20070131

Goodbye to Michael Tam

It is with great reluctance that I have removed my link to Michael Tam's Virtualis Medical Rants website.

Michael seems to have gone into other interests, in other words, he is going to concentrate more firmly on his occupation, medical care, and avoid subjects like politics. Perhaps he was frustrated by dealing with the opinions of people like me or something - grin.

Anyway, Michael seems to be concentrating his efforts on a new blog called The Medicine Box which you can sample (here). This blog would seem to have a very narrow appeal which only medical service providers might find to be of interest. I am certain that medical providers will find his view point on medical services to be as of much interest as I, a none medical provider, found his viewpoint on politics to be of interest.

My best wishes to Michael Tam. I am certain he is going to turn out to be one fine Doctor. If ever he chooses to set up shop within reasonable driving distance of where I live, I would be amongst those beating a path to his door. That is, if the line was not so long that I would be expected to wait an unreasonable amount of time to be seen by him.

Wikipedia and the Fair Tax

I decided to revisit the "Fair Tax" issue, and once again I visited Wikipedia to see if any changes had occurred there.

I noted that the bullshit "Effective rate" graph(see it here) still appears at the site. So much for peer review. I dug a little deeper into where the graph came from. I discovered it is based on a similar graph by the "Americans for Fair Taxation". I'm certain "Americans for Fair Taxation" is an unbiased group and that they receive no funding from anyone that would end up benefiting from our society adopting what they propose. If anyone senses a little sarcasm in that last statement - bulls eye. If you doubt the graph is little more then propaganda, take out a 1040A and insert a "rather average" income level of $43,000 for a married couple with two children and compare their resulting tax rate with what they would pay under the "Fair Tax" even allowing for the "prebate". If you bother to take out your calculator, you will find Joe Average's family gets to pay more then $2,000 additional tax under the Fair Tax then under the existing system. This does not even take into account that "Joe Average" might actually be making a mortgage payment that might allow him to itemize and lessen his tax bite under the current system.

However, I also found another graph on Wikipedia (see it here) which seems to display, in graphic detail, that the results will be quite the opposite for the American Middle Class. Please note that this graph shows that most people making from $15,000 to $200,000 per year will see an increase in their share of the tax burden while those making over $200,000 per year will see a significant decrease. Where does this graph come from? It was produced by the Department of the Treasury, Office of Tax Analysis.

Let's see, which source are we going to trust? Dept of the Treasury or Americans for Fair Taxation? What? You don't trust the government? Well then apply a little common sense to the issue. Those in favor of the "Fair Tax" claim it will be revenue neutral. Does the Americans for Fair Tax graph show revenue neutrality? It does not. It shows a few paying the same with most getting a tax cut. Doesn't sound very revenue neutral now does it? But let's apply some common sense to the Dept of the Treasury graph. Under the Fair Tax, the wealthiest of our society are going to pay lower taxes. Where is the shortfall in collections from the wealthy going to come from if the proposal really is revenue neutral? The graph shows the target of increased tax collections falls upon the American middle class and even dips into the lower class. The Dept of the Treasury graph passes the "common sense" test. I have to resort to "common sense" on their graph because I do not have access to all the data they probably used to examine and then graph the results. It also seems to match the results of when I took out my calculator to examine what happens to "Joe Average", however my expectations are that they (the Dept of the Treasury) used a broader spectrum of examples to compile their results.

Now I guess I can understand why the upper class would be in favor of the "Fair Tax". They get a big tax cut and I guess they are just greedy. However I can not understand why anyone in the middle class with any intelligence and even a modest degree of common sense could be in favor of it. What? They are in favor of paying MORE taxes to fund a tax cut for the wealthy?

How do some of these people even figure out how to set the alarm clock so that they manage to show up for work on time?

Hugo Chavez - Dictator for Life?

(See here) where the AP reports, in a piece that appeared in the NYTimes, that Venezuelan President Hugh Chavez now enjoys dictatorial power in ruling Venezuela.

I do not understand why the Venezuelan government even bothers monkeying around with parlor games. Just go ahead and get it over with. No more need for Democratic institutions, just be done with the charade and declare Hugo Chavez "Dictator for Life".

I wish to point out to everyone that Hitler, too, was first elected by "the people". I note with interest how the piece notes that Chavez supporters waved signs stating "Socialism is Democracy". Hitler first won power through election while leading the "National Socialist" party to electoral victory in Deutschland (Germany).

