|
Media Infiltrations: Deadly Rescue  National Review November 17, 2008 Krugman’s Posthumous Nobel National Review Online October 14, 2008
"What has been your worst blogging experience? "That's a guy who actually stalks me on the Web and once stalked me personally." "I'm saying this...guy's a jerk."
 A Bound Man Shelby Steele What I'm listening to:  Langley Schools Music Project What I'm watching:  There Will Be Blood What I'm playing:  Speed Racer Order these from Amazon.com at Amazon's normal low prices... and a fraction of your order goes to help support this site. Thanks!
Thanks to Irwin Chusid, public editor. Some of the sites
|
Chronicle of the Conspiracy
Join us as we discover, document, expose and challenge the bad people, the bad institutions and the bad ideas that stand in the way of wealth creation -- and show you how to fight back!
Thursday, February 16, 2006
THE DOUBLE STANDARD NEVER ENDS John Fund from the Journal's "Political Diary" email alert:The flap over Dick Cheney's shooting party has become this administration's version of Jimmy Carter's "killer rabbit," an instant laugh line and a metaphor for the media strategy of this administration, which too often includes equal elements of incompetence and secrecy. That said, it is interesting to note how news judgments are made. Mr. Cheney has been pilloried in a way no previous vice president ever has, in no small part because he chose not to appear in public to express regret for the incident that injured his Texas friend.Other major public figures have made the same mistake and not paid any political price at all. Take Hillary Clinton, who as a newly minted U.S. Senator couldn't have been bothered after a van carrying her to the Westchester County, N.Y. airport ran a police officer down and injured him. The incident occurred a month after 9/11 when concerns about terrorists and airports were at their height. Police officer Ernest Dymond was one of three officers guarding the gateway to the airport when a Ford van carrying Mrs. Clinton and her entourage rolled towards them at 35 mph.
Mr. Dymond tried to stop the vehicle, first by shouting at it to stop and then by banging on its side while it dragged him before stopping some 300 feet past the checkpoint. The officer injured his shoulder in the process and had to check in to a local hospital.
"I didn't know if we had a terrorist," Officer Dymond said of the van's Secret Service driver. Local law enforcement officials chalked the incident up to a misunderstanding, and ordered Mr. Dymond not to give further interviews. But before the cone of silence descended on him, Mr. Dymond told NewsMax.com that he was disappointed that neither Senator Clinton nor anyone from her office bothered to talk to him, ask if he was all right or apologize.
Despite that remarkable lapse in manners, media interest in the van incident was almost non-existent, covered only briefly in the New York Post and Washington Times. Perhaps that's because in the case of Senator Clinton, she chose not to communicate with a mere injured police officer, while Vice President Cheney's mistake was in injuring the feelings of the entire White House press corps.
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 12:02 AM | link
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
TO MEDIA: BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR Interesting thoughts from reader Donald Poole:The press is in a state fluctuating between righteous indignation over being scooped by a small market local paper and glee over the possibility of damaging the Office of the President of the United States. A few are even slavering over the dream of the VIce-President being forced to leave office in disgrace.Since the press tends to be liberal, angry, conceited and incapable of strategic thought, they should consider what would happen if they get their wish - a formidable candidate for President who is the Republican nominee.
Since Mr. Cheney has repeatedly stated that he has no ambitions to run for higher office, and no serious observer of politics believes that he will run in 2008, this would mean that no candidate would be running from inside the White House. Unless, Mr. Cheney is not the Vice-President, in which case the Republican nomination would probably go to the person who would replace Mr. Cheney.
While a Vice-President McCain would be the darling of the press corps, he would probably not be widely supported by all Republicans which would very beneficial to the aspirations of Senator Clinton (D.-N.Y.). However, a Vice-President Rice would strike terror in the hearts of the more fanatical Democrats, hinder Sen. Clinton's election prospects and possibly split the votes of a core voting bloc - the African-American vote.
If Vice-President Cheney is forced out of office, could the press corps avoid a self induced meltdown upon the election of Condoleeza Rice? I think not.
