Earlham Drudged

If I experience any more shadenfreunde I'm going to burst.

Karl Rove has a drug problem

How else do you explain how the Republican party stupidly, stupidly jumped head over heels into a lose-lose situation that now allies them with Jessie Jackson!?! Yes, it's an absolute freak show that Terri has all the lights on but no one's home but does that really mean you need to flush pretty much all classic liberal (libertarian) ideas down the crapper? Republicans give me the supply side economics and almost indescriminant use of force I crave, but cramming government into the realm of morality is not cool.

UPDATE: These are the classy folks Bush and the GOP sold the farm for.

sick and tired

I am sick and tired of being sick and tired.

First CBS now ABC? Thank God for GE

The same guys who recently brought CBS to it's knees are taking a keen interest in another potential phony document ostensibly created by democrats to discredit Republicans. This case isn't remotely as clear- cut as the National Guard docs, but there seems to be enough evidence to suggest that something fishy is going on. Is the MSM really this biased, dumb or both?

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/2005_03.php#009953

First, an alert reader pointed out that the copy of the memo that was leaked to a left-wing web site does not quite match the "exact, full copy of the document" as quoted by ABC News. ABC News identified four errors in the document, each noted with a (sic). The first such error is in the very first word, a misspelling of Terri Schiavo's name. (Interestingly, ABC did not note as an error the fact that the memo got the number of the Senate bill wrong.) But in the scanned version of the memo itself, as now leaked to the web, three of the four typographical errors have been corrected. So, what is going on? Is the memo now being presented as authentic one that was fabricated or, more likely, cleaned up after the fact? Second, our Washington sources tell us that a number of Republican Senators say they did not receive, and have never seen, the memo. This contradicts the implication that the memo is some kind of official Republican document that was circulated to all Republican Senators.Third, the only clear evidence as to the origin of the memo is that it was circulated by Democratic staffers. Tom Maguire, author of Just One Minute, wrote to point out this story from yesterday's New York Times: As tensions festered among Republicans, Democratic aides passed out an unsigned one-page memorandum that they said had been distributed to Senate Republicans. "This is an important moral issue and the pro-life base will be excited that the Senate is debating this important issue," the memorandum said.So the memo has been traced to a group of Democratic staffers. What evidence is there that its origins go back any farther? None, that we're aware of.

Something completely different

I still think Bobby Knight is the greatest, congrats to Texas Tech for making it to the Sweet 16!

It's difficult to describe in mere words, but this clip makes me terribly nostalgic for some reason.

White House VNR?

I heard a story about this on NPR and then my bro mentioned he read about it in the New York Times. I searched every which way on Google, and couldn't find any genuine footage from these things. If anyone can point me in the right direction I would be thankful.

I should note, that I find it strange that I can't find this stuff. It would seem that if it is so controversial, and improper, the footage would be widely available. Is this reason to be skeptical?

Paul Krugman Gotcha

As many of you may already know, Paul Krugman is one of my least favorite people. Ever since Bush got elected he’s written books and columns in the NYTimes that breathlessly foretell a grim future where the US dollar collapses like the Argentinean peso because of the “unjust” tax cuts. Well those tax cuts which certain media outlets would like to portray as completely discretionary might be the biggest factor behind the current economic growth we’re now seeing. As this guy will likely be as close as progressives will get to winning a Nobel in Economics it should come as no surprise that virtually everything Krugman has written over the last 5 years has been completely wrong.

enjoy:
http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2005/03/happy_anniversa.html

Roll the tape from March 11, 2003, please; his lead:

With war looming, it's time to be prepared. So last week I switched to a fixed-rate mortgage. It means higher monthly payments, but I'm terrified about what will happen to interest rates once financial markets wake up to the implications of skyrocketing budget deficits.

Well. Per the Federal Reserve, I see that mortgage rates were 5.67% on March 7, and 5.61% on March 14, 2003.

Today, despite the war, financial markets continue to slumber - as of March 3, 2005, the Federal Reserve tells me that fixed rate mortgages were at 5.79%. Robert Samuelson puzzled over this a few days back.
Perhaps the Earnest Prof is a bit stronger when forecasting equities? Let's check his stock market call of June 20, 2003; with the S&P 500 closing at 994.7 on June 19, 2003, Krugman wrote this:

The big rise in the stock market is definitely telling us something. Bulls think it says the economy is about to take off. But I think it's a sign that America is still blowing bubbles — that a three-year bear market and the biggest corporate scandals in history haven't cured investors of irrational exuberance yet.
Or, to put it another way: it's hard to find any real news to justify the market's leap. Instead, investors seem to be buying stocks because they are rising — which is pretty much the definition of a bubble.