Socialism might not be undemocratic, but dictatorship sure is!

20070130

President Bush on Healthcare

OK, in my last post, I supported what George Dubyah Bush proposed doing about Global Warming and Energy Independence.

Now let us take out the magnifying glass and look closely at what our President proposes we do about the health care problem.

(See here) George Dubyahs 2007 State of the Union address where he briefly mentions the issue.

My first impression? Nope, nope, nope. No way. Nothing doing. Over my dead body.

George Dubyah Bush is going to solve this problem with another round of tax cuts. Evidently Dubyah has never had a tax cut suggested that he didn't like. Dubyah thinks about the problem and decides cutting taxes is sure to be the solution once again.

Did anyone notice that Dubyah had as a goal balancing the budget in 5 years? He claims he can do this while still saving Social Security (he actually said this). So how does he propose going about doing this? Is it any surprise he points to another tax cut?

Let us examine this. Let us examine your own household budget. You have to pay the rent (or mortgage), pay the heating bill, pay for water, food, etc etc. Is the answer to your problem to work fewer hours and come up with less income?

I am not quite sure, but Dubyah seemed to be proposing limiting taxes on the first $15,000 of all American families(for single income families or singles, $7,500) from income and payroll taxes to pay for health coverage. Go read it for yourself. In other words, he is going to rob Peter to pay Paul. "Payroll taxes" is that portion of the taxes you pay that go towards Social Security benefits for the elderly. We are already facing the "Baby Boom" generation problem and Dubyah seems to think by making the problem worse (less income to meet increasing outgo) we can somehow solve the problem. George Dubyah Bush proposes "saving" Social Security by cutting off the funding for it.

I am dead set against Dubyah's proposal for dealing with the health care issue. I am in favor of coming up with a health care solution. Some aspects of what our President proposes is interesting and might actually work. However, our President, to get his way, would have to come up with real TAX INCREASES to pay for what he proposes. He can't just once again plop down the charge card to solve his problem.

No free lunch. Solving the health care problem is going to be expensive. Someone needs to slap Dubyah upside the head and tell him to wake up. Tax cuts might win him a few votes, but most of us are starting to catch on.

State of the Union 2007

I missed hearing the State of the Union Address given by President Bush (see a transcript here) earlier this month. About that time I was lost in some personal issues that (gasp) I considered more important then hearing what our President had to say. I was worried about whether I could get my truck fixed without going bankrupt and whether or not I could still find away to finish paying for my kids' college educations.

However, the next morning I had worked through the personal issues and once again I was ready to find out what was going on in the world. I was not able to get at a transcript of what our President had to say immediately, however I was able to hear a number of opinions about what was said. Pundits seemed to dwell on what our President had to say about the War in Iraq, which I guess was fair since at least our President dwelt on this area himself for at least half of his presentation.

(See here) a Slate Webzine piece written by Gregg Easterbrook that analyzes what our President had to say about the Global Warming/Energy Independence issue in the address. I encourage anyone reading what I have to say about this first go and actually read what Gregg had to say before you go any further.

My opinion? Democrats better climb onboard and follow where the President leads on this issue. While some Democrats might feel, as do I, that these actions do not go far enough, the steps proposed really are a strong "first step" in the right direction. If Democrats expend all their efforts in fighting against the progress the President proposes, we are apt to see NOT A DAMN THING done prior to the 2008 elections. IF NOTHING IS DONE, I am going to be as willing to take out my wrath against "them damn Democrats" as I am the Republicans. You Democrats are looking at a REPUBLICAN President who proposes real and substantial progress. You Democrats better sign on with the support you can obtain on this issue from ANY Republican, and that most certainly includes that Republican which wields the veto pen. You can not realistically expect to obtain a better plan out of the Senate. Republicans still control 49 of the 100 seats there and you will be unable to break the filibuster without signing a few Republicans onboard. With Dubyah providing the leadership, you might find at least a few climbing onboard to help you obtain the super majority needed to break the filibuster.

I am not saying concerned Democrats need to give up on their goals. I am only saying Democrats should set their short term goals on that which might reasonably be expected to be attained. What you are facing is "some progress" or "no progress". Our President has illuminated a path towards "some" progress and I am going to hold accountable with my vote any who are responsible for NO PROGRESS being the result.

