an expansion of state taxing authority during a recession, not when the Feds are already taking 30 percent of their income. Not with the legislature's Mike Tyson-like reputation for fiscal responsibility. And certainly not on the basis of the University of Alabama law professor Susan Pace Hamill's agenda-tinged scholarship supporting the belief that low taxes are sinful.

Not now. And in the Heart of Dixie, probably not ever.

Charley Reese--Comment on Bush's Extreme Folly

Don't Even Think About Raising Taxes (washingtonpost.com)

My friend, Grover Norquist, writes in the Washington Post on the national political implications of Billion Dollar Bob's foray into the tax increase tar baby.

Does Rep. Ford have a better idea?

Probably not. But Novak writes that Ford just might be a player in the Social Security "reform" debate. Worth a flyer and look-see.

LATEST SCAM COMING OUT OF WASHINGTON:


REQUIRED URJENT ASSISTANCE


DEAR SIR / MADAM,

I AM GEORGE WALKER BUSH, SON OF THE FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA GEORGE HERBERT WALKER BUSH, AND CURRENTLY SERVING AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THIS LETTER MIGHT SURPRISE YOU BECAUSE WE HAVE NOT MET NEITHER IN PERSON NOR BY CORRESPONDENCE. I CAME TO KNOW OF YOU IN MY SEARCH FOR A RELIABLE AND REPUTABLE PERSON TO HANDLE A VERY CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS TRANSACTION, WHICH INVOLVES THE TRANSFER OF A HUGE SUM OF MONEY TO AN ACCOUNT REQUIRING MAXIMUM CONFIDENCE.


I AM WRITING YOU IN ABSOLUTE CONFIDENCE PRIMARILY TO SEEK YOUR ASSISTANCE IN ACQUIRING OIL FUNDS THAT ARE PRESENTLY TRAPPED IN THE REPUBLIC OF IRAQ. MY PARTNERS AND I SOLICIT YOUR ASSISTANCE IN COMPLETING A TRANSACTION BEGUN BY MY FATHER, WHO HAS LONG BEEN ACTIVELY ENGAGED IN THE EXTRACTION OF PETROLEUM IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,AND BRAVELY SERVED HIS COUNTRY AS DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY.IN THE DECADE OF THE NINETEEN-EIGHTIES, MY FATHER, THEN VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, SOUGHT TO WORK WITH THE GOOD OFFICES OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF IRAQ TO REGAIN LOST OIL REVENUE SOURCES IN THE NEIGHBORING ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN. THIS UNSUCCESSFUL VENTURE WAS SOON FOLLOWED BY A FALLING-OUT WITH HIS IRAQI PARTNER, WHO SOUGHT TO ACQUIRE ADDITIONAL OIL REVENUE SOURCES IN THE NEIGHBORING EMIRATE OF KUWAIT, A WHOLLY-OWNED U.S.-BRITISH SUBSIDIARY.

MY FATHER RE-SECURED THE PETROLEUM ASSETS OF KUWAIT IN 1991 AT A COST OF SIXTY-ONE BILLION U.S. DOLLARS ($61,000,000,000). OUT OF THAT COST,THIRTY-SIX BILLION DOLLARS ($36,000,000,000) WERE SUPPLIED BY HIS PARTNERS IN THE KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA AND OTHER PERSIAN GULF MONARCHIES, AND SIXTEEN BILLION DOLLARS ($16,000,000,000) BY GERMAN AND JAPANESE PARTNERS. BUT MY FATHER'S FORMER IRAQI BUSINESS PARTNER REMAINED IN CONTROL OF THE REPUBLIC OF IRAQ AND ITS PETROLEUM RESERVES.

