Fixing Social Security, and the Democrats

President Bush preempted Democratic objections to his Social Security plan by acknowledging the historical greatness of the program while urging Congress to adopt changes that would preferentially benefit low-income retirees of the future.

"Social Security's provided a safety net that has provided dignity and peace of mind for millions of Americans in their retirement," Mr. Bush said at the beginning of the news conference. "Yet there's a hole in the safety net because Congresses have made promises it cannot keep for a younger generation." He also renewed the promise of FDR: "If you work hard and pay into Social Security your entire life, you will not retire into poverty."

The President’s fix should appeal to lower income workers, the natural constituency claimed by the Democratic Party.

"I believe a reformed system should protect those who depend on Social Security the most," the President said. "So I propose a Social Security system in the future where benefits for low-income workers will grow faster than benefits for people who are better off."

The system currently pays higher income retirees more than those who earned lower incomes during their working years. Furthermore the payment gaps increase over time since the payments increase by amounts that are indexed to the percent increase of wages. Thus if one retiree receives $10,000 per year and another $15,000, then after 10 years of, say, 3%/year increases, the payments will be $13,440 and $20,160, respectively. Under the President’s plan the wealthier retiree’s payment would be indexed to the cost of living which is somewhat less than the wage increases. Thus for a 2% COLA the higher income employee’s payment would be $18,285 after 10 years.

The savings accrued would close most of Social Security's long-term financial gap, about 70%, according to Social Security actuaries.

The President also emphasized the importance of personal retirement accounts: "Any reform of Social Security must replace the empty promises being made to younger workers with real assets. I believe the best way to achieve this goal is to give younger workers the option of putting a portion of their payroll taxes into a voluntary personal retirement account," he said. "Because this money is saved and invested, younger workers would have the opportunity to receive a higher rate of return on their money."

In other words, if personal retirement accounts are good for 70 million government employees, then they are probably good for the rest of us. You’d think that the Democrats would agree. I wonder why they don't?

The Democrats Protection Racket

Doug and Dinsdale Pirana were born and raised in the rough and tumble dock area of Liverpool, UK. As youngsters, the boys were notorious for their antisocial behavior. Dinsdale, especially, was shunned for his practice of nailing playmate’s body parts to odd items of furniture for relatively minor infractions of the so called “code.” Mrs. Pirana, an up-and-coming amateur boxer and Tory MP, was nonetheless disappointed when her sons quit high school to embark on a career in organized crime.

As the brains of the duo, Doug came up with a “plan” for their first venture, a “protection” business. The brothers approached shop owners with the offer to beat them up once a month in exchange for the protection money. While Dinsy thoroughly enjoyed the work, Doug noticed that their clientele were fleeing the city in search of a better deal. So Doug came up with the “other plan” wherein Dinsy would not beat up the customers as long as they did not pay the protection fee. This “other plan” brought former clients back to the city but did little for the boy’s cash flow. Finally Doug hit upon the “other, other plan” wherein the clients would not be beat up if they paid the protection money. This was the real beginning of the Pirana brother’s entrepreneurial success.

At a Social Security anti-privitization rally just yesterday a black, female Democratic leader led the crowd in the chant: “It’s not wise to privatize.” The Democratic Party prefers to maintain the status quo where worker’s pay is taxed 12.4% to fund the “plan” that pays, for example, the average black man just one year of retirement income, say $10,000, for the 40 or so years of tax payments. If the man dies before retiring, the tax money does not go to his family, since it is not really their money. It belongs to the government and is used to pay other retirees, mostly white women, and to fund other government programs.

With private retirement accounts, nearly half of the workers in America who do not make enough to invest in stocks and bonds would be able to direct one third of their payroll taxes to investment accounts that would belong to the workers and their families. This is the “other plan” offered by the Republicans.

The Democrats prefer the current “plan” that would be an organized crime RICO violation if the Pirana brothers offered it to the American workers.

The Mexifornia that Roared

As a typical member state of the European Union, the Duchy of Grand Fenwick was going broke. Having failed to stimulate the economy with high taxes, a bloated bureaucracy and truly wondrous regulations, the Prime Minister of Grand Fenwick came up with a brilliant plan to avoid bankruptcy.

The Duchy’s military, including all 67 men, 3 old sailboats and several 22 cal rifles (sans bullets) would attack the United States. Having lost the “war” within 10 minutes of landing on US soil, the Duchy would sue for peace and enjoy the fruits of post-war US aid. It was a foolproof plan except for one detail: Grand Fenwick won the war!

Unbeknown to the US government, the latest attack on our homeland has come from South of the border. Following the Grand Fenwickian tradition, Vicente Fox ordered several million Mexicans to invade the United States. And he ordered the mighty Mexican army to aid the “immigrants” by providing tequila and comic books. He confiscated all the bullets so no foolish soldier would be tempted to fire on the retaliating American forces.

Then he waited,…but no US army appeared at the border. So Fox sent another few million invaders, and he waited. Some of these “illegals” were bad guys, some committed crimes, including murder, but they high-tailed it back to Mexico. Fox thought that this would surely draw the American military. But noooo, the US government did nothing.

A handful of American citizens, the Minutemen (and women) they called themselves, went to the border with cell phones and lawn chairs, effectively stopping the invasion in its tracks. The US government called them “vigilantes” and waited for them to go home. Our plan: Sue Mexico for peace. It’s tit for tat. Take that Vicente.

The “Mouse that Roared” is America!

Bolton or Nada

Democrats in the Senate have been mercilessly attacking John Bolton ever since he was nominated by President Bush to serve as United States ambassador to the United Nations. Their primary objections to Bolton are (1) his allegedly abusive management style; (2) his alleged inability to negotiate with international leaders due to the aforementioned style; and (3) his alleged disdain for the very institution (the UN) that he should be serving.

Yesterday in the Washington Post Lawrence Eagleburger former Secretary of State under the first President Bush answered those objections to my satisfaction.

(1) Regarding Bolton’s management style: “I can say only that in more than a decade of association with him in the State Department I never saw or heard anything to support such a charge. Nor do I see anything wrong with challenging intelligence analysts on their findings.”

