Another Media Scandal

It turns out that the NYT report is unraveling into another media scandal on par with (if not worse) than the Dan Rather/60 Minutes forged memo scandal of September.

The Bill Burkett of this scandal is Mohammed El Baradei, the IAEA official that fabricated the "missing explosives at Al QaQaa" report that both the New York Times and CBS News accepted uncritically and reported without corroboration.

We now learnthat the El Baradei report conflicts substantially with other IAEA documents. We also learn that last month the U.S. opposed El Baredei's re-appointment to a third term as IAEA SecGen because of his permissive stance toward Iraq's possession of such large quantities of high explosives. (Is this what Kerry means by allowing inspections to work?)

The dots are quite easy to connect here. But don't expect the media to do it. That would be real journalism.

Al Caca

In a desperate but clumsy attempt to pull an October Surprise, the New York Times gets an IAEA official's disclosure of HMX unaccounted for since April of 2003 and tries to turn it into a White House blunder of monumental proportions. Naturally, the media (NYT and CBS, again!) and Kedwards campaign, working in concert, pick up the dead ball and try to run with it.

Only problem is, this Al Qaqaa facility was last inspected by IAEA in 2002, when they discovered 35 tons missing since they were previously kicked out by Saddam in 1998. They counted and sealed the remaining 377 tons and were kicked out again. Now we learn that this material was not there when the Third Infantry Division arrived at the site several months later in April, 2003 as part of the Bush administration's "rush to war" on the basis of "flawed intelligence" purporting that Saddam had an active WMD program.

The only "flawed intelligence" is held by those who believe that HMX and RDX stockpiles are not part of a WMD program. Yet these same people want you to believe that this material was spirited away before the belated invasion due to incompetence.

Call it Al Qaqaa-gate. Or just plain caca.

Disenfranchisement

Voter disenfranchisement occurs when an eligible voter is deprived of the opportunity to do so. An equally serious form of disenfranchisement occurs when a lawful vote is countered by a fraudulent one.

We have reached a point where legitimate efforts to correct the first form of disenfranchisement are being used to abet the second. Some state and local officials have taken steps to address fraud, but have been thwarted by judges. Others actively support and encourage fraud, mostly by malfeasance in enforcing electoral laws, but sometimes by participating in it, through flawed voter registration and identification regulations that openly invite fraud.

One way to disenfranchise voters is by printing an illegal absentee ballot, as Pennsylvania did, when they included Ralph Nader, who did not qualify. State officials (who were responsible for for the ballot) have now ruled these ballots invalid, even though thay have already been distibuted and used to cast votes. The problem is, there isn't enough time to print and re-distribute correct ballots, and Gov. Rendell so far refuses to extend the voting deadline as he has in the past.

UPDATE: The misprinted PA absentee ballots (with Nader's name on them) were never distributed, and the correct ballots were, but late, yet Gov. Rendell still refuses to extend the deadline.

Laura Ingraham

Karina and Laura at USD 

Laura Ingraham was in San Diego on Thursday and Friday to speak on behalf of Fairbanks Republican Women Federated and to broadcast her show on local affiliate AM1170 KCBQ. Of course, we all went to USD to hear her speak and grab a photo op.

Note to Laura: your talk was rousing and fun. Sorry you couldn't hang longer for some Q&A!

In Defense of Teresa's Taxes

The Wall Street Journal and conservative pundits are wrong to pick on Teresa Heinz Kerry for having a lower effective tax rate than the national average.

What they fail to mention is that her income comes mainly from securities, bonds, and other investment instruments. Not salary. The IRS doesn't tax wealth (except upon death, another subject), it taxes income, mostly income from salary. And Teresa doesn't have a job (she just accuses Laura Bush of never having one). Rather, she lives off of wealth -- wealth that was already taxed when it was earned. Please, let's not advocate that wealth be taxed for reasons of fairness or any other reason, because to do so would be to advocate another layer of tax-on-tax, or double-taxation, when what we should be doing is to eliminate such taxation wherever it exists.

Also, such populist criticism, typical of most populist critcisms, overlooks more important issues, which should be highlighted. Such as the unfairness of the progressive tax code on salaries (penalizing rather than rewarding those who move up the income scale), and the fact that the existence of a steeply progressive code mostly benefits wealthy investors whose assets increase in value when income tax rates increase.

If anything, Teresa's tax return should accentuate the distinction between the wealthy, who supply very little of the government's tax revenues and actually benefit from tax increases, and upper income earners, who supply most of the tax revenues and are hurt the most by tax increases. (This sort of explains why Kerry, Edwards, Soros, Buffet, etc. are all in favor of tax hikes and use class warfare arguments to advocate them.)

My question to Teresa is: Where's the rest of your tax return?

Future Hokies

Alden at QB


Eliott at RB 

I just love the DIY Forum.