Perhaps if Congress delivers unto Dubyah everything he asks for on this issue, we might even hear from Dubyah further proposals for further steps one year from now. Perhaps by slowly taking chisel and hammer to the large rock that blocks our path we can slowly whittle away at it. But if Democrats become obstructionists to what our President proposes when he proposes real action on the issue, I am going to be pretty upset and less likely to vote Democrat come 2008.

20070129

Loving Jimmy Carter

I wish to sit in judgement of Jimmy Carter. Please do not ask me to defend Jimmy Carter's Presidency. I think that, as President, he failed us. Not in every way mind you. Someone seeking to defend the Carter Presidency can find ample ammunition to point towards where his Presidency was not as bad as it has sometimes been portrayed.

However I am willing to take on the defense of Jimmy Carter as being the finest "ex-President" our nation has ever witnessed.

What will I give as an example? Let us examine one of his most powerful critics. "No fair" they will scream as we hold up the rear view mirror to their crystal ball. However, I will point out that at the time the words I point to were written, the man writing them wanted to be viewed as a sage. He too, was holding up a rear view mirror towards Jimmy Carter's past actions and statements. If it was fair for such a man to use such a method to flail at Jimmy Carter, then it is fair for me to use just such a method to flail at the author.

(See here) a NationalReview.com website piece written by Jay Nordlinger that appeared back in October 2002. Now every criticism Jay had of Jimmy Carter at the time probably could have been defended by a Carter advocate at the time. However, with the benefit of our magical rear view mirror, we can analyze just how reasonable Carter critics are in their criticism.

For example: Jay is especially critical of Jimmy Carter's support for Yassar Arafat. Does anyone really think that things are now better off in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict since the demise of Yassar Arafat? Jay criticized the Palestinian elections that brought Yassar to power, but who in their right mind thinks the "fair" elections that brought Hamas to power after Yassar died are in improvement? Remember Jay, you were critical using a rear view mirror of Jimmy Carter. You too are subject to rear view mirror viewing. Perhaps Jimmy Carter was better at looking into the crystal ball without the benefit of the mirror is why he once served as President and you only serve as a hack at a one sided website.

Or how about this one where Jay wrote:
Jimmy C. thinks very, very little of the current president of the United States. In an interview with the Columbus Ledger-Enquirer last year, he said, “I don’t think that George W. Bush has any particular commitment to preservation of the principles of human rights.”

Back in the days Jay wrote that statement, Dubyah's popularity was soaring. Nowadays, with Dubyah's popularity tanking, I wonder if Jay would be willing to defend that statement.

Seems to me that Jimmy Carter's pronouncements withstand the test of time, and that the opinions coming from people like Jay Nordlinger wither after only a couple of years.

I love hearing from Jimmy Carter. I love it that Jimmy Carter has not yet sold out on us. I love it that Jimmy Carter still seeks to speak truth to power. I just downright love Jimmy Carter.

Tin Foil Hats

This morning, when I visited Boris Epstein's Blog Building a Pyramid I came across a link to the TvNewsLies.org website where a fellow, identified only as "Jesse" and as editor of the website demands in a piece (see it here) that those who are skeptical of all the outrageous claims made by the so called "9-11 Truth Movement" must take on the burden of proving that the official government version is true.

Sorry Jesse. It is not necessary to prove the "reasonable" explanation. If the majority of us are given the reasonable explanation that members of Al Qaeda, the same Al Qaeda that was responsible for the bombing of the USS Cole and a number of US embassies around the world, were responsible for the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on 9-11, we are going to accept that as being reasonable. The burden of proof is on those who state this is not factual.

If you explore Jesse's website, you will find it dripping with venom. Evidently there is nothing about the American government in general, or the George Dubyah Bush administration in particular, that he seems to like. Every piece screams with hate.

Now Jesse would have us believe that he is a reasonable weigher of the facts behind what happened on September 11, 2001. He has evidently reached the conclusion, after the careful, unbiased, informed etc etc analysis of the "facts" that the attacks could not have taken place unless the US Government actually CAUSED it to happen.

Please go read Jesse's piece for yourself. In it you will find descriptions of those who tend to believe most, if not all, the official government explanation as "close minded", "hypocrites", "illogical to an extreme", "brain washed", "unable to follow any rational argument" etc etc. I think it can be rather safely stated that Jesse does not have a very high opinion of anyone who disagrees with him.