(2) Regarding Bolton’s effectiveness: “On Dec. 16, 1991, I spoke to the U.N. General Assembly on behalf of the United States, calling on the member states to repeal the odious Resolution 3379, which equated Zionism with racism. As I said then, the resolution ‘labeled as racist the national aspirations of the one people more victimized by racism than any other.’ That we were successful in obtaining repeal was largely due to John Bolton, who was then assistant secretary of state for international organizations. His moral outrage was clearly evident as he brilliantly led and managed the successful U.S. campaign to obtain sufficient votes for repeal. The final vote, 111 to 25, speaks volumes for the success of his "direct" style.”

“Bolton's impressive skills were also demonstrated at the time of the Persian Gulf War, when he steered a critical series of resolutions supporting our liberation of Kuwait through the U.N. Security Council.”

(3) Regarding Bolton’s attitude toward the UN: “Given what we all know about the current state of the United Nations, it's time we were represented by someone with the guts to demand reform and to see that whatever changes result are more than window dressing.”

So what’s really bothering the Senate Democrats? Robert Novak in today’s Chicago Sun Times pointed to the fact that “Bolton's undeniable conservative ideology has antagonized the State Department's liberal cadre and its senatorial defenders. His hard line on Fidel Castro has alienated (Christopher) Dodd, whose long-term goal has been normalization of U.S.-Cuba relations.”

Washington Post reporter Dana Milbank noted that Democrats have "assailed Bolton's knack for making enemies and disparaging the very organization he would serve." Jay Nordlinger noted in the National Review:

“That encapsulated perfectly the Democratic mindset. You see, we Neanderthals think that the purpose of the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. is to serve the United States, particularly its foreign policy, as made by the government's executive branch. It is the other view that the U.S. ambassador is to serve the United Nations--to be part of that clique, that bureaucracy. That is why Barbara Boxer and others shudder so at Bolton's "contempt" for the United Nations. They love that body, and value it as a check--or a brake--on U.S. foreign policy.”

There you have it. Democrats revere the UN more than the US. I say let Bolton reform the place if he can, or let the Democrats make it a Party funded “think tank” where they can criticize the US to their heart’s content.

Vile France

You may be wondering where the lefties got their absurd ideas about the “Second Bill of Rights.” (“What Liberals Think About the Constitution,” 4/23/05). It’s France of course! Ever since the French stabbed us in the back over the Iraq war and the “Oil for Food” scandal, Americans have awakened to an ugly fact that the French governments have hidden for a very long time. France has been an enemy of the United States since before we were a country. Indeed, former French president Francois Mitterrand said a few years ago, “We are at war with America. Yes, a permanent war, a vital war, a war without casualties, at least on the surface.”

Several books have been written on the subject of French perfidy over the last two years. I recommend “The French Betrayal of America” by Kenneth Timmerman, “Our Oldest Enemy” by John Miller, “Hating America” by John Gibson and the most recent book “Vile France: Fear, Duplicity, Cowardice and Cheese” by Denis Boyle.

In “Vile France,” Boyle describes the way of life in “elite-infested” France. “The result is a nation reliant on a kind of pervasive bribery, one that promises citizens a basket of expensive ‘rights’ – including paid vacations, free health care, free university tuition, a huge educational bureaucracy that acts as a day care for French kids as young as two, pensions that are literally larger than life and a work week that, by law, stops at 35 hours no matter what. Hovering over all these guarantees are mammoth national unions, like the CGT, the last redoubt of France’s once-mighty Communist Party. ... If you want to see a perfectly performed Gallic shrug, simply ask about the cost of any of them.” The cost is a craven, insecure, selfish, clueless, overtaxed, underemployed, culturally exhausted country “headed for a demographic cul-de-sac.”

Friday night on C-Span I watched French President Jacques Chirac answer questions from a hall full of French 20-30 some-things on the prospects for the European Union. (Following our President’s lead, I’ll call him) Jack was asked by a bright but sad female lawyer, “What is the EU going to do for me? I’ve been out of law school 3 years and all the work I can find is as a store clerk.” In a style reminiscent of John Kerry, Jack responded, at length, about the wonders of the European Constitution, how it would enshrine all the superior French values like liberte’, egalite’, fraternite’ in the whole of Europe, thereby bringing the benighted masses up to near parity with the French. What more could one want? Why are you so sad?

The female lawyer wanted a job. When Jack asked if she would vote to ratify the EU Constitution, she replied “no way, Jacke’.”

What Liberals Think About the Constitution

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia calls himself a Constitutional “originalist.” He believes that the US Constitution is a legal contract between the federal government and the people, that it is as valid and binding today as when it was written in 1776. That is not to say that the Constitution is unchangeable. The document itself provides the means for amendment in Article V: “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution ….” Indeed the first 10 amendments were the “Bill of Rights” ratified in 1791.

The intention of the founders was that the Constitution may evolve by the amendment process only, not by court decision. Judicial activism was not envisioned as it is dangerous to democracy. When judges rule on the basis of their own beliefs, in contradistinction to the Constitutional intent, then the judiciary becomes a political body, subject to the influence of political parties. Such activism usurps the powers of the legislative branch and of the states as written in Article V. When the courts become policy makers, “the people in a democracy will try to seize control.” They will seek to appoint justices who will evolve the Constitution they way they want it to evolve.

If only the Supreme Court and the appellate courts would stick to the originalist philosophy, the American democracy would be safe for all time. Unfortunately, we have appellate courts such as the 9th district in San Francisco believing they are right to declare the Declaration of Independence unconstitutional and gay marriage constitutional. Furthermore, we have liberal politicians who believe it to be their mandate to remake the Constitution in their own image.

Last weekend, the American Constitutional Society sponsored a conference at the Yale Law School entitled “The Constitution in 2020.” The purpose of the conference was to “work toward a progressive consensus as to what the Constitution should provide for by the year 2020, and a strategy for how liberal lawyers and judges might bring such a constitutional regime into being.” (“What Liberals Want,” John Hinderaker, Powerline Blog, 4/19/05.)

