John McCain: Forward to the Past!

John McCain: Forward to the Past!: "

Sen. John S. McCain (R-AZ, 96%) has painted himself into a deep hole over waterboarding and other enhanced interrogation methods. He has staked everything, everything, on two dubious claims:

1. That waterboarding and the other so-called 'harsh' interrogation techniques (used through 2006 by the CIA against terrorists and other unlawful combatants) is 'torture,' defined by McCain as the equivalent of what his captors visited upon him in the 'Hanoi Hilton.'
2. That such 'torture' cannot conceivably yield valid information, not even in theory.

How so? Because any form of interrogation harsher than politely asking the detainee to spill the beans necessarily, in every instance, elicits false and misleading disinformation (which apparently cannot even be fact checked, for some unfathomable reason).

Alas, in the war against radical Islamism, McCain has become obsessed with proving these two preposterous propositions, to the point that such proof trumps even victory itself. He believes such measures are never necessary, and that their use sears the very souls of the interrogators and of the nation itself. He also appears to maintain a childlike belief that there is always another way to gain the same intelligence; if only we ask detainees sincerely, compassionately, and charmingly enough, even top al-Qaeda leaders will see the light.

Case in point, McCain's bizarre argument with former Attorney General Michael Mukasey and others who had intimate knowledge of what information was extracted from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Abu Faraj al-Libi under waterboarding and other somewhat harsh (but hardly torturous) questioning. Though he wasn't there, John McCain has a vision of what happened (and didn't happen):

Waterboarding and other harsh interrogation techniques were not a factor in tracking down Osama bin Laden, a leading Republican senator insisted Thursday.

Sen. John McCain, who spent 5 1/2 years as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam, also rejected the argument that any form of torture is critical to U.S. success in the fight against terrorism.

In an impassioned speech on the Senate floor, the Arizona Republican said former Attorney General Michael Mukasey and others who back those tactics were wrong to claim that waterboarding al-Qaida's No. 3 leader, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, provided information that led to bin Laden's compound in Pakistan.

Impassioned! But extreme passion typically comes at the price of reason.

AP makes a feeble attempt to cast McCain as 'in the loop' anent those interrogations, enough to know for dead certain that they were completely unproductive, fraudulent, and useless; writer Donna Cassata tepidly serves up the fact that Sen. McCain is currently (since 2009) the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, a qualification she concludes gives McCain an 'unrivaled record on the issue.'

But he was neither chairman nor ranking member when the interrogations took place; the Republican who was both is John Warner, now retired, who has not seconded McCain's pronunciamentos. No matter, the point is irrelevant anyway, as it's extremely unlikely that anybody in Congress, including Warner, was fully informed about the nature and extent of intelligence gleaned from those interrogations -- under the principle that 535 can keep a secret if 534 are bound and gagged.

How did McCain become such an authority, particularly on the left, on the morality and effectiveness of enhanced interrogation? Those now prattling about his 'unrivaled record on the issue' utterly villified him during the 2008 campaign; what has since transmogrified him into the senator with absolute moral authority to speak on the issue of interrogations?

The cover story is that John McCain's Communist captors tortured him, so he has a unique understanding of such things. (The real story is that anybody casting calumnies on George W. Bush and other Republicans automatically has absolute moral authority.) But McCain's captors inflicted real, not simulated, torture upon him, for years during and after the Vietnam War. It's hardly comparable, but that's the truncheon they'll use to bash everyone who engaged in or supported the interrogations.

Yet McCain's personal connection is precisely what makes him a uniquely unreliable witness. It's clear that he was so physically traumatized and emotionally devastated by his ordeal that he cannot possibly come to any rational, unbiased conclusion about waterboarding or any other harsh interrogation technique; he's hag-ridden by nightmarish memories and chronic medical problems. You may as well ask a Pearl Harbor survivor what he thinks about the internment of Americans of Japanese descent during WWII.

I happen to like John McCain, and of course I have tremedous respect and admiration for what he went through and how he recovered (mostly) from it. But he has become, for perfectly understandable reasons, phobic on the subject of interrogations.

Phobias do not make a good basis for rational inquiry. An arachnophobe is terrified of a Brazilian wandering spider or a Chilean recluse, two of the most deadly arachnids; but he's equally terrified of a harmless daddy longlegs.

On policy, I very much like McCain's position on spending and taxes; I mostly like his position on immigration (though I still want to know exactly how he proposes to reform the legal immigration system); and he was of course the first major Republican to begin calling for a counterinsurgency strategy in Iraq. On the other hand, his role in the 'Gang of 14' constituted an appalling attack on constitutionalism and judicial restraint; his other phobia about campaign fund raising led directly to an attack on freedom of speech; and his penchant for poking his finger in the GOP's eye at every opportunity may well have contributed not only to the election of Barack H. Obama in 2008 but even the Democrats' recapture of Congress in 2006.

I had no difficulty voting for McCain in the 2008 general election against Senator B.O., and I would have had just as little difficulty voting for him against Hillary 'Fist Lady' Clinton. But on the subject of interrogating unlawful combatants for intelligence purposes, McCain is so blind, so deadly blind, that I believe he should simply recuse himself from that entire subject. He does his country far more harm than good on that issue.

John McCain has become a man behind his time. It happens to most folks, if they live long enough; but people who have been, in their lives, powerful mover-shakers and very important personae cling to relevancy as feverishly as they cling to life itself. In practice, this usually takes the form of railing against all that has changed in the world since their own opinions and understandings hardened into concrete, umpty-ump years ago.

McCain understood very, very well the world of the Cold War and Vietnam, of mechanical and electronic marvels, of an economy rooted in Alvin Toffler's second wave of industrial civilization. But there his personal 'theory of everything' froze; and the lightspeed changes since then -- insurgency/counterinsurgency warfare, the microprocessor and biogenetic-engineering revolutions, and an economy increasingly based upon information and microcurrents rather than plugboards and manufactories -- confuse, enrage, elude, and frighten him.

He is a great politician -- for 1985. Alas, it's always 1985 for John Sidney McCain III.

"

W. Kurt Hauser: There's No Escaping Hauser's Law - WSJ.com

W. Kurt Hauser: There's No Escaping Hauser's Law - WSJ.com

Over the past six decades, tax revenues as a percentage of GDP have averaged just under 19% regardless of the top marginal personal income tax rate. The top marginal rate has been as high as 92% (1952-53) and as low as 28% (1988-90). This observation was first reported in an op-ed I wrote for this newspaper in March 1993. A wit later dubbed this "Hauser's Law."

Over this period there have been more than 30 major changes in the tax code including personal income tax rates, corporate tax rates, capital gains taxes, dividend taxes, investment tax credits, depreciation schedules, Social Security taxes, and the number of tax brackets among others. Yet during this period, federal government tax collections as a share of GDP have moved within a narrow band of just under 19% of GDP.

Why? Higher taxes discourage the "animal spirits" of entrepreneurship. When tax rates are raised, taxpayers are encouraged to shift, hide and underreport income. Taxpayers divert their effort from pro-growth productive investments to seeking tax shelters, tax havens and tax exempt investments. This behavior tends to dampen economic growth and job creation. Lower taxes increase the incentives to work, produce, save and invest, thereby encouraging capital formation and jobs. Taxpayers have less incentive to shelter and shift income.

On average, GDP has grown at a faster pace in the several quarters after taxes are lowered than the several quarters before the tax reductions. In the six quarters prior to the May 2003 Bush tax cuts, GDP grew at an average annual quarterly rate of 1.8%. In the six quarters following the tax cuts, GDP grew at an average annual quarterly rate of 3.8%. Yet taxes as a share of GDP have remained within a relatively narrow range as a percent of GDP in the entire post-World War II period.

Mukasey responds to McCain’s op-ed

Marc Thiessen is becoming the go-to guy on enhanced interrogation. Here's his piece in the Post Partisan blog at the Washington Post: Mukasey responds to McCain’s op-ed

Former attorney general Michael Mukasey has issued a statement responding to Sen. John McCain’s op-ed in today’s Post, in which McCain effectively calls Mukasey a liar. Here is his statement:

Senator McCain described as “false” my statement that Khalid Sheik Mohammed broke under harsh interrogation that included waterboarding, and disclosed a torrent of information that included the nickname of Osama bin Laden’s courier. He strongly implied in the remainder of his column in the Washington Post that this harsh interrogation was not only useless but also illegal. He is simply incorrect on all three counts.