Let us examine some of his statements in his piece about people like me:
They blindly accept whatever they are told and close their minds tightly to any other information, no matter how factual.

Ahem. It is not enough that people like me are supposed to be skeptical of the "official" explanation, we are not allowed to practice this same measure of skepticism to the claims of the "9-11 Truth Movement".

You see, what frustrates people like Jesse is that people like me might, at best, say "Interesting theory, but where is your proof?" after having examined all the proof he has to put forth. So Jesse wants to "turn the tables" on us as he states:

I believe that I, and every single person involved in the independent 9/11 research community must ask one question of the people who still believe the official 9/11 story. We must demand that those who accept the Bush/PNAC explanation of the events of that terrible day answer a single question:
“WHERE THE HELL IS YOUR PROOF?"


Heh heh, Jesse does not seem to understand how the game is played. You see, "we the people" are the jury here. Jesse can not demand that the jury must prosecute or defend the case. The jury absorbs what is presented from both sides and then each juror makes up his own mind.

Jesse wants to prosecute his case that the George Dubyah Bush administration was not just responsible through negligence for 9-11 perhaps, but that the administration actually designed the course of the events that day. When we, the American People (the jurors), ask for proof that the Bush administration is guilty, he claims proof of guilt is not necessary, that the jury must prove innocence or else his outrageous claims must be correct. That is not how it works Jesse. You have to prove your case to the jurors, not the other way around.

I have done my best to not be a bigot on the 9-11 subject, however those who believe in some grand conspiracy really make it hard not to be. "Examine the evidence" they scream, and when I have examined that which they call evidence I have found it thoroughly lacking and unconvincing.

Now I do feel that there are reasonable people within the "9-11 Truth Movement". However this movement does indeed have its share of people from the "tin foil hat" crowd, and it is a pretty significant share at that. I myself think Jesse belongs to the latter group. Do you think my opinion is not fair and I should not stoop to such name calling? Well go read Jesse's piece that I linked to and see how he describes people like me. Also take some time out to read some of the other pieces that appear on Jesse's website and then come back here and tell me what you think would be a better description of the man.

20070126

Presidential Election 2008

The polls have been showing some good news recently. At least the news is good for me.

(See here) a NewsMax piece that show both Hillary Clinton and John McCain leading the polls amongst contenders from their respective parties. Now please note that this poll only measures the strength of each candidate from the opinions of all registered voters. It does not measure the strength of either candidates' appeal from only members of their respective party. In other words, each candidate might best represent their party if their party was only worried about winning the election. It does not measure how likely either candidate would be to win the primary race which would allow them to actually run. The poll conducted shows how likely they are to win as they now stand. It does not represent their appeal if they dare to tack either left in their positions (in Hillary's case) or to the right (in McCain's case).

Why do I like these candidates? Because they are both strong willed individuals who might actually be capable of leadership. Both have shown a willingness to attempt to carve off their share of the moderate vote and stand up to the lunatic extremists within their party.

Now for the bad news. Nowhere have I seen any reports that the person I would most like to vote for is even going to run. I am talking about Colin Powell. It is my belief that Colin possesses the qualities required to obtain the highest percentage of voter support and thus most closely come to uniting our nation in these difficult times. I know he does not want the job. However that does nothing to blunt my desire to have him serve in the Oval Office. George Washington did not desire the job either, and look how ably he served.

20070114

Presidential Address January 10, 2007

(See here) a transcript of the Presidential Address to the nation given by George Dubyah Bush on January 10, 2007.

First, let me identify where I stood before I heard what our President had to say. I was dead set against the increase in troop levels.

What the President had to say in his address was not much new. What he was going to propose in this address was largely known and had been largely dissected prior to our President uttering the words he spoke.

However, after listening to the words spoken, I had a change of heart. I asked myself, is it possible for what our leader proposes might be able to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat?

I decided that I would support my President's initiative. Is it possible his plans might work? Well, personally, I rather doubt it. Too little too late is my own description. (Please preface that last statement within that I was against the Iraq war from the outset in the way that we engaged in it.) I do not think that what Dubyah proposes is going to alter the outcome in Iraq. However I could be wrong. Even if I am correct, there are advantages to giving Dubyah and those who think like him enough rope to hang themselves.

