Why support a tax cut if you aren't going to pay your taxes anyway?

Sen. John Edwards, North Carolina Democrat and 2004 presidential hopeful, is four months delinquent in paying the property taxes on his Georgetown mansion and owes the cash-strapped District more than $11,000, city records show.

Ah, but don't let such behavior calm the rhetoric.

On the presidential campaign trail, Mr. Edwards often rails against President Bush's tax cuts as giveaways to wealthy people for whom tens of thousands of dollars is pocket change.

Oh, does this house have a tax bill?

Mr. Edwards' office was not aware of the unpaid taxes but at 7 p.m. yesterday issued the following response by e-mail after The Washington Times faxed a copy of the bill: The senator and his wife, Elizabeth, "had not received a bill. As soon as they received one, they paid it," the statement says.

I missed this quote on Andrew Sullivan Yesterday:

"This time I think the Americans are serious. Bush is not like Clinton. I think this is the end." - Uday Hussein, Saddam's son, in early April, according to an associate.

Some are leaders and some play politics with national security. The enemy sees it clearly.

Thomas Sowell has written another column of aphorisms. Here are some of the gems:

We seem to be getting closer and closer to a situation where nobody is responsible for what they did but we are all responsible for what somebody else did.

Gun control laws are like OSHA for criminals. When criminals have guns and their victims don't, crime becomes a safer occupation. In some countries with strict gun-control laws, burglars enter houses while people are still at home several times as often as that happens in the United States.

Liberals' attempts to create a left-wing Rush Limbaugh demonstrate their basic misconception of the world. The Rush Limbaugh program was not created by big government, big business, or big media. It was one of those spontaneous things that happens in the real world of individual initiative that liberals are so out of touch with -- and so hostile to.

As long as human beings are imperfect, there will always be arguments for extending the power of government to deal with these imperfections. The only logical stopping place is totalitarianism -- unless we realize that tolerating imperfections is the price of freedom.

Ask ten people what "fairness" means and you can get eleven different definitions. Expecting government to promote "fairness" is just giving politicians more arbitrary power.

The others were good too, but these were my favorites.

Thanks to Cathy for clueing me in to the Pentagon idea of a future's market for terrorism. On a cold policy basis to a statistician I can see the appeal, but why didn't someone see the political ramifications. Anyway, they are closing shop before they can open.

Under fire from all sides, the Pentagon on Tuesday dropped plans for a futures market that would have allowed traders to profit from accurate predictions on terrorism, assassinations and other events in the Middle East.

From the trading patterns, the Pentagon agency, known as DARPA, hoped to gain clues about possible terrorist attacks. In statements Monday and Tuesday, it said markets are often better than experts in making predictions.

I can't find the New York Times link that Cathy sent, but the NYT did a better job explaining it. WaPo leads with the shock and only later explains the idea behind it.

At a hearing where senators criticized the program, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said, "I share your shock at this kind of program." But he also defended the Pentagon office that came up with the project, saying "it is brilliantly imaginative in places where we want them to be imaginative."

As he praised DARPA at a Senate Foreign Relations hearing, Wolfowitz said with a smile, "It sounds like maybe they got too imaginative."

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., told Wolfowitz, "I don't think we can laugh off that program."

"There is something very sick about it," she said. "And if it's going to end, I think you ought to end the careers of whoever it was thought that up. Because terrorists knowing they were planning an attack could have bet on the attack and collected a lot of money. It's a sick idea."

It's certainly dehumanizing, but would it have been successful?

Bookmakers set odds according to how much money goes down on each side of a question. People bet according to past performance. They assume that Mike Tyson will beat Buster Douglas. The odds are a price to bet that fluxuates so as to entice gamblers to buy as many tickets for each outcome. The bookie makes a percentage and doesn't care who wins so as long as the same amount of money is bet on each side of the question.

The odds are neither right nor wrong, they are just a reflection of people's attitudes according to the information they have. If they bet college football they can look at record, rivalries, rankings and key injuries. Those are pretty good indicators to outcome.

The average bettor doesn't know how much security surrounds the Brooklyn Bridge versus how closely law enforcement is watching the Grand Canyon. Without that information, it would be hard to determine real probability. The game would have worked a lot better if the gamblers all had the highest security clearance.

I admire the fact that these guys are willing to try things. I'm surprised that this one got so far. Calling for people’s heads seems a bit much. It seems like the oversight committee found it and ended it. Do we really want to fire idea guys for brainstorming?Thanks to Cathy for clueing me in to the Pentagon idea of a future's market for terrorism. On a cold policy basis to a statistician I can see the appeal, but why didn't someone see the political ramifications. Anyway, they are closing shop before they can open.