MY FAMILY IS CALLING FOR YOUR URGENT ASSISTANCE IN FUNDING THE REMOVAL OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF IRAQ AND ACQUIRING THE PETROLEUM ASSETS OF HIS COUNTRY, AS COMPENSATION FOR THE COSTS OF REMOVING HIM FROM POWER. UNFORTUNATELY, OUR PARTNERS FROM 1991 ARE NOT WILLING TO SHOULDER THE BURDEN OF THIS CURRENT VENTURE, WHICH IN ITS UPCOMING PHASE MAY COST THE SUM OF 87 BILLION DOLLARS ($87,000,000,000, BOTH IN THE INITIAL ACQUISITION AND IN LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT. WITHOUT THE FUNDS FROM OUR 1991 PARTNERS, WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO ACQUIRE THE OIL REVENUE TRAPPED WITHIN IRAQ. THAT IS WHY MY FAMILY AND OUR COLLEAGUES ARE URGENTLY SEEKING YOUR GRACIOUS ASSISTANCE. OUR DISTINGUISHED COLLEAGUES IN THIS BUSINESS TRANSACTION INCLUDE THE SITTING VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RICHARD CHENEY,WHO IS AN ORIGINAL PARTNER IN THE IRAQ VENTURE AND FORMER HEAD OF THE HALLIBURTON OIL COMPANY, AND CONDOLEEZA RICE, WHOSE PROFESSIONAL DEDICATION TO THE VENTURE WAS DEMONSTRATED IN THE NAMING OF A CHEVRON OIL TANKER AFTER HER. I WOULD BESEECH YOU TO TRANSFER A SUM EQUALING TEN TO TWENTY-FIVE PERCENT (10-25 %) OF YOUR YEARLY INCOME TO OUR ACCOUNT TO AID IN THIS IMPORTANT VENTURE. THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WILL FUNCTION AS OUR TRUSTED INTERMEDIARY. I PROPOSE THAT YOU MAKE THIS TRANSFER BEFORE THE FIFTEENTH (15TH) OF THE MONTH OF APRIL. I KNOW THAT A TRANSACTION OF THIS MAGNITUDE WOULD MAKE ANYONE APPREHENSIVE AND WORRIED. BUT I AM ASSURING YOU THAT ALL WILL BE WELL AT THE END OF THE DAY. A BOLD STEP TAKEN SHALL NOT BE REGRETTED, I ASSURE YOU. PLEASE DO BE INFORMED THAT THIS BUSINESS TRANSACTION IS 100% LEGAL. IF YOU DO NOT WISH TO CO-OPERATE IN THIS TRANSACTION,PLEASE CONTACT OUR INTERMEDIARY REPRESENTATIVES TO FURTHER DISCUSS THE MATTER. I PRAY THAT YOU UNDERSTAND OUR PLIGHT. MY FAMILY AND OUR COLLEAGUES WILL BE FOREVER GRATEFUL.

PLEASE REPLY IN STRICT CONFIDENCE.

SINCERELY WITH WARM REGARDS, GEORGE WALKER BUSH

(Courtesy R. Emmett McAuliffe)

Jesus Christ, Tax Collector

Enough said. Let's vote.

The U.N. and Iraq - The Washington Times: Commentary

Paul Craig Roberts nails the neocons, who have set us on a course of bankruptcy.

Richard A. Epstein: "Classical, Liberal, Rational" writes in the Wall Street Journal

Please note that Richard lumps zoning in with minimum wages and "progressive" taxation as one of the evils of the modern "welfare" state. He does not go into it, but actually zoning and land-use planning in general (ruled over by soviet-style committees of busybodies quite reminiscent of the neighborhood soviet goon-squads depicted in Dr. Zhivago which aroze to divvy up the spoils in post revolution Russia) is one of the more corrupting institutions in modern day America, pitting land owner against land owner in a race to use the political means of coercion and violence to trump the marketplace.