Outing

Suppose Bush had said, in response to Kerry's accusation that the president has "turned his back on the wellness of America":

Of course I know that obesity is a problem in our society and needs to be addressed. I'm sure that if you asked Elizabeth Edwards, the wife of Senator John Edwards, she would agree, that she is who she is, that she did not choose her condition, and that she appreciates the love and support she gets from her family.

Albuquerque Balloon Fiesta 

What W Coulda Said

Assault weapons ban: This law has no effect on your scenario of a drug bust encountering an AK-47. AK-47s are already regulated by other automatic weapons laws. This ban only affects AK-47 replicas and the like. Drug dealers are already flouting the law by selling illegal drugs, and guess what, they ignore gun laws too. So stop trying to deceive the public into believing that symbolic gun laws help in the drug war, and try some positive remedies for crime as I just did.

Minimum wage: If I knew that government mandating a higher minimum wage would work without harming anyone, I'd demand a hike immediately. But government can't set wages any more than it can set prices or the length of a summer day. If you could make a case for raising the wage a buck an hour, then you should also be able to raise it ten bucks an hour. But you can't. At some point you will put entry-level workers out of work, make small businesses unprofitable, and send more jobs overseas. I'd rather have the government concentrate on improving education, which really raises wages.

And I beg you and John Edwards, please respect the privacy of Dick Cheney's family and leave their children's names out of this campaign.

Belated Questions

New questions have emerged from the New York Sun regarding Kerry's Naval service after he went home from Vietnam. I raised them myself weeks ago in this blog, and they have to do with the service record excerpts posted on his web site, and more interestingly, the missing portions of his record which have not been posted.

(Kerry never authorized a complete release of his records, in spite of his repeated claims that his records have been released.)

There are several documents missing, the most important being his final discharge certificate (DD-214). His site contains his first DD-214, when he was discharged as an enlisted officer candidate to accept a commission in the Naval Reserve. (Nearly all officers accessed as officer candidates are given reserve commissions, which allows the Navy to release them early during force reductions without paying severance.) His second was for his transfer from active duty to reserve status. The missing DD-214 was for his release from the Naval Reserve in February, 1978.

What we learn was that John Kerry was still a commissioned officer in the Naval Reserve from the time he was released from active duty in 1970, until 1978, a period of eight years. The questions that arise are:

1. Did John Kerry attend periodic active-duty-for-training drills, as required for all reservists? If not, why not? (An interesting question, in light of Kerry's own questions about Bush's ANG drilling record.)

2. At some point during these years Kerry was promoted from Lieutenant (Junior Grade) to Lieutenant. Where are the fitness reports, assignments, and other documents related to this promotion?

3. Why wasn't he released in 1974, when his six-year obligation was met? He must have applied for, and received, an extension in the Reserves. Where are the extension documents?

4. He could have requested an earlier release than required by his obligation, as many reservists and guardsmen do when they are unable to attend drills. And as a decorated combat veteran, an early release would have been routinely granted. Did he request one? If not, why not?

5. He was in reserve commissioned status when he testified "out of uniform" (wearing only part of a uniform) before the U.S. Senate in 1971. The Navy should have investigated this violation of the UCMJ and Naval Regulations, but it did not. Why not? (He would not have been in violation if he had been discharged, except for the unlawful use of the uniform, for which every branch of service except the Marine Corps was malfeasant in prosecuting during those years.)

6. He was in reserve commissioned status when he participated in anti-government demonstrations and met with North Vietnamese and Viet Cong officials, committing several violations of the UCMJ and Naval Regulations, both in and out of uniform. Why were no investigations conducted or charges made for these violations? If there were, why haven't these records been released? If there weren't, why haven't the decision memos not to enforce regulations been released? Is it because officials of the Nixon White House were involved?

These are only a few of the questions that a responsible media establishment would pursue if they had arisen from...well, you know.

Being Straight

Much of the Kerry-Edwards campaign hinges on the accusation that the Bush administration is "not being straight with the American people." Indeed, any time we see either one of these candidates open his mouth, it is only a matter of seconds before these words flow out like a mantra. This tactic might be effective if these words were followed immediately by facts rather than a ridiculous distortion of the facts if not outright lies.

Now, we all know politicians are wont to spin events in a manner that favors voters' perceptions of them. This is politics, and most politicians prefer to state truths, even if the truth is selective, to keep the spin going in their direction. As when Bush says "unemployment is at 5.1%" or "Afghanistan and Iraq will have elections" or "Sadam was a threat to our security" or "the Patriot Act was necessary for our security." To counter-spin, you acknowledge the fact and follow with a "Yes, but" and a few facts of your own. This is called political debate.

But Kerry-Edwards aren't interested in political debate. They prefer to accuse the president of lying, and then follow with some truly outrageous lies of their own. As when Kerry said during last night's debate that he "never opposed the Patriot Act, only Ashcroft."

The media, if they weren't shilling for Kerry-Edwards, would quickly put an end to this tiresome tactic by reporting the truth. But since they don't, the practice continues.