Under fire from all sides, the Pentagon on Tuesday dropped plans for a futures market that would have allowed traders to profit from accurate predictions on terrorism, assassinations and other events in the Middle East.

From the trading patterns, the Pentagon agency, known as DARPA, hoped to gain clues about possible terrorist attacks. In statements Monday and Tuesday, it said markets are often better than experts in making predictions.

I can't find the New York Times link that Cathy sent, but the NYT did a better job explaining it. WaPo leads with the shock and only later explains the idea behind it.

At a hearing where senators criticized the program, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said, "I share your shock at this kind of program." But he also defended the Pentagon office that came up with the project, saying "it is brilliantly imaginative in places where we want them to be imaginative."

As he praised DARPA at a Senate Foreign Relations hearing, Wolfowitz said with a smile, "It sounds like maybe they got too imaginative."

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., told Wolfowitz, "I don't think we can laugh off that program."

"There is something very sick about it," she said. "And if it's going to end, I think you ought to end the careers of whoever it was thought that up. Because terrorists knowing they were planning an attack could have bet on the attack and collected a lot of money. It's a sick idea."

It's certainly dehumanizing, but would it have been successful?

Bookmakers set odds according to how much money goes down on each side of a question. People bet according to past performance. They assume that Mike Tyson will beat Buster Douglas. The odds are a price to bet that fluxuates so as to entice gamblers to buy as many tickets for each outcome. The bookie makes a percentage and doesn't care who wins so as long as the same amount of money is bet on each side of the question.

The odds are neither right nor wrong, they are just a reflection of people's attitudes according to the information they have. If they bet college football they can look at record, rivalries, rankings and key injuries. Those are pretty good indicators to outcome.

The average bettor doesn't know how much security surrounds the Brooklyn Bridge versus how closely law enforcement is watching the Grand Canyon. Without that information, it would be hard to determine real probability. The game would have worked a lot better if the gamblers all had the highest security clearance.


On a serious note, the government is just too big. I'm sure that inefficiency and unchecked ideas are happening all over the place and most do not get reported. Until we get the government to a manageable level, we should expect more and more nonsense like this. Boxer can call for their heads, but why not call for real government reform.

Regulations and enforcements and policy are really driven by un-elected officials. Politicians come and go, but government employees stay and hold the real power. Federalizing the Air Marshalls program didn't seem to yield better employees.

The fewer government employees we have, the more our elected leaders are bound to our wishes. Why do people think a gigantic welfare state is consistent with republican democracy?

Back from his recent visit, Christopher Hitchens has good things to say about the American Occupation in Iraq.

The press is still investing itself, it seems to me, in a sort of cynicism. It comes out better for them if they can predict hard times, bogging down, sniping, attrition. . . It's quite extraordinary to see the way that American soldiers are welcomed. To see the work that they're doing and not just rolling up these filthy networks of Baathists and Jihaddists, but building schools, opening soccer stadiums, helping people connect to the Internet, there is a really intelligent political program as well as a very tough military one.

We're certainly not hearing about the good times, are we?

AMAZON.COM – Meet Number 973

I must not be reading enough books these days. My Amazon reviewer ranking has slipped in the past few years from 608 to currently 973. I've been in the top 1000 almost continuously from the beginning of the rankings, but I have never understood how the system works. It has something to do with how many reviews you post and how many positive feedbacks you get. Some people review everything including movies and electronics. I only review books.

I decided in 1999 that I would review every book I read completely so as to keep an online journal of my history. It was before the ranking system began. It’s nice to read over some of the older stuff and remember what I was thinking at the time. When the ranking system began I was immediately in the 900s, then almost immediately I was kicked out for about 6 months. They devised a new rankings soon after and I began climbing the charts, getting into the low 600s. I tried to convince all my friends to write reviews too.. Steve Saunders and Brother John joined me. When I found Newt Gingrich reviewing books he was ranked around 1600, now he is ranked 349.

I started to realize that my political books were better reviewed than my fiction books. Hardly anyone seemed to care what I thought about John Updike, but over 20 people liked my review of Bill O’Reilly’s book. My biggest hit the David Schippers book on Clinton’s impeachment. It was selected as a spotlight review and I got 50 positives, most in a two-week period. Usually anything dealing with public policy was worth 10 positive points. But I could scarcely scrape out 3 for a detective novel.

