Shadowtax

2003-08-12T10:58:00.000-04:00

Currently relocating. Be back in a few weeks

2003-06-13T00:47:00.000-04:00

Gene Healy of CATO believes that the focus on WMD distracts from the underlying point that Saddam was never a threat to the US.

The proposition that Saddam Hussein was willing to hand over weapons of mass destruction to terrorists appears to have been based on sheer speculation, and implausible speculation at that. Despite over 20 years of supporting terror against Israel, Saddam never turned over chemical or biological weapons to Palestinian terror groups, reasoning, correctly, that such action would provoke massive retaliation. Still less was he likely to hand over such weapons to Al Qaeda, a group that has long opposed his "socialist infidel" rule and could not be trusted to keep the deal secret.

I disagree. I reject the presumption of innocence and substitute the presumption of guilt when dealing with monsters like Saddam. That "sheer speculation" really worried me. Now we don't have to worry about that and can turn attentions elsewhere.

2003-06-12T23:36:00.000-04:00

Michael Novak on the WMD intelligence.

Finally, Democrats in Congress should assemble all the evidence about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction revealed by President Clinton and Vice President Gore right up till they left power in early 2001, and by the U.N. inspection teams both in 1998 and again in 2003. Then they should try to measure any daylight between this evidence and the evidence adduced by President Bush and his team. They may end up pointing fingers at themselves.

2003-06-12T23:19:00.000-04:00

The editors of National Review argue that both sides of the war debate are abusing the WMD issue.

Many of Bush's defenders have argued that the Iraqi regime must have had WMD: Why else would it have kicked out the inspectors in 1998? That's an excellent point. But asking it is not a substitute for finding the weapons — and for redressing, with sobriety rather than reckless partisanship, the possible intelligence failures that have brought us here.

2003-06-11T23:56:00.000-04:00

Howard Kurtz addresses the museum looting exaggeration in his Media Notes column.

Everyone in journalism makes mistakes, especially routine mistakes – the misspelled name, the mangled title, the wrong date. In this case, though, the press told us that, in a crushing loss for western civilization, 170,000 artifacts were stolen.

The actual number: 33.

Yes, some of the booty was later returned, but 169,967 items? Maybe Don Rumsfeld was right that TV kept showing the same vase being carried away over and over.

2003-06-11T23:19:00.000-04:00

Mark Steyn on his recent trip to Iraq.

Although the camp had set up enough tents for hundreds, the members of this family were the only refugees in residence. The singular of that "IRAQI BOARDER" sign was a slight exaggeration, but not by much. And that underpopulated border camp is a fine motif for what's going on: vast numbers of bureaucrats are running around Iraq with unlimited budgets in search of a human catastrophe that doesn't exist.

"Had a lot of refugees?" I asked the Jordanian customs officer.

"We had about 10 through last week," he said. "Palestinians."

"Where were they headed? Amman?"

"No, he said. "They were going back to Iraq."

2003-06-11T00:46:00.000-04:00

Dennis Prager on the Middle East.

Like the proverbial broken record, some of us have been saying for years that only one thing can bring peace to the Middle East: a Palestinian civil war.

Sadly, I agree. Both war and peace happen because people want them. Unfortunately, too many Palestinians hate Israel too damn much.

2003-06-10T00:46:00.000-04:00

Robert Kagan of the Washington Post debunks the WMD conspiracy theory by presenting the excessively long list of necessary co-conspirators.

Maybe the German intelligence service was lying when it reported in 2001 that Hussein might be three years away from being able to build three nuclear weapons and that by 2005 Iraq would have a missile with sufficient range to reach Europe.

Maybe French President Jacques Chirac was lying when he declared in February that there were probably weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and that "we have to find and destroy them."

Maybe Al Gore was lying when he declared last September, based on what he learned as vice president, that Hussein had "stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

Finally, there's former president Bill Clinton. In a February 1998 speech, Clinton described Iraq's "offensive biological warfare capability, notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs." Clinton accurately reported the view of U.N. weapons inspectors "that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons." That was as unequivocal and unqualified a statement as any made by George W. Bush.

2003-06-10T00:21:00.000-04:00

Stanley Kurtz weighs in on the WMD issue by reminding us of Iraq's nuclear weapons program. The radiation poisoning suffered by Iraqi looters indicates that Iraq indeed had materials that could be used in a dirty bomb. He points out that Saddam's nuclear ambitions were a proven quality.

[T]he administration had not been able to fully and frankly emphasize the connection between Saddam's nuclear ambitions and the war. Both the president and the vice president did, of course, talk about the potential threat of a nuclear-armed Saddam. But to emphasize that, and especially to spell out the danger scenarios outlined explicitly by Kenneth Pollack, would have been difficult and awkward. It would have harmed American power to note in too much detail just how vulnerable we were to nuclear blackmail. The same dynamic helps explain the administration's relative silence about the barrel over which the North Koreans now have us. We do our best to pretend that Kim Jong Il has not got us in as difficult a situation as he in fact does.

But, again, this dynamic was by no means a complete secret before the war. The administration did include the danger of nuclear blackmail from Iraq in its publicly stated reasons for the war. And pundits did argue about all this. In particular, the war's proponents made the point that, Saddam's being perhaps a year or two away from a nuclear weapon (if we were lucky) made this exactly the moment to strike.

Good strategic analysis here. In the context of nuclear proliferation, the elimination of the Iraqi threat clears off a potentially dangerous piece from the chessboard. Now the United States and the United Nations can concentrate on North Korea, Iran, and the Kashmir Crisis. That is quite a host of threats. End game is not yet in sight, but a dangerous piece has been removed.

2003-06-08T21:05:00.000-04:00

Oh, so that's what she meant.

From the Hillary book excerpts released in next week's Time courtesy of The Drudge Report:

Advice from Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis: "Jackie and I also discussed the Secret Service. She confirmed my instincts that even though security was necessary, it was important to stress to Chelsea, as she had to her own children, that she owed respect to the agents sworn to protect her...Jackie spoke frankly about the peculiar and dangerous attractions evoked by charismatic politicians. She cautioned me that Bill, like President Kennedy, had a personal magnetism that inspired strong feelings in people. She never came out and said it, but she meant that he might also be a target. 'He has to be very careful,' she told me. 'Very careful.'

My first thought upon reading this had nothing to do with asassination. Maybe Jackie was hinting at something else and Hillary missed the point.