Proponents of tax plan raise more than opponents:

What big companies what to raise taxes in Alabama?: "Big contributions to the Alabama Partnership for Progress included: $800,000 from the Business Council of Alabama lobbying organization; $250,000 from Anheuser Busch; $250,000 from the Drummond Co.; $200,000 from EBSCO Industries; $150,000 from BellSouth; $100,000 from Protective Life Insurance Co.; and $100,000 from Birmingham businessman Phillip McWane."

State Allows Growing Trend of Eating At Home

WASHINGTON, DC - After much heated debate on the house floor, legislation was passed today to allow a growing number of families to cook meals for their families in their homes. The children must have annual physical examinations to assure proper growth and weight gain. Attempts to require weekly meal plans and monthly kitchen inspections were voted down.

A spokesperson from the National Association of Nutritionists (NANs) condemns this decision. "These children are being denied the rich socialization and diversity that is an essential part of the eating process. Without the proper nutritional background, it is impossible for the average person to feed their own children. We, as child advocates, see this as a step backwards and speak out for the sake of the children who cannot speak for themselves."

NEW "SERVICE FEE" TAX

There is a lot of discussion and question about what will and what will not be taxed under the new tax proposed by Governor Riley on 'services and repairs.' It is so unclear that a provision was added in the legislation directing the department of revenue to issue regulations on or before October 1, 2003 providing guidance for the services tax - after the vote. Most of what you hear is about automobile repairs. No one has been able to clearly define what will be subject to the new tax but generally here is my best guess.

A tax on services, repairs, and installation will be due on any tangible property where you paid sales tax on the purchase of the property. That means that if you paid sales tax on the purchase you will pay sales tax for any subsequent service, repair, or installation costs for/to that purchased item. This will include but not be limited to:

Vehicle repairs of every kind - tune ups, air conditioners, transmissions, oil changes, radiator flushes, wheel balancing and rotation, brakes, or just about any kind of service or repair to an automobile;

Motorcycles - similar repairs and services to automobiles;

Farmers; repairs to farm implements used in the farming business - (this is a gray area and might be at a lower rate and could mean that on some of the larger equipment where the repair bill can be tremendous, the farmer will probably attempt to make the repairs in-house instead of taking to the regular repair provider);

Household equipment - lawnmowers, riding mowers, chain saws, trimmers, brush cutters, pressure washers, etc.

Appliances - cook stoves, ovens, window air conditioners, bathroom and kitchen plumbing fixtures - maybe?; washing machines, dryers;

Electronic Equipment - TVs, Video players and recorders, computers and all related computer equipment, stereos, telephones, etc.;

...and the list can go on and on.

The state portion of the tax will be 4%. There will be a windfall to cities and counties because they will be authorized to collect this new tax at the local level. In many cities a total of 8% to 10% will be charged. Local governments will also see a windfall in property taxes. So not all of the new taxes will go to state government. Could this be why you see elected officials endorsing the plan? And - that money will go unearmarked to city and county budgets to be spent as the local politicians want!

In addition, there will be an increase in state tax on the purchase of automobiles, trucks, motorcycles, mobile homes...

There will be an increase in the state tax when you purchase your tag each year...

There will be an increase on all tobacco products...

There will be a new tax on all lubricating oils...

And have you noticed that many of the business organizations supporting this measure are the same ones who were proponents of constitutional reform? When is the last time you heard anything about constitutional reform? It appears that it just turned into "tax" reform in the form of tax increases. These are the same people who talk about the negatives of the "regressive" sales tax, and now an additional "regressive" tax is being proposed in the form of this "services" tax? Whatever ones view is on constitutional reform, and I for one like the fact that the present constitution at least forces a vote on many tax increases, well

...either way be sure to vote NO on this tax increase - AND REMEMBER EVERY VOTE IS IMPORTANT!

Thou shalt pay more taxes
Doug Bandow




WASHINGTON - It has long been said that patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel. Today, religion plays that role. At least it does for Gov. Bob Riley of Alabama, who is pushing a massive tax hike in the name of God.

'Too Damn Stupid'
Alabamians seem to be a lot smarter than their governor.