KSM disclosed the nickname — al Kuwaiti — along with a wealth of other information, some of which was used to stop terror plots then in progress. He did so after refusing to answer questions and, when asked if further plots were afoot, said that his interrogators would eventually find out. Another detainee, captured in Iraq, disclosed that al Kuwaiti was a trusted operative of KSM’s successor, abu Faraj al-Libbi. When al-Libbi went so far as to deny even knowing the man, his importance became obvious.

Both former CIA Director Michael Hayden and former Director of National Intelligence Admiral Michael McConnell have acknowledged repeatedly that up to 2006, many of the valuable leads pursued by the intelligence community came from the three prisoners who were subjected to harsh techniques that included waterboarding in order to secure their cooperation.

So far as the waterboarding technique used by CIA operators, as outlined in the memoranda released by the Department of Justice, it was entirely legal at the time, which is to say before the passage of later statutes in 2005 and 2006, by which time it was no longer in use and under which it has not been evaluated.

In other words, the harsh interrogation techniques were both effective and lawful.

Tactical intimidation

MercatorNet offers comments on the use of Tactical intimidation

I find little reason to hail the "courage" of someone who defends the consensus view of the whole history of human civilization--that marriage is a bedrock social institution that unites a man and a woman in order to make a family--as rational and well intended. But one of the kind notes came from a friend who was about to leave for Cuba to help beleaguered Christians there, persons of whom the word "courage" can be used without embarrassment. So what was going on?

It was simple: my correspondents were academics, writing from within the establishment of American higher education, where it can be very uncomfortable to speak out against the idea of same-sex marriage. Are people's jobs on the line if they dissent? This is harder to say with certainty, and the circumstances will not be the same everywhere. The deadly combination of unchallenged liberal presumptions and casual intimidation of dissenters is probably at its worst in the most prestigious universities, which set the tone for the rest of the country, on this issue as on many others.

The day after King & Spalding was reported to be taking the DOMA case, the HRC launched a high-pressure campaign to force the firm to reverse its decision. This was too much even for the liberal editors of the Los Angeles Times, who oppose DOMA but recognize a principle when they see one. Ditto the editors of the Washington Post, who chastised HRC after the success of its campaign of intimidation.

But intimidation--"mau-mauing the flak-catchers," Tom Wolfe memorably called it--is now the default tactic of same-sex marriage advocates.

Enhanced Interrogation: Part of “Mosaic” used to track down OBL

Enhanced Interrogation: Part of “Mosaic” used to track down OBL: "
In a good piece on the liberal delusion about the effectiveness of enhanced interrogation techniques (EITs), Jennifer Rubin gets at the nub of the issue.
She does so by taking issue with the contention Juan Williams made on FoxNews that we could have gotten the information needed to track down Osama bin Laden “in other ways”:

Williams is simply being untruthful when he says EITs didn’t contribute to bin Laden’s death and that we could have gotten the information by other means. The latter is unknowable (although certainly unlikely), and the former is factually incorrect.

Pretty much sums it up.  Read the whole thing.
Even Attorney General Eric Holder acknowledges the information needed to track down Osama came from ”mosaic of sources.”   A number of the “tiles” used to complete that mosaic came from EITs.  Thus, by using the word, “mosaic,” even the man busy prosecuting those who used EITs on a handful of high-value incarcerated terrorists acknowledges that such techniques helped the CIA track down Osama bin Laden.
"

Obama owes thanks, and an apology, to CIA interrogators

Obama owes thanks, and an apology, to CIA interrogators - The Washington Post

On his second day in office, Obama shut down the CIA’s high-value interrogation program. His Justice Department then reopened criminal investigations into the conduct of CIA interrogators — inquiries that had been closed years before by career prosecutors who concluded that there were no crimes to prosecute. In a speech at the National Archives, Obamaeviscerated the men and women of the CIA, accusing them of “torture” and declaring that their work “did not advance our war and counterterrorism efforts — they undermined them.”

Now, it turns out that the very CIA interrogators whose lives Obama turned upside down played a critical role in what the president rightly calls “the most significant achievement to date in our nation’s effort to defeat al Qaeda.”

It is time for a public apology.

U.S officials have acknowledged that the key piece of intelligence that led the CIA to bin Laden — information on the al-Qaeda leader’s principal courier — came from detainees in CIA custody. According to a senior administration official, “detainees in the post-9/11 period flagged for us individuals who may have been providing direct support to bin Laden and his deputy, [Ayman al-] Zawahiri, after their escape from Afghanistan. One courier in particular had our constant attention. Detainees gave us . . . his nickname and identified him as . . . a protege of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.” The nickname was Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti. KSM was taken into CIA custody in 2003 and refused to talk. Only after undergoing enhanced interrogation techniques did he confirm knowing al-Kuwaiti.

The following year, another senior al-Qaeda operative named Hassan Ghul was captured. U.S. officials say he told the CIA that al-Kuwaiti was close to KSM’s successor, Abu Faraj al-Libi — a revelation officials described as the “linchpin.” In May 2005, al-Libi was finally taken into CIA custody. After being subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques, he provided credible information on al-Qaeda’s courier networks, how they chose and employed couriers, and specific individuals. But he became evasive when asked about al-Kuwaiti. Some have suggested this shows his interrogation did not work. Quite the opposite, this was a red flag that led the agency to recognize al-Kuwaiti’s importance and focus its attention on identifying and hunting him down. It took years to actually find al-Kuwaiti and follow him to bin Laden’s compound. But without the information the CIA elicited from these high-value terrorists, the agency would not have known to look for him in the first place.

Already, critics are desperately trying to play down the CIA interrogation program’s role in the bin Laden operation. Many are pointing to anAssociated Press report that KSM “did not discuss al-Kuwaiti while being subjected to the simulated drowning technique known as waterboarding, former officials said. He acknowledged knowing him many months later under standard interrogation, they said, leaving it once again up for debate as to whether the harsh technique was a valuable tool or an unnecessarily violent tactic.”

This statement demonstrates ignorance of how CIA interrogations worked. Interrogators would never have asked about the names of couriers during waterboarding. As I explain in my book, “Courting Disaster,” enhanced techniques were not used to gain intelligence; they were used to elicit cooperation. According to former CIA director Mike Hayden, as enhanced techniques were applied, CIA interrogators would ask detainees questions to which the interrogators already know the answers — allowing them to judge whether the detainees had reached a level of compliance. “They are designed to create a state of cooperation, not to get specific truthful answers to a specific question,” Hayden said.

Once interrogators determined a terrorist had become cooperative, the techniques stopped and traditional, non-coercive methods of questioning were used. Moreover, the use of enhanced techniques wasn’t needed for two-thirds of the detainees in CIA custody . Just the experience of being brought into CIA custody — the “capture shock,” arrival at a sterile location, the isolation, the fact that they did not know where they were and that no one else knew they were there — was enough to persuade most of them to cooperate.

If It Weren't For Double Standards, They'd Have No Standards At All (Wizbang)

Jay Tea amplifies the comments of another contributor to the Wizbang blog: If It Weren't For Double Standards, They'd Have No Standards At All (Wizbang)

It's becoming clearer as times go on that there was virtually no chance that Bin Laden would have been taken alive. Even if he'd been found stark naked, lying on his stomach, with his hands outstretched or folded behind his neck, he could have been lying on a grenade and still posed a threat. So he was coming back at room temperature.

....

Now, it must be stated that I have no problems with these policies. It seems that Rick doesn't, either. Nor do a lot of conservatives. There's a saying in Texas -- allegedly a defense against murder charges -- that "some people just need killing." And we recognize that.

We have no problem with that. But a lot of Obama's base does.

Or, at least, they did before Obama became the guy ordering the hits.

Some are still consistent. For example, Noam Chomsky is appalled that we didn't treat Bin Laden as a "suspect" and send in cops to arrest him. Glenn Greenwald (or, perhaps, it was Thomas Ellers or Rick Ellensburg -- they all look alike to me) isn't too thrilled about it, either.

Indeed. Or, after a fashion. I was curious to see how one of the most vocal critics of "torture" and the Bush Administration would react to Obama's kill order.
He didn't approve.

What I don't think it was is "justice". It was revenge. Which is, in it's way fine. A lot of people feel better now. Ok.

But justice, justice would be him in chains, in court, the evidence for his deeds laid out, and a chance for him to rebut them made available.

But rather striking was what was missing. When the Bush administration violated his notions of justice and propriety, he loudly decried Bush and all his allies as war criminals. For Obama, we get:

That's the sort of thing which makes me wonder if he deserves to be president, because it's the sort of thing I complained about his predecessor doing, and it's no different when Obama does it than when Bush did it, or some tinpot dictator does it somewhere else.