2003-06-08T17:31:00.000-04:00

John W Dean says missing WMDs are worse than Watergate. Talk like this would worry me more if Republicans didn't control the House of Representatives. I still believe the WMD justification was valid based up future capacity and past Iraqi lies. It bothers me that some will pass over the possiblity that Bush was mistaken and settle upon the more emotionally satifying possibility that he lied. It's preposterous.

2003-06-06T16:54:00.000-04:00

Larry Kudlow sees bright economic times ahead:

Without any nasty external shocks to derail this forecast, the Dow Jones Industrial Average could reach 10,500 by the end of this year, 12,000 by the end of next year, and over 13,000 by the end of 2005.

You say it can't happen? I say it can.

Has there ever been a period of strengthened national security, lower tax rates, and an expanding money supply that did not produce prosperity? Never. And when these policies are combined with unbelievable advances in science and technology, when they exist in a free-market capitalist system where every instinct is for more progress, prosperity, and freedom, and when they are leveraged through the economy by way of historic productivity increases — you have a mighty economic boiler that's primed to burn.

2003-06-06T14:24:00.000-04:00

Today is the 59th Anniversary of D-Day.

Nineteen years ago today Ronald Reagan addressed the world standing on Omaha Beach:

Today, the living here assembled-officials, veterans, citizens-are a tribute to what was achieved here 40 years ago. This land is secure. We are free. These things are worth fighting and dying for.

Lisa Zannata Henn began her story by quoting her father, who promised that he would return to Normandy. She ended with a promise to her father, who died 8 years ago of cancer: "I'm going there, Dad, and I'll see the beaches and the barricades and the monuments. I'll see the graves, and I'll put flowers there just like you wanted to do. I'll never forget what you went through, Dad, nor will I let any one else forget. And, Dad, I'll always be proud."

Through the words of his loving daughter, who is here with us today, a D-Day veteran has shown us the meaning of this day far better than any President can. It is enough to say about Private Zannata and all the men of honor and courage who fought beside him four decades ago: We will always remember. We will always be proud. We will always be prepared, so we may always be free.

Thank you.

2003-06-06T14:07:00.000-04:00

Sammy Sosa has been suspended 8 games for using a corked bat. This suspension is entirely appropriate. Sammy doesn't dispute that he broke the rules although he claims it was a one-time mistake. I believe him. Broken bats are too common an occurence in today's game for a player to get away with using a corked bat on a regular basis. Why would he choose to start against the Devil Rays of all teams? Granted, Sosa is coming of an injury, but I can't imagine he'd be so anxious to contribute to his team that he would cheat. The reason I believe Sosa should be punished is that I don't believe a corked bat should be present in the dugout at all, not even to thrill fans during batting practice (although this claim is dubious considering Cubs batting practice is closed to the fans at Wrigley).

Sosa will appeal the suspension. This will allow him to play in the weekend series against the New York Yankees. This is the first time the two teams have met since the 1938 World Series. Personally I would prefer that Sosa serve his suspension during a Cubs-Cardinals series, but that's just me. :)

2003-06-05T22:12:00.000-04:00

Serena Williams lost the French Open Finals. French Fans lost their dignity. I thought only Americans behaved this way, right? I think the crowd will be warmer at Wimbleton.

2003-06-05T22:01:00.000-04:00

W on WMDs:

[O]ne thing is certain: no terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime because the Iraqi regime is no more.

2003-06-05T21:47:00.000-04:00

Howell Raines and Gerald Boyd have resigned from the New York Times. A few weeks ago the official line was that there would be no management change. I'm glad they changed their minds.

Many accused the Times of rank hypocrisy, and I agreed with them. You cannot run a paper which during the corporate and accounting scams of last year demanded resignations of CEOs and other officials on its editorial page and then have the paper refuse to take similar actions concerning its own malfeasance. Months before the Jayson Blair scandal there was a steady buzz of criticism and even resignations because of the leadership style of Howell Raines. Even the Village Voice penned a criticism of Raine's Times entitled "Republic of Fear."

While I would hope that the new management on 43rd street would adopt a Fair and Balanced approach to journalism, I'm not holding my breath. I expect the NYT to continue to lurch leftwards, but at least now it will be an honest leaning. I hope.

2003-06-04T21:16:00.000-04:00

The CIA is about to perform a document dump on Congress on the WMD issue. I am sure that the classified documents will provide more questions than answers, but it is still important that this information be disclosed.

Arnold Beichman on WMDs:

We cannot discount the theory that Saddam did have WMDs and just as he flew his planes out to Iran in 1991, he could just as well have turned his WMDs to Iran, feeling sure that they would in time be put to good terrorist use. While Syria might be the place to have sent his WMDs, Saddam was realist enough to know that the novitiate Bashar al-Assad would succumb to United States pressure and surrender the WMDs.

(I confess I've linked to NRO often on the WMD issue but they seem to have the issue well covered)

2003-06-04T21:07:00.000-04:00

Dow 9000. A good thing. Martha Stewart indictment. Completely unrelated. Right?

2003-06-04T20:53:00.000-04:00

Finding Nemo is a good movie. The most surprising part of it for me was the complete absence of song. That's unusual for Disney movies, even the Pixar ones. Toy Story and Monsters, Inc. had some musical interludes, even though it wasn't the characters that were singing.

My tag line for Finding Nemo:

That little fish was more human than any given character in The Matrix Reloaded.

2003-06-03T17:56:00.000-04:00

More mass graves found in Iraq. This time 200 Kurdish children.

On the scales of morality, which is more damning evidence, physical WMD stashes or a mass grave of innocent children?

God bless the souls of the little ones and may justice find those responsible.

2003-06-03T16:41:00.000-04:00

WFB on WMD. Assuming the President lied is the easy way out. It is more difficult to determine who screwed up and how.

2003-06-03T15:59:00.000-04:00

An Iraqi historian weighs in on the WMD question.

2003-06-03T14:27:00.000-04:00

Daniel Pipes on WMD: " No one argues that because Saddam has not been located, he never existed. But that is what some are saying about the coalition forces not finding actual WMD."

2003-06-03T14:06:00.000-04:00

Byron York addresses the Bush Lies.

2003-06-02T16:25:00.000-04:00

The second backlash story involves the failure of the coalition to produce weapons of mass distruction from Iraq. The underlying allegation of these stories is that Bush lied to America and the world about the purpose of invading Iraq. This is ridiculous. I admit that not finding WMD in large numbers is perplexing but certain facts remain.