The keystone of the new constitution was envisioned to be the "Second Bill of Rights," that would recognize new and juicy rights to "a useful and remunerative job"; sufficient earnings to provide "adequate" food, clothing, and recreation; a "decent" home; a "good education"; and "adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health." In this progressive constitution “citizens are not only guaranteed freedom from specified forms of government interference, but also are guaranteed the receipt of specified economic benefits.” For example, every young adult would receive an “inheritance” from the government of $80,000. I’m sure we would all enjoy those “rights.” And who would pay for the benefits? Why the taxpayers of course!

Now the progressive conferees were not foolish enough to think that the federal or state legislators would pass such foolishness. But, never fear, the judicial activists are at the ready. As one of the conference participants said: "We don't have much choice other than to believe deeply in the courts--where else do we turn?"

We have many serious domestic problems. Education, Social Security, healthcare, social entitlements, energy policy, the legal system are all in need of reform. However, no other issue is as important as the judiciary. We must appoint appelate judges and Supreme Court justices who see the Constitution as it really is.

Judicial Activism

Last night on C-SPAN the National Constitution Center sponsored an unusually insightful program on the Supreme Court. Meet the Press host Tim Russert interviewed Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia, Sandra Day O’Connor and Steven Breyer. The justices showed their personal sides and spoke honestly about their beliefs. Their fondness for Chief Justice Rehnquist was evident – all called him the “Chief.”

The justices joked about Breyer's role as the court's junior member, that requires him to perform such duties as answering the door during closed conferences and even bringing Scalia coffee. He noted how good he had become at that task over the past 10 years, only to have Scalia correct him. Scalia noted that when a vote is tied 4-4 Breyer relishes his privilege of casting the deciding vote.

The Justices also shared their concern about the lack of understanding that people have about the Constitution. "It's a major problem," O'Connor said. "You don't inherit knowledge of the Constitution through the gene pool. It has to be taught." This is an egregious weakness of our pubic school system.

Then the discussion got more serious. Justice Scalia said that the greatest danger to the courts is the "evolving Constitution" being created by judges who combine the law and politics. Scalia added, "Something has changed fundamentally. People are realizing that judges have enormous power over policy." He suggested the public and politicians are advocating now for judges who will agree with them politically.

Calling the difficulty confirming judges "unprecedented," Scalia said 50 years of judges acting as policymakers has caused people to view the court as more of a political body. He recalled that he was confirmed by the Senate, 98 to 0, two decades ago, even though senators of all persuasions knew he was a conservative.

Scalia and Breyer also argued over the use of international law in deciding US cases. The court recently cited international rejection of juvenile executions as a reason to outlaw the juvenile death penalty in the United States. O'Connor and Scalia declined to join that opinion. Scalia said that the feelings and practices in other countries were irrelevant in deciding what to do about the death penalty in the United States. He said that ruling was especially inappropriate because the court had concluded the opposite just 15 years earlier.

Justice Breyer did not agree. "It's appropriate in some instances" to look at what goes on in other countries, he said. "They do not bind us by any means." Breyer argued that the founders relied on international law in drafting the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Scalia responded, "Ah, but [they were] writing a constitution, not interpreting one, my friend."

Judicial activist: Steven Breyer

The Pope's a Catholic, Head for the Hills!

When Pope John Paul II died it took the liberal press a few days before they dared attack him. The new pope, Benedict XVI, had a shorter honeymoon. Only elected yesterday, Joseph Ratzinger’s conservatism has brought out the worst in the media-cracy. They seem surprized that the College of Cardinals didn't elect Ellen DeGeneres.

One of the most egregious pundits was Andrew Sullivan, formerly of the New Republic progressive journal. (The following is based on the excellent blog Professor Bainbridge.)

Sullivan in an interview on NPR had this to say about the new pope:

“It would be hard to over-state the radicalism of this decision. It's not simply a continuation of John Paul II. It's a full-scale attack on the reformist wing of the church. ... and the attack on individual political freedom is just beginning.”

Yesterday I wrote about Cardinal Ratzinger’s remarkable attack on moral relativism. Sullivan saw it differently.

[Ratzinger] “raised the stakes even further by his extraordinarily bold homily at the beginning of the conclave, where he all but declared a war on modernity, liberalism (meaning modern liberal democracy of all stripes) and freedom of thought and conscience.”

And what was the Cardinal’s war on modern liberal democracy? Perhaps Sullivan was referring to Ratzinger’s position on the Kerry candidacy:

“A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia.”

Commenting on the American political system, Cardinal Ratzinger described the “American model of church-state relations as more hospitable to religious truth and institutions than European models."
AMEN to that!

Sullivan’s deepest feelings about the new pope are grounded on his homosexuality. Andrew’s primary gripe is about “the impermissibility of any sexual act that does not involve the depositing of semen in a fertile uterus ....”

With Andrew, it’s always about sex.

God's "Rotty" Ascends

As the white smoke rose above Saint Peter’s Square the College of Cardinals spokesman proclaimed “Habemus Papam,” we have a pope! The Cardinals picked a new skipper, German Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, known variously as the Panzer Cardinal, God’s Rottweiler and now Pope Benedict XVI.

As head of the College of Cardinals, Ratzinger was the right hand man and close friend of Pope John Paul II. The two men were of one mind on all matters of Church doctrine. The choice of Ratzinger sends a message to the world that the Catholic Church will remain faithful to its traditional values.

Cardinal Ratzinger's recent homily "Dictatorship of Relativism” provides a clear expression of his principles.

We should not remain infants in faith, in a state of minority. And what does it mean to be an infant in faith? Saint Paul answers: it means “tossed by waves and swept along by every wind of teaching arising from human trickery” (Eph 4, 14). This description is very relevant today!

How many winds of doctrine we have known in recent decades, how many ideological currents, how many ways of thinking… The small boat of thought of many Christians has often been tossed about by these waves – thrown from one extreme to the other: from Marxism to liberalism, even to libertinism; from collectivism to radical individualism; from atheism to a vague religious mysticism; from agnosticism to syncretism, and so forth.