No "wondering" about Bush.

Now, if Obama's supporters have really "seen the light" and are on board with the policies that we on the right have been supporting all along, then fine. Welcome aboard. But an acknowledgement in this sea change would be nice. Otherwise, it just looks like they're more concerned with supporting Obama than maintaining any kind of consistency or principles.

Again, no problem with that. But a touch of honesty would be nice.

So, my challenge to the left (yes, Chico, I'm talking to you specifically, but many others as well) is this: are you OK with Obama ordering the deaths of terrorists without benefit of trial, without even an attempt to arrest them or take them alive? And would you have been just as OK with it had it been done under George W. Bush?

Team Obama's Odd Ineptness

Steve Sailer looks at the very odd ways the Obama Administration has chosen to be inept. Team Obama's Odd Ineptness

The Administration of George W. Bush made us used to a federal government that messed up frequently in the real world, but showed impressive marketing skills and message discipline in the world of spin. This past week has shown us, strangely, an Obama Administration succeeding very nicely in the real world, but then delivering a long series of disabling shots to its own collective foot.
While the military execution was pretty damn good -- kill bin Laden, spare most of the women and all of the children, grab records, evade the Pakistani Air Force -- it's pretty clear that the politicians didn't think through what their responsibilities would be afterwards.

A reader writes:

McCain painted Obama as a celebrity, happy to hear applause. He did little in his first 2 years to change that opinion. 

Ideally, Obama would have said little about bin Laden, leaving us with the impression he gives orders like this all day long. That would make him look really powerful. That would earn back a lot of the voters he had in 2008, but lost in the interim.

Instead his aides said too much about the raid, much of which they are revising. He's waffling on providing a picture of a dead Osama, leading some 9/11 families to demand a photo. In contrast to the strong confident president we saw Sunday night, we are learning he kept his generals waiting. 

The contrast between Obama, and the victorious Seal Team is striking. We know a lot about what Obama did, but we may never learn about the Seal Team members until too it's late. 

The American people gave him a great chance to reinvent himself, and what did he do? He reinstalled the fake greek columns.

....

Here's the famous picture released by the White House:


Now look at it again.

What a terrible picture. The President looks insignificant, hunched-over, not in control, like the least important person in the photo. The military man is sitting in what should be the President's chair: the big one with the high back. Which chair would President Reagan have sat in?

And that's the one photo the White House picked out of however many the White House's full time professional photographer took.

Obama's body language looks pretty depressed. The word 'power' repeatedly comes up in Dreams from My Father, but Obama's experience of exercising power has been mostly at the cancelling-somebody's-grant level. This is what real President-level power looks like: killing people. And the Obama in this picture looks like he's just realizing what that means. (When it was over, he made his usual speech about how 'I' did this and 'I' ordered that.)

The commenter continues:

Now I'm trying to decide how much each of the following factors explain Obama's team total incompetence: 

1) They are inherently dumb as dirt (relative for such a high profile operation) and promoted way beyond their abilities 

2) They have the clever sillies - basically intelligent but made stupid by anti-reality PC dogma and their lack of natural curiosity to explore obvious inconsistence of PC

3) They've grown incredibly lazy and arrogant knowing the Pravda MSM will parrot their obvious lies and errors without question or comment, enough to brainwash 51% of the electorate. 

4) They have little to no experience dealing with the real - have never had to make an arguement, sell an idea or meet minimum standards of logic/facts outside the echo chamber of likeminded ideologues.  

5) They are rank amatuers in all this business. One sign of their novice ignorance - they are sending out many conflicting and illogical stories trying to be all things to all people never thinking that this would cause a problem.

Good questions.

I would lean toward #3. How many tough questions has Obama been asked over the years? His campaign staff didn't even ask him any tough questions about Rev. Wright. Through sheer luck (I presume), Rev. Wright happened to be out of the country on a cruise when this long-looming scandal finally surfaced, so the Rev. wasn't around to respond to Obama's gassy Philadelphia race speech.

What Obama didn't realize was just how interesting Navy SEALs shooting bin Laden would be, and how, therefore, the press, for once, wouldn't be able to stop itself asking questions. Americans have been well trained over the decades to not be interested in Rev. Wright-type stuff, to accept whatever explanation Obama stayed up all night to dream up. But we can't help being really, really interested in this kind of action movie stuff.

So, Obama's instinct was that this event would be like most of the others in his life: he and his people would get to talk all they want, but nobody else would ask any tough questions about everything they said.

But he's no Bush fan either:

Still, the most obvious comparison is to Bush, who was completely clueless, apparently, that OBL was living in Greater Islamabad from 2003 onward. By that standard Obama looks awfully good.

Ace of Spades HQ

Ace of Spaces offers his thoughts in Break In Hunt for Bin Ladin May Have Been Provided By Not Only Enhanced Interrogation Techniques, But by Enhanced Interrogation Techniques Performed On An Al Qaeda Operative Captured in Iraq

1. 2003: Enhanced Interrogation of Khalid Sheikh Mohammad Results in the Nom De Guerre of bin Ladin's Courier.

Enhanced interrogation techniques did not, however, produce the real name of the courier -- at least not this earlier; it seems to have happened later.

This is giving the pansy liberals and McCain "We're better than this" types the pretext to deny the usefulness of such techniques:

“They waterboarded KSM (Khaled Sheikh Mohammed) 183 times and he still didn’t give the guy up,” said one former U.S. counterterrorism official who asked not to be identified. “Come on. And you want to tell me that enhanced interrogation techniques worked?"

Yes, because he did give the guy up: he gave you the nom de guerre.

Further, I can think of a rather obvious possibility as to why he didn't give the real name up: He never knew it. Bin Ladin told him the codename; why would KSM need to know more than that?

Indeed. You know, in the NeoPagan movement, we see people adopting "craft names", "just like they did during the Burning Times". There's one big difference though: During the burning times, craft names were code names, and the only name by which they knew each other. If a fellow covener is taken by Inquisitors, there would be no paperwork in the name of "Pixie Moondrip". In the modern neopagan culture, the craft name is taken for a number of reasons, none of which are to conceal one's identity.

So who's what coven do these people belong to, I wonder?

2. 2004: Enhanced Interrogation of al-Qahtani Confirms the Nom De Geure of bin Ladin's Courier.

3. 2006 (?): Enhanced Interrogation of an Al Qaeda Captured in Iraq, Ghul, Produces the Real Name of the Courier.

4. 2006-2009: NSA Begins Furiously Intercepting Any And All Communications Made By Anyone "al-Kuwaiti" Has Ever Known.

5. Late 2010 (?): al-Kuwaiti Places a Very Ill-Advised Phone Call.

...he called one of his associates that we were already wiretapping, and then we figured out about where he was, and then we started following him, and he led us to Abbottabad.

6. 2011: Surveying Abbottabad, We Grow Confident We've Found Bin Ladin's Hideout.

7. April 29-May 1 2011: Obama's Team Tells Him They Have High Confidence Bin Ladin (or at Least His Most Trusted Courier) is In the Compound, and Obama Agrees, and Orders the Raid; On May 1 It's Executed By SEAL Team 6.

8. May 2011: Begin a Disinformation Campaign To Convince the Public That 2003-2008 Never Happened.

But one Democratic communications hand sent advice to a slew of other Democratic operatives in the wake of the announcement hammering on the need to make sure Obama comes out on top.

“In your day jobs, do not let Republicans turn this into continuing the Bush legacy. This has to be about Obama’s decisive leadership,” the guidance said. “He is the one who oversaw bringing bin Laden to justice, much like how Bush failed to do so at Tora Bora and then claimed Osama wasn’t a priority.”

Leon Panetta: Okay, I Admit it. Waterboarding Gave Us Some of the Information That Led to the Killing of bin Laden (Video Added)

Aaron Worthing comments on tough interrogation techniques. Patterico's Pontifications » Leon Panetta: Okay, I Admit it. Waterboarding Gave Us Some of the Information That Led to the Killing of bin Laden (Video Added)

So, um, can we stop claiming that waterboarding doesn’t work?

I mean let’s back up a little. Just about everyone opposes hard-core torture, like ripping out fingernails and electroshock (except maybe in a ticking bomb scenario). And only a few loons want us to limit our interrogation to name, rank and serial number. The question is when does interrogation become torture, and one thing you can say for certain is that waterboarding is close to the line. It might be barely over it, or barely under it, but it’s clearly a close call. So I completely respect anyone who says it is torture even if I disagree.