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 11:56 PM | link
THE TROUBLE WITH HARRY It's a timeline of the Dick Cheney shooting "cover-up." It starts:
• 5:30 p.m., Saturday (all times Central Standard Time). Mr. Cheney sprays Harry Whittington with birdshot, and the Secret Service immediately informs local police. Who is Harry Whittington and whom does he lobby for? Does he know Scooter Libby?It just gets better from there.
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 6:43 AM | link
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
BETTER LATE THAN NEVER It's amazing what former New York Times "public editor" Dan Okrent is willing to say about the Times now that it's no longer his job to say anything at all.The three best newspapers in America -– The New York Times, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal are each controlled via blocks of stocks owned by families, said Okrent. He acknowledged media criticism of Times Publisher Arthur Sulzberger, saying everyone at the paper knows he has the job because he is the latest generation of its family owners.Thanks to reader Jameson Campaigne for the link.
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 10:16 PM | link
"ASK NANCY PELOSI" Our DC "lawyer-lobbyist" friend (name withheld, as always) has another trenchant observation about the hypocritical politics of "reform":
Lots of fundraising is legal and shows a commitment to participate in the political process. Some is suspect. No fundraising should be presumed to be evidence of wrong-doing by the recipient or of an intent-to-bribe by the donor.Or for that matter, isn't making a public appearance on Pelosi's behalf a contribution-in-kind from Lucas? Given his celebrity, that's a very valuable donation.What’s the right test? How can we know for sure which type of fundraising is OK?
Just “Ask Nancy Pelosi.” If it’s a up-from-humble roots Republican entrepreneur who supports low-tax, low-spending politicians, it’s part of the culture of corruption. If the money goes from an up-from-humble roots Democratic filmmaker billionaire to Nancy Pelosi, well, then, it’s an act of civic pride.
THIS JUST IN….from CongressDaily...
Actually, it may be just a lame bit of dialogue. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, only one federal contribution is listed for George Lucas and it’s a modest $500 for John Kerry’s presidential race. Is George Lucas his real name? Or does he not comply with federal law on contributions? Or, has he got his Nancy’s confused, and he simply says “No.”
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 9:55 PM | link
BUMPER STICKER OF THE DAY
I'd rather be hunting with Dick Cheney than riding in a car with Ted Kennedy.Thanks to reader Jameson Campaigne.
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 8:30 PM | link
CONTRA EPSTEIN A couple of readers respond to Richard Epstein's op-ed in the Journal yesterday faulting President Bush's NSA wiretapping progam on constitutional grounds.
I'm just back from my second short stint in Iraq as a reservist, and read your blog most days while there. Reference your post on Richard Epstein's WSJ article: he is right, words do matter in the Constitution, even for those who might seek their meaning in emanating penumbras. That said, the Congress' explicit power "to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces" clearly does not encompass "deployment and employment of the forces." Those decisions are inherent in the concept of "command," which is reserved to the President. Note that the Consitution is very clear in choosing the phrase, "commander-in-chief," as only one of these can exist.
I'm no lawyer, but I do have almost 28 years of military experience as a cadet and officer, active and reserve. If we take Epstein's argument to the logical extreme, then in the name of government and regulation of the force,or via the power of the purse, Congress could order certain units to attack an enemy at sea, take a hill, patrol the skies, and so on, and tell them precisiely via legislation how to do so. And the President, as mere commander, would have to obey. Imagine how long it would take Congress to debate such decisions. Yeah, sounds illogical and unworkable, and the Founding Fathers surely knew that, which is why we have only one commander-in-chief, and not command-by-congressional-committee.
Unless a creative judge finds inspiration in some hitherto unknown pulsating shadow, the Congressional powers extend to defense budgeting and governance, which establish the tools available for the commander-in-chief, and provides general guidelines on their use. Just as the law generally disfavors "implied repeal" of legislation, as Mr. Epstein put it, it also surely disfavors unknown statutory constraints not expressed by Congress. The 2001 AUMF would include all the tools available to the Department of Defense, operating within their known congressional constraints. The NSA belongs to the Defense Department, and Congress has yet to restrain the commander-in-chief's power to use the NSA to intercept communications to and from a foreign enemy to its agents, even those in the US. As John Hinderaker at Powerline has forcefully argued, the pre-FISA and post-FISA court decisions seem tp uphold such powers as inherent to the President, as commander-in-chief. I can only presume that these judges, wiser in the law than I, would see the use of such electronic defense means as equivalent to the deployment and employment of tactical units and their firearms.
