31 December 2004 @ 7:12PM >> A reader wrote in to suggest I take a look at two Bruce Bartlett articles opposing the FairTax. In the first article, Bartlett states:

A current proposal by Rep. John Linder (R., Ga.) says that a 23 percent rate would be adequate. But such a low rate can only be sustained by making completely absurd assumptions about what would be taxed.

The second article says:

[T]he tax rate would have to be prohibitively high to replace all federal taxes. Its own supporters admit that it would have to be 30 percent when compared to state sales taxes. And a new analysis by economist Bill Gale of the Brookings Institution estimates that it would actually take a rate of 60.7 percent.

I find the simplicity of the FairTax appealing. Of course, if the economic assumptions are flawed, and those flaws make the plan unworkable, then the plan should not be implemented.

I am not an economist and am not in a position to judge the claims made by both sides. I am more concerned with tax fairness, tax simplicity, and a policy that encourages economic growth. Exactly how those goals are achieved are less important to me than achieving them.

30 December 2004 @ 9:15AM >> Did I just receive an e-mail from Nick Coleman?

Yesterday, I forwarded Mr. Coleman a link to my article entitled Nick Coleman: Media Meltdown Case Study. Although I have not yet heard back from Mr. Coleman, I did receive a bizarre e-mail from a sender who routed the message through an “anonymizing” service. What struck me was the similarity between the anonymous e-mail and Mr. Coleman’s writing. The e-mail appears indented and in italics, with my comments interspersed:

From: anonymous

Subject:

Date: 30 December 2004 3:09:03 AM EST

Your Media Meltdown Case Study is full of holes. Everything Mr. Coleman has said about those Right Wing air/wind bags at Powerline is correct.

My story is full of holes, although precisely where those holes are located is not stated. Also, the PowerLine guys are apparently both air and wind bags; a single-bag insult wasn’t sufficient to convey their bagginess, I guess.

The sender also makes the bold claim that everything Mr. Coleman said about those PowerLine bags is correct. One of Coleman’s claims is that PowerLine “is the spear of a campaign aimed at making Minnesota into a state most of us won’t recognize. Unless you came from Alabama with a keyboard on your knee.” Coleman cites no evidence for this conspiratorial “campaign”, but apparently, Alabama is not a state that he would recognize. Whether this is a sad commentary on our educational system or evidence of judgmental provincialism on Coleman’s part is an exercise left for the reader.

If you’re keeping score at home, in only two sentences, there were two assertions made without any backing and two ad hominem attacks directed at PowerLine (assuming you count each bag reference separately). So far, that’s a rather Colemanesque ratio.

The mysterious e-mail continues:

I think the more likely scernerio [sic] of a meltdown is in your own backyard. Why don’t you keep the focus on yourself.

There’s a meltdown in my backyard, apparently. The writer didn’t elaborate on what this means, so I had to try and figure it out for myself. I looked out my back window at the concrete and barbed wire and determined that none of it was flammable. Crisis averted.

And as far as the suggestion to keep the focus on myself, that would suit me fine. I’ve got a film project to promote, and any additional attention would be most welcome. (When your name isn’t Wonkette, you have to work at getting noticed!) If the anonymous writer has any ideas for keeping the focus on myself, I’m open to suggestions.

The final paragraph begins with a series of rapid-fire insults:

Their blog is ridiculous, silly, vituperating and embarrassing, all in one fell swoop.

In the past, I’ve been ridiculous, silly and embarrassing, and I will even admit to some youthful vituperation. But to manage all four in one fell swoop, well... that must be one hell of a show. I’ve gotta meet these PowerLine guys!

The closing of the e-mail is odd:

What a bunch of crap...now what is your story? Are you just brown nosing for “points with the boys” or is their [sic] something more to it?

Apparently, one can’t express an opinion without it amounting to either “brown nosing” or “something more”. If that’s the case, then it makes me wonder about Coleman. Where is his nose? What’s the secret agenda at play when he expresses his opinions? Or is it just the folks who aren’t part of the traditional media that must be up to something shady when we exercise our First Amendment rights?