But the most ridiculous claim is that it supposedly doesn’t work. Now of course pressuring anyone in any way to get a mere confession is of dubious value. Torturing a guy to say “I did it,” is unreliable. But if they are telling the truth, they can tell you things that are objectively verifiable. Consider, for instance, this classic scene from Dirty Harry...

The context of the clip is this. The psychopath had buried a girl alive and claimed he would give the location of the girl (giving them the chance to save her) if they paid a ransom. They paid, with Eastwood delivering it, but the man refused to give the location, and so the torture in that scene followed. So it was a “ticking bomb” scenario. Also, alluded to and not shown, they find the girl where the psycho said, but she was already dead. If memory serves she never had a chance of being saved in time. [And this sort of case isn't restricted to fiction. – KL]

Now if that hypothetical went to trial, the confession would be excluded from evidence (and in theory the body might be, too). Why? Not because it was unreliable. Even in isolation the mere fact he knew where the girl was buried was highly incriminating. But instead all of it, including the fact he knew where the body was, would be excluded on the theory that even then torture is not justified, and thus they wanted to remove an important incentive to police to engage in such conduct.

So let’s please stop the childish claim that waterboarding—hell, even torture—cannot be effective. And let’s instead have the adult conversation about whether we as a people believe it is morally justified and if so, when.

Liberalism's Death Croak

The American Spectator : Liberalism's Death Croak

While inspecting the body politic, one encounters one clear sign that Liberalism is dead. It is the condition of our political discourse. Polite commentators note that the dialogue is "rancorous." Some say toxic. Actually it is worse than that. It is nonexistent.

From the right, from the sophisticated right, there is an attempt to engage the Liberals. Budget Chairman Paul Ryan just did it by presenting a budget that cried out for intelligent response. President Barack Obama's response was to invite Chairman Ryan to sit in the front row for Obama's "fiscal policy" speech at George Washington University. There, Obama heaped scorn on an astonished Ryan and his work. He did not even mention Ryan's name. This is what Obama calls an "adult" debate?

....

Yet now something is different. I blame the Liberals. They do not engage their adversaries. They have been able to do this because they have controlled the public media, the Kultursmog. The smog reported their grotesqueries with the utmost seriousness. Thus if you were visiting from a foreign country you might think Glenn Beck a major force in American politics and you might be gravely frightened of Beck and of Fox News. But Beck is only an entertainer and he is leaving Fox News. Some say under duress. Sarah Palin and her whole family might sound like the Marcos family of the Philippines, but she is from Alaska and out of office.

Or take the recent imbroglio between Krugman and the Heritage Foundation. Heritage recently ran Ryan's numbers through a perfectly mainstream, non-political, economic model, the U.S. Macroeconomic Model developed by Global Insight. Krugman responded in a New York Times column by impugning Heritage's integrity, claiming Heritage used a model that would force the conclusions that Heritage wanted. Heritage's Bill Beach called Krugman out in an open letter. Now it has been over a week and not a peep of response from Krugman. As I say, Liberalism is dead, and its nigh unto totalitarian control of media has ended. Fox News, talk radio, and the Internet have arrived. Raise a toast to free speech.

Ehnanced interrogation and bin Laden

The value of harsh interrogation renewed

from PrairiePundit by Merv

At least two major plots were thwarted because of intelligence learned after water boarding KSM. The Canary Wharf plot in the UK and the Library Towers plot in LA. Liberals do not like to admit this because it is inconsistent with their theory that nothing of value was achieved through the harsh interrogations. Now it appears that a thread developed during the interrogation eventually led to find bin Laden.

And you know what, Obama went with it. He apparently did not nix the strike because the evidence derived from "the fruit of the poison tree" theory that excludes such evidence from court proceedings. Maybe he is not as unrealistic as he sometimes sounds when he is pontificating in front of liberals.

---

Obama owes apology to some guys at the CIA
from PrairiePundit

The left has been furiously in denial about the value of this key piece of information. They do not want it to be true that we got this information through interrogation techniques the left does not approve of. Thiesan has been a supporter of the men who have been attacked by Obama and others and he has argued all along about the importance of the information gathered through enhanced interrogation efforts.

---

Rumsfeld vs. Panetta on The Value of Torture in Finding Bin Laden

from Reason Magazine - Hit & Run
by Nick Gillespie

Former Bush Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld tells Newsmax:

"The United States Department of Defense did not do waterboarding for interrogation purposes to anyone. It is true that some information that came from normal interrogation approaches at Guantanamo did lead to information that was beneficial in this instance. But it was not harsh treatment and it was not waterboarding."

He adds:

"No one was waterboarded at Guantanamo Bay. That’s a myth that’s been perpetrated around the country by critics."

Eh, not sure how much the location of U.S.-administered or -approved torture matters and that sort of detail makes me think that Rummy is already justifying various levels of deception in the playgrounds of his mind.
And then there's current CIA director Leon Panetta, who told NBC News:

"We had multiple series of sources that provided information with regards to this situation… clearly some of it came from detainees [and] they used these enhanced interrogation techniques against some of those detainees," he told NBC anchor Brian Williams.

When asked by Williams if water-boarding was part of the "enhanced interrogation techniques," Panetta simply said "that’s correct."

....

The debate over torture in this case and as a larger matter is important. Mark Bowden's 2003 Atlantic story "The Dark Art of Interrogation" is an essential starting point. Bowden concludes,

As long as it remains illegal to torture, the interrogator who employs coercion must accept the risk. He must be prepared to stand up in court, if necessary, and defend his actions. Interrogators will still use coercion because in some cases they will deem it worth the consequences. This does not mean they will necessarily be punished. In any nation the decision to prosecute a crime is an executive one. A prosecutor, a grand jury, or a judge must decide to press charges, and the chances that an interrogator in a genuine ticking-bomb case would be prosecuted, much less convicted, is very small....

The Bush Administration has adopted exactly the right posture on the matter. Candor and consistency are not always public virtues. Torture is a crime against humanity, but coercion is an issue that is rightly handled with a wink, or even a touch of hypocrisy; it should be banned but also quietly practiced. Those who protest coercive methods will exaggerate their horrors, which is good: it generates a useful climate of fear. It is wise of the President to reiterate U.S. support for international agreements banning torture, and it is wise for American interrogators to employ whatever coercive methods work. It is also smart not to discuss the matter with anyone.

If interrogators step over the line from coercion to outright torture, they should be held personally responsible. But no interrogator is ever going to be prosecuted for keeping Khalid Sheikh Mohammed awake, cold, alone, and uncomfortable. Nor should he be.

---

Obama Was Wrong Again… Waterboarded Terrorist Gave US Name of OBL’s Courier

from Gateway Pundit
by Jim Hoft

Now we find this out…

Waterboarded terrorist Khalid Sheikh Mohammed gave the US the name of Osama’s courier.

The Star-Tribune reported:

Officials say CIA interrogators in secret overseas prisons developed the first strands of information that ultimately led to the killing of Osama bin Laden.

Current and former U.S. officials say that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, provided the nom de guerre of one of bin Laden’s most trusted aides. The CIA got similar information from Mohammed’s successor, Abu Faraj al-Libi. Both were subjected to harsh interrogation tactics inside CIA prisons in Poland and Romania.

---

Rep. Peter King: "Through Waterboarding… We Got Vital Information That Directly Led Us to Bin Laden" (Video)

from Gateway Pundit
by Jim Hoft

http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/2011/05/rep-peter-king-osamas-death-came-from-waterboarding-video

During tonight’s O’Reilly Factor, guest Rep. Peter King (R-NY) claimed that the information that led to bin Laden’s death came as a result of waterboarding.

http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/2011/05/rep-peter-king-doubles-down-waterboarding-got-us-to-osama-video

"The initial information on the courier was obtained from waterboarding in 2003. That came from Khalid Sheik Mohammad… People who were on the ground and very familiar to the situation told me this."

---

Terror Expert Fred Burton: Waterboarding Led Us to Osama Bin Laden (Video)
from Gateway Pundit
by Jim Hoft

Fred Burton:

“It’s my understanding that the intelligence nugget that we first got was based on the courier’s pseudonym which came from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed through enhanced interrogation techniques when he was first located in one of our out of the country prisons… I think it’s very good intelligence information that the original nugget of information surfaced during his first interview at an out of the country facility.”

The Telegraph reported:

…The file suggests that the courier’s identity was provided to the US by another key source, the al-Qaida facilitator Hassan Ghul, who was captured in Iraq in 2004 and interrogated by the CIA. Ghul was never sent to Guantanamo but was believed to have been taken to a prison in Pakistan.

Ace of Spades put together the the timeline that started back in 2003 during the Bush years that led to Osama’s death on Sunday.