The Bush administration did not exclusively argue that present possesion of WMD was the sole reason for war. Other causus belli include: Iraq's connections with terror, Saddam's history of aggression, Saddam's crimes against the Iraqi people, Saddam's past use of chemical weapons against his own people, Saddam's refusal to comply with UN resolutions.

Further, the absence of WMD in Iraq does not automatically lead to the conclusion that the US lied about it. Instead of questioning the integrity of the President of the United States of America, why not question the integrity and motivations of the President of Iraq.

Saddam could have had his weapons dispersed to other countries or hidden within Iraq. He could have ordered them destroyed so as to embarrass America. Is this rational? Maybe he really was insane. Maybe he never really had WMD and only thought he did as this article suggests. Maybe in his delusional mind he thinks he is an Arab Napoleon who can come out of exile to lead Iraq after the American puppet regime collapses.

Maybe the US acted upon bad intelligence. It is true that there are reports coming out that there were doubts within the intelligence community about the quality of reports coming out of Iraq. Of course, one would expect the intelligence community to have internal disagreements about these things. I don't find these reports particularly compelling. Anyhow, even if President Bush and his minions saw what he wanted to see in those reports is it correct to levy the accusation that he is lying?

2003-06-02T16:00:00.000-04:00

Iraq War Backlash?

There have been some recent reports in the media that suggest that there may be a growing backlash against the Iraq War. In my opinion there is no widespread backlash but only consoling voice to war opponents.

The true nature of the ersatz backlash is hinted at by a unifying element: Bush lied. To me this looks like denial in action. Unable to reconcile the fact that the war was not a catastrophe, that the Iraqi people are better off, that Saddam was certifiably evil, the war opponents have settled upon Bush's honesty as a critical talking point. The following stories justify hatred of Bush without forcing critics to engage in the substance of evaluating the value of Operation Iraqi Freedom, i.e. in Bush binary morality was it good or evil?

First up....The rescue of PFC Jessica lynch was "staged." This story emerged from the BBC. Granted, the rescue of Ms. Lynch was a PR coup and great for military morale. Reporters went to interview workers at the hospital at which she was rescued. It turns out that the Iraqi troops had left the hospital 12 hours before the rescue. Indeed, the hospital staff was eager to turn Lynch over to the Americans although they admit to not having actually contacted Americans. Thus the staff were surprised when the special forces team showed up at the hospital. Are we supposed to be surprised that Iraqi civilians thought our commandos were "rude" when they raided the hospital? The team turned down an offer of a master key to the building and instead systematically busted down doors as they secured the building. I admit that I am not a military expert, but this rings of standard operating procedure to me. This was a military operation in an unsecured enemy area. In a sense the media reports are quite correct, it was staged. But not in the Hollywood sense. Nor were they firing blanks as the BBC claimed. But there was a plan, and don't we want our military to operate according to a plan? I mean, we can't have them running off half-cocked like a bunch of action-heros can we? The Lynch story was a case of certain media outlets seeing what they wanted to see. Unable to run the testimony of frightened Iraqi hospital workers through the context of a dynamic war zone, they reported an excessive display of American force and assumed that it could only be propaganda.

2003-05-28T16:08:00.000-04:00

Foxnews.com has a fair and balanced feature on Commencement 2003.

2003-05-28T15:09:00.000-04:00

The Tax Cut Package.

The President has signed the tax cut bill so here are my comments as promised.

As I wrote on May 12, size doesn't matter. The $330 billion price tag is almost meaningless. Compared to the 2001 meaningless $1.3 trillion number, the new tax cuts are meaningless, but in a good way. The 2001 cut had most of the meaningful tax cuts put off for several year before expiring. The current bill front load many cuts to the current year before expiring. Therefore the paradox is that this small tax cut is larger than the big tax cut.

There are three solid pro-growth elements to this tax cut. First, the top marginal income tax rates are reduced. Contrary to popular rhetoric there are simply too many people in this bracket for it to be a rich Republican country club. There are many small businesses, (partnerships, S-corporations, limited liability companies) which are taxed at these individual rates. When these small businesses get a boost, they will be the first to create new jobs.

Second, the double taxation of corporate profits has been eliminated. Indeed, it was the dreaded double tax that prompted the creation of the small business entities mentioned above. Dividends are not tax free. Instead they are taxed at the same rate as capital gains. This means the tax is paid as if the shareholder had sold his shares with the earnings still inside the corporation. Basically, the shareholder is taxed the same way whether a dividend is paid or whether his shares are sold. The bias against dividends has been eliminated. Instead of repeating myself I refer back to my entry on May 12 which describes the beneficial effects of ending the double tax for corporate governance.

Third, the capital gains rate has been reduced from 20% to 15%. This reduces the cost of capital. Money that is locked into capital assets can be released into the economy at a 25% discount.

Other items in the bill include:

Income tax cuts for most income brackets, not just the top marginal rate.

An increase in the per child tax credit from $600 to $1000.

Increased relief from the marriage penalty. A married couple should not pay higher rate of tax than the total the two would pay as individuals.

$20 billion in aid to states for to balance their budgets and pay for Medicaid. This is a bad idea but a political necessity. On the one hand tax increases at the state level are minimized but on the other hand state governments avoid accountability for spending.

The low price tag of $330 is attributable to the short life span of some of these provisions. Republicans are already moving to extend these provisions. I think it will be a winning issue for them in 2004 and even 2006 because if the provisions are not renewed the effect is that of a tax hike. Voters don't like tax hikes. Although there is uncertainty, I believe there is enough expectation of renewal that these tax cuts will have stimulative effect as if they were permanent. Besides, when has there ever been business certainty when it comes to the tax code?

2003-05-27T17:36:00.000-04:00

According to Michael Ledeen, the National Security Council is about to formalize a policy on Iran ending the diplomatic doublespeak.

UPDATE: It appears said meeting has been postponed until Thursday.

2003-05-27T16:27:00.000-04:00

What's next from W.

George W Bush is an effective leader. He gets things done. In his first two and a half years he has led the country to military victories against Taliban Afghanistan and Baathist Iraq and extracted two tax cuts from Congress. My perception is that this White House is very effective at accomplishing its agenda one step at a time. Following the war in Iraq, the President focused his energy on a stimulative tax cut. With the second tax cut package of his administration is about to become law I find myself wondering, what's next? Here's one possibility:

Middle East Peace

It appears that President Bush will take a serious role in pushing his Roadmap For Peace between Israel and Palestine. The roadmap was released once the Palestinians chose a leader "not compromised by terror." Whether PA Prime Minister Abbas is such a leader is a debatable point, but what part of the Middle East peacemaking isn't debatable? It appears that Mr. Bush will deal with Mr. Abbas. Israeli PM Ariel Sharon has managed to get the Road Map approved by the Israeli cabinet. It looks like there will be a summit next week in Jordan at which Bush, Sharon, and Abbas will meet to discuss implementation of the framework. Mr. Bush will then travel to Egypt to meet with other Arab leaders including Egyptian President Mubarak to shore up Arab support for the plan.