Indeed, in Iraq and elsewhere, tactical units now carry the means of intercepting cell phone calls. They also capture laptops still plugged into the internet, containing emails. I am unaware of anyone suggesting that if a call or email originates in the US, that our forces in the field must go through the FISA warrant process before exploiting the information. Similarly, in the name of time, who would deny US law enforcement or defense personnel from exploiting such perishable battlefield information inside the US?
Perhaps I missed it while serving in the desert, but has Mr. Epstein or any other critic of the NSA intercept program produced a single case where the NSA search could be deemed "unreasonable" under the 4th Amendment? Given the congressional briefings and the Justice Department reviews every 45-days, these unreasonable searches would turn up. Even then, if the purpose was not legal prosecution in a court room, but pursuit of a foreign enemy on the battlefied, has Congress restricted such information from tactical or strategic military usage against the enemy?
Maybe I'm just a simple soldier - and a part-time one at that - but most of the critics, even the well-intentioned ones like Mr. Epstein, come across as long on theory and short on actual, or factual knowledge. We need to hear more frm Mr. Epstein, but he needs to be just as clear on the word "command" as he is on the word "power."
Regards,
[Name withheld by request]
COL, US Army Reserve
I think this paragraph needs parsing---"On the other side of the ledger, "[t]he President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia when called into actual service of the United States." Note the word "power" appears no where in this sentence. The operative verb is "shall be.""
The legal scholar claims to prove that Congress has the POWER, and essentially delegates it to the President, and that Bush has exceeded his mandate in misusing FISA for spying on our enemies. Well, I can play with words, also, so inspect the "shall be" verb that basically HIRES the Prez as Commander in Chief.
Well, what does a Commander in Chief DO? His core job description is to DEFEND the country, and he must use the POWER at his disposal! Hence, by BEING designated by the Constitution as the Commander in Chief, the President automatically HAS the POWER! Imagine if it were the opposite.
It's impossible to believe that the Constitution, which was famously proclaimed to NOT be a suicide pact, would make the President the CiC, and not also, not only give him all the POWER needed, but NOT allow him to use his discretion, and USE it!
Besides, the Imperial Congress, ever since Watergate lowered presidential POWERS, is certainly in POWER, and any president who didn't act accordingly, such as can be seen in many past wars that were NEVER declared, and who went too far in ignoring Congress, can always be impeached! Should be impeached!
Anyway, what is the legal solution to this WORD problem? Epstein surely provided one, but I wonder what good would come of more LAWS and more bowing down to Congress would come out of this.
Remember, politics is (inherently) evil!
What if Bush decides to use as much military POWER as possible to blast enough of Iran back into the stone ages, without a war declared?
I have an idea. Congress should quickly pass a very simple law, saying that it is LEGAL to wiretap, without the need for any warrants, any incoming or outgoing messages to or from any foreign country! This POWER to the American people can be seen as quite like the putting up of a fence on our southern and northern borders. Foreigners don't have ANY POWER, any RIGHTS, under our Constitution---it only applies to Americans!
I know, this is extreme, but we live in extreme times. Of course, this would hinder a lot of international communications between good guys, not to mention Americans abroad calling the homeland.
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 12:35 AM | link
COLLEGE CREDITS FOR LEARNING THE TRUTH? NO WAY! This stuff is worth studying for its own sake -- but now you can get college credits for reading George Reisman and Ayn Rand as part of an online econ course from National University.
Two online, undergraduate courses that use Dr. Reisman’s book Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics are now available to enroll in at National University of San Diego. These courses are ECO 401 & 402 – Market Process Economics I & II. They will run in May and June of 2006. They are month long intensive courses (in which you do a semester's worth of work in one month). In addition, one course (ECO 430 – Economics & Philosophy) uses Ayn Rand’s The Virtue of Selfishness and Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal as the required reading material. This course will run in October of 2006. Online classes at National can be taken from anywhere in the world, all one needs is access to the internet. The online courses now feature voice-based chats via the internet. So you can talk to the instructor and other students (just like being in the classroom) with nothing more than a headset (with microphone) and internet connection. The courses are offered through National’s School of Business and Management.Learn more here!