Think about it. Our involvement in Iraq was the stupid thing to do. Most of us already realize it, however what has happened has not yet convinced Dubyah and those who think like him. They still think "victory" can be achieved. What worries me most is that how I would describe "victory" is not going to satisfy that group. That group has an unrealistic viewpoint of what we could expect from our involvement. But why should I be surprised, this same group claimed the Iraqi people would throw flowers at the feet of the liberators (that would be us) that rescued them.

My support of Dubyah's proposal is based upon this. It is the maximum effort that conservatives think the American People will swallow. If we reluctantly allow this group "one last effort" we can silence them. If we deny them this effort, we need to look forward to what will happen in the next election cycle (which includes the election of a new President). Any effort to "withdraw" or "redeploy" is going to result in mayhem. At the end of the mayhem, we as a people are going to be forced to deal with the forces that emerge victorious. Those who were in favor of the war are not going to be willing to claim ownership of the results. They are going to point at what happens, tell us it is not their mess, but it is the result of "them damn liberals" that kept them from leading us to victory.

OK, let us as a nation, give them one last opportunity to lead us before we snatch the reigns from their hands. Let us deny "those guys" any opportunity to claim the mess is "our" fault and not theirs. Once they are done, the blame for "our" failed efforts can be righteously be laid at their feet and we can walk away from the blame.

I am not asking that we unreasonably follow Dubyah into oblivion. I am only asking that we give him enough rope to hang himself. He is not asking for too much rope, he is being reasonable in his request. He only asks for enough rope to complete the hanging. Let us give him the rope he asks for.

I will state this, while I think Dubyah will fail in his leadership attempts, I hope I am wrong. You see, I do not think that I disagree that much with Dubyah's objectives in where he tries to lead us. I only think the methods he has been choosing to obtain these objectives are what are lacking, not the objectives themselves.

I hope that, by giving our President our support, he can prove his leadership was correct and that all of the rest of us are wrong. I do not think this is the outcome that we will witness as we watch and live out our lives, but I could be wrong. I hope I am wrong.

One last chance for Dubyah to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. This is what I am in favor of. Let us give him one last chance to beat his head against the wall. Who knows, maybe his head will be hard enough to bring the wall down. My guess is that he is going to walk away from the wall with the need for new bandages, however I could be wrong.

20070106

Business As Usual on Capitol Hill

What does the new Democratic Majority in Congress mean for America? (See here) a Washington Post piece that seems to indicate it is going to just be "business as usual" up there on Capitol Hill.

This piece reports that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid are going to refuse to use their new power to influence how George Dubyah Bush fights his war.

As the WP piece reports:
With their new majorities, they have a bigger political megaphone and more ability to bring pressure to bear. At the same time, Pelosi and Reid have eschewed using the main legislative mechanism to change policy, namely cutting off funding for the war.

Or in other words, all we are going to see is lots of talk and little action.

Now I am a realist, it is highly doubtful that either leader could muster majorities that would be willing to cut off funding to the troops. Cutting the funding might be political suicide for most politicians. However that does not mean that NOTHING can be done.

What would I suggest? Fire a shot across conservatives' bow. Tell them bluntly that if they want to continue fighting this expensive war, that Democrats are going to change how we go about funding it.

George Dubyah Bush is going to be coming to Congress in March asking for a special appropriation to fund his war. All that has to happen is for the Democrat majority in the House of Representatives to tie into this special appropriation a roll back of George Dubyah Bush's precious tax cuts. You let those in favor of continuing the war know that if they want to continue on with it they are going to have to pay for it with hard earned tax dollars and that no longer will it be paid for with borrowed money.

Harry Reid will not even have to obtain a super majority to accomplish this in the Senate. If the Republicans dare to filibuster, then it will be they who are cutting off funding to the troops. Democrats will be willing to provide the troops with whatever they need, however their needs will be met with tax dollars instead of borrowed dollars.

Some conservatives will point out that the President is the one and only "Commander In Chief" and that only he gets to decide how the troops are used. I guess there is some truth to this statement, but then how about trying this statement on for size? While the President is in charge of the troops, it is Congress that gets to decide how we pay for what the President decides to do. Dubyah is not a dictator. He can not force Congress to enact legislation. Congress can force him to swallow hard as he decides to "Stay the course". He can continue his dirty little war if he wants, but he is will be forced to surrender his precious tax cuts in order to do it.

Democrats might not be able to force Dubyah to end the war, however they can make him and all of his conservative advisers "feel the pain" if he refuses to change course.

