ryan.freebern.org

Bravo to Pandagon, who echoes my earlier thoughts about an “average guy” for president, almost to the word. Here’s what I said:

…you don’t want an average joe. You want someone exceptional…

and here’s what he said:

…it is not a job that requires an “average person”. It requires an exceptional one…

Just touching base: I’m still alive, and I’ve been working for a few days on writing up my thoughts on the various Republican National Convention speeches. That’ll come later, though. Right now, I want to point out the excellent discussion of methods of reducing abortion rates over at Alas, a Blog. Ampersand makes some excellent points and I really think his argument is worth reading and considering.

Via BoingBoing, I find How Long Can the Country Stay Scared? by Bruce Schneier, a security expert, in which he echoes my thoughts from earlier this month.

This kind of behavior is all that’s needed to generate widespread fear and uncertainty. It keeps the public worried about terrorism, while at the same time reminding them that they’re helpless without the government to defend them.

He later says:

Study after study has shown that Americans worried about terrorism are more likely to vote Republican.

I guess it’s not just me who feels this way.

It disappoints me that Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit, a man whom I usually hold in fairly high regard, would link to something as misleading and disingenuous as this post which compares the earnings of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVT) with the top Democratic 527s, and concludes that John Kerry has tens of millions of dollars more 527 support than Bush.

The author of the post gets his data from OpenSecrets.org, which attempts to keep track of data on money in politics, including the funds raised by all the 527 groups. Looking at their page on the major 527 players, it’s simple to see that the number of 527s supporting Democrats is just about even with the number supporting Republicans.

Furthermore, the post implies that because Kerry says SBVT is doing Bush’s “dirty work,” that means all 527s do dirty work, so Kerry accepting assistance from 527s is hypocritical. This line of logic is quite obviously flawed. The SBVT, Kerry contends, are doing “dirty work” because the ad they’re running and the points they’re making have largely been proven to be lies, often through corollation with previous statements by the veterans themselves and Navy records. The ads run by MoveOn.org, though, are based on easily verifiable fact. That’s not dirty — it’s providing truth to the public.

And to left-leaning journalists and bloggers: when Bush says he “condemn[s] these activities of the 527s,” he’s not “calling for a halt to Swift Boat veterans’ ads.” He’s calling for a halt to all ads by 527 groups. Spin is ugly, whichever way it goes.

I’ve gotta hand it to the Bush economic team: they certainly covered their bases with their tax cuts. According to a report released last Friday by the Congressional Budget Office (288kb PDF), not only did the tax cuts decrease everyone’s taxes, they also managed to shift the tax burden to the middle class.

Those who accept the administration’s official party line are happy because, hey, they got some extra money back! The wealthy are happy, too, because they got a bigger slice of the pie, and will continue to do so for years. But those of us who aren’t rich or willing to immediately swallow everything we’re spoon-fed by the administration questioned these cuts, and found out they tasted bitter indeed.

Despite what the Conspiracy to Keep You Poor and Stupid claims, statements that this report proves the tax cuts favour the rich aren’t “liberal lies.” The honest truth, according to the non-partisan CBO, is that under Bush’s tax plan, the middle class ends up carrying a larger tax burden than it used to, while the rich’s tax burden decreases.

Don’t believe me? Look at the 16th page of that PDF, Table 2. Check out the third section of that table, entitled “Share of Total Federal Tax Liabilities.” Here’s the relevant data:

That data makes it very apparent that while the tax burden on the wealthiest 20% decreased, the burden on everyone else either stayed the same or rose. So while there may have been an overall decrease in amount of taxes paid for each income group, which Bush supporters can point to as “tax cuts for everyone,” the fact is that under Bush’s plan, the cut for the rich is propotionally larger than the cuts for everyone else, leaving everyone else to shoulder the resulting burden over time.

Bleah. That tastes awful.

Eugene Volokh is being an idiot. He’s arguing that “[t]he broad gay rights program isn’t just about increasing the freedom of gays; it is also about decreasing the freedom [...] of those who don’t want to associate with gays in various ways.”

Yes, Eugene, and the women’s rights movement is about decreasing the freedom of misogynists, and the black rights movement is about decreasing the freedom of white supremacists. So what? Is there some reason for society to hold these hateful freedoms above the inclusive freedoms being fought for?

In actuality, he’s just using this to support his “slippery slope” argument, which is complete bollocks. He’s said (in an earlier piece) that “the more proposals the gay rights movement wins on, the easier (generally speaking) it would be for it to win on other proposals.” That’s true, but in actuality, the slide down this slope of his is always brought into check before it gets too far. No legislator will pass a law making anti-gay speech illegal, or forcing people to welcome homosexuals into their homes with open arms. The slope will carry society to whatever point it deems currently acceptable as a whole; if the gay rights movement steps over the boundaries and begins to infringe on freedoms that the majority hold dear, society will push back until a balance is found.

The gay rights movement is not seeking superiority. It’s just striving for equality. We want homosexuals to have the same rights as anyone else, no more and no less, and to be treated, rightly, as if their sexuality has no bearing on anyone other than themselves any more than a heterosexual’s does.