As of this writing on March 4, 2005, the S&P is at 1221, up 11 on a good jobs report.

Would they rather rule in Hell…..?

Over the past few weeks I’ve been chagrined at the “unspinnably” good news coming out of the Middle East. So irrefutable is the progress that even the New York Times editorial page can’t find a way to knock it. Despite this, there seems to be a sizable contingent on the left that still wants to minimize any progress that has been made, dreads the accelerating democratization of many Arab nations and wants nothing more than the US to fail in potential future endeavors in Iran and Korea.

Here’s a transcript from a recent Daily Show interview with Clinton Aide Nancy Soderberg about a book she wrote with contributions from Clinton and Albright.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110006362

Stewart: He's gonna be a great--pretty soon, Republicans are gonna be like, "Reagan was nothing compared to this guy." Like, my kid's gonna go to a high school named after him, I just know it.

Soderberg: Well, there's still Iran and North Korea, don't forget. There's hope for the rest of us.

Stewart: [crossing fingers] Iran and North Korea, that's true, that is true [audience laughter]. No, it's--it is--I absolutely agree with you, this is--this is the most difficult thing for me to--because, I think, I don't care for the tactics, I don't care for this, the weird arrogance, the setting up. But I gotta say, I haven't seen results like this ever in that region.

Soderberg: Well wait. It hasn't actually gotten very far. I mean, we've had--

Stewart: Oh, I'm shallow! I'm very shallow!

Soderberg: There's always hope that this might not work.

And another attempt by Matt Yglesias to minimize the signifigance of Lebanon's shift towards democratic self rule:

I don't think that's a reason not to hope for the emergence of real democracy in Lebanon, but it's a bit of a sticky situation. More to the point, there simply doesn't seem to me to be any major geopolitical windfall we could possibly reap from any outcomes in Lebanon. It's a country that's very important to Syrian interests, pretty important to Israeli interests, and not really important at all to the United States. It just happens to be kinda-sorta near the strategically important Persian Gulf region. But nothing really bad has happened to us thanks to Syrian control, and nothing really good will happen to us if it ends.

Video-Blogging... of a sort

This is the abreviated version of spiel I have been storing up for a while and plan to elaborate upon soon. In an effort to easily and effectively distribute media, I came accross a website called Internet Archive. It is exactly what it sounds like, and opens up some very interesting conceptual doors for the average Joe, which I will prattle-on about later. For now, check this out. It's viewable on Quicktime and features Mark (in front of the camera) and I (behind the camera) testing our mettle.

Schadenfreunde

For most of my childhood, growing up near Madison, WI meant hearing weekly sermons (daily if I listened to WPR) about how much better certain European nations were for having social programs and economic regulations not present here. Repeated mentions of 10%+ unemployment and stagnant GDP didn’t matter – to these Europhiles some maddeningly inconsistent and subjective concept of “quality of life” was all that mattered. During my last visit over Christmas to extended family who live in a neighborhood festooned with signs warning about the risks of angering the neighborhood “eco-team” if unsatisfactory recycling takes place, I was lectured on how irresponsible US social and fiscal policies are in comparison to the EU’s. Well, I’m glad I’ll probably live to see their positions proven otherwise.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn/cst-edt-steyn27.html

CIA analysts predict the collapse of the EU within 15 years. I'd say, as predictions of doom go, that's a little on the cautious side.
But either way the notion that it's a superpower in the making is preposterous. Most administration officials subscribe to one of two views: a) Europe is a smugly irritating but irrelevant backwater; or b) Europe is a smugly irritating but irrelevant backwater where the whole powder keg's about to go up.
For what it's worth, I incline to the latter position. Europe's problems -- its unaffordable social programs, its deathbed demographics, its dependence on immigration numbers that no stable nation (not even America in the Ellis Island era) has ever successfully absorbed -- are all of Europe's making. By some projections, the EU's population will be 40 percent Muslim by 2025. Already, more people each week attend Friday prayers at British mosques than Sunday service at Christian churches -- and in a country where Anglican bishops have permanent seats in the national legislature.
Some of us think an Islamic Europe will be easier for America to deal with than the present Europe of cynical, wily, duplicitous pseudo-allies. But getting there is certain to be messy, and violent.
Until the shape of the new Europe begins to emerge, there's no point picking fights with the terminally ill. The old Europe is dying, and Mr. Bush did the diplomatic equivalent of the Oscar night lifetime-achievement tribute at which the current stars salute a once glamorous old-timer whose fading aura is no threat to them. The 21st century is being built elsewhere.