But I guess this is not what we are going to see happen. For all the good the Democrat majorities in Congress are going to do us, we might as well have continued on with the Republicans.

20070105

"Pale" Blue Dog Democrats

Today, I was listening to C-Span radio on Sirius (also available on XM) when I happened to catch a press conference being held by the Blue Dog Democrats.

For anyone unfamiliar with the "Blue Dogs", let me explain my understanding of them. They are a group of Democrats in the House of Representatives who have joined together in an attempt to influence legislation, as a group, in ways more powerful then they could do as individuals. They increased their numbers in the last election cycle and they now number 44. A significant number of the new Democrats elected that have given the Democrats a majority are now members of the Blue Dog Coalition. Since this coalition of 44 is way more then enough to turn the tide against the more liberal members of the Democrat caucus in the House if they desire, and since these members are those who have less to fear from those who voted for them by voting with the Republicans on occasion, these guys (and gals) exercise power beyond their numbers.

A strong binding element of what makes up a Blue Dog is fiscal responsibility. They do not want to watch America expire in a flood of federal red ink. Most Blue Dogs probably could be described as moderate. Some are left of center and some are right of center (and some even test these descriptions) but as I said, the glue is fiscal responsibility.

In the opening measures of our new Congress was the adoption of "PayGo" (pay as you go)rules by our House of Representatives. This is actually the re adoption of a policy that was practiced by the House and which was successful during the Clinton administration. PayGo helped restrict mushrooming federal deficit spending.

First, before I launch into "constructive" criticism of the Blue Dogs, let me offer them some congratulations. The Blue Dogs were successful in getting PayGo included in Nancy Pelosi's "First 100 Hours" full court press and it sends a powerful signal to all members of Congress, helps set the tone for how legislation should be enacted and provides feedback to your constituents that they might have accomplished something by voting for you. Each and every member of the Blue Dogs deserve to be commended for this achievement, even those newly elected members of the coalition. Every American citizen who cast a ballot in favor of a Blue Dog also deserves commendation. With each ballot cast that put a Blue Dog in power, every citizen that thus voted may have helped our federal government embark on a path that could help us save our nation. Please do not think I am trying to engage in hyperbole, fiscal responsibility is that damn important. I feel the very existence of our great nation, as we know it, is threatened by deficit spending.

Now here comes the criticism. I can do as good a job at dressing down as I do at dressing up.

I suggest that "Blue Dogs" start describing themselves as "Pale Blue Dogs". They are in favor of fiscal responsibility all right, just as long as it is not too hard. During their press conference, I listened as the most vocally adept tried to do cartwheels around the issues. In response to the harder questions asked by the press I heard answers that left me extremely troubled.

I am going to discuss two very important areas in this piece that trouble me. Number one: the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). Number two: funding our War in Iraq.

I am going to take on the easiest of the two points first. The AMT. I heard one leader of the Blue Dogs try and sidestep whether something needs to be done about the AMT. Heck, I guess the AMT does not impact his electorate so nothing needs to be done. Let me explain the AMT. The AMT was enacted to catch wealthy bastards who did not pay their fair share of taxes. However, due to inflation, the AMT's net is broadening and every year is increasing so as to catch more and more members of the middle class. Which members? Most often members who live in areas with high costs of living and high state taxes. However, the only reason the AMT does not start biting into the real meat of the middle class is due to temporary relief measures that have been enacted. A permanent solution to the AMT problem needs to be adopted. Rich bastards who can afford to hire a bench full of tax experts to avoid taxes should still have to pay taxes. However, when the net gets so broad that includes reaching into the level of middle class taxpayers that have no idea how to avoid taxes, it has gone too far. Something needs to be done about the AMT. Those members of the Blue Dogs who's electorate are not affected by the AMT need to go back to those who elected them and explain that "fair is fair". You can also explain to the middle class members of their electorate that, one day, they too will be caught up in the net.

Should solving the problem with the AMT be "revenue neutral"? Yes, I guess it too should be. Perhaps taxes would have to be raised elsewhere to make up for the lost revenue, however "fair is fair" and if the revenue is still needed, the tax bite should be spread evenly amongst the members of our society. (No I am not saying I am in favor of a "flat tax". Raise the taxes in a progressive manner.)