Now, I don’t want anyone to think I’m claiming that Nick Coleman wrote this e-mail; to do so would be to make an accusation without any evidence. And we all know that to be below journalistic standards.

Still, the e-mail does manage to pull off a hat trick that I’m sure Mr. Coleman would appreciate:

• Angry tone? Check.
• Unfounded assertions? Check.
• Delusions of conspiring enemies? Check.

In the years that I’ve been editing Brain Terminal, I’ve gotten a lot of hate mail. This was the very first time, out of many tens of thousands of e-mails, that I’ve ever gotten an anonymous e-mail. Even the people sending me threats had the guts to do it from real accounts. So it is strange that the sender of this rather tame e-mail felt the need to hide behind an anonymous remailer.

If Nick Coleman did send this e-mail, then he’s more web savvy than I thought. I wouldn’t have expected someone who’s so clueless about blogs to know about anonymizers.

And if Mr. Coleman didn’t send it, then I have a message for the person who did: if you ever find yourself out of work, contact the Minneapolis Star-Tribune. You’re perfect for them.

29 December 2004 @ 4:09PM >> This certainly won’t quiet the conspiracy theorists, but the Ohio election recount is now over. President Bush wins by 118,457 votes.

Al Gore...I mean, John Kerry picked up 734 votes in the recount, while President Bush gained 449.

In total, Kerry moved 285 votes closer to President Bush’s total. Assuming Kerry would gain similarly in additional recounts, it would take 416 more recounts for Kerry to become president. No word yet on whether Terry McAuliffe has ruled out such a strategy.

29 December 2004 >> When the epitaph is written on this current age of journalism, I suspect a little asterisk will be reserved for Nick Coleman. He seems to be insisting on the most public flame-out possible. More >>

28 December 2004 @ 3:25PM >> I have resisted putting ads on Brain Terminal, primarily because I find them to be quite ugly. On the other hand, there are a number of sites with similar traffic that are making decent money thanks to ads.

I don’t have any philosophical opposition to ads, and if I accepted ads on this site, it wouldn’t change my editorial stance in any way.

So, if I’m effectively giving up hundreds of dollars each month by foregoing ads, is that a wise decision? Is my aesthetic snobbishness reason enough to refuse what might be good money?

Do you, the visitors to my site, believe that ads would deface Brain Terminal in a way that would make the site less valuable or enjoyable for you? Are there other issues I need to consider?

And if you run a site that accepts ads, what’s your experience been? Do you use BlogAds, Google Ads, or both? Which one yields more revenue?

Please let me know your thoughts in the Discussion Forum. I operate Brain Terminal as much for you as I do for myself, so I will give serious consideration to your feelings on this.

28 December 2004 @ 2:16PM >> I recently received this joke in an e-mail:

Dan Rather and Peter Jennings, along with a U.S. Marine assigned to protect them, were hiking through the Iraqi desert one day when they were captured by terrorists. They were tied up, led to a village, and brought before the Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the al Qaeda leader in Iraq.

Zarqawi said, “I am familiar with your western custom of granting the condemned a last wish; so, before we kill and dismember you, do you have any last requests?”

Dan Rather said, “Well, I’m a Texan; so I’d like one last bowlful of hot spicy chili.” Zarqawi nodded to an underling who left and returned with the chili. Rather ate it all and said, “Now I can die content.”

Peter Jennings said, “I am Canadian, so I’d like to hear the song ‘O Canada’ one last time.” Zarqawi nodded to a terrorist who had studied the Western world and knew the music. He returned with some rag-tag musicians and played the anthem. Jennings sighed and declared he could now die peacefully.

Zarqawi turned and said, “And now, Mr. U.S. Marine, what is your final wish?”

“Kick me in the ass,” said the Marine.

“What?” asked Zarqawi. “Will you mock us in your last hour?”

“No, I’m not kidding. I want you to kick me in the ass,” insisted the Marine. So the leader shoved him into the open, and kicked him in the ass.

The Marine went sprawling, but rolled to his knees, pulled out a 9mm pistol hidden in his cammies, and shot Zarqawi dead.