Every day new sects are created and what Saint Paul says about human trickery comes true, with cunning which tries to draw those into error (cf Eph 4, 14). Having a clear faith, based on the Creed of the Church, is often labeled today as a fundamentalism. Whereas, relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and “swept along by every wind of teaching”, looks like the only attitude (acceptable) to today’s standards. We are moving towards a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one’s own ego and one’s own desires.

However, we have a different goal: the Son of God, true man. He is the measure of true humanism. Being an “Adult” means having a faith which does not follow the waves of today’s fashions or the latest novelties. A faith which is deeply rooted in friendship with Christ is adult and mature. It is this friendship which opens us up to all that is good and gives us the knowledge to judge true from false, and deceit from truth.

Good friend Pamela Cleveland yesterday wrote that Ratzinger "was Pope John Paul's 'enforcer of orthodoxy' and 'one of the most personal choices of his pontificate'. Christianity is thriving/growing in Africa. Europe is spiritually dead. A German as pope might have some influence in reviving Europe!"

I'm not confident in the revivability of Europe from its deadly secularism but I do agree that what the world needs most of all is a Catholic Church that stands for something, for right over wrong, for good over evil.

Benedict XVI is the man for the job!

Black Smoke, No Pope

At 8 PM Rome time smoke rose above the Sistine Chapel and the faithful in Saint Peter’s Square exclaimed “bianco, bianco” thinking that a new pope had been elected. On further inspection the smoke turned out to be black indicating that the College of Cardinals had failed to achieve the 2/3 consensus of 115 eligible Cardinals needed for election of the 256th pope.

At the end of Conclave Day 1, the Cardinals retired to contemplate the choice before them. Las Vegas has issued a line on the election with the following odds:

Dionigi Tettamanzi, 70, Italy: 5-2

Francis Arrinze, 72, Nigeria: 11-4

Oscar Maradiaga, 62, Honduras: 4-1

Joseph Ratzinger, 77, Germany: 7-1

Claudio Hummes, 70, Brazil: 12-1

I like Cardinal Francis Arrinze who has been characterized as “charismatic, witty, urbane, of keen mind with conservative bent” who is dogmatic in his opposition to abortion and homosexuality and an expert on Islam. With the secularization of America and especially Europe, the 3rd world is now the center of mass of Roman Catholicism. Nearly 2/3 of Catholics live in Africa, Asia and Latin America. If elected, Arrinze would be the first black African pope since Gelasius in 492AD.

For other more authoritative views see Roman Catholic Blog, a fine addition to the “God blogs.”

The Brave New World of Journalism

Blogging has become an important part of my life. Hugh Hewitt’s radio show got me interested and his new book Blog helped me get started. The tools from Blogger.com made it all very easy, and it’s free for the basic service. It’s just amazing!

Now I find that blogs are much bigger than I originally thought. Friend Sue Morgan sent me a paper by her daughter Kathleen, CEO of the Otter Group, presented in Taiwan. In the paper “Winning the race for knowledge worker productivity,” Kathleen describes how access to instantaneous information on the internet has freed the knowledge worker from the confines of space and time. Productivity gains come from “empowering many and then from aggregating and acting on collective approaches to decision making.” She notes that 2004 was the “year of the weblog” (blog) when new tools for information management, publishing and aggregation became pervasive. There are now over 32 million American blog readers and 8 million bloggers like moi.

Zone bridge buddy Judy Floyd sent me a fascinating site from her daughter Jackie the geophysicist at Columbia University. The video by the Museum of Media History relates the history (and the future) of the new media. A few highpoints:

1989: Tim Berners Lee creates the World Wide Web
1994: Amazon.com launches ( a store that makes suggestions)
1998: Google search engine is born
1999: TIVO unshackles TV from time and
Blogger.com personal publishing launches
2002: Friendster social network launches and
Google News is edited by computers
2004: Google goes public and Sony introduces epaper

2006: Google integrates search, news and TIVO into the Google Grid
2007: MSN counnters with Newsbotstr personalized news
2008: Google and Amazon merge into Googlezon with total customization
20……. You get the idea.

I can’t wait!

Long Live the Trade Imbalance

Do you worry about the US foreign trade imbalance, the current account deficit and foreign debt? Well, stop it! The US economy is just fine and all those “negatives” are nonsense.

Yesterday I wrote that the trade deficit with China ($162B in 2004) is actually a win-win transaction that is a boon to the US economy. In an LA Times article today (“A Deceptive Deficit”) James Flanigan explains that Chinese manufacturing actually makes only 20% of the value of the goods they export to the US. The remaining 80% goes to US firms such as GM, Motorola, Wal-Mart and Home Depot. Not a bad deal for the US!

But we hear about the threat of foreign investors buying up America. What if they decide to sell and send our economy into a funk? The numbers do seem troubling.

Economists keep track of the net international investment position (NIIP), the value of foreign assets owned by US citizens minus the value of US assets owned by foreigners. It seems like a healthy positive NIIP would be nice. That was the case until 1989, but since then the NIIP has gone into negative territory, reaching minus $2.6Trillion in 2004. The US is now a debtor nation.

Another measure is the amount of US securities owned by foreigners. The total US securities at the start of 2004 amounted to $33.4Trillion, about 50% of the whole world total. (America… What a country!) Foreign investors held $5.4Trillion or 16% and the amount has been increasing since. This surely sounds ominous.

But the truth is that “the world’s appetite for US assets bolsters US predominance rather than undermines it.” (David Levey and Stuart Brown, “The Overstretch Myth,” in Foreign Affairs, March 2005)

Think about it. If you were a foreign investor, where better to put your money than into the US economy with “its openness, its low regulatory burden, its flexible labor and capital markets, a positive environment for new business formation, and a safe financial market that supports new technology and innovation.” With the US economy projected to continue growing faster than Europe and Japan for several more decades, it makes good sense for investors to continue flocking to the US markets.

Thus the trade imbalance, the current account deficit and ballooning foreign debt are good things, signs that America’s economic superiority and financial stability will not decline soon. There is “only one development could upset this optimistic prognosis: an end to the technological dynamism, openness to trade, and flexibility that have powered the U.S. economy.”