I honestly did not expect such personal engagement by the President. Nor did I expect it so soon. That summit is to take place next week. Personally, I am very skeptical of "peace processes" because I do not believe that peace can be achieved until both sides prefer peace to continued hostilities. I have yet to be convinced that this is the case with the Palestinian Authority. Prior to recent developments I had come to view the Road Map as a sort of midnight basketball program for the State Department, keeping them from screwing up the Iraqi reconstruction project.

Perhaps Mr. Bush is honoring committments to his allies during the Iraq War, most importantly Tony Blair. My reading of the President is that he is the type of man to honor committments made to allies (absent overiding national security concerns of course). So that makes it hard for me to determine exactly what prompted the personal committment, but the result is the same, decisive action. I don't think the President has much to lose here. He is playing towards the interests of his international critics. So it looks like the President is willing to give the Palestinians one more chance to end the violence. Perhaps Abbas will succeed where Arafat did not.

What if the Road Map fails? Judging by the behavior of this White House towards Germany and France in regards to diplomatic duplicity, I would suspect that Mr. Bush would judge the Palestinian Authority very harshly if it does not stop the terrorism. Having given the PA leadership an opportunity I can envision Mr. Bush washing his hands of the matter and easing up on Israel. This President does not take kindly to dealings made in bad faith. I wonder if the PA knows who it's dealing with?

[In case you couldn't tell, I view the Palestinian leadership as the major obstacle to a settlement of this issue. Israel is willing to deal already.]

2003-05-26T17:59:00.000-04:00

On this American Memorial Day, Spain has suffered the greatest military accident in its history. Sixty-two Spanish peacekeepers died in a plane crash in Turkey. They were returning from duty in Afghanistan. Americans should not take for granted the sacrifices of our nation's allies. God bless these fallen Spaniards.

2003-05-26T17:53:00.000-04:00

The Houston Astros have a problem with their roof. Minute Maid Park is blooming green! A fungus is the culprit. The field formerly known as Enron is rotting like its former namesake.

2003-05-26T17:52:00.000-04:00

Today is Memorial Day. Remember.

2003-05-24T21:06:00.000-04:00

Eric Burns of Fox News Watch agrees with me that some forums have become unduly politicized. He mentions Hedges at Rockford College and Michael Moore at the Academy Awards as two examples. He makes his assertion in an ideologically neutral way. This abuse could come from Left or Right. Still, I'd like to see an example of this from the Right. I am sure it happens, but it sure doesn't seem as common.

2003-05-24T11:37:00.000-04:00

Tax Cut

The tax cut has passed Congress. I think it looks good. I will hold off on commenting further until the President signs the thing because I am afraid I will jinx it.

2003-05-24T11:32:00.000-04:00

More on campus.

Johnathan V Last remarks on yet another commencement disruption. This time at Smith College. I suppose I shouldn't give away who the speaker is because it is kind of surprising, to me at least. I remember this speaker was invited to speak at the commencement at the University of Washington last year. I was taken aback by the controversy over the selection in the campus paper given that the ideological leanings of the critics.

I should revise my earlier comments. It is not liberals but leftists that seem to cause these disruptions. I think it has something to do with the Left's view that everything is political and their embrace of direct action, particularly on campuses. Leftish speakers assume that the occasion is an opportunity to spread the gospel. Leftish students assume the same of the occasion hence they organize protests of ideologically objectionable speakers under the assumption that the speaker will use the occasion to preach heresy.

Maybe this outbursts say less about the condition of civility in this country as they do about politicalization of the education system.

2003-05-23T12:09:00.000-04:00

Russian Rain

There is just something so Russian about this story. President Putin doesn't want rain to dampen the festivities marking the 300th anniversary of the founding of St. Petersburg. He has ordered planes to intercept rain clouds approaching the city. The planes will seed the clouds with dry ice dumping rain on surrounding areas but keeping the sun shining brightly on Russia's gateway to Europe.

I was in Moscow around the time of the capitals 650th Anniversary. I remember a woman at the Moscow edition of the T.G.I.Friday's explaining how the government had sent up helicopters to "attack" the clouds so that there would be no rain. I didn't believe her. I guess I was wrong.

2003-05-22T11:43:00.000-04:00

Matrix Update

I watched The Matrix on DVD yesterday. It is a very good movie. It makes The Matrix Reloaded look even worse by comparison.

2003-05-22T11:42:00.000-04:00

Commencement Update.

Chris Hedges' speech at Rockford College is getting more coverage. I totally missed the New York Times connection. Mr. Hedges is a reporter, not an opinion journalist. If journalists consider themselves to be professionals they should conduct themselves as professionals. I think this incident damages the credibility of the New York Times, maybe not much but at a time when many are reassessing the paper of record.

I cannot bring myself to condemn the audience as others have. They were baited by a man who grossly violated the customs of an important ceremony. Outrage is to be expected.

The audio of the address is available here.

The speech is the anti-thesis of a commencement address, negative and depressing rather than positive and uplifting. Unless of course you get a kick out of bashing America. The most offensive part of the diatribe is the repeated use of the second person plural. Speak for yourself bub!

2003-05-19T13:43:00.000-04:00

It's that time of year again. Young students are awarded their diplomas in commencement ceremonies at colleges across the nation. It is a day to recognize personal achievement. But a disturbing trend is damaging this long tradition. It seems that every other day there is a story about some controversial commencement address. I think the commencement address is fast becoming a political instrument. This is a shameful development.

I have no problem with politicians, statesmen, and other public figures from giving commencement addresses. The problem is that the subject matter of these addresses is becoming overtly political.

I have graduated three times. In 1996 I heard a railroad executive who had successfully privatized part of the industry. I don't recall what he said, but it was along the lines of meeting the challenge to succeed. In 2000, I heard Johnathan Harr, the author of A Civil Action, explain to me the importance of ethics in the practice of law, and how my reputation starts clean and must be vigilantly maintained. In 2002, I heard the president of the ACLU, lament the sinister Patriot Act and challenge a class of young lawyers to bring about social change. There was even the obligatory reading of And Then They Came For Me. The case against the execution of the War on Terror was only loosely tied to the graduation ceremony by the charge that it was my responsibility to do something to stop it. I was really bothered by this, but as this was my third graduation I can't say it ruined a precious moment of my life. I cannot speak for others though.