John Fund of the Wall Street Journal gives his analysis of Billion Dollar Bob's tax increase proposal.

Here is some help from South Alabamians for Real Real Reform

Help For Understanding
The Newspaper and TV articles and advertisements.

August 10

I have found that doublespeak is being used in the newspaper and TV articles and advertisements and I have decide to give you a way to be able to know what these doublespeak words mean so you may understand what is being said.

Example #1
Friday August 3rd Mobile Register under Governor’s Tax Plan the following statement are made in their schedule of coverage:
“Tuesday: Sales Tax changes” Changes = tax increase
“Wednesday: Cigarette Tax…would boost” Boost = tax increase
“Today: Bank Tax … would be overhauled” Overhauled = tax increase
“Saturday: Utility taxes …would be altered” Altered = tax increase
“Sunday: Insurance premium tax-changes would be” Changes = tax increase
“Monday: Individual Income Tax…is the overhaul of…” Overhaul = tax increase
“Wednesday: Business property tax…revamped” Revamped = tax increase
“Thursday: Timberland/Farmland…several changes” Changes = tax increase
“Aug. 15th: Vehicle property tax …would be revised” Revised = tax increase
“Aug. 16th: Residential property tax…would alter” Alter = tax increase
“Aug. 17th: Utility property tax…would be overhauled” Overhauled= tax decrease
Note: Overhaul(ed) when used for individuals means a tax increase, but when used for Utilities it means a tax decrease since they cut a deal to raise the sales tax on utilities 43.75% on consumers and lower the utilities property tax from 30% to 22% over the next several years.

Example #2
Saturday August 9, Mobile Register front page under the article in the lower left hand corner entitled;
“Some customers would see their utilities bills rise”. Some = all get a tax increase
Note the 4% utility tax is increased to 5.75% or a 43.75% increase in the utility tax

Example # 3
Saturday Night on the WALA channel 5 news 10PM an advertisement by the Governors Tax Promotion Pac said: “The big timber companies have spent 1.8 MM to defeat the…Governors middle class tax reduction plan…” tax reduction = tax increase
Note: families making less than $20,000 get an income tax cut, but everything else they buy goes up! Electricity, property, sales, cigarette, insurance, and vehicles tax. In addition the price of lumber, banking services, and every business will raise their prices due to higher property tax and corporate income tax. The poor will be poorer, not better off!

You can see it is very difficult to understand when you do not use simple words to explain the tax plan. This is done to hide the truth about the so-called tax reform plan.
This is the reason there is one constitutional amendment to vote on Sept 9th and it is titled: “The Alabama Excellence Initiative Fund”=The Largest Tax Increase in History!
Vote No Sept. 9th

LETTER WORTH REPRINTING HERE

I believe this letter to the editor is worth reprinting:

Richard A. Vining
Letter to the Editor
of Mobile's Register


Letter to the Editor May 18, 2003
P. O. Box 2488 Re: Comments On The Proposed Budget
Mobile, AL 36652-2488


The Proposed Budget by the State and Education Dept. is an example of unparalleled greed. After the best year of tax collecting in Alabama's History it is brave to try to pull off what the Governor, Executive Dept. and the Education Dept. is attempting.


Here are some examples: Year 2002/2003 Year 2003/2000 Increase
Examiner of Public Accounts 12,337,741 6,000,000 30%
Ag &Cons Development Comm. 2,429,970 4,361,646 79%
Dept of Corrections 233,983,663 348,688,820 49%
Criminal Justice Info Center 2,551,475 3,294,488 77%
Alabama Developmental Office 4,400,252 5,767,321 31%
Environmental Management 5,780,494 16,235,159 280%
Dept of Forensic Sciences, Dept of 7,645,575 15,412,666 202%
Health, Dept of Public 56,261,629 79,409,627 34%
Human Resources, Dept. of 72,899,443 93,118,627 28%
Mental Health, Dept of 96,832,631 114,848,820 17%
Military Department 4,767,839 6,220,331 31%
Pardon and Parole, Board of 13,887,497 19,689,425 42%
Senior Service, Dept of 10,044,976 17,939,976 79%