I have wondered if that means my understanding of politics is better than my understanding of English Literature, or if Amazon puts me into the political spotlight more often because of past performance.

I find other people’s reviews are more helpful than anything when trying to purchase a book. In an age of PR and spin it is nice to see what a regular person has to say about something. I really love Amazon, and you could say that Amazon was really the beginning of this blog.

Bob Hope alive in our hearts.

"What a delivery, what a song, what an audience reaction!" - columnist Damon Runyon on "Thanks for the Memory," 1938.

Bob Hope survived to 100 which is quite a feat. When our modern day celebrities march against wars of liberation it is nice to remember the days when entertainers would support such things. Hope gave so much to those who risked their lives. He was funny for a long time. I remember watching the TV specials growing up. I especially liked the ones the featured the All-American College Football teams at the end of the year. Bob Hope would read off their names and they would march up to the camera. I enjoyed the Road pictures growing up, but like Frank Sinatra, Hope stopped doing movies but his celebrity didn’t wane.

In the summer of 1984 my parents took us to Disney World and the World’s Fair in New Orleans. We brought along our childhood pal, Brian Fergison. My brother bought the latest craze, Trivial Pursuit at the Polynesian Village Hotel and we played it the rest of the trip. Brian wasn’t much for trivia so he would just say Bob Hope if he didn’t know the answer. One time the answer was actually Bob Hope, but Brian said, “not Bob Hope, but . . .” You can imagine our laughter.

A Texan beats the French at their own game.

(Lance) Armstrong's victory today, by a margin of only 61 seconds after more than 83 hours of racing across 2,128 miles, was his toughest of the five and capped what emerged as the most dramatic and unpredictable Tour in recent memory, with the champion not determined until the penultimate stage Saturday.

Before the race began July 5 in Paris, there were fears of terrorism and concern about possible hostile reaction in France to a defending American champion during a time of transatlantic tension because of the war in Iraq. But in the end, the only drama came from the race itself.

"It's incredible to win again," Armstrong said.

Speaking in French to local television, he said shortly after his victory, "I'm very happy because I'm finished and I'm very tired."

I don't remember Hitler speaking in French the last time he defeated France. Americans defeat you with class.

I saw this on Drudge this morning. The new Harry Potter director, Alfonso Cuaron had this to say.

Cuaron’s outspokenness is also new to the franchise. Does the evil wizard Voldemort still remind him of George W. Bush, as he said recently? “In combination with Saddam,” he says. “They both have selfish interests and are very much in love with power. Also, a disregard for the environment. A love for manipulating people.

You can argue about environmental policy and whether someone takes it seriously, but Cuaron saying Bush is in love with power is just a cliché we attribute to any powerful person. To compare Bush the liberator to Hussein the enslaver is a typical third-world intellectual behavior. While the Millionaire proletariat will cheer, that statement is as empty as Cuaron’s 2001 film, Y Tu Mama También.

If you read the article it treads very lightly on the idea that Cuaron is moving back and forth in his career from children’s films to soft porn. Y Tu Mama También was shock value marketed as a charming coming of age tale (without the charm). It was too much Todd Solondz and not enough Giuseppe Tornatore.

Cuaron’s 1995 film, Secret Garden was well done. I didn’t see Great Expectations, but Tricia lists it as one of her favorites. He is no doubt talented. But it is funny what reporters are interested in. Here you have a story of a guy who likes to take swipes at Middle Class values as witnessed in his statements about Bush and even his Mexican film. Agreeing to direct a middle-class project like Harry Potter seems to be a great angle in which to cover this article. I would have asked Cuaron if he was just doing Harry Potter for the big payday. I would have asked if he is selling out to the same audience that voted for Bush.

Instead they let the Producer give the typical publicists answer about how both films are really about teenagers. Oh, then they are just alike, I suppose. It’s not that I dislike hearing Hollywood leftists rant. It’s actually interesting to know what they think. I just wish that reporters would question their inconsistencies.

Here's a fun article about how we have so few characters in sports.

Greg Norman was the Shark. Jack Nicklaus was the Bear. In tennis, Ilie Nastase was Nasty and John McEnroe was, well, a lot of things. Baseball had the Mick, the Babe, the Barber and Joltin' Joe. Name three nicknames in baseball today.