Now let me tackle funding the War in Iraq. I listened as one of the Blue Dogs described his actions as he symbolically took out a scissors and cut up a charge card. The symbolic message? Borrow and spend days are over for the federal government. However when asked the hard questions, like about funding the War in Iraq, I could have sworn this "Blue Dog" Democrat was starting to turn a shade of polka dot. He started sounding like all the other politicians we have to deal with. You know the ones who I am talking about, the ones who state "I'll promise anything, tell you I will do everything, but in the end I will not do a damn thing." He stated something like our troops will be funded no matter how much it costs.

Look, in March our Congress is going to be asked by our President to approve a special appropriation to fund the continuing War in Iraq. From what I have heard, the request is going to approach 100 billion dollars (to be exact 97.4 billion). Last time around it was only eighty something billion. While attempts have been made to cut the costs, such as cutting funding to rebuild Iraq, the costs have continued to increase without maintaining the war fighting capability of our military. We continue to deplete the resources of our military as we approve extravagant sums to fund the war. Once again, Congress is going to be asked to take out the charge card to fund the War in Iraq.

Why didn't that member of the Blue Dogs just cut off a corner of the charge card instead of cutting the whole thing in half? Perhaps if that member of the Blue Dogs has some sacred cow he is unwilling to sacrifice?

What would I suggest? OK, we start with rolling back the Dubyah tax cuts to fund the War in Iraq. Personally, I liked some aspects of these tax cuts, however there can be no sacred cows. If Republicans find it unacceptable to roll back to "Bill Clinton" tax rates, then I suggest offering them a compromise. If they do not like tax rates labeled "Bill Clinton" we can start talking about "Ronald Reagan" tax levels and work from there.

I have heard Blue Dogs describe newly elected members of their coalition as "Blue Pups". I would encourage newly elected "pups" to not follow the leadership of the group so strongly that the entire group starts being described as "light blue" and eventually ends up breaking apart. You are trying to lead a national movement. It would indeed be a shame if this movement broke up on the rocks as it started to set sail.

Long live the Blue Dogs. But remember, when the old dog gets too sick, we put a gun to its head to put it out of its misery. Such is American politics. The American People are watching.

20070103

On the Road Again

I am returning to the road today and expect to be gone for several weeks. While on the road I rarely have access to the internet.

Debating and Criticizing Israel

(See here) an opinion piece written by George Bisharat that appeared on the Philadelphia Inquirer's website, philly.com.

This is a biting piece highly critical of Israel. I agree with many but not all of the points George makes.

One criticism that George does not make, that I think is relevant I feel should be added. While George delves into how none Jews are sometimes unfairly treated in Israeli society, he leaves out how Israeli society is not even fair to all Jews. For example, if a Conservative or Reform Jew immigrates into Israel, and subsequent to arrival wishes to get married, this same Jewish person would be forced to convert to Orthodox Judaism first, and then can only be married in an Orthodox Jewish ceremony. If a Jew wants to be married in a Conservative or Reform Jewish ceremony, or (gasp) in a secular ceremony, they must leave Israel and have the ceremony performed elsewhere upon which the marriage would be recognized upon their return to Israel. Not all Jews are equal in Israel. Orthodox Jews are "more equal" then others.

George seems to be encouraging debate about the United State's policies towards Israel. In his concluding paragraph, he states and asks:
The debate should now be extended. Are Israel's founding ideals truly consistent with democracy? Can a state established in a multiethnic milieu be simultaneously "Jewish" and "democratic"? Isn't strife the predictable yield of preserving the dominance of Jews in Israel over a native Palestinian population? Does our unconditional aid merely enable Israel to continue abusing Palestinian rights with impunity, deepening regional hostilities and distancing peace? Isn't it time that Israel lived by rules observed in any democracy - including equal rights for all?

First, before I go into where I differ with George, let me point out where I think we might find agreement. I, too applaud Jimmy Carter (who George mentions in his piece) for daring to bring the subject to the public's attention. I probably find stronger areas of agreement with Jimmy then I do with George. I have heard Jimmy state that in his book he is being critical of what is happening in the occupied territories, not of what goes on within Israel proper, those portions of Israel that exist within the Green Line. However George does not stop there. He seems to think that Israel must adopt all the ideals of American society.