Here are the recent incidents:

Bill Clinton recently criticized the Bush administration on everything from the economy to race in an address at Tougaloo College.

Jessica Lange also managed to bash Bush at an address at Marlboro College in Vermont.

Phil Donahue irratated the crowd at North Carolina State prompting a few walk outs by criticizing the war and declaring "what liberals believe."

New York Times Reporter Chris Hedges disrupted the ceremony at Rockford College in Illinois by subjecting graduates and family to an anti-war tirade.

Senator Rick Santorum addressed St. Joseph's after 100 grads walked out in protest.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas delivered a moving personal speech while some students protested his opinions on civil rights and affirmative action.

I'm sure that I'm leaving out even more incidents but this sampling suggests a disturbing trend. I want to be fair, but it looks like liberals are the instigators of these disruptions. While Senator Santorum and Justice Thomas offended some graduates, the offense was by their mere presence. Some graduates disagreed with their political views. To their credit Santorum and Thomas did not lecture graduates about their political views. Indeed, Justice Thomas' speech was hailed even by his critics.

President Bush addressed graduates at the University of South Carolina. He announced his plan for a Middle East Free Trade Zone. Although this is a clear use of the platform for advocacy of policy, Mr. Bush did two things right. First, he let everyone know about the announcement ahead of time. Second, he avoided partisanship--i.e. no labeling of Fritz Hollings as an obstructionist Democrat. Sitting Presidents have a tradition of doing this sort of thing. I would not hold it against any President.

The same can not be said for the others. Clinton, Lange, Donahue, and Hedges abused their platform to varying degrees. When the graduates became disruptive, the blame was shifted onto them. The graduates, on their special day, were accused of stifiling Freedom of Speech. Many graduates may not have been civil, but this happened only after the atmosphere became politically charged. Respect should be mutual. It is the speaker who has the power here.

Has everything been politicized in this country? Is education now merely the indoctrination of political views? Can't the mantras of the education elite, free speech, dissent, and social action, can't these be put aside just for one day so young grads can take the time to appreciate their accomplishment?

Memo to Commencement Speakers from Class of 2003:

It's not about YOU. It's my party and I'll cry if i want to. You would cry too if it happened to you!

2003-05-19T12:02:00.000-04:00

Dr. Shadowtax, (or How I Learned to Stop Thinking and Hate The Matrix)

Confession. I saw The Matrix on its opening weekend in 1999 and thought it nothing more than a cool action flick with derivitive scifi themes. Questioning reality is a common scifi theme. (Oh no the past 6 months of my life have been a Romulan attempt to find out where Captain Picard keeps his wallet.) I didn't perceive a deeper meaning to the movie but was happy to go along for the ride. I've had others explain the religious and philosophical undertones of The Matrix. Ok, I buy them.

The Matrix Reloaded is a dreadful movie. The Matrix worked but The Matrix Reloaded fails. Why? There are three fundamental differences between the two movies: special effects, philosophical musings, and the story.

The special effects in Matrix Reloaded are superior to those of the Matrix but are not as effective. The Matrix Reloaded should really have been titled The Matrix Inverted because it some ways it is the opposite of the first movie. In the Matrix the audience starts with the assumption that life in the Matrix is reality but goes on to learn that it is an illusion. The special effects powerfully shatter our sense of reality. In the Matrix Reloaded the audience already knows the Matrix is a video game. Instead of appearing to bend reality to their will, combatants look like 12 year olds at the Fun N Games arcade showing off the secret moves and the cheat codes they downloaded off the internet. I realize that this is pretty much unavoidable. It wouldn't be so bad if the virtual combat at least served a purpose in advancing the story. Sometimes it did, sometimes not.

The best example of a meaningless fight is the rooftop battle between Neo and multiple Agents Smith. It is a spectacular set piece, and the one that most reminded me of a video game. But can anyone tell me why they were fighting? for so long? Agent Smith tried to infect Neo but having failed attempted to beat him up. At this point Neo doesn't know what Agent Smith is up to (neither do I), but yet he sticks around to fight for a long time. Finally Neo flew away. When he did this I asked myself, what took him so long? It was obvious for a long time he would neither win nor lose the fight. We all knew he could fly because he did it in one of the opening scenes. He wasn't fighting for self-defense, so why was he fighting? I just don't know. The fight was just an excuse for the two to demonstrate their powers. Perhaps a little smack talk would have made it personal. It would be cool if Smith and Neo really hated eachother. Instead it seemed pointless.

In the Matrix, philosophy is present in undertones. In Matrix Reloaded the philosphy is overbearing. I prefer to glean the philosophical message from the events in a film rather than have characters wandering about lecturing me on free will and advanced mathematics making my brain hurt. I'm not a computer scientist dammit. Some say there is no separating the deeper meaning from the story. Nonsense. A good movie draws an audience into a story involving the struggles of richly developed characters. What we have here is dull socratic dialogue.

There is one character in this movie that develops, or at least we learn more about him. That is Morpheus. We learn he believes religiously in prophecy not uniformly revered by others in Zion. Events in the film test this faith.

However, the most important characters in the movie remain undeveloped. Precious few scenes delve into Neo's assumption of the role of savior. He has an eager disciple. Many people offer him gifts and ask for his blessing but this is one brief scene. He worries about unsettling visions of the future. These scenes seem obligatory and are presented in a matter of fact fashion. We are reminded of Neo's destiny but we gain no insight into how he is dealing with it. Neo is humorless, colorless, and almost lifeless. It's as if he isn't even human. Or is that the point?

The relationship between Neo and Trinity gets short shrift. More dialogue between the two would have been nice. Considering how essential this relationship is to plot developments there needs to be more than a sex scene. How about showing us some love? I suppose Persephone's kiss was supposed to prove something. Ok, Neo is loyal. Trinity gets jealous. But is this convincing evidence of a bond so strong that it would prompt our hero to forsake humanity for his love? Hardly.

And how about that miracle at the end eh? I half-expected Neo to fly around the world really really fast to reverse time, you know....discover his Save/Reload power.