In the resulting confusion, he leapt to his knapsack, pulled out his M4 carbine, and sprayed the remaining terrorists with gunfire. In a flash, they were either dead or fleeing for their lives.

As the Marine was untying Rather and Jennings, they asked him, “Why didn’t you just shoot them? Why did you ask them to kick you in the ass?”

“What,” replied the Marine, “and have you assholes call me the aggressor?”

23 December 2004 @ 2:31PM >> In one easy-to-digest grid, The Federalist Patriot compares the current tax code with FairTax and a specific flat tax proposal.

The more I read about FairTax, the more convinced I become that it is the overhaul our tax code needs.

23 December 2004 @ 2:09PM >> Lawrence Kudlow, one of my favorite economic and political thinkers, now has a blog.

Welcome to the blogosphere, Lawrence!

22 December 2004 @ 2:57PM >> Industry publication Editor & Publisher cites a Gallup poll showing the Internet to be the only news delivery medium that’s grown in use over the past two years:

[E]very source has fallen somewhat since 2002, with only news on the Internet gaining, from 15% going there every day two years ago to 20% doing so today.

Some sources dropped heavily: National newspapers are off 4%, from 11% to 7%; NPR is off 5%; local TV news is down 6%; network news down 7%; and PBS news plunged 8%. In that company, local newspapers are doing fairly well, only dropping 3%. Cable news dropped 2%.

Some may attribute this to the public’s rejection of the perceived bias of the traditional media. Others will say that it is a predictable effect of the continued penetration of the Internet. One thing’s for sure: people have only so much time in the day, so as one medium boosts its audience, it will naturally come at the expense of other media. The question is, will the traditional media grudgingly accept this New (Media) World Order, or will they fight for their audience by revamping their product?

20 December 2004 @ 4:26PM >> Sometime yesterday evening, Brain Terminal recorded its 6,000,000th hit for the year. 2004 will close with Brain Terminal getting about one million more hits than 2003!

A big thank you is in order for everyone who visits this site, watches the videos, sends me e-mails and adds comments to the discussion boards. Your participation is what makes all the effort worthwhile. And without you, of course, 2004 wouldn’t have been Brain Terminal’s first six million hit year.

All the best to you and yours for the holiday season, and have a great 2005!

17 December 2004 @ 4:57PM >> I’ve never understood the Cult of Che. At every peace protest I’ve attended, you can find dozens of the self-consciously hip sporting shirts bearing the iconic image of Che Guevara, a man directly responsible for murdering hundreds of people, and indirectly responsible for the deaths of many thousands. The embrace of Che and other totalitarian killers always made me wonder whether the peace protests were really about peace and nonviolence or whether some other ideological agenda was at play. After all, how could these pacifists be implicitly supporting murder by promoting the legacy of a murderer?

Now comes word that the New York Public Library is getting in on the act, selling watches bearing Che’s mug. According to The New York Sun:

The New York Public Library calls it a bit of “whimsical pop culture.” But to some local Cuban-Americans, the Che Guevara watch sold in the library’s gift shops is a symbol of evil.

“Revolution is a permanent state with this clever watch, featuring the classic romantic image of Che Guevara,” the library’s Web site says. A red star, trailed by the word “revolution,” measures seconds.

[...]

[Maria] Werlau, who was born in Cuba and moved to the United States as an infant, said she assumes the library “put this on their list of products because they were ignorant of who this man is.” She said popular culture has “made Guevara an icon of freedom, but he’s the opposite of that-the antithesis of freedom.” Most people who wear Che paraphernalia “have no idea he was a mass murderer,” Ms. Werlau said.

Ms. Werlau said the Free Society Project has a list of about 180 people for whose executions in Cuba Guevara was directly responsible, but the list doesn’t include what they estimate to be several undocumented cases - or people who lost their lives because of Guevara’s revolutionary activities throughout South America and Africa.

Ms. Werlau, comparing Ernesto Guevara’s legacy to those of other dictators and mass murderers, said: “He was dedicated to his ideals. But so were Hitler and Mussolini and Stalin.”