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 12:30 AM | link
ANOTHER SHOT AT THE IRS Here's another class action suit against the Internal Revenue Service, springing from the agency's barbaric insistence on collecting an illegal telephone tax (Jim Glass has blogged about the tax several times; I featured in a SmartMoney.com column). The interesting new twist on this suit is that it assails the IRS on constitutional grounds. I think we got the bastards surrounded! Thanks to reader Ben Johns for the link.
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 12:24 AM | link
Monday, February 13, 2006
EPSTEIN SAYS NO Libertarian constitutional scholar Richard Epstein has sympathy for the president's aims in conducting the war on terror, but in today's Wall Street Journal he concludes that Bush's NSA wiretapping program was unconstitutional.The Constitution gives Congress the power to set policy; it gives to the president the right, and the duty, to execute it. The president claims first that he has secured the needed congressional blessing for the NSA's domestic surveillance through the Authorization of Use of Military Force Act, passed in the aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001. Not so. AUMF does not contain one word that dislodges FISA, and the law disfavors any "implied repeal" of major legislation. Right now, the president can both hound al Qaeda and follow FISA requirements for domestic warrants. If he wants to go further, he should seek explicit congressional authorization.Epstein is a strong and respected conservative voice. This op-ed will make things a bit stickier for the president.The administration's more aggressive claim is that an "inherent commander in chief power" lets the president act on his own. To see why this claim fails, it is critical to set out -- they're short -- the precise provisions that implement the constitutional separation of powers in matters of war and peace. First off, the Constitution gives the Congress the power "to declare" war. Next, only Congress can appropriate the funds to operate the land and naval forces. Most critically for the spying dispute, Congress has the explicit power "to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces." It has similar powers for setting the standards (or "discipline") for the state militia. Congress's power applies in both peace and wartime, and is subject to no express limitations on the nature and content of its general rules.
On the other side of the ledger, "[t]he President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia when called into actual service of the United States." Note the word "power" appears no where in this sentence. The operative verb is "shall be."
The choice of words is not inadvertent. Later in the same section the Constitution provides that the president "shall have the Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment," and the "Power, by and with the Advice and consent of the Senate to make Treaties." Elsewhere the president shall "receive" ambassadors and "require" reports from his subordinates.
Words matter. Only powers allow for a change in legal status of the persons over whom some power is directed. Thus the president's power to grant reprieves and pardons is rightly described as "plenary," precisely because Congress has no stated power to hedge it in by legislation, for example by declaring certain offenses unpardonable. The president's power to make treaties is likewise plenary, but now subject to the explicit check of Senatorial advice and consent. At no time, however, can Congress send its own delegation off to negotiate with Iraq.
So understood, subtly adding in some "inherent commander in chief power" upsets a carefully wrought constitutional balance. Let the president have plenary power over military affairs, then it becomes an inevitable political tussle over whether his inherent power is stronger than Congress's stated one. But why twist accurate constitutional language to make a shambles of our basic governance structure? Congress gets to set the general rules governing military efforts. The Constitution does not confer the identical power on the president.
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 9:28 AM | link
Sunday, February 12, 2006
NOT EXACTLY AN APOLOGY Typical hypocritical morning-after cringing from the Left:Mr. Luskin,Update [2/13/2006]... Reader Tom Flaschen notes,About a year ago I wrote you a piece of e-mail that you subsequently posted on your site. Today that post is at this link. The e-mail I wrote you was admittedly hostile, and you were well within your rights in being offended by it. I do wish, however, that you hadn't included my name in your post. Do you suppose I could talk you into going back into your archive and deleting my name from the post?
When I wrote the e-mail, I included my name so as not to be some anonymous flamer who just said nasty things and then ran away. But that said, my e-mail to you was intended to be private, and I'd rather not have it come up every time my name is googled. If you could do me the favor of deleting my name from the archive, I would appreciate it enormously.
Thanks,
[Name withheld by request]
Unfortunately for [name withheld by request], Google is not as forgiving as you.
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 12:38 PM | link