Maybe I'm a little too focused on characters, but I really don't get the Architect. Who is he? Why should Neo trust anything he says? Is he supposed to be god or the devil? Both? Neither? Why doesn't he delete Neo then and there? Why don't both doors lead straight to hell? Maybe the archictect is supposed to represent some authority. Maybe the next film will explain further. For right now I consider the Architect a what and not a who. The Oracle, the Merovingian, Agent Smith, Persephone (or is she human?), the twins, and the Keymaker are at least characters first, concepts second.

Poor narrative and empty characters make for a poor movie. Unless of course we simply change the title to Le Matrix. Hopefully the next installment will be better. It has the potential to be. Agent Smith, the most intriguing character, promises to play a central role. Now if you will excuse me, I have a headache. Red pill, blue pill, which one's the aspirin?

2003-05-12T22:29:00.000-04:00

Size Doesn't Matter

When it comes to tax cuts that is. First off, it seems to be a popular misconception that it is possible to measure the "cost" of the various tax plans at all. The numbers are spread over ten years. Why should we trust these numbers at all? Our government can't even predict tax revenues for the current year. That's the real truth behind the reports of unexpectedly large deficits. It's easy to estimate spending, it's written in legislation. The tough part is predicting the revenue stream. I think the President has it right when he argues that the important thing is to stimulate the economy to create jobs (and I sure need one!). A strengthened economy should increase revenue to help alleviate the deficits.

Therefore the tax plan's size doesn't really matter. What matters is how and when the tax cuts take place. Taxes should be effective this year rather than 2004, 2006 or 2011. Tax cuts should be permanent so as to encourage investment. Tax rebates that provide a short-term stimulus amongst consumers do not promote investment or longterm growth. This economy needs an incentive for behavior change. The dividend tax cut advocated by the White House is the type of tax cut that will produce behavior change (abeit more in the long term than the short term).

It is unfortunate that the Congress is so self-centered and arrogant as to obsess over its arcane bookkeeping methods and a deficit that will continue to blossom absent a recovery. It appears that President Bush is attempting to change the terms of the debate by stumping around the country shouting "Jobs! Jobs! Jobs!" I don't know if this will work, but it certainly appeals to me more than the shrill cry of "Deficits! Deficits! Deficits!" as if the inability of the Congress to control its own spending is somehow MY problem!

2003-05-12T22:05:00.000-04:00

A Belated Happy Mother's Day!

2003-05-10T23:52:00.000-04:00

I apologize for that last entry. I was a rather messy brainstorm wasn't it? I think I was mingling three or more ideas at once.

Here's somebody who makes a lot more sense. Michael Barone explains why America has incompetent 18 year olds yet highly skilled 30 year olds.

My only comment is that there has been some incompetence creep. Soft America has invaded too many colleges and universities driving up the incompetence index up to 22 or 23. I myself am highly educated but grossly incompetent. I've only got 2 years to shape up!

2003-05-08T22:22:00.000-04:00

Thoughts On Gambling

The current controversy over Bill Bennet's affection for video poker machines has launched a more serious side debate over the morality of gambling and the state's role in regulating the industry. One of the more predictable yet interesting questions is raised by some libertarians: Why the inconsistency amongst moralizers regarding gambling and marijuana? I don't believe that consistency is required in that I don't believe all vices are uniform. Further, the use of policy to control a given vice will vary given the cultural, social, and political realities. However, I brainstormed on the question, and I think I've discovered (though I'm probably not the first) one fundamental difference between gambling and marijuana. The difference is economic. Marijuana is a good. Gambling is a service.

At the moment, I'm not concerned with the extent of the moral costs of smoking marijuana. If there has been a determination that marijuana causes undesirable behavior, what is the best way address it? Simply ban it. Label marijuana contraband. It cannot be sold on the open market. Whereever it is found confiscate it and destroy it.

The policy of Prohibition failed famously with alcohol. Nevertheless, alcohol remains a controlled substance today. Production, distribution, and consumption are all regulated. Brewers and distillers are restricted in their marketing efforts. In some states, liquor can only be purchased at a liquor store, sometimes only at a state-run liquor store. Sin taxes drive up the price of beverages to limit availability. Restaurants and bars are required to obtain liquor licenses. Local authorities set a last call, at which time alcohol can no longer be served. Drunk driving is vigorously pursued by law enforcement. Public intoxication is also prosecuted. In the case of alcohol, the state is able to pursue its goals through other means by heavily regulating a good. The same could be done with marijuana in the future.

Gambling is different. Essentially there are only two things requried to gamble, people and money. When outlawing gambling the best that the state can do, 1) refuse to recognize the validity of gambling contracts and 2) bust up casinos and organized gambling syndicates. This is relatively simple, but much more intensive than banning a good.

Here's where it gets interesting. What happens when a state decides that it wants to loosen the prohibition on gambling? How can the state keep track of a myriad of transactions between individuals without a substance to control? Do we want the government heavily involved in directly monitoring private conduct? Even simple legalization under "a live and let live" philosophy would paradoxically demand heightened state involvement. This is because wagers are contracts, and like it or not, the state would be called upon to settle gambling disputes. Cheating would become a form of fraud. Debts would be collected by the sheriff. And most importantly privacy would be invaded. Whether they regard wagering as a vice or not, gamblers do not want their dealings as a matter of public record. The solution is to license casinos.

Casinos are strange beasts, state licensed temples of lawlessness. Even in Nevada, gambling contracts are not enforcable in a court of law. If somebody owes the casino money and doesn't want to pay, the casino has no judicial recourse. The state has no interest in compelling any citizen to sell the farm to pay gambling debts. Therefore, gambling custom and private property rights serve to maintain order. Most gamblers must pay to play. Cheats and welches are physically ejected from the premises and are blacklisted at other casinos.

The state-casino relationship is ingenious. Casinos serve as a quasi-proxy to the state. Rather than the state intruding into the privacy of the gambler, the gambler is lured out into the public. The heavy hand of the government is held over the casino, while the individual citizen endulges himself in a controlled atmosphere.

Casinos are spreading across the country. I believe that is because a consensus has formed. Gambling, like alcohol, is acceptable in moderation especially when confined to beautiful destination resorts.

I realize that I have strayed far from the question I posited earlier. It appears to me that loosening constraints on marijuana would be much simpler than legalizing gambling because it is much easier to control a substance than it is to control services. There simply is not a consensus that recreational drug use in moderation is acceptable. Thus it remains a strictly prohibited vice.

Alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana are related vices. Gambling also has kin living in Nevada, the most difficult vice to regulate of all, prostitution. For some reason the state isn't so willing to get into bed with her. Imagine that!