Technology development and innovation rely on a supply of top flight scientists and engineers and financial support of entrepreneurs. The US has an abundance of entrepreneurial types and the only capital market capable of financing large numbers of new start companies. The supply of technical talent is my only worry; more on that later.

My Worlds are Colliding

Do you remember the Seinfeld episode when a hysterical George Costanza exclaimed “George’s worlds are colliding!!” I had such a moment today while reading the LA Times (I know, I know, but sometimes I need to get my blood percolating) editorials about the “Trade Wars.”

In the first editorial about scapegoating China, the Times noted that the “notorious” trade deficit with China ($14 billion in Feb.’05) is largely due to US companies making products in China and shipping them back home for sale to the insatiable American consumer. In this win-win-win enterprise, US consumers benefit from lower prices, US companies (and their employees and shareholders) benefit from higher profits and Chinese workers make a living. The transaction gives the Chinese a vested interest in the health of the American economy. That’s the way free trade is supposed to work.

The second piece is about the new Boeing 787 “Dreamliner.” Early reviews are uplifting and orders are flowing in, including a $1B order from Korean Air Lines. Just last year, the European Airbus, generously subsidized by EU governments, passed Boeing as the world’s largest producer of passenger planes. Airbus also made headlines for its introduction of the A380, the world’s largest passenger plane (also subsidized by $3.8B of government money). Now, with the more efficient Dreamliner on the scene, Airbus is in a panic and lobbying for another government handout for development of an A350 to compete with Boeing. That’s not the way free enterprise is supposed to work.

Finally, the Times reports that Democratic Senator Kent Conrad (North Dakota) argued in hearings on the Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) that the treaty would “devastate” the US sugar industry. The Times counters that US tariffs on foreign sugar have led to sugar prices in America 100% greater than the world market, thus hurting US consumers and workers in sugar using industries.

I’m just amazed, finding myself agreeing with the Los Angeles Times on all three cases. Worlds are definitely colliding, George.

Feedback from PV Billy

I really appreciate the comments from the small but hardy band of PVBlog readers. Going forward, I’ll devote a post every week or so to providing some feedback. Here we go.

Revelations (4/13): I am sad to say that I have to agree with SpinDr’s comments:

“Just wondered what your take was on the show? Personally, I found it quite disappointing, and will not be following the remaining 5 episodes. What a chilling thought.... agreeing with the Times opinion!”

Interesting show concept but the premier was filled with too many plot lines, too fantastic, more like science fiction than The Da Vinci Code.

Stephanie at TheDailyVegetable asked about Zone Bridge. It’s the Microsoft Network site for bridge players who like to play with real people on the net. I love it and have made many good friends. One of them, Sue from Illinois, found her husband-to-be on the Zone. Martin lives in London.

New Blogs of Note (4/11): On the issue of John Bolton’s confirmation as US representative to the United Nations, Tom wrote:

“I watched almost all of the Senate hearings on Bolton...the first day it was clear that the Demo's were simply out to stick it to him and Bush. After today, I think Bush would be wise to withdraw his nomination....he does have more baggage than appropriate for this sensitive job. I have had great hopes that his tough style would be great for the UN housecleaning...but, he has some real people baggage.”

With respect, I have to disagree with Tom. If this was a nomination for ambasador to Britain or the Vatican, I would agree that toughness would not be a primary requirement. But this is the UN, perhaps the most anti-American multinational institution in the world. Bolton is exactly the guy we need for this position. I don’t want sensitivity, I want a butt-kicker.

And if Bolton fails to reform that illegitimate attrocity, I want the US to withdraw from the UN and kick them out of their expensive Manhattan building. If we need an international discussion group, it should have one iron-clad requirement for membership: only democracies allowed.

What Liberals Think About Academia (4/8): Welcome to new reader Zack the socialist who wrote:

“Hi. I'm a socialist. I'm also a Christian. I'm also a teacher. I'm also a Canadian. Looking south I recognize a serious manifestation of ignorance. The focus of the media and population on meaningless American pop icons and the navel-gazing political debates have caused Americans in general to believe in their superiority in the world. This Manifest Destiny, a manifesto wholeheartedly supported by both Democrats and Republicans, has caused a rift between the world and the USA. My hope is that Americans will recognize the crimes they have committed against the environment, against culture, against the impoverished people of the world (specifically Chile, Guatemala, Panama, Marshall Islands, Grenada, Iraq, Venezuela, Vietname, Korea (N&S), Mexico, and on and on and on). Once the admission has been made, then I believe people will be more willing to accept the US as a peer rather than a bully.”

So Zack thinks Americans are ignorant criminals with a superiority complex. I guess that’s why we love Canada, the country that Fleet Streeters call “The Great White Waste of Time.”

I suggest reading the Weekly Standard (3/21/05) article by Matt Labash of the same title. Matt sums up Canadians as “docile Zamboni-driving people who subsist on seal caserole and Molson. Their hobbies include wearing flannel, obsessing over American hegemony, exporting deadly mad cow disease…. and synchronized swimming.”

I guess it’s the American hegemony that Zack dislikes.

Revelations

What could be better than a drama about an astrophysicist (Bill Pullman), a nun (Natasha McElhone) and a Satanist (Michael Massey) dealing with the “end of days.” Produced by Bush supporter Gavin Palone (“Curb Your Enthusiasm”) and created by David Seltzer (“The Omen”), the NBC show debuts at 9:00PM tonight.

The astrophysics professor lecturing on the “Big Bang” is questioned by a student: “You talk of science creating and destroying the world; is there no room for God in this equation.” For Big Bang enthusiasts this (destroying the world) implies that the professor believes that the dark energy in the universe is not sufficient to hold off the “big crunch.”

Since I began blogging and playing Zone Bridge, my TV watching has dwindled to almost nothing, no big loss when the television schedule is filled with endless varieties of Law and Order (one was good), American Idol and The Apprentice. But I’m going to give this new show a chance.