[...]

In 2002, the library received $201,920,000 in city, state, and federal funds.

It is upsetting that a taxpayer-supported public library is furthering the fetishizing of a murdering thug. Then again, it is sweetly ironic that this icon of communism has been embraced by the vulgar consumerism that capitalism encourages.

14 December 2004 @ 7:49PM >> The New York Post is reporting that Marc Rich, the billionaire financier who was awarded a “midnight pardon” in one of President Clinton’s last acts in office, is “a central figure” in the U.N. Oil-for-Food corruption scandal:

Billionaire Marc Rich has emerged as a central figure in the U.N. oil-for-food scandal and is under investigation for brokering deals in which scores of international politicians and businessmen cashed in on sweetheart oil deals with Saddam Hussein, The Post has learned.

Rich, the fugitive Swiss-based commodities trader who received a controversial pardon from President Bill Clinton in January 2001, is a primary target of criminal probes under way in the U.S. attorney’s office in New York and by Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau, sources said.

“We think he was a major player in this — a central figure,” a senior law-enforcement official told The Post.

[...]

Investigators say they have received information that Rich and Ben Pollner, a New York-based oil trader who heads Taurus Oil, set up a series of companies in Liechtenstein and other countries that they used to put together deals between Saddam and his international supporters in the controversial oil-voucher scheme — which the dictator designed to win international support against U.S. sanctions at the United Nations.

Under the scam, hundreds of international political and financial figures from France, Russia and other countries were awarded middleman vouchers allowing them to purchase set quantities of Iraqi oil at discount rates.

[...]

Investigators now believe Rich and Pollner brokered many of the deals by finding buyers for the oil allocated to people who were bribed by Saddam. The discount Iraqi oil would be resold to major oil companies at higher prices and Rich and Pollner would pocket percentages of the profits, worth hundreds of millions of dollars, sources said.

[...]

In January 2001, in the final hours his presidency, Clinton bypassed law-enforcement and intelligence agencies to wipe the books clean for Rich after being subjected to intense lobbying from former Israel Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Rich’s jet-setting ex-wife, Denise, who donated more than $1 million to Democratic campaigns — including Sen. Hillary Rodham’s first Senate race — along with an additional $450,000 to Clinton’s library fund.

Interesting.

13 December 2004 @ 4:47PM >> According to Newsweek, Bernard Kerik’s withdrawal may have had reasons beyond a “Nannygate” problem.

And a report in the New York Daily News suggests that Kerik may have had many demands on his time.

13 December 2004 >> Any tech junkie who travels extensively is undoubtedly familiar with the pangs of withdrawal suffered when decent Internet access is nowhere to be found. There are many folks like me whose work depends on frequent, reliable access to e-mail and the web. Most of my business communication, in fact, is done by e-mail. Even the voicemail from my home phone gets sent to my e-mail inbox, freeing me from having to constantly call in and check for messages. More >>

11 December 2004 @ 6:46AM >> Former New York City Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik withdrew himself from consideration to head the Department of Homeland Security. In his surprise announcement, Kerik said:

I uncovered information that now leads me to question the immigration status of a person who had been in my employ as a housekeeper and nanny. It has also been brought to my attention that for a period of time during such employment required tax payments and related filings had not been made.

How many times is this going to happen with candidates for high positions in government? There have been at least a half-dozen prominent cases in recent memory. Does this signal that there are a lot of crooks out there? Or does it show that our laws are so convoluted and poorly-enforced that they turn otherwise honest people into criminals?

Because the federal government refuses to secure our borders or enforce the immigration laws that are already on the books, there are millions of illegal immigrants in this country. Given that the government won’t kick them out, what are they supposed to do? Not work and starve? Of course not, so they get jobs that are, by definition, illegal. And because they’re illegal, nobody pays taxes on them. Paying taxes would call attention to the illegal immigrant and the fact that the employer is committing a crime as well. So the taxes don’t get paid.