---

Where the Trail to bin Laden Began

from Power Line
by John

More information is coming out about how American intelligence identified and tracked down the al Qaeda courier who led to Osama bin Laden. It appears that the CIA's interrogations of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Abu Faraj al-Libi provided the information that began the chain the culminated in bin Laden's death yesterday:

Officials say CIA interrogators in secret overseas prisons developed the first strands of information that ultimately led to the killing of Osama bin Laden.

Current and former U.S. officials say that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, provided the nom de guerre of one of bin Laden's most trusted aides. The CIA got similar information from Mohammed's successor, Abu Faraj al-Libi. Both were subjected to harsh interrogation tactics inside CIA prisons in Poland and Romania.

KSM and Libi are two of the three al Qaeda leaders who were waterboarded. Published accounts indicate that waterboarding was key to getting valuable information from them.

Rumsfeld did not say waterboarding doesn't work

Gateway also links to Don Rumsfeld:

Bill O'Reilley: number 1: how do you feel aobut Alan Colmss and others on the left using you to make their assertions against coerced interrogation?
Donald Rumsfeld: Well, it's the first time I've ever heard of Alan Colmes using me to support a position of his. But the fact is that the information was garbled. I think what I said was that there was no waterboarding at Guantanimo, and omebody else said that a Guantanimo detainee who had been waterboarded provided important information, and the connection created a disconnect, because the people who were waterboarded were three people -- by the CIA, none of whom were waterboarded at Guantanamo, and none of whom were waterboarded by the military. ...
Bill O'Reilley: OK, so there was confusion about the context of your remarks, which happens, you know, all the time, all the time, and it was seized upon by Alan and others on the left to say, "you know what, even Rumsfeld says it didn't it." But I said, quite responsibly I believe, that since I hadn't talked with you directly, I'm not taking some secondary source, that as you said, garbled up what your original remarks were. Now the most important thing. You just heard Barack Obama, Secretary of State Clinton, and Vice President say flat out that coerced interrogation doesn't work. We now know that is false. It does work. Correct?
Donald Rumsfeld: Unquestionably, it works. And the problem I have with the discussion thus far is that people are equating waterboarding with torture, and I think that's a mistake. The President of the United States authorized waterboarding, it was done to three people by the CIA, not by the military, and it produced an enormous amount of very valuable intelligence information by the testimony of George Tenet, by the testimony of CIA director Mike Hayden, and by others who had a chance to review the information.
Bill O'Reilley: How about you? Did you see that intel?
Donald Rumsfeld: Yes. I've certainly been made aware of the intelligence information that came from those sources and others.
Bill O'Reilley: OK, that being said, then, you cited two names in the CIA and yourself as primary sources that coerced interrogation provided information that protected America. Correct?
Donald Rumsfeld: Correct.
Bill O'Reilley: You cited the sources, and the sourcing is correct. So then...
(crosstalk)
Bill O'Reilley: We saw what Leon Panetta said about this incident. OK, now. So then you hear the President, Vice President, and Secretary of State flat out deny what it looks to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. That worries me.
Donald Rumsfeld: Well, in my view, we very likely would not have captured or killed Osama bin Laden had we not had the intelligence information we have.
Bill O'Reilley: OK, but does it worry you that the top three people in the government are saying you know, even though Rumsfeld and everybody else, Tenet, says it, we still don't believe it. Doesn't that worry you?
Donald Rumsfeld: Did they say that recently, or when they were Sena(tors)?
Bill O'Reilley: No, no, but they didn't repudiate it, they should have come out and said "hey, I was wrong, this intel.." Instead, the talking point's from Washington, "It was a mosaic. It was a mosaic of information." They're bending over like pretzels trying to get away from the coerced interrogation deal. You know what they're doing, it's the Washington spin-around.
Donald Rumsfeld: Well of course, it is a mosaic in a sense that you take pieces of information and no one in isolation is determinative, but taken together it produces the outcome and if some of that, as Director Pineta says, came from the enhanced interrogations, the waterboarding, then in fact the mosaic would not have produced the outcome, and you would not have been able to get bin Laden.
Bill O'Reilley: But you're not going to get that admission from this administration, are you?
Donald Rumsfeld: Maybe not. Although in fact what they've done is they've reversed themselves on most of the things they attacked during the campaign. On indefinite detention, Guantanimo bay, military commission, the patriot act, all of these things they campaigned against, and yet now, once they're governing, I think they realize that those are things that President Bush's administration put into place and they're protecting the American people.
Bill O'Reilley: I hope they realize it. I hope so. Now I think, to be fair, you and I have to take Colmes out for dinner, since he made us look good at the expense of himself. All right, the book is Known and Unknown, it was a pleasure...

Inside Look at How Coerced Interrogation Helped Lead to Bin Laden - FoxNews.com

Inside Look at How Coerced Interrogation Helped Lead to Bin Laden - FoxNews.com

Interview with Marc Thiessen on the role enhanced interrogation played in finding bin Laden.

O'REILLY: OK. So you saw what Mr. Bush saw. What is the headline?

THIESSEN: Well, the headline is CIA interrogations work. I mean, the fact is in the period after 9/11, we knew absolutely nothing about the enemy who attacked us. We did not know that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was the mastermind of 9/11. We didn't know who his key operatives were. We didn't know what they had planned. And then we started capturing these terrorists. We captured Abu Zubaydah, who was a key Al Qaeda facilitator, and he gave us information that led us to Ramzi bin al-Shibh, who was one of key KSM's key operatives. And they together led us to KSM. And KSM was resistant when he came into the -- when he was captured by the CIA. When they asked him about new plots, he said soon you will know. And he said I will tell you everything when I -- when I get to New York and see my lawyer. And he didn't see a lawyer. He was put under enhanced interrogation techniques and he went -- once he went through those, he made a decision to cooperate. And when he was done, he was running a graduate level class on Al Qaeda operations for the CIA.

Finding bin Laden

One of the memes going around is that "every credible source" says waterboarding didn't help find bin Laden, and probably slowed down the hunt.

Among non-credible sources must be CIA chief Leon Panetta:

Today reported:

Intelligence garnered from waterboarded detainees was used to track down al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden and kill him, CIA Chief Leon Panetta told NBC News on Tuesday.

“Enhanced interrogation techniques” were used to extract information that led to the mission’s success, Panetta said during an interview with anchor Brian Williams. Those techniques included waterboarding, he acknowledged.

Panetta, who in a 2009 CIA confirmation hearing declared “waterboarding is torture and it’s wrong,” said Tuesday that debate about its use will continue.

“Whether we would have gotten the same information through other approaches I think is always gonna be an open question,” Panetta said.

(Gateway Pundit)

For Pittsburg Steelers fans from Rio Linda, "open question" means anyone who says he absolutely knows the answer one way or the other is wrong.

Gateway also links to Don Rumsfeld:

Bill O'Reilley: number 1: how do you feel aobut Alan Colmss and others on the left using you to make their assertions against coerced interrogation?
Donald Rumsfeld: Well, it's the first time I've ever heard of Alan Colmes using me to support a position of his. But the fact is that the information was garbled. I think what I said was that there was no waterboarding at Guantanimo, and omebody else said that a Guantanimo detainee who had been waterboarded provided important information, and the connection created a disconnect, because the people who were waterboarded were three people -- by the CIA, none of whom were waterboarded at Guantanamo, and none of whom were waterboarded by the military. ...
Bill O'Reilley: OK, so there was confusion about the context of your remarks, which happens, you know, all the time, all the time, and it was seized upon by Alan and others on the left to say, "you know what, even Rumsfeld says it didn't it." But I said, quite responsibly I believe, that since I hadn't talked with you directly, I'm not taking some secondary source, that as you said, garbled up what your original remarks were. Now the most important thing. You just heard Barack Obama, Secretary of State Clinton, and Vice President say flat out that coerced interrogation doesn't work. We now know that is false. It does work. Correct?
Donald Rumsfeld: Unquestionably, it works. And the problem I have with the discussion thus far is that people are equating waterboarding with torture, and I think that's a mistake. The President of the United States authorized waterboarding, it was done to three people by the CIA, not by the military, and it produced an enormous amount of very valuable intelligence information by the testimony of George Tenet, by the testimony of CIA director Mike Hayden, and by others who had a chance to review the information.
Bill O'Reilley: How about you? Did you see that intel?
Donald Rumsfeld: Yes. I've certainly been made aware of the intelligence information that came from those sources and others.
Bill O'Reilley: OK, that being said, then, you cited two names in the CIA and yourself as primary sources that coerced interrogation provided information that protected America. Correct?
Donald Rumsfeld: Correct.
Bill O'Reilley: You cited the sources, and the sourcing is correct. So then...
(crosstalk)
Bill O'Reilley: We saw what Leon Panetta said about this incident. OK, now. So then you hear the President, Vice President, and Secretary of State flat out deny what it looks to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. That worries me.
Donald Rumsfeld: Well, in my view, we very likely would not have captured or killed Osama bin Laden had we not had the intelligence information we have.
Bill O'Reilley: OK, but does it worry you that the top three people in the government are saying you know, even though Rumsfeld and everybody else, Tenet, says it, we still don't believe it. Doesn't that worry you?
Donald Rumsfeld: Did they say that recently, or when they were Sena(tors)?
Bill O'Reilley: No, no, but they didn't repudiate it, they should have come out and said "hey, I was wrong, this intel.." Instead, the talking point's from Washington, "It was a mosaic. It was a mosaic of information." They're bending over like pretzels trying to get away from the coerced interrogation deal. You know what they're doing, it's the Washington spin-around.
Donald Rumsfeld: Well of course, it is a mosaic in a sense that you take pieces of information and no one in isolation is determinative, but taken together it produces the outcome and if some of that, as Director Pineta says, came from the enhanced interrogations, the waterboarding, then in fact the mosaic would not have produced the outcome, and you would not have been able to get bin Laden.
Bill O'Reilley: But you're not going to get that admission from this administration, are you?
Donald Rumsfeld: Maybe not. Although in fact what they've done is they've reversed themselves on most of the things they attacked during the campaign. On indefinite detention, Guantanimo bay, military commission, the patriot act, all of these things they campaigned against, and yet now, once they're governing, I think they realize that those are things that President Bush's administration put into place and they're protecting the American people.
Bill O'Reilley: I hope they realize it. I hope so. Now I think, to be fair, you and I have to take Colmes out for dinner, since he made us look good at the expense of himself. All right, the book is Known and Unknown, it was a pleasure...

The path to bin Laden: Was it a waterway?

To what extent, if any, was the information leading to the death of Osama obtained through enhanced methods, including waterboarding?

JustOneMinute: Did Enhanced Interrogation Lead To Osama bin Laden?

Did the enhanced interrogation of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Faraj al-Libbi (who was not) and other Gitmo detainees lead to the information that led to bin Laden? The fog of war blows in from the left as Marcy Wheeler concludes that, since we can't prove that enhnced interrogation was helpful, we must assume that it wasn't. Well, she dresses that up a bit:

The AP has confirmed that intelligence leading to the courier that in turn led to Osama bin Laden came from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and–as I surmised earlier–Abu Faraj al-Libi while in CIA custody. But partly because of the language AP uses to describe this–and partly because the wingnuts love torture–many are drawing the wrong conclusion about it.

....

It is clear that KSM was held in secret prisons and waterboarded, and that al-Libbi was held in secret prisons; it is being reported that both provided critical clues that eventually led to bin Laden. To conclude from those facts that enhanced interrogation was not instrumental in cracking the case is a bit of a leap, just as it would be a leap to conclude that enhanced interrogation was essential.

....

TACKLING IT HEAD-ON: The Times takes a look and sees little:

....

So we don't know whether Ghul talked after being enhanced, we don't know if al-Libi lied after not being enhanced - really conclusive stuff here.

Israel vs Palestine

Primary Care Can Be Comprehensive and Convenient for $2 a Day | John Goodman's Health Policy Blog | NCPA.org

Primary Care Can Be Comprehensive and Convenient for $2 a Day | John Goodman's Health Policy Blog | NCPA.org

Consumer based medicine

Good or bad? People, or Rules? - Megan McArdle - Business - The Atlantic

More figures, more weirdness.

How much in taxes do the rich pay? The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : Zombies Strike Back

Answer: lots.

Figures don't lie, but...

... if you torture data enough it will tell you anything.

The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : More Zombies

Paul Krugman writes: "...I see that John Taylor is peddling the zombie claim that there has been a huge expansion in the federal government under Obama."

....

Krugman is right that automatic stabilizers and Medicaid have been the biggest drivers of the increase in spending so far. But the story is a little different when you look at those same numbers in absolute terms instead of growth rates (CBO data, in 2010 dollars)

....

As you can see, "everything else" is a much bigger category in absolute terms than one might guess from looking at Krugman's graph.

But there's still a weird element to this graph: the x-axis categories, again. Krugman includes two full years of the Bush administration (2007-2008) as Obama years. He explains that he used those divisions because 2007 was the last pre-recession year, and the recession has changed the size and composition of government outlays. The recession led to an increase in automatic stabilizer spending under Bush, too. In order to get a more direct comparison of Bush vs. Obama, I generated a graph illustrating Bush's last two years vs. Obama's first two

....

By the growth of "everything else" in this graph, it looks like there has indeed been a "huge expansion" of the federal government under Obama, including both automatic stabilizers and everything else.

....

But the suggestion that Obama hasn't expanded the government at all, or the claim that "[t]he "Obama spending binge" was almost entirely mythical" (a claim Jonathan Chait makes based on Krugman's post), is likely to lead readers away from the truth.

The Unpublished Challenge

The Unpublished Challenge: "

Late last month, Casey Luskin wrote an article advocating a positive case for ID creationism. Jack has already done a good job of refuting Casey’s wishful hand waving.

However, in the comments of the post, Casey and I had a little exchange in which I tried to get him to commit to developing a positive model of common design, and he just, well, assured me that his legal education prepared him to deal with the statistics that he was butchering left and right. Yeah, umm … anyways, my last comment was never published, and now enough time has passed that I feel I can share it with you and let you decide why it never showed up on the DI’s website.

and...

The conceptual alchemy of ID, transmuting baseless assertions into scientific predictions: "

[Republished from Homologous Legs]

A well-accepted characteristic of a scientific hypothesis is that it must generate predictions about the world against which tests can be run - confirming or falsifying those predictions and thus supporting or not supporting the hypothesis in question. Understandably then, intelligent design proponents need to demonstrate that ID can produce predictions if it is to be taken seriously as a scientific hypothesis and alternative to evolutionary theory.

Poverty is the norm

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/pursuit-of-happiness/poverty-is-easy-to-explain/

 

Since collectivists often trivialize private property rights, they are worth elaborating. When property rights are held privately the costs and benefits of decisions are concentrated in the individual decision maker; with collectively held property rights they are dispersed across society. For example, private property forces homeowners to take into account the effect of their current decisions on the future value of their homes, because that value depends, among other things, on how long the property will provide housing services. Thus privately owned property holds one's personal wealth hostage to doing the socially responsible thing—economizing scarce resources.

Contrast these incentives to those of collective ownership. When the government owns the house, the individual has less incentive to take care of it simply because he does not capture the full benefit of his efforts. It is dispersed across society instead. The costs of neglecting the house are similarly spread. You do not have to be a rocket scientist to predict that under these circumstances, less care will be taken.

Nor is nominal collective ownership the only force that weakens social responsibility. When government taxes property, it changes the ownership characteristics. If government were to impose a 75 percent tax on a person selling his house, it would reduce his incentive to use the house wisely.

This argument applies to all activities, including work and investment. Whatever lowers the return from or raises the cost of an investment reduces incentives to make that investment in the first place. This applies to investment in human as well as physical capital—that is, those activities that raise the productive capacity of individuals.

--

The Wheel of the Year: Now available on Amazon Kindle

The Official Manual for Spice Cadets: Now available on Amazon Kindle

The rich are getting poorer

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/print/264296

 

The numbers generally cited in support of this argument do not actually tell us much about what has happened to the incomes of wealthy households over time. That's because the people who are in the top bracket today are not the people who were in the top bracket last year. There's a good deal of socioeconomic mobility in the United States — more than you'd think. Our dear, dear friends at the IRS keep track of actual households (boy, do they ever!), and sometimes the Treasury publishes data about what has happened to them. For instance, among those who in 1996 were in the very highest income group isolated for study — the top 0.01 percent — 75 percent were in a lower income group by 2005. The median real income of super-rich households went down, not up. The rich got poorer. Among actual households, income grew proportionally more for those who started off in the low-income groups than those that began in high-income groups.

--

The Wheel of the Year: Now available on Amazon Kindle

The Official Manual for Spice Cadets: Now available on Amazon Kindle

Opposing gay marriage doesn't mean I'm barking | The Australian

Barry Cohen, writing in The Australian: Opposing gay marriage doesn't mean I'm barking

My philosophy was simple. It is enshrined in a column I wrote in The Australian (January 25, 1995) when gays started to get serious about what most Australians thought was a huge joke.