What convinced me was the LA Times review that calls “Revelations” a “ham-handed referent for these collective anxieties (Terri Schiavo, 9/11, terror alerts) which lurk in the background of the show’s grandiose sense of religious intrigue.”

Anti-religion criticism by the LA Times is good enough for me.

Back to the Movies

I used to love movies. I thoroughly enjoyed films staring Danny Glover, Richard Gere, Robert Redford, Barbara Streisand, Angelina Jolie. But during the last presidential election I found out about their politics and was appalled. How could Glen Close be such a rabid liberal Democrat? I was thoroughly turned off, convinced that Hollywood was populated by leftists such as Michael Moore, Ed Asner and their ilk.

Then “The Passion of the Christ” was released and Mel Gibson’s character was revealed. Finally here was a movie star to respect. Well, it turns out there are others.

NewsMax magazine’s “Hollywood’s Heroes” issue highlights “25 stars who deserve acclaim for their courageous support of America and our troops. These are celebrities who live out the heartland’s values and stand up against Hollywood’s political correctness.”

· Mel Gibson – what really happened to this megastar when he dared to produce “The Passion of the Christ.”

· Tom Selleck – why he has not been afraid of standing up for Ronald Reagan, even when it wasn’t in vogue.

· James Woods – he turned his back on Hollywood’s peaceniks to stand up for the war on terror.

· Patricia Heaton – a crusader for family values, this actress would not give up her values for her career.

There are many more stars NewsMax salutes including Andy Garcia, Gary Sinise, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Chuck Norris, LL Cool J, Freddie Prinze Jr. and Sarah Michelle Gellar, Dennis Miller, Denzel Washington, Robert Duvall, Catherine Bell, Danny Aiello, James Earl Jones, Ron Silver, Kelsey Grammer, Morgan Brittany, Ben Stein, Pat Boone, Kathy Ireland, Rick Schroeder and Bo Derek.

So it’s back to the movies for me. But I will look for films that feature actors who are worthy of our respect.

(This has been an unpaid commercial announcement by pvbilly.)

New Blogs of Note

One of the benefits of blogging is that you find out about other interesting sites from blogs you frequent (eg Hugh Hewitt, Powerline), from articles about blogging or from bloggers who visit your own site.

Following are brief synopses of three fascinating blogs I have recently discovered.

Pray the News is a site run by five Carmelite nuns from their monastery in Indianapolis. Sisters Betty, Terese, Ruth, Jean and Joanne comment on the topics of the day from a Roman Catholic perspective, offering lessons derived from current events. On-line only two years, the site averages over 65 thousand hits a day, at least 64,999 more than your humble pvblogger. Pray the News has a practical activist philosophy: “By continuously making ourselves aware of the present state of the universe, we awaken ourselves to the presence of God – and in our own way participate in the healing, loving and creative energy this process can spark.” These are not your father’s “Sisters.” Another page hosts the School of Prayer where you can learn “how” to pray more effectively and can even light a digital votive candle. You have the option of sharing your prayer with the Sisters and having it added to their prayer list.

People-vs-ACLU is a new blog by Dan in Denver. It is an “aggregate for the people to battle with the ACLU.” Dan’s blog effectively explains “why the ACLU is so loved in middle states America.” Just kidding!! As the ACLU is currently the most anti-American-culture institution in the United States and a serious threat to our democracy and security, the People-vs-ACLU blog is well worth following.

The Daily Vegetable is Stephanie Herman’s “web portal for daily vegetable news.” A sampling of Stephanie’s posts - MOMS ARE VEGETABLE ROLE MODELS, SUNY STUDENT BUILDS VEGETABLE OIL CONVERTER, and ONIONS MAY PREVENT BONE LOSS – reveals an interesting mix of food, environmentalism and politics. The Daily Veggie motto: "As a man thinketh, so is he." If it's true that you are what you eat, then it's equally true that you are what you think about.

Professor Bainbridge is a corporate law professor at UCLA. Here is a sample of his writing. "Senator Barbara Boxer says John Bolton holds the UN in disdain, which Babs seem to think is somehow disqualifying. It seems to me that this ought to be part of the job description for US ambassador to Turtle Bay. The oil for food scandal, peacekeepers raping the folks they're supposed to protect , nepotism, Libya chairs the UN Human Rights Commission, demanding that the US taxpayer pay 1/5 of its budget, France has a veto, for pete's sake. What Boxer doesn't seem to get is that her party lost the White House and is in the minority in both the House and Senate in no small part because the Democrats are (correctly) seen as putting multilateralism ahead of pursuing US interests."
Under the heading of Creepy: The "ew, gross" factor of the Michael Jackson trial just keeps getting worse. So now it's head licking ? Yuck.

WILLisms is a blog by Will Franklin with great commentary complemented by fabulous graphics. On Congressman Charlie Rangle’s interview by Hardball host Chris Mathews:

MATTHEWS: I mean, Charlie, Jesus didn‘t hang around with the swells, the rich people.
RANGEL: Well, he said the rich are going straight to hell.
MATTHEWS: He did not. He said it is harder to get through a needle‘s…
RANGEL: No. But the deal with St. Matthews and all these people are trying to get into heaven. And he said, hey, when I was hungry, you didn‘t feed me. I was thirsty. I was naked. I was sick. You didn‘t do all these—he‘s talking about food stamps, Social Security.

Ah, moral values, the Democrats' favorite new pandering device. And you thought Rock the Vote and AARP were an odd couple. Now the King of Kings, our Lord and Savior, the Messiah, has joined the anti-Social Security reform coalition? We must have missed that memo.

Academia Follow-up

Many thanks to Helen and Marc for their insightful comments on the last post (What Liberals Think About Academia). A Starbucks buddy mentioned that not everyone is familiar with my two poster children for academic excess, Noam Chomsky and Cornel West. For those fortunate ones, I'll risk spoiling your mood by providing these briefs.

Noam Chomsky is professor of linguistics at MIT. For the last four decades he has blamed the United States for all the world's problems: "war, famine, genocide, even infectious disease." He has called the United States the world's number one terror state, and said that America got what it deserved on 9/11. For this sort of anti-American rhetoric the New York Times has called him "arguably the most important intellectual alive."