Total For the State 1,264,918,386 1,635,260,029 29%


State Dept of Education
Archives and History 504,930 1,340,000 265%
Children's Affairs, Dept of 680,805 7,441,905 1093%
K-12 Foundation Program 2,541,287,878 2,625,131,368 15%
Additional Teacher Units 0 16,000,000 new budget item
Transportation 194,389,291 226,454,381 16%
Total Increase K-12 2,790,010,911 2,921.790.853 16.6%


This is an increase of $ 131,787,762 in K-12 Cost


State Board two year College system Added New Budget Items
Skilled Workforce Initiative 20,000,000
Common Administrative System 200,000
Deferred Maintenance 4,870,000 (+58,070,000 )
Priority Schools 3,000,000
Social Promotion Initiative 8,000,000
Special Education 22,000,000


Adult Basic Education 5,778,447 8,780,000 52%
Math, Science & Tech. Initiative 237,600 2,237,600 941%
Education Television Commission 8,975,500 10,577,334 12%
Examiners of Public Accounts 2,960,725 4,625,020 56%
Student Assistance Program 1,326,933 5,986,460 51%
Medical Scholarships 395,694 2,800,000 708%
Supercomputer Authority 2,567,272 6,500,000 253%
Veteran Affairs (Education Benefits) 6,378,400 10,000,000 56%
Total U of Ala. System 379,395,997 436,240,102 15%
Total Ala A & M 31,848,863 39,650,917 20%
Total Auburn University 206,337,817 224,104,213 9%
Total Colleges and Schools 851,372,052 973,616,528 14%
Total Education Trust Fund 4,153,145,594 4,519,707,757 9%
Total Increase in Education Cost $ 366,562,163 9%
Total cost of the Increase In the State Budget $ 370,341,643 29%


All foregoing examples are from the proposed state budgets. You may visit this site via the Internet at:
www.budget.state.al.us/stgovfin.html


With such a large increase in nearly every department's budget it is easy to see why there is a deficit in the state budget !!
Very few asked for the same or little more this year!
They knew they had a Governor who will try and increase taxes so they made very large budget requests for their departments.
It is true that some state agencies have been shorted in recent years. Everyone who pays attention knows that the Dept of Correction, the Dept of Public Safety, Judicial and the Medicaid Program need additional funding.


I will not accept any new taxes without a sunset provision of 5 years, and the promise and plan to reduce the size of state government 5% per year for the next 5 to 10 years. This should include reduction in all state and all the education depts. with the exception of Judicial, Medicaid, Corrections and the Department of Public Safety which has not been properly funded in the last 4 years.


The state of Alabama is 13th in the nation in the number of state employees. (Source Ala Family Institute by Gary Palmer) Therefore cutting state employees will not affect services. Only 50% of state education money goes to education today compared to 90% in 1960. In the last 6 years there have been 6150 new teachers hired while students decreased by 9,000.
State funding has increasing 5 billion dollars from 1997 to 2003. .
This is a 40.38% increase in spending in 6 years!
According to the US Census data the average Alabamian pays 24.5% of their personal income to state and local government. This is higher than the Southeastern and National average. It is immoral and unethical to ask for more taxes.
The Tax and Spend Hogs in Montgomery will never get enough
Governor Bob Riley is giving the Democrats what they want, and will be a one-term governor. He has forgotten he only won by 3000 votes!!


Sincerely, Richard A. Vining, Coden, P. O. Box 346, AL 36523

CORRECTION

Well it did not take me long to make a mistake trying to decipher the language of the proposed amendment. Actually the language cited below appears to change an earlier amendment (adopted in 1956) which liberalized the permitted uses of the income from Section 16 lands back to its original language. Seems this is mostly an issue of political correctness.