Psychologists such as Jim Loehr in tennis and Bob Rotella in golf have taught young athletes that possessing preternatural athletic skills at the age of 15 is not enough, not now when the margin between the top players is thinner than ever. To win consistently at the highest level, and at crunch time, young racquet-smashing, club-throwing players have been taught not to let their emotions drive all those thousands of hours of practice over the cliff. Only a pure genius like John McEnroe can work athletic miracles and toy with his emotional demons at the same time. For almost anyone else now, we recommend not Mr. McEnroe's "You Cannot Be Serious!" but Marcus Aurelius's "Meditations."

That's the benign explanation. But in our time, characters who wear their hearts on their sleeves, on or off the field, run the risk of having their hearts stuffed very publicly back down their throats. Ask Vijay Singh.

Vijay Singh, among the five best golfers in the world and one of the sport's cheerier personalities, let slip his opinion that Annika Sorenstam "didn't belong" on the PGA Tour. Mr. Singh wasn't merely refuted by the media's moral gatekeepers; he was teed up and whacked for a long ride. USA Today summed up the sand-trapping of Mr. Singh: "After a day of intense criticism, golfer Vijay Singh backed away from his derogatory comments." And dropped out of the tournament.

McEnroe was laugh out-loud fun. I saw my normally stoic brother smash two rackets one summer and could only figure he got his inspiration from one place.

Here's what a Canadian thinks of his country's "free" health care system.

Health care in Ontario is free, but so is eating lunch from a trashcan. So last week I flew to Baltimore to see an eye specialist. I did this to avoid a two-month wait in Toronto, the indignity of being treated like a head of cattle at Toronto Western, and health-care workers that are Canada's best answer to an authoritarian regime.

Most of the article is really about how Canadian Health Care workers treat you like dirt, while American Health Care workers treat you like a guest.

In Canada. . .

On appointment day, I waited two hours in a room crowded with dozens of patients. My stomach churned.

I overheard an agitated nurse trying to convince someone that I shouldn't be seen. She remembered I hadn't gone through proper channels when I made my appointment the week before.

Then they called my name.

I moved to a jam-packed room where I sat shoulder to shoulder with three other patients. The on-deck circle. I started to sweat. Nurses snapped at patients at a reception desk three feet away.

But in America. . .

My first indication that Johns Hopkins was different came on the phone. Receptionists were friendly, cheerful and helpful. The answering system has an option where you can speak to an ophthalmologist by phone. In Toronto this would be like phoning a major bank and discovering that by pressing 1 you could chat with the bank president about your service charges. I laughed out loud.

Here's a good article about Clinton's approach to attacking Saddam in 1998 and Bush's in 2003.

On December 16, 1998, Bill Clinton informed the nation that he had ordered military action against Iraq. No less than three times Clinton referred to Iraq's nuclear arms or nuclear program.

Example 1: "Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors."

But Bush saying that Saddam trying to buy Uranium is a lie?

When you contrast Clinton's unequivocal yet insupportable arguments about Iraq's nuclear program with the qualified yet accurate 16-words President George Bush used in his January 28, 2003, State of the Union Address to describe Iraq's effort to secure uranium, the liberal bias of the mainstream media in giving a continuing voice to Democratic charges becomes obvious. The Democrats are, and will remain, unsatisfied with any response provided by the Bush administration. Such is their political strategy.

Yep!

It looks like CNN is cuddling up to the bad guys in Iran. Didn't they learn a lesson is Iraq?

The next time we hear the media talk about Iraqis unhappy with our presence, reflect on this:

Baghdad's curfew was broken by the crackle of gunfire as word spread last night that Saddam's hated sons had been killed.

"It's a celebration, people have heard about what happened," a US military spokesman said.

On the streets, many Iraqis were prepared to speak out for the first time about Uday and Qusay. But while some celebrated their deaths, others wished they had been captured alive.

Alaa Hamed, regularly beaten with clubs while he worked as a producer for Uday's television station, said: "I don't want him dead. I want to torture him first."

Shopkeeper Abu Muhammed said: "This is very good news. Uday, Qusay, and Saddam are the ones who ruined this country."

There you have it.

Andrew Sullivan has a lot of gems about the current situation in Iraq, His whole site is worth seeing, but especially don't miss this letter from a soldier:

A bunch of bad guys used a group of women and children as human shields.The GIs surrounded them and negotiated their surrender fifteen hours later and when they discovered a three year-old girl had been injured by the big tough guys throwing her down a flight of stairs, the GIs called in a MedVac helicopter to take her and her mother to the nearest field hospital. The Iraqis watched it all, and there hasn't been a problem inthat neighborhood since. How many such stories, and there are hundreds of them, never get reported in the fair and balanced press? You know, nada.