Chomsky has been a celebrated radical since the 1960s when he not only protested against the Vietnam war but also defended the atrocities of Pol Pot the genocidal Cambodian. In his book American Power and the New Mandarins Chomsky said that what America needed was "a kind of denazification." He is especially fanatical about America's foreign policy: "The United States has become the most aggressive power in the world, the greatest threat to peace, to national self-determination and to international cooperation." He did, however, like the Communists.

This is the guy teaching your kids if they take linguistics at MIT. And his linguistic theories are just as crazy.

Cornel West is a whole other kettle of spoiled fish. West has elevated the African-American victims-studies program to a political propaganda art form. At Harvard he was one of only 14 elite "University Professors" out of 2,000 members of the faculty. How did he achieve such exaulted status? By producing "hilariously unreadable" books that were given glowing reviews by elite book reviewers. Here is a sample of his writing.

"Following the model of the black diasporan traditions of music, athletics, and rhetoric, black cultural workers must constitute and sustain discursive and institutional networks that deconstruct earlier modern black strategies for identity-formation, demystify power relations that incorporate class, patriarchal and homophobic biases, and construct more multivalent and multidimensional responses that articulate the complexity and diversity of black practices in the modern and post-modern world." AMEN.

Try deconstructing that drivel! Yet West's literary genius pales in comparison to his musical talent as a hip-hopper. In 2001 he produced Sketches of My Culture wherein Cornel recites his antiwhite lectures over a hip-hop loop. Clear thinking Harvard president Larry Summers did not see the value of West's literary drivel and "music" and told him so. The Harvard faculty and the New York Times were outraged that Summers would dare question West's seriousness as a scholar. Summers apologized, yet an unhappy West "flounced off to Princeton, which jumped at the chance to add such a brilliant star to it's academic firmament."

MIT, Harvard, Princeton......save your money, save your children.

What Liberals Think About Academia

Reverence is the word that first comes to mind. Academia is the Mount Olympus of the secular faith, inhabited by the high priests of the left. When liberals look to university campuses they see 1960’s caricatures of themselves, frozen in time and ideology.

According to a new study by Robert Lichter of George Mason University, Stanley Rothman of Smith College and Neil Nevitte of the University of Toronto, “college faculties lean further to the left than even the most conspiratorial conservatives might have imagined.”

“By their own description, 72% of those teaching at American universities and colleges are liberal and 15% are conservative. The disparity is even more pronounced at the most elite schools, where 87% of faculty are liberal and only 13% are conservative. The professors are in favor of abortion rights (84%); believe homosexuality is acceptable (67%); and want more environmental protection "even if it raises prices or costs jobs" (88%).

What's more, the study found, 65% want the government to ensure full employment, a stance to the left even of the Democratic Party.”

These professors are ideologically out of step with the majority of Americans. A Harris Poll of the general public last year found that 33% describe themselves as conservative and only 18% as liberal. Thus university faculties are about 4 times as liberal as the public at large. One wonders how the academies got to be so intensely liberal.

According to the liberal media pundits it is the Republican’s fault. New York Times columnist Paul Krugman asserts that one reason is “self-selection - the same sort of self-selection that leads Republicans to outnumber Democrats four to one in the military. The sort of person who prefers an academic career to the private sector is likely to be somewhat more liberal than average, even in engineering.” Krugman has a point here, since real men tend to like the competition found in the military and in business.

Then, however, Krugman dives into the fever swamp claiming that the Republican Party “is increasingly dominated by people who believe truth should be determined by revelation, not research - doesn't respect science or scholarship in general. It shouldn't be surprising that scholars have returned the favor by losing respect for the Republican Party.”

So let’s see, Republicans and conservatives do not respect scholarship or science. But liberals, as we all know, have a deep respect of science, particularly social science, political science, even library science. They pretend that courses in Chicano Studies, Women’s Studies and Peace Studies are scientifically based. They revere intellectuals such as anti-American linguist Noam Chomsky of MIT and African-American studier and hip-hopper Cornel West of Princeton.

On the flip side, mathematician James Miller was recently denied tenure by the Smith College faculty for being a known conservative. Fortunately, Smith's faculty Grievance Committee found that Miller's academic freedom had been violated during the tenure review and tenure was granted. Dr. Miller advises other conservatives to think twice about joining the ranks of academia. In a recent commentary Miller addresses Krugman’s claims.

“Of course, recent events at Harvard indicate that it's the academic left that rejects science. Harvard President Larry Summers was castigated for suggesting that politically incorrect science be conducted. Dr. Summers infamously suggested that researchers consider the possibility that biology partially explains the dearth of female science professors. For this comment, his Arts and Science faculty passed a resolution expressing lack of confidence in him.” Furthermore, urged on by their leftist faculties the “presidents of Stanford, MIT and Princeton have condemned Larry Summers for the crime of politically incorrect speculation.”

Most of the leftists in humanities departments don't even believe in science and are offended when hard scientific knowledge is given preference over other types of knowledge. “Leftists have been known to use literary theory to demonstrate flaws in science. Such anti-scientific silliness led to the Social Text hoax.”

Physics professor Alan Sokal of New York University was bothered by the anti-scientific viewpoints of many left-wing humanities professors who often used their French literary theories to attack science. “To prove that these humanities professors actually knew nothing about real science he wrote an article titled Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity agreeing with the leftists' view of science. But as the author himself wrote, his article contained a mélange of truths, half-truths, quarter-truths, falsehoods, non sequiturs, and syntactically correct sentences that have no meaning whatsoever. The article was, however, published in 1996 by the academic journal Social Text as a serious piece criticizing the scientific method.

Only after it appeared did Professor Sokal reveal that his article was a parody. That such an article could get published would surprise few Republican college professors as we well understand how many leftist humanities professors both hate science and are ignorant of its workings.”

John Paul the Great

Karol Wojtyla: actor, athlete, priest, bishop, cardinal,… Pope John Paul II. As a Catholic, I knew that he was a great pope, beloved by billions of people around the world. I was not, however, fully aware of his heroism until reading the many wonderful tributes published over the weekend. Here are a few excerpts from my favorites.