Andy Bowers is a man after my own heart. The fact that Hummer owners can write off their $100,000 monstrosties while I attempt to do the right thing for the world by buying a hybrid and only get a $2,000 deduction is just mind-boggling. This country needs more sensible legislation regarding consumer vehicles, and Bowers has the right ideas.

There have been suspicions for a long time that Al Qaeda used the African diamond trade to launder money for its terrorist operations. Douglas Farah, 19-year veteran reporter for the Washington Post and author of Blood from Stones, has been convinced of this for years, but the following quote on page 171 of the 9/11 Commission Report (emphasis mine) shows that they didn’t reach the same conclusions:

Al Qaeda has been alleged to have used a variety of illegitimate means, particularly drug trafficking and conflict diamonds, to finance itself. While the drug trade was a source of income for the Taliban, it did not serve the same purpose for Al Qaeda, and there is no reliable evidence that Bin Ladin was involved in or made his money through drug trafficking. Similarly, we have seen no persuasive evidence that Al Qaeda funded itself by trading in African conflict diamonds.

News reports are showing up now, though, that seem to support Farah’s views on the matter. While they still say there’s no direct proof, the growing mountain of evidence seems to indicate that this may change in the near future.

I’ve always thought that diamonds were kind of a racket (and, due to uncertainties about tracking conflict diamonds, possibly contributing to tens of thousands of deaths). This sort of news is all the excuse I need to avoid buying them in the future. I doubt we’ll be seeing government-sponsored anti-diamond commercials on the air any time soon, though.

Via the brand-new First Draft, I find this story of Bush’s response to the July jobs report. Specifically, he says:

“When I came into office, we had a problem with our economy; it was in a recession.”

That’s bollocks. The data at JobWatch tells the real story: the recession began in March 2001, two months after Bush took office. I’m not saying the recession’s his fault — no one person could make big enough changes in two months to cause a recession — but the fact that we still haven’t recovered certainly can be blamed on his policies.

We’re going through the greatest sustained job loss since the Great Depression, and I’m busy hunting for a new job (125kb PDF). Wish me luck!

“Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.” — George W. Bush, 5 August 2004

But then again…

“We will double our special forces to conduct terrorist operations.” — John F. Kerry, 29 July 2004

I call it a draw.

In First Responders for Kerry? Don’t Bet On It, Jack Dunphy claims that most emergency response personnel are “inherently conservative”, and that firefighters who support Kerry don’t actually do their duty as firefighters. Now, I can’t address the issue of the political affiliations of most firefighters — as far as I know, that information hasn’t been collated anywhere public. But I can address Dunphy’s absurd rhetoric within his piece.

Generally speaking, the likelihood that a firefighter will vote for John Kerry is inversely proportional to the number of fires he has actually fought. Witness all those T-shirted “Fire Fighters for Kerry” you saw at the convention. A little soft around the middle some of them were, weren’t they? Do you think some of them could haul a hose pack up 50 flights of stairs? I’m not betting on it. I’m guessing the only fires many of them have seen lately were at IAFF barbecues.

Hear that, firefighters? If you vote for Kerry, you’re probably inexperienced, overweight, and lazy. Dunphy goes on to make the absolutely ridiculous claim that — get this — most 9-1-1 calls are due to liberals causing trouble. Sure, he doesn’t come right out and say this, but… well, read it for yourself:

First, cops and firefighters are inherently conservative in that they understand the importance of following society’s rules. [...] Nearly every call to 9-1-1 is the result of someone concluding that these rules, be they the criminal laws or the fire codes, can be ignored.

Did you follow that logic? Conservatives follow the rules. 9-1-1 calls result when people don’t follow rules. Therefore, 9-1-1 calls occur because of liberals. Gimme a break. Everyone, liberal and conservative, breaks the rules sometimes and needs help.

The rest of his argument hinges on firefighters and other emergency response personnel being what he calls “Regular Guys” (i.e. beer-drinking, baseball-loving, left-hating average people — oh, and Secret Service agents) and wanting to vote for another Regular Guy.

Here’s a tip: when you’re looking for someone to lead the most powerful country in the world for the next four years, you don’t want an average joe. You want someone exceptional, someone amazing, someone far above average. A Regular Guy might be more fun to have a beer with, but an exceptional leader will make the country safe and strong. A Regular Guy might be better at barbecuing ribs, but an amazing president will rebuild our status as the most respected country in the world.

The conservatives can keep their Regular Guy. I’d rather have an Incredible Guy in office, any day.

Terrorism isn’t just bombs and guns, and doesn’t just come from angry foreigners.

Imagine an administration that periodically tells its citizens they should be frightened of random attacks, and even tells them how frightened they should be. “Normally, we tell you to be rather frightened,” they say, “but today, based on new intelligence, you should be very frightened.” And suddenly, everywhere they go, people see heavily armed and armored police and military personnel on the streets. All around, people are wondering: “Will we be attacked today? Will I, or someone I know, be dead come tomorrow morning? Is that man on the street corner plotting my demise?”

Imagine it’s election season and the incumbent leader tells people if they re-elect him, he’ll protect them from this unknown foreign menace, but if they vote for his opponent, he’ll be “weak on defense” and they won’t be protected. Imagine what these people, already very scared because he told them they should be, will feel. “I’m frightened of not being protected,” they think. “In fact — I’m terrified.”

Just imagine.