Jimmah!!!

It still blows me away when even steadfast Republicans respond with “well he was a good man” when discussing the ineptitude of the Carter administration. I’m absolutely amazed at how he’s managed to transform losing badly into political sainthood. He won the Nobel prize and now he’s even getting a sub named after him.

Do you think the Navy knows about this? Screw Soviet expansionism Jimmah needs to win!!!

Soviet diplomatic accounts and material from the archives show that in January 1984 former President Jimmy Carter dropped by Soviet Ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin's residence for a private meeting.
Carter expressed his concern about and opposition to Reagan's defense buildup. He boldly told Dobrynin that Moscow would be better off with someone else in the White House. If Reagan won, he warned, "There would not be a single agreement on arms control, especially on nuclear arms, as long as Reagan remained in power."
Using the Russians to influence the presidential election was nothing new for Carter.
Schweizer reveals Russian documents that show that in the waning days of the 1980 campaign, the Carter White House dispatched businessman Armand Hammer to the Soviet Embassy.
Hammer was a longtime Soviet-phile, and he explained to the Soviet ambassador that Carter was "clearly alarmed" at the prospect of losing to Reagan.
Hammer pleaded with the Russians for help. He asked if the Kremlin could expand Jewish emigration to bolster Carter's standing in the polls.
"Carter won't forget that service if he is elected," Hammer told Dobrynin.

PHDeeze nuts

I ran across this article today. It's a little supplemental information to my rant about jobs a few months ago. I'm glad I decided to stay out of academia.

Y'all should really read it. It's good.

U.S. Tsunami aid

Bush has increased America's relief pledge by $600 million for nations affected by the December tsunami, making the total amount of aid $950 million. That combined with the estimated $800 million given from private sources is nothin' to sneeze at.

Similarly, I'd wager it's good news that the EU has decided to alter its tariff "preferences". This quote, was telling:

British charity Oxfam welcomed the move, but warned that more action was needed.

"The European Commissions decision to bring forward a new system of trade preferences for poor countries will help reduce poverty by improving market access, but the gains will be limited as many protectionist measures persist," the aid agency said in a statement.

Hmmnn. Improving market access helps developing countries? You don't say!? Protectionist measures on the part of rich, powerful countries, harm struggling economies? Sounds like Oxfam may have figured it out, now it's our turn. The Daily Times of Pakistan frames it thus:

There is also need to keep an eye on how much of the trade relief requested by the tsunami-affected countries will take effect. Sri Lanka, which lost nearly all its coastal fishing fleet, requested tariff relief for its textile and apparel exports. Thailand and India have done the same regarding shrimp exports. But the requests have already triggered fierce opposition from US textile manufacturers and shrimp farmers unhappy at being asked to open their markets further. Any change in import tariffs would require congressional approval, and Congress is hesitant to provide trade assistance to tsunami victims. Given the clout of the textile industry in Congress, any effort to extend trade relief will meet with fierce opposition.

If goading had anything to do with the U.S. increasing the sheer dollar amount given, perhaps it's time to consider charging congress and the President with the task of purging existing subsidies and the like. Trade policy that puffs up failing industries at the expense, in this case, of fishermen and textile workers half-a-world away (trying to get by on comparatively little) trying to recover from arguably the worst natural disaster in history is stupid. Axing said policies will do more good than cash chucked around higglty-piglty (though, by all accounts we're doing better at giving money this time than ever before). Just think, we get to help folks annnd buy cheap shrimp and clothing. Ohh, the invisible hand of capitalism...

I'm game (so far)

I found this article from "Reason", a libertarian monthly magazine and website, about the case for Social Security privatization. An interesting point: "The Democrats object that allowing workers to put some of their payroll taxes in personal accounts will worsen Social Security's financial condition, since the diverted money would not be available to pay benefits for current retirees. Although much depends on the final details of the plan and the number of people who participate, the administration estimates that making up the difference would cost $754 billion during the next decade.