2003-05-07T21:25:00.000-04:00

Senate Tax Compromise

Republicans in the Senate have reached a compromise on taxes. I have very mixed feelings about this compromise.

First the good news. Rate cuts will be accelerated. The tax cuts enacted in 2001 will be extended in time, expiring in 2013 rather than 2011 (due to the quirky budget rules) Small businesses will get faster depreciation on new investments in equipment. These provisions will have stimulative effect.

Now the bad news. The bill includes $20 billion for state aid to the inept state governments that can't control spending enough to balance their own budgets. The whole country should not pick up the bill for the failures of certain states. Those states should be forced to bite the bullet or they will never practice fiscal discipline.

The worst part of the plan is that it botches dividend tax relief. The plan calls for the first $500 of dividend income to be tax-free. After that dividends are 10% excluded for the first five years, and 20% excluded for the next five years. 85% of shareholders will receive tax-free dividends. Now that's all well and good if the only goal of dividend tax relief is to reduce the tax bill of smaller investors.

Unfortunately, this reform does not eliminate double taxation. Dividends of wealthier individuals will continue to be taxed, a second time. Of course, corporate income is first taxed on the corporate level. Taxing the income again upon dividend distribution discourages corporations from declaring dividends. Which group of investors is the best able to influence a corporation's decision to declare a dividend? The wealthy of course. If the wealthy don't want a dividend declared, the small shareholders don't get their fair share of the profits.

The wealthy can afford to cash out. They sell some shares and pay the low capital gains tax rates. The small investor cannot afford to sell his shares, because he owns a much smaller stake in the enterprise. By selling shares the small investor has his growth potential limited. Once the share is sold, any appreciation in value is lost to him. Besides, who is going to sell a handful of shares to cash out a few bucks anyways? Exactly. The small investor's options are nil. They are at the mercy of the board of directors.

Many small investors got burned in the stock market in the past few years precisely because they were at the mercy of the board. Because dividends were an expensive option (and certain companies didn't have revenues to make dividends anyways) many corporations decided that their goal was to drive up share price. Debt and "creative" accounting practices were one way to drive up share value. Aggressive mergers and acquisitions created inefficient behemoth megacorporations which were pushed to even further conquest until the army exhausted itself. Eventually it was realized that there were insufficient profits to support the inflated share prices, and stocks tanked. Confidence in the market crashed.

An elimination on the taxation of dividends would provide an alternative to share price for making money in the market. That alternative is the dividend, the original mechanism for profit taking. Corporations focus on making profits which can then be distributed to shareholders. Shareholders can evaluate management based upon the size of the dividends they receive. Many companies do in fact function this way. They should not be discriminated against by the tax code. These are the sort of companies that will draw more risk averse small investors into the market for the betterment of the economy.

The current plan doesn't fix the problem. Elimination of the tax on dividends is a matter of tax reform, not merely tax relief. I do not believe that the current dividend relief plan will alter corporate behavior at all. That would be a shame. An opportunity would be lost. Somehow I don't believe that the issue of dividend relief will be revisited if this measure passes absent a landslide Republican victory in the 2004 elections.

2003-05-06T15:22:00.000-04:00

Poland Rising

Poland is a phoenix of freedom rising from the east. After a long and troubled history, Poland is at last taking its place on the world stage.

Although it is not widely known in the West, for over 200 years, (1572-1792) Poland was a republic of nobles governed by an elected monarch with limited powers. In 1791, a written Constitution (second in time only to the US Constitution) provoked reactionary forces into revolt, leading to war that wiped Poland off the map for over a century.

An independent Polish state was created at the conclusion of World War One. Armistice Day, November 11, 1918, is celebrated as Liberation Day in Poland. Between the wars, the new nation's attempts at democratization failed leading to an autocratic regime that was quickly partitioned by the Germans and Soviets in September 1939.

Although De Gaulle's Free French get all the glory, Free Polish pilots joined the RAF in the skies during the Battle of Britain. Free Polish troops joined Americans on such famous battlefields as Monte Cassino in Italy, and Normandy France.

The disaster of the Warsaw uprising led to the installation, after one set of rigged elections, of a Communist government. Years of struggle culminated in the Solidarity movement of the 1970's, which after some significant gains was brutally repressed. In 1978, Cardinal Carol Wojtyla was elevated to Pope John Paul II, bringing a new wave of hope to the Polish people. Solidarity finally triumphed and its leader Lech Walesa was elected President in 1989, the first free elections in over 50 years.

Poland has eagerly embraced its newly found freedom, making serious strides towards economic development. The Polish people are set to vote on whether to join the European Union. There is some debate whether EU regulations will help or hurt market reforms in Poland. Nevertheless it is remarkable that for once, the prosperity of Poland is in the hands of the Polish people.

In 1999, Poland joined NATO. Just last month Poland announced that it would purchase 48 F-16 fighters from the US. There is discussion in Washington about the possibilty of rebasing some American troops from Germany to Polish bases where they would be both readily deployable and more welcome. The Polish government seeks a strong relationship with America because invasion by Germany and Russia, and betrayal by France and Britain are still a vivid living memory.

Not only does this country seek to ensure its own freedom, it is eager to promote freedom elsewhere. Lech Walsea was one of the Nobel Peace Prize winners who supported the war in Iraq. Two hundred Polish GROM Commandos took part in Operation Iraqi Freedom. With Iraq liberated, Poland has chosen to share its lessons with Iraq by assuming a large role in Iraqi reconstruction efforts. Iraq is to be administered in three zones, commanded by the US, UK, and Poland respectively.

Poland deserves ever more prestige. It's been a long time coming.

Mi³o ciê widzieæ

2003-05-06T15:03:00.000-04:00

Bennet Update

The best article on Bill Bennet I've read is by Jonah Goldberg. David Frum and Jim Glassman write along similar lines.

2003-05-05T22:06:00.000-04:00

Cinco De Mayo!

It's time to eat Burritoes, Tacos, Chile Rellenos, and drink Corona and margaritas! Personally I think the rising popularity of this holiday is a good sign for America. On St. Patrick's Day it seems that everybody is Irish, getting drunk and having a good time. This type of thing didn't happen back in the days when the Irish were having a tough time in America. To some extent I believe the same can be said of Catholics in America and the annual debauchery of Mardi Gras. Once Cinco De Mayo makes it to this level, we'll know that the Mexicans have made it.