Should individuals really be required to pay taxes on babysitters and nannies? If you just need someone to look after your kid, should you be treated as a large employer and subjected to pages of tax paperwork?

The tax code in its current form requires citizens to retain the services of accountants, attorneys and financial advisors to ensure full compliance with the law. That’s just not realistic. If people were really forced to comply with the employment tax laws, they just wouldn’t hire sitters. But instead, most people ignore the law with a wink and a nod, and they’re held accountable only if they’re busted or nominated for some lofty office.

When the law places an unreasonable burden on citizens, they often break it. Are the “citizen criminals” entirely to blame? Or is this a creation of out-of-touch lawmakers and bureaucrats to whom paperwork and legal minutiae are a necessary part of everyday life?

Out here in the real world, successfully navigating through life is hard enough. To the greatest extent possible, government should just get out of the way.

10 December 2004 @ 6:10AM >> John Danforth, the Bush Administration’s envoy to the U.N., seriously diminished the likelihood that anyone will be held accountable in the U.N. Oil-for-Food scandal:

“We are expressing confidence in the secretary-general [Kofi Annan] and his continuing in office,” Danforth said, adding that he was speaking for the White House and State Department.

“No one to my knowledge has cast doubt on the personal integrity of the secretary-general. No one,” he said.

Really? No one? Okay, then allow me to be the first: I hereby cast doubt on the integrity of the secretary-general. Sorry, I would have done it sooner, but I thought the doubt was self-evident.

Backing Kofi means that the stonewalling at the U.N. will continue, because nobody with any leverage is challenging it. If only the caricature of Unilateralist George were a little more true...

8 December 2004 @ 8:23PM >> The New York Times reports (emphasis mine):

High school students in Hong Kong, Finland and South Korea do best in mathematics among those in 40 surveyed countries while students in the United States finished in the bottom half, according to a new international comparison of mathematical skills shown by 15-year-olds.

The United States was also cited as having the poorest outcomes per dollar spent on education. It ranked 28th of 40 countries in math and 18th in reading.

Remember that fact next time someone says the solution to our education crisis is simply to spend more money. The system is broken, fundamentally. You don’t fix a broken system by putting more money into it. Throwing money down a rathole does not result in a better rathole.

The real solution would be to give education dollars directly to parents, so that they can choose where to spend it. Otherwise, the money goes to a bureaucracy whose primary purpose is self-preservation.

8 December 2004 @ 5:01PM >> Pat Sajak takes Hollywood to task for its continued silence over the murder of filmmaker Theo van Gogh:

Somewhere in the world, a filmmaker creates a short documentary that chronicles what he perceives as the excesses of anti-abortion activists. An anti-abortion zealot reacts to the film by killing the filmmaker in broad daylight and stabbing anti-abortion tracts onto his body. How does the Hollywood community react to this atrocity? Would there be angry protests? Candlelight vigils? Outraged letters and columns and articles? Awards named in honor of their fallen comrade? Demands for justice? Calls for protection of artistic freedom? It’s a pretty safe bet that there would be all of the above and much more. And all of the anger would be absolutely justified.

So I’m trying to understand the nearly universal lack of outrage coming from Hollywood over the brutal murder of Dutch director, Theo van Gogh, who was shot on the morning of November 2, while bicycling through the streets of Amsterdam. The killer then stabbed his chest with one knife and slit his throat with another.

The problem for Hollywood is, the van Gogh murder doesn’t fit the template that the threat from radical Islam is phony. In their world, the root of all evil is George W. Bush. Admitting that the threat from radical Islam is real would require the Hollywood left to admit that the War on Terror isn’t just some neoconservative conspiracy.

For them, it’s easier to pretend that the daylight slaughter of Theo van Gogh never happened. Makes sense. After all, the function of Hollywood is to construct fantasy worlds. Let’s not forget, that’s how these guys earn their livings.

8 December 2004 @ 5:16AM >> Turns out the DLC didn’t have the backbone I thought it did:

CORRECTION: the original sub-headline of this New Dem Daily mistakenly summarized the piece as calling for Kofi Annan’s resignation. Actually, in calling for the secretary general to “step aside,” we simply meant to convey that he should remove himself from any involvement in the oil-for-food investigation, and let Paul Volcker, a man of unquestioned integrity and ability, conduct it independently and publicly release his findings. We deeply regret this error.