I wrote: "It concerns me not at all what adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom or for that matter their kitchens, bathroom or laundry. Should they choose to stand on their heads, wave their legs in the air or swing from chandeliers, providing they do not do each other a serious mischief, it is, or should be entirely a matter for them."

Having held that publicly expressed view for as long as I can recall, it will not surprise readers that on those occasions when I was called upon to vote in the House of Representatives on such matters I voted against legislation that discriminated against homosexuals. I have since applauded any measure by any government or institution that has broken down the prejudice against those with a different sexual preference.

A lot has happened in the past 40 years that has been of benefit to the gay community. Some I agreed with, others went too far, but marriage between people of the same sex giving them equal status with heterosexual couples, in my view, goes way beyond the pale. They argue that the present law discriminates against them. It does. And it's the same reason why I can't marry Jamie or Hamish.

And how about the discrimination against pedophiles, prohibiting sexual relations with children? Why do we discriminate against 15-year-old girls and boys for what used to be called carnal knowledge? Why do we ban men from entering women's toilets or vice versa? I could go on but I'm sure you discern my drift. We discriminate because society believes it is the right and moral thing to do.

Marriage was considered, until recently, sacrosanct. Bigamy and polygamy are banned. Why should we discriminate against men who want more than one wife, or wives who want more than one husband?

With all its flaws, and few marriages are perfect, marriage is the bedrock on which our society is based. It won't be if these twerps have their way.

The time has come for us "neocons" to fight back and tell the gay community that we've gone from prohibition to tolerance to acceptance, but we won't accept that gay marriage and conventional marriage is the same thing.

They might have got some of what they wanted if they had asked for a gay marriage act, quite separate from conventional marriage but can you expect them to accept a gay marriage certificate proclaiming them to be a gay couple?

It is to be hoped that those who support conventional marriage as one of the building blocks on which our society is built will stand up and tell the gay community it's not going to happen. Not even if hell freezes over.

The UN “disappears” 50 million climate refugees, then botches the disappearing attempt | Watts Up With That?

The UN “disappears” 50 million climate refugees, then botches the disappearing attempt | Watts Up With That?

At last: RNCSE on-line! | NCSE

At last: RNCSE on-line! | NCSE

Death Trap Democrats

Death Trap Democrats

The Deadly Democrat Medicare Cuts

While the Democrats still do not understand what they have done with Obamacare, the government's actuaries and accountants do, and have been telling us in official government publications and documents. The 2010 Financial Statement of the United States Government, published by the Treasury Department in December, is the most clear. That report discloses repeatedly in several tables of data that the total of future cuts in payments to doctors and hospitals under Medicare as provided in current law due to Obamacare and President Obama's Medicare reimbursement policies is $15 trillion!

Ryan's Reforms Are Better for Seniors

Unlike Ryan's Medicare reforms, the draconian, unworkable, Obamacare cuts to Medicare apply to seniors already retired today. Ryan exempts from any change all seniors retired today and everyone over age 55.

For future, new retirees starting in 2022, seniors will enjoy the freedom to choose private health insurance coverage from among a menu of guaranteed, government approved and regulated plans. Exactly the contrary to Schultz's uninformed criticisms, Medicare would precisely be a guarantee of health insurance coverage. The problem that the socialist Schultz has is that this would be private health insurance coverage.

Do Not Ask for Whom the Bell Tolls

But it is not only the health care of seniors that will be savaged by Obamacare. What is emerging from the broad, vague language of the 2,700 plus pages of the Obamacare law is the termination of the ability of America's health care system to provide the best, most advanced, cutting edge health care in the world, up until now a major component of the highest standard of living in the world previously enjoyed by the American people.

That first clearly arose in December, when HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius issued regulations claiming and providing authority for federal regulation of health insurance premiums, a power that Congressional Democrats and the Obama Administration denied was in the law when they passed it. Based on what we see emerging from the more advanced Obamacare experiment in Massachusetts, what the New Left Democrats who have seized control of America's health care have in mind can now be more clearly recognized.

What pay disparity between sexes?

Today is "pay equality day". That means, women are supposed to have had to work this much more than a year to make what men made last year. This works out to women making 83% of what men make. You'd think, if women were really doing the same jobs for 17% less, greedy business owners would fire all their men, hire women only, and cut their labor costs by that 17%. This would give them a 17% edge over the competition – until other greedy business owners caught on and started doing likewise.

But alas, Carrie L. Lukas at the Independent Women's Forum writes to tell us There Is No Male-Female Wage Gap

Darn! Big cost saving idea down the tubes.

10 Surprising Facts about American Health Care | Publications | National Center for Policy Analysis | NCPA

Despite published rankings that put the US south of Cuba in terms of health care, the NCPA offers 10 Surprising Facts about American Health Care.

Fact No. 1: Americans have better survival rates than Europeans for common cancers.

Fact No. 2: Americans have lower cancer mortality rates than Canadians.

Fact No. 3: Americans have better access to treatment for chronic diseases than patients in other developed countries.

Fact No. 4: Americans have better access to preventive cancer screening than Canadians.[4]

Fact No. 5: Lower income Americans are in better health than comparable Canadians. Twice as many American seniors with below-median incomes self-report "excellent" health compared to Canadian seniors (11.7 percent versus 5.8 percent). Conversely, white Canadian young adults with below-median incomes are 20 percent more likely than lower income Americans to describe their health as "fair or poor."

Fact No. 6: Americans spend less time waiting for care than patients in Canada and the U.K. Canadian and British patients wait about twice as long - sometimes more than a year - to see a specialist, to have elective surgery like hip replacements or to get radiation treatment for cancer.[6]

Fact No. 7: People in countries with more government control of health care are highly dissatisfied and believe reform is needed.

Fact No. 8: Americans are more satisfied with the care they receive than Canadians.

Fact No. 9: Americans have much better access to important new technologies like medical imaging than patients in Canada or the U.K.

Fact No. 10: Americans are responsible for the vast majority of all health care innovations.

Conclusion. Despite serious challenges, such as escalating costs and the uninsured, the U.S. health care system compares favorably to those in other developed countries.

Origins of life, ATP Synthase, and ID

Terry Jones and the Koran

 However much deference we show, it'll never be enough.

  

 

 

Don't Burn the Bible, Or This Kitten Gets It

So on March 20, Terry Jones, a pastor in Florida, burnt a Koran had a Koran burned after finding it guilty of being an evil book that promotes violence.  The burning of the Koran in condemnation for its alleged violence then prompted three days of rioting and several people killed since last Friday by people incapable of recognizing irony or the simple fact that they were making his point.  I thought that everyone would understand who was and was not responsible for that, but apparently not.

But everyone who says, "don't burn the Koran because those nutty Muslims might kill people" are getting it profoundly wrong...

The logic is very simple.  Everyone knew that if he did this thing that violence would erupt, therefore he is responsible for the violence, right?

Well, with surprising frequency, we can cite Abraham Lincoln as guidance as indeed he faced a very similar situation.  In 1860, long before he was the Republican nominee for President, he confronted fears that this union would break if the nation dared elect a Republican president, addressing his remarks to the South:

But you will not abide the election of a Republican president! In that supposed event, you say, you will destroy the Union; and then, you say, the great crime of having destroyed it will be upon us! That is [clever]. A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and mutters through his teeth, "[Give me your money], or I shall kill you, and then you will be a murderer!"

To be sure, what the robber demanded of me – my money – was my own; and I had a clear right to keep it; but it was no more my own than my vote is my own; and the threat of death to me, to extort my money, and the threat of destruction to the Union, to extort my vote, can scarcely be distinguished in principle.

(Old-timey slang replaced with modern language.)  The metaphor works perfectly.  What the robber demanded of Lincoln—his money—was his own and he had a clear right to keep it.  But it was no more his own than my God-given right to freedom of speech and freedom of religion is my own, and the threat of death to extort Lincoln's money, and the threat of death to strangers to extort my silence, can scarcely be distinguished in principle.

A more thoughtful response, meanwhile, comes from James Taranto of the Wall St. Journal.  He confronted this excellent argument by Mollie Hemmingway:

Basically, no matter how short the skirt the girl's wearing, she doesn't deserve to be raped. I always thought it was also wise to dress modestly but that wasn't the point. The point was that the rapist is responsible for the rape, not the victim or society.

Murdering people who have nothing to do with the Koran burning is another animal from rape entirely, but it is still surprising to me to see how the media suggests that the pastor who oversaw the Koran burning–Terry Jones–is responsible for murders he didn't commit. . . . Clearly the media is focused on the "short skirt" angle to this case.