“He once described his high-school years as a time in which he was ‘completely absorbed’ by a passion for the theater. So it was fitting that Karol Jozef Wojtyla lived a very dramatic life. As a young man, he risked summary execution by leading clandestine acts of cultural resistance to the Nazi occupation of Poland.” As a young priest, he opposed Stalin’s suppression of intellectual and spiritual freedoms. “As archbishop of Krakow, he successfully fought the attempt by Poland's communist overseers to erase the nation's cultural memory.”

He fervently believed in the sanctity of human life. In 1968, then- Cardinal Wojtyla “suggested that ‘a degradation, indeed a pulverization, of the fundamental uniqueness of each human person’ was at the root of the 20th century's grim record: two World Wars, Auschwitz and the Gulag, a Cold War threatening global disaster, oceans of blood and mountains of corpses.”

“As Pope John Paul II, he came back to Poland in June 1979; and over nine days, during which the history of the 20th century pivoted, he ignited a revolution of conscience that helped make possible the collapse of European communism a decade later.” (George Weigel)

“Communist agents in Bulgaria … recruited a Turk to assassinate the Pope. The attack failed in more ways than one. Pope John Paul II wasn't killed, and neither was he deterred. He continued traveling the world with the vigorous message of undiluted Christianity. His message trumped Communism’s and … with Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, he vanquished Soviet Communism.” (Fred Barnes)

“John Paul II occupied the world's oldest office, which traces its authority to history's most potent figure, a Palestinian who never traveled a hundred miles from his birthplace, who never wrote a book and who died at 33. And religion, once a legitimizer of political regimes, became in John Paul II's deft hands a delegitimizer of communism's ersatz religion.” (George Will)

Pope John Paul II opposed totalitarianism everywhere he found it. “He would not countenance the way in which some of the church's representatives, particularly in Latin America, used religious language to justify violent change. His opposition to the idea of ‘liberation theology’ helped stop the march of Communism in Central and South America.”

“He insisted that there was a world beyond politics and that his church's critical mission was to minister to the soul. And he did so at a time when everything has become political, from the unanswerable question of when life begins to the unbearable contemplation of life's end and whether humans should take an active role in ending it.” (John Podhoretz)

In his last few days John Paul II found the strength to speak out against the enforced death of Terri Schiavo. The Pope’s passion for morality and the truth was captured in his writings.

“But no darkness of error or of sin can totally take away from man the light of God the Creator. In the depths of his heart there always remains a yearning for absolute truth and a thirst to attain full knowledge of it. This is eloquently proved by man's tireless search for knowledge in all fields. It is proved even more by his search for the meaning of life. The development of science and technology, this splendid testimony of the human capacity for understanding and for perseverance, does not free humanity from the obligation to ask the ultimate religious questions. Rather, it spurs us on to face the most painful and decisive of struggles, those of the heart and of the moral conscience. (John Paul II, Veritatis splendor)

To the very end the courage of this very human man was on display for the world. Some day, Pope John Paul II will be known as John Paul the Great, poet and Renaissance man.

"A flame rescued from dry wood has no weight in its luminous flight yet lifts the heavy lid of night." (Karol Jozef Wojtyla)

Married Americans: Do Your Duty

The birth rate in America has fallen to an all time low, just slightly above the replacement rate of 2.1 children per family. Such irresponsible behavior cannot be tolerated! (Hint to all thirty-something men named John.) With the number of workers per retiree falling from 16 in the 1940s to just above 3 today, we are in desperate need of workers to pay our Social Security benefits. Our forefathers did their duty. On the Lama side of my family, Grandmother Josephine gave birth to 11 of Grandpa John’s “favors.” That couple deserved their Social Security checks!

President Bush has been campaigning for marriage, but he needs to do more. The US should adopt the Australia plan. “Concerned about a paucity of little Australians, the government offered women a bounty of $2,319 for every baby born after July 1. The good citizens responded with 133,400 babies, the most born in a six-month period in 14 years. In announcing the program, Peter Costello, Australia's equivalent of our treasury secretary, urged his fellow citizens, ‘You go home and do your patriotic duty tonight.’ Clearly having done his math about the future of the tax base, he announced that two was not enough. ‘You should have ... one for your husband, one for your wife, and one for your country.’ Have a baby, save Social Security.”

Now babies take around 25 years to become taxpayers. Is there anything we can do in the meantime? The answer is immigration, which we seem to be doing quite well. But the key to the benefits program is jobs and, as every conservative knows, the key to jobs is a growing economy. The Republican approach to economic growth relies on five factors: reduced government spending, reduced taxes, reduced government regulations, free trade and innovation. Democrats and liberals have a different formula that is more European.

The best thing about the European Union is that it provides a living laboratory for modern socialist policies. Europe is the test case for big government, bigger regulation and the biggest social programs in the developed world. So how is it doing? A recent report by Workforall the independent European think tank compares the economic performance of the European countries with special emphasis on Belgium and Ireland. Over the years 1984 to 2002, the GNP per capita of Belgium grew 42% while Ireland achieved 167% GNP growth.

The secret to Ireland’s success: reduced government spending and taxation. From 1960 through 1985, government spending in both countries grew from 30% to 50% of GDP while economic growth was feeble. Ireland’s economy was in a shambles with an unemployment rate of 17%. Then in 1985 Ireland did an about face. It reduced government spending and taxation by 20% over three years and its GNP exploded, averaging 5.6% growth from 1985 until 2002. Meanwhile Belgium’s government spending stayed above 50% of GNP and its economic growth remained below 2% per year. Most other EU countries share Belgium’s dismal fate.

The conclusion is obvious: Reduction of government spending and taxes is conducive to economic growth. That is one reason why we should adopt personal retirement accounts. The government has been using excess Social Security taxes as a slush fund for new and expanded programs. But private accounts will not belong to the government and no longer be available to pay for pork.

Americans need to get busy. Have more babies, regularize immigration so that all working immigrants pay taxes and cut government spending. America, Australia and Ireland will show the way.