Hmmm. Now that Clinton pardon recipient Marc Rich has been implicated in the Oil-for-Food scandal, I wonder who got to the DLC and told them to back off Kofi?

Doesn’t matter. Kofi’s still cooked.

7 December 2004 @ 4:18AM >> The Democratic Leadership Council, which represents the viable wing of the Democratic party, just turned up the heat on Kofi Annan:

[M]ismanagement, corruption, and manipulation of the [oil-for-food] program by Saddam Hussein allowed his regime to amass at least $21 billion outside of the United Nations’ control, with the great bulk of that sum — $17.3 billion — pilfered between 1997 and 2003 on the secretary general’s watch. In effect, the United Nations colluded in Saddam’s successful evasion of U.N. sanctions. The most damning charge so far — that a former chief of the oil-for-food program, Benon Sevan, accepted bribes from Saddam’s regime — was made in October by former U.N. weapons inspector Charles A. Duelfer, who led a Senate investigation into the scandal. The program is now the subject of at least four congressional investigations, three U.S. federal investigations and the U.N.-appointed commission of inquiry led by former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker.

[...]

The secretary general should place this critical mission ahead of his personal interests, and step aside. Given his own lack of credibility on the oil-for-food program, this step is the price Annan must pay to help restore the U.N.’s credibility, and to salvage his legacy as secretary general.

The DLC issuing this statement is remarkably significant. As the organization whose ideology spawned the only two-term Democratic president since FDR, the DLC represents where the Democratic party should be if it wants to reconnect with the American voter.

When the only remaining viable remnant of the Democratic party turns against the leadership of the U.N., it’s big news. No longer can anyone credibly say that the calls for Kofi Annan’s resignation are the result of some right-wing plot. (Not that such claims would have been credible before!) The drumbeat is now bipartisan and multinational. Time to start the countdown on Kofi.

6 December 2004 @ 2:46PM >> Canada’s National Post has added its voice to the growing chorus of calls for U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan’s resignation. And it isn’t just the Oil-for-Food scandal—the biggest financial scam in the history of mankind—cited as the reason:

Mr. Annan has also watched as the U.N. Human Rights Commission has degenerated into a laughingstock run by some of the worst human-rights abusers in the world. He has refused to stop the U.N. agency responsible for delivering humanitarian aid to Palestinian refugees from assisting terrorists. And from Rwanda to Srebrenica, East Timor to Sudan, he has time and again permitted himself to be conned by tyrants and butchers while they have murdered hundreds of thousands of innocents.

Some view these scandals as signs that the U.N. needs to be thoroughly reformed. I think they’re proof that the U.N. is structurally incapable of fulfilling its mission. The U.N. occupies valuable land on the east side of midtown Manhattan. It should be put to good use.

2 December 2004 @ 9:27PM >> Peter Beinart, a rather sensible liberal who also serves as the editor The New Republic, has a brilliant essay discussing the current state of the American left.

Not only do I think he’s largely correct on diagnosing the problem, I think he’s also right on the solution. If the left followed Beinart’s suggestions, I think it would once again be a credible force in American politics. But as long as America’s leftists continue down the Michael Moore and MoveOn road, they will have about as much political relevance as Lyndon LaRouche.

2 December 2004 @ 3:52AM >> Front Page Magazine reviews Brainwashing 101:

The past year has seen an explosion of political documentaries. But the single most interesting one has yet to find a commercial distributor. Evan Coyne Maloney’s “Brainwashing 101” employs the techniques which made such films as Supersize Me effective: cheeky commentary, smartly ironic editing, a self-deprecating onscreen persona and cleverly staged confrontations with soulless bureaucrats. In this case, the bureaucrats are leftist administrators at American colleges.

Brainwashing 101 can be viewed or downloaded for free on the AcademicBias.com website. The film is also available on DVD.