Cinco de Mayo is not Mexican Independence Day. It commemorates the defeat of the French Army and traitorous Mexicans by a Mexican Army outnumbered by a factor of two to one. Napoleon III of France was attempting to install a Hapsburg prince, Maximillian, as ruler of Mexico. Napoleon hated America. May 5, 1862 was momentous defeat of anti-American French ambitions. In light of recent events, many Americans can find cause to celebrate this great victory of our southern neighbors.

2003-05-05T20:48:00.000-04:00

What Happens In Vegas Stays In Vegas

Unless of course you happen to be Bill Bennet. The social conservative author of the anthology The Book of Virtues is reported to have gambled as much as $8 million over the last decade. The story, published by Newsweek and Washington Monthly is newsworthy because Bennet has been outspoken on issues of virtue and vice. I believe it is appropriate to examine the moral character of those advancing moral arguments, however it is never as important as the actual moral arguments being debated.

Many are charging Bennet with hypocrisy. I believe this to be unfounded. First, it appears that gambling is not a vice of particular concern to Bennet, although it is one to many social conservatives. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (2413) does not consider gambling a vice stating:

Games of chance (card games, etc.) or wagers are not in themselves contrary to justice. They become morally unacceptable when they deprive someone of what is necessary to provide for his needs and those of others. The passion for gambling risks becoming an enslavement. Unfair wagers and cheating at games constitute grave matter, unless the damage inflicted is so slight that the one who suffers it cannot reasonably consider it significant.

In his first response to this story, Mr. Bennet stated that his family never suffered and that he never played the "milk money." That is entirely consistent with the teachings of his Church. So if we take him at his word, the man is no hippocite.

What if he really does have a gambling problem? Does that undermine the substance of the moral arguments he has made over the years? I certainly don't think so, especially since he did not address gambling.

To me this story wreaks of attack politics. Bennet was a harsh critic of Clinton during the Lewinski affair. Bennet was also a strong drug czar under George H.W. Bush. Rather than argue that adultery, perjury, or casual drug use should not be considered vices (or if vices shouldn't be regulated) political opponents gleefully tear into Bill Bennet's character.

Charges of hypocrisy are also intellectually lazy because the underlying statements are not analyzed for truthfulness, only for consistency with personal actions. Notice, that neither story deals well with the underlying issues of whether gambling as a vice should be regulated and to what extent. It is ironic that many allies of this attack do not consider gambling a vice.

In fact there are many that reject the entire notion of virtues and vices. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Well, after you discard the idea of sin, it's pretty fun to let fly a few choice rhetorical stones.

Hopefully some good can come out of this story. Personally, I would like more scrutiny of gambling. State lotteries and dependencies on casino tax revenues are important issues. Given that there are indeed social costs to gambling, how appropriate is it for the state to profit from the activity at the expense of its citizens?

Bill Bennet can emerge victorious from this ambush if it serves to promote a substantive debate over virtues in this country.

2003-05-04T20:16:00.000-04:00

A Very Old Man Has Fallen

New Hampshire's famous Old Man of the Mountain has collapsed. The natural granite formation which resembles a human face is an important symbol of New Hampshire. The Old Man graces the back of the New Hampshire quarter.

This is a sad story, but not tragic. This Old Man was never alive. Yet he serves us a poignant reminder that nothing, not even granite, lasts forever.

2003-05-02T18:28:00.000-04:00

The Flap Over Flags

September 11th and the War on Iraq have made the flying of the Stars and Stripes all the more common across America. Homes, ships, and cars now proudly display the American Flag.

The city council in Montpelier, Vermont recently voted to remove the American flags currently lining the city streets. Why would they do this? Well it isn't because they are engaging in civil demobilization because they believe the War in Iraq is now over. The resolution is inspired by anti-war sentiment. I do not dispute that the city has the right to determine flag policy on public land, but I do believe that some are offended by displays of patriotism to begin with. One argument struck me as unusual. Some folks who oppose the war are offended that the US flag is being used in a demonstration to support the war effort.

This opposition to flag use is mind-boggling. Old Glory was born on the battlefield. Indeed, flags originated as a form of battlefield communication. By choosing to fly an American flag a group of rebels staked a claim to nationhood. The association between the flag and the nation's armed forces cannot be denied. Capture the flag is not just the name of a game, but a battlefield objective during the Civil War. That's where we get the expression, rally round the flag.

Our nation, through its Constitutional processes decided to go to war to liberate Iraq. Many full-blooded American citizens disagreed with this decision. Nevertheless, the American Nation is at war. Therefore it follows that the principal symbol of that nation, the flag, goes to war in support of our armed forces.

I reject the argument that the flag is somehow being stolen from anti-war citizens. Too often pacifists have derided jingoistic flag waving for them to honestly deny the association between the flag and the military. I think these people are ashamed of their country's actions at heart. Their votes acknowledge that they are unable to rally around the flag even if the do not rally around the war.

The mayor of Montpelier has indicated that he will veto the council resolution. The flags will fly for now.

2003-05-01T22:22:00.000-04:00

AIR W

A May Day call was the last thing on the mind, of the pilot of Navy-1 as the S-3 Viking touched down on the flight deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln with President Bush riding co-pilot. The President in his flight suit was a powerful image. The sailors appreciated his visit and he appreciated their sacrifice. The Lincoln has been deployed for quite some time. One hundred and fifty infants will meet their fathers for the first time very soon now.

The speech was right on the money. The President tied the War in Iraq to the overarching War on Terrorism. That War is not over and there will be more battles to come. I'm glad the speech hammered home that essential point. At the same time it was appropriate to laud the successes and honor the sacrifices of those who serve.

2003-05-01T17:41:00.000-04:00

Happy May Day!

Ah, May Day, the celebration of springtime. What memories! Communist tyrannies of every stripe parade tanks and missles through square. Socialist subversives take to the streets for the opening day of the competitive street rioting season. (I think Seattle can go all the way this year!)

The spirit of May Day is that of lighthearted joy. The holiday's origins date back to the Roman occupation of Britain during which Druid observences blended with the Roman festival of Floralia. The tradition of dancing around the maypole spread throughout Britain and onto the continent. How did such an innocent holiday shift from a focus on flowers to socialist bloodletting? There is a French connection here. It appears the socialist French feel lighthearted joy when denouncing capitalism so they turned May Day into a day for socialists, communists, and anarchists. Unfortunately, the kind of parties associated with these groups are frequently purged, and no fun at all!

Nowadays, the maypole has been replaced by the Golden Arches as the centerpiece, but there is still much revelry! Personally I prefer the maypole.