But this cost will be offset over the long term by lower demands on payroll taxes, as future retirees draw more on their own accounts and less on standard benefits. Another way of looking at it is that establishing private accounts simply makes explicit some of the system's existing liabilities. It may not reduce them, but neither does it raise them."

There's reason (heh) enough to be leery of numbers as big as $754 billion coming from this administration, considering the way they sold Medicare reform. But, I'd be happy to give Socoal Security reform a chance simply to buck a system that seems more than a little antiquated. It turns out that FDR, the "father" of social security, supported the idea of voluntary personal accounts in 1935. Money quote: "In the important field of security for our old people, it seems necessary to adopt three principles: First, noncontributory old-age pensions for those who are now too old to build up their own insurance. It is, of course, clear that for perhaps 30 years to come funds will have to be provided by the States and the Federal Government to meet these pensions. Second, compulsory contributory annuities which in time will establish a self-supporting system for those now young and for future generations. Third, voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age. It is proposed that the Federal Government assume one-half of the cost of the old-age pension plan, which ought ultimately to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans."

There should be no sacred cows where other people's lives are concerned. That Americans are used to Social Security working the way is does is no reason to keep it that way. Ideally, our government has a responsibility to enact it's programs in the most morally and financially efficacious fashion possible (that may sound redundant for some folks). If that means throwing what amounts to a tradition out the window, so be it.

Social Security

Just wondering what you think about Bush’s personal account proposal in conjunction with Social security reform. I think it’s an interesting issue because it’ll eventually affect everyone and even those I know who are under 40 and strongly dislike Bush are all for having more personal control of their retirement $$’s. I think regardless of your political inclinations, the vast majority of people now trust their own decision making over the government’s. Despite this, I'm fairly certain they'd oppose whatever Dubya throws out simply because he proposed it. This sentiment is highly visible in the differences in how the media handled Clinton's efforts of reform and Bush's current proposals -- even though they're both based on the work of Democrat Patrick Moynihan. Are there valid arguments against working on reform now or is it just political posturing?

The Generosity of our Betters

Gee the Europeans sure showed us:

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=66782005

TSUNAMI-struck Thailand has been told by the European Commission that it must buy six A380 Airbus aircraft if it wants to escape the tariffs against its fishing industry. While millions of Europeans are sending aid to Thailand to help its recovery, trade authorities in Brussels are demanding that Thai Airlines, its national carrier, pays £1.3 billion to buy its double-decker aircraft.

How ironic, that’s almost the same amount the EU has pledged to the entire Tsunami affected region. Though I'm sure they're only collecting so they can be even more generous in the future. Just think how generous we could be if we gave the same money over and over!

rank

One of my friends likes to play a game called "rank," where he names things and has people rank them. One popular rank was the following: Favorite Rural America Event: Haunted House, County Fair, Themed Festival, Amusement Park.

The New York Times had an interesting article on global environmental rankings. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/24/science/24enviro.html

I'm still not sure why I'm supposed to be a big fan of the Bush daughters, Andrew. They seem pretty cool I guess.

My computer got this nasty Trojan Horse virus the other day. It really sucked. I had to reinstall windows, and it was a big pain in the ass. Now I'm using the Firefox browser instead of explorer so I can avoid any other viral occurences.

Something we can all agree upon

Now I realize some of you probably aren’t as cool with the whole idea of Bush getting inaugurated again as I am. And I’m also pretty sure many of you probably don’t like Bush’s whole “Freedom can warm you or burn you: Your choice A-holes!” speech as much as I do. But in the midst of all the hand wringing over how “divided” the country is I think it’s important to identify things we can all agree upon. The most obvious: Jenna Bush kicks ass. This became very clear to me this week while I was sick and watching Chasing Liberty while buzzing on Pseudoephedrine. Holy Moses that was a bad movie, but as hard as director Andy Cadiff and the combined resources of Warner Brothers tried they couldn’t make Mandi Moore cooler than real life Jenna. You may not like the president but you can be thankful you have something better than an Alex and Vanessa bore-fest for 4 years. Med-school? Yawn. Here's hoping this term involves some Daisy Dukes and a mechanical bull!

unimportant

It turns out that the colts did not conquer the Massachusetts liberals.

Go Colts!!

I fully expect any of y'all who live in Boston to start working on the sabatauge effort. The Colts will conquer the Massachusetts liberals!