And his commentary about the media in relation to the war.

These people, it's worth remembering, believe that the exercise of American military power is almost always more morally problematic than any foreign tyranny or even a serious security threat to the homeland. They can only justify American military power if it is wielded under imminent, grave danger that can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. That's why they are so exercised about tiny pieces of evidence today. They still believe we were wrong to remove Saddam from power without incontrovertible proof of WMDs of a type unobtainable in police states; they still believe America had no moral sanction for such an action; and they are even more determined to prove the superiority of their case now that the war was such a military success. So they have to turn the fallible evidence before the war into "lies"; and they have to turn the difficult but worthy post-war reconstruction into a "quagmire."

Lindsey Graham, the Senator who replaces Thurmond, wants to reform social security now, even if the President wants to wait until after the 2004 elections. Graham is showing some real leadership on this issue. It's one of the most important and least discussed problems facing us in the future. Social Security will go bankrupt in its current form. Most politicians would rather demagogue their opponents with it than solve the actual problem.

A Bill Clinton lie begins with a denial. When the evidence refutes the denial he changes gears and restates the lie in a way that acknowledges all the known facts. When the rest of the lie is determined, he blames his right wing critics.

A George Bush lie begins with some faulty intelligence passed to him. When he explains that it wasn't intentional and hardly the strongest part of his case anyway, he is accused of covering up. When the British government continues to stick by the original intelligence, the press makes little mention of it.

The whole thing is painted in terms of Clinton's personal behavior versus Bush's public behavior, but nothing is mentioned about Clinton bombing the Iraqis when he was trying to stop the impeachment process. Has there ever been a more obvious time when a President was willing to kill people for his personal political survival? Bush was actually trying to defeat the enemy. Clinton was trying to save only himself.

Tony Blair to Congress yesterday.

There is no more dangerous theory in international politics today than that we need to balance the power of America with other competitor powers, different poles around which nations gather.

This is a good message not only to the world, but left-wingers who hold office in this country. We stand for the liberty of people everywhere. How can the world balance that without propping up some despot to rival us? Any free nation is by definition not our rival. Two legitimate democracies have never gone to war in the history of the earth. The balance of power is only necessary in the world if powerful nations seek to conquer and enslave free people. How can you give moral equivalence between that and countries that free people?

The quote I heard on the radio doesn’t appear in this article. But Blair said there is a tendency to believe that not all people want freedom, that some people are perfectly happy without it. I was happy to hear Blair reject that theory.

It reminded me that Liberals in this country were quick to embrace the Marxist leadership of Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua even though he was being funded by Cuba and Moscow. They cut off all aid to the counter-revolutionaries and tried to taint Regan’s association with them. The contras won anyway, and the first free election threw Ortega from office. You quote any number of media people who had great things to say about Ortega or list the many celebrities that visited him in Central America. They had all predicted that Ortega would easily win that election, because they were more interested in his showing of collectivism than the reality of living under his oppression.

Why do people continue to embrace gun control laws when cities that have strict laws also have high murder rates? At least Orrin Hatch is on the right side this time.

"Try to imagine the horror that the victim felt when he faced a gun-toting criminal and could not legally reach for a firearm to protect himself," said the chairman (Orrin Hatch) of the Senate Judiciary Committee. "We must act now to stop the carnage and put law-abiding citizens in a position to exercise their right to self-defense."

I love the opposition to this:

"We do not want to make it easier for anyone to buy a gun that might result in a crime -- at least now they have to go through the trouble of going out of town or buying a gun illegally in D.C.," said (Eleanor) Holmes Norton.

Do you think she stops and wonders why gun crime isn’t higher in the places where these guns come from? Why not adopt the policies of cities that have lower murder rates? But her next comment is a lot of fun too.

" The evidence and data suggest that guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens result in suicides and unintended murders of relatives and friends.”

She’s a moron. How many people commit suicide without a gun? Should we outlaw rope? And what in the hell is an unintended murder? Murder by definition must include malice or intent. Yes there are some accidental deaths attributed to guns, but drowning kills more people than guns.

The people committing these real murders in DC know that law-abiding citizens cannot protect themselves. The law is creating victims. That is the real crime.

It’s been really hard to blog lately. I have at least a half dozen Europe stories left over, but this project I am working on at night leaves me no time. Once in a while I can sneak an entry in during the daytime, but I never have my Europe journal. Just you wait!