I would ask George to be realist. He questions as to whether Israel can be simultaneously Jewish and Democratic. I say it can. Are there some aspects of the society they have established that I think should be changed? Yes. However I do not think it would be right for our society to try and force feed these changes upon them. You have to remember what motivated the establishment of Israel in the first place. Hitler really did put millions of Jews into the ovens. Jewish refugees fleeing the Nazi persecution were even turned away from the shores of America and forced to return to the shores of Europe to meet their fate (Google SS St Louis). I do not think the desire of Jews to establish a predominately Jewish society, a society that will throw open its arms to welcome any and every Jewish individual who desires refuge, is unreasonable.

I also believe that George would differ with me over "the plight of Palestinian refugees". I feel that in order to obtain a peace agreement that Israeli society will agree to, the "right of return" is going to have to be denied Palestinian refugees who fled, or were driven from, territory within the Green Line during 1948. Yes, perhaps there should be some form of reparations given to these refugees. However the return of these refugees to within the Green Line would mean the eventual destruction of "the Jewish state" due to demographics. The "right of return" is going to have to be denied.

One thing I am certain of is this, if we are going to open a public debate about "what to do about Israel" I vote that it be Jimmy Carter be the one to lead the side voicing criticism of America's public policy regarding the subject. Jimmy Carter is at least, in my opinion, reasonable in his criticisms while I think criticism voiced by people such as George Bisharat would be dismissed without serious consideration as being too extremist in nature.

I am in favor of the "two state solution", I am not in favor of the destruction of Israel, and what George proposes would yield just that. However, much of his criticisms are indeed warranted. He can join the debate, however I do not look to him for leadership on the issue. George Bisharat is too much of an extremist for me.

20070101

American Treachery

(See here) an interesting column written by Cale Hahn that appeared on the Arutz Sheva website.

First let me state that Cale does make some good points about the follies of American foreign diplomacy under the George Dubyah Bush administration. However he narrows the focus of the impact of American foreign policy decisions upon how they affect Israel.

There is some truth in even this. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict surely is one piece of the puzzle in "everything Middle-Eastern", however how does Cale describe recent American actions? Let me quote him:
The sheer brazenness of the American treachery is staggering.

Have you got that? According to Cale, even any contemplation of negotiating with Syria and Iran, or any attempts to pressure Israel to settle the conflict that has been going on for almost 60 years now, is treachery.

As we follow Cale's piece towards its conclusion, we come across this troubling statement:
Let America stand warned. Let her heed the warnings from 9/11, let her heed the warnings from Hurricane Katrina. Conspire to force the Jews from the land God has given them and that which was intended for them will come upon our own heads.

Seems that Cale thinks the attack by Al Qaeda upon the United States back on Sept 11, 2001 was part of some retribution from G-d. And since 9-11 did not get enough of America's attention, then G-d resorted to hurricane Katrina to punish my evil nation. Just wondering what Cale thinks about the respite from hurricanes America has experienced in this past year? Perhaps G-d is giving the "evil nation America" some credit for finally giving the Palestinians' their due right to justice? Perhaps G-d now approves of what we are up to?

Nope, Cale does not hold that viewpoint. He concludes his piece with a threat:
If this nation does not depart from the path it is on with regard to Israel, this nation will face the full wrath of Him who protects her. He who watches over Israel will neither slumber nor sleep.

What worries me is that G-d's wrath was not always visited upon men by actions of G-d alone. According the Old Testament, occasionally G-d used mere men to visit his wrath upon "the evil ones" instead of snapping His fingers and doing it himself. Read up on how He used David to vanquish Goliath with a sling. Perhaps Cale will be motivated to "be like David" and take action himself.

Since Cale Hahn is evidently a gentile (and I would imagine a conservative Christian) and an American citizen, if the rest of us ever felt the need to bring him up on charge of treason for any of his actions (he still enjoys freedom of speech) I would request that this piece be introduced as evidence against him. While no harm is introduced by the piece itself, it does help to prove motivation for any crimes that might be committed.

Here again is true evidence of part of reason why the world has been so unsuccessful in obtaining a just resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. While fault does not lie solely on "our side", our side does shoulder some of the blame. "Some" evangelical Christians and "some" Orthodox Jews really do feel they have the rights to ALL of the land because it was given to them by G-d. As a result, ANY actions taken to further this "G-d given right" is OK. Some of them have even proposed mass, forcible expulsion of the millions of Arabs living in Judea and Samaria (also known as the West Bank) in furtherance of reclaiming the land given to them by G-d.

I wish I could say it is not so, but it is so. It is the truth.