LITTLE-NOTICED CHANGE TO THE ALABAMA CONSTITUTION PROPOSED

A change to the Alabama Constitution is part of Billion Dollar Bob's tax increase proposal that, to my knowledge, has not received any attention at all. In various places in the current constitution the State is required to spend money or create a fund which, for example, "shall be applied to the support and furtherance of education" and "it shall be the duty of the legislature to increase the education fund from time to time as the necessity therefore and the condition of the treasury and the resources of the state may justify" [this is concerning the state property tax].

In both cases, the voters are asked on September 9 to approve changes to this language from the word "education" to the phrase "public school." Thus the "education fund" becomes the "public school fund." "Furtherance of education" becomes "maintenance of the public schools." [Act No. 2003-78, p. 5]

Someone on the pro-tax team was smart enough to sneak in a CONSTITUTIONAL BAN ON VOUCHERS as part of the tax-increase package -- and then not tell anyone about it.

Please spread the word about this.

COMMENTARY ON THE TAX INCREASE REFERENDUM

Several friends and readers have asked me to post my analysis of the Alabama constitutional amendment which is to be voted on September 9. There are so many issues and so much to cover, from so many different levels and types of analysis, that one scarcely knows where to start. However, I have been collecting material on the subject since the matter first arose, and I believe I have a perspective which may add to the general debate. Between now and September 9, I will be putting downs some thoughts which I hope to be of value.

Perhaps, the shear political crudeness and cynical approach of Billion Dollar Bob in structuring his proposal is the best place to begin. The proposal which the voter will see on the ballot reads as follows:

"Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, establishing the Alabama Excellence Initiative Fund which may be used to fund programs including, but not limited to, the furtherance of excellence in public education, college scholarships, health care benefits for senior citizens and job training programs to attract new high paying jobs and otherwise provide for distributing state tax revenues; to adjust income and property taxes; to establish the General Fund Rainy Day Account; to provide for the replenishment of the General Fund Rainy Day Account and the Education Trust Fund Rainy Day Account."

There is not even a mention what parts or sections of the constitution are to be amended or what the document says today and what it will say if the measure is adopted. No matter that most of the issues being discussed in the media about the governor’s plan are not part of the constitutional amendment being voted on. For example, the proposed amendment would raise the maximum income tax rate from 5% to 6% and would change the dedication of new proceeds from the educational trust fund to the general fund (by a complex formula which was approved by the teachers’ union). But it gives no tax relief for the poor. This is in companion legislation which is subject to change at the whim of the legislature (and is vastly over-stated in any event).

Much of the recent media discussion (and the ads from the proponents) concerns a supposed “tax reform” and even a “middle-class tax cut,” but these concern proposed changes in the tax code which the legislature was and is perfectly free to do on its own without changing the constitution.

In any event the proponents first over-estimate the percentage of incomes the “poor” are currently paying in state taxes and focus on how awful this is; then they point to the fact that under the proposal these taxes will be lifted by raising the threshold of exemptions. But nowhere do they quantify the plain fact that these tax-cuts are trivial compared to the increases which are to be borne by everybody else.

Free Martha!

My friend Sheldon Richmond deconstructs the outrageous indictment of Martha Stewart. The Justice Department's case is that by proclaiming her own innocence of insider trading, Stewart "defrauded" the shareholders of her company. But she actually was innocent (not even being an insider), and the indictment doesn't even charge her with that non-crime.

Bruce Bartlett on the Bush Tax Cut


Bartlett agrees with me that Cong. Thomas bailed out the Administration with his brillant "compromise" with the idiots in the Senate. The reduction of the capital gains rate from 20 to 15 percent is just what the doctor ordered. Also note that dividend paying companies like The Southern Company are up strongly today (SO up 5%); their stream of income being now more valuable.