And this is how he responded:

There are two big problems with this analogy. First, burning a Koran is an offense against Muslims, just as burning an American flag is an offense against Americans. It is not merely imprudent but morally objectionable. That does not justify a violent reaction, but it does make the provocation different in kind from that of a rape victim's wearing a short skirt. A better analogy might be to an adulterous wife who is murdered by her cuckolded husband. He is guilty of a serious crime, but it is also true that she wronged him.

I'll get to the second difference in a moment, but let's tear apart that first one.  James, in case you haven't been paying attention for the last…  thirty years, everything is an offense against radical Muslims.

--

The Wheel of the Year: Now available on Amazon Kindle

The Official Manual for Spice Cadets: Now available on Amazon Kindle

Big Green Myths debunked

via The American Spectator and AmSpecBlog by Paul Chesser on 3/31/11

Politico reported yesterday that "it's not easy being green anymore" and whined, "It's no secret environmentalists are outgunned when it comes to cash," as though they are hopelessly losing every political battle. I partially (I say "partially" because there is so much more that can and has been written) debunk that myth over at the National Legal & Policy Center blog today.

--
The Wheel of the Year: Now available on Amazon Kindle

The Official Manual for Spice Cadets: Now available on Amazon Kindle

Pass the Plutonium

Don't count nuclear power out.

Pass the Plutonium

 

People think that Fukushima will mean the end of nuclear power, but I'm convinced it's the opposite. We're going to lose our nuclear virginity over this accident and start seeing the world as adults. In fact it's already happening.

Exhibit A is George Monbiot, the left-wing British columnist and global warmingfanatic with the Guardian who explained to readers three days after the earthquake, "Why Fukushima made me stop worrying and love nuclear power." 

Monbiot's point is quite simple. For years we've lived with the impression that a nuclear meltdown is the equivalent of a nuclear bomb going off, killing thousands and leaving whole landscapes uninhabitable. Now we've had one and look what's happened. The fourth worst earthquake in history has failed to crack open the concrete containment and the difficulty arose only because the utility didn't have enough backup electricity on hand. Fukushima remains a horribly dangerous situation and the workers who are bringing the reactor under control ought to be given a parade down Broadway when it's finally over. But what has the toll been so far? One worker died in a steam explosion and others have been exposed to levels of radiation that may increase their chances of getting cancer somewhere down the line. But this is basically an industrial accident. As Monbiot points out, coal mining in China kills more people in a week than ever died as a result of Chernobyl.
....
One by one, the nuclear myths have fallen. In the immediate aftermath, reporters and commentators right up to Bill O'Reilly were anticipating a dreaded "meltdown" would be the equivalent of a nuclear bomb. In fact, a meltdown simply means the fuel has melted to the bottom of the steel pressure vessel, which is inside the concrete containment structure. In days of yore environmentalists dreamed up "The China Syndrome," which had the fuel melting through the pressure vessel, then through the concrete containment and continuing on its way to China until it hit groundwater, at which point it would cause a steam explosion that would kill everybody in Los Angeles -- or at least that's what Jane Fonda was told. Three Mile Island proved this wouldn't happen. Fukushima has confirmed it.

Another hot button has been plutonium, an artificial element formed in a reactor. (Plutonium is forged in supernovas, along with all the other heavy elements, but it disappeared on earth long ago.) In the effort to portray nuclear power as the devil's handiwork, Ralph Nader once labeled plutonium "the most toxic substance ever known to mankind." In fact it is about as toxic as caffeine. Bernard Cohen, the tireless crusader for nuclear common sense, offered many times to eat as much plutonium as Nader would eat caffeine on "The Tonight Show" but Nader never took him up.

Failing to convince anyone of plutonium's toxicity, Nader next announced that "one pound of plutonium would be enough to kill everyone on earth." The scenario here was plutonium, if ground into fine dust and breathed in by everyone on earth, would eventually give everyone lung cancer. As the late Petr Beckmann responded, "So would tomorrow's production of hatpins kill everyone on earth if carefully placed in each individual heart."

--

The Wheel of the Year: Now available on Amazon Kindle

The Official Manual for Spice Cadets: Now available on Amazon Kindle

Tidal waves and conservatism

Here is a link to an article on a protective measure against tsunamis that didn't work.

Modern sea walls failed to protect coastal towns from Japan's destructive tsunami last month. But in the hamlet of Aneyoshi, a single centuries-old tablet saved the day.

"High dwellings are the peace and harmony of our descendants," the stone slab reads. "Remember the calamity of the great tsunamis. Do not build any homes below this point."

It was advice the dozen or so households of Aneyoshi heeded, and their homes emerged unscathed from a disaster that flattened low-lying communities elsewhere and killed thousands along Japan's northeastern shore.

I think those who are not conservative tend to forget the lessons learned by their forebears, often learned the hard way, with much pain and anguish.  They fail to realize that the quaint, old-fashioned, "outdated" customs they would overturn may be answers to very painful questions. 

In a number of instances, I would caution those who would throw away the quaint, old-fashioned customs to first be very sure what problem they were developed to solve, and then be very sure that particular solution is no longer needed.

Church And District

In the spirit of "Atlas Shrugged", groups that do charitable works may decide to shrug if conditions, intolerable to them, are in force.

 Church And District

via Wizbang by Jay Tea on 11/16/09

There's a bit of a hubbub going on in the District of Columbia of late. The City Council is weighing a sweeping gay rights move, bundling together gay marriage, gay adoption, partners' rights, and whatnot, and the Catholic Church -- as is to be expected -- is resistant.
Resistant to the point where they say they will simply pull the plug on their entire charitable works in the city should it pass.
Critics are denouncing the Church (as is their wont), saying that the Church must be bluffing, that the Church is overreacting, that the Church is being hypocritical because it hasn't made the same threats in other places where gay marriage has passed, and it's all a big to-do about nothing, because the law explicitly says the Church doesn't have to perform gay marriages if it doesn't want to.
They're right on that last point. They're wrong on every single other one.
First up, the Church doesn't bluff. There may be a surface resemblance between the Church's move and the typical move of politicians facing budget cuts -- make the cuts in the most visible, most popular, most needed areas first -- but that's where it ends. The Church does NOT use the poor as hostages for imposing its social agenda.
Next, the Church is not overreacting. While the gay marriage aspect is the most attention-grabbing aspect, it is the other elements that are most offensive to Catholic doctrine -- and most directly threatening to the Church. The Church does NOT sanction or assist in gay marriage, does NOT offer "same-sex benefits" to employees, and does NOT recognize same-sex relationships as equal to opposite-sex ones. Under the proposed law, they would have to yield on each of those points.
Then there's the "they haven't protested in other states" argument. Again, not true. In Massachusetts, the state forbid discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation of adoptive parents -- so the Church said "OK, fine" and got out of the adoption business altogether. They are quite consistent on this point -- they will fight against the laws they oppose, but will accept them as long as they are not personally required to take action in support of them. And if the law would force them to act in a way they find morally repugnant, they will simply take their toys and go home.
Now, I happen to think the Church is wrong in its positions here. (I also happen to think that the Church is wrong in a lot of other places, too -- such as contraception, the ordination of women, and I still loathe their conduct in the whole "pedophile priest" scandal. There should have been a RICO investigation there, and quite a few high-ranking Churchmen -- like Cardinal Law -- should be behind bars. But I digress...)

But more importantly, I think they have the right to be wrong.
The Church has its beliefs. It has its tenets and its principles. It has decided which are the most important ones, and has rediscovered its spine. It has drawn the line in the sand -- society can go to Hell if it wishes, but the Church will not aid and abet in the process.
On this, they will not bend. If that means that they will no longer help in the adoption process in Massachusetts, so be it. If that means they have to completely shut down their charitable works in the District of Columbia, so be it.
And as they've said in the past, if hospitals end up required to perform abortions on demand, they will shut down every single Catholic hospital in the country.
Now that is a bluff we dare not call -- Catholic hospitals represent 12.7% of all hospitals in the United States and 15% of all hospital beds. And the Church clarifies that threat -- they simply won't sell them off, but shut them down and, if necessary, tear them down. They will be morally obliged to make certain those hospitals are never used to perform abortions.
The Church's position is arguable, but defensible. They will not, under any circumstances, cooperate with any law they find morally repugnant. Instead, they will find a way to not violate the law and still not comply with it. And the way they are talking about is to simply remove themselves from the law's reach.
The law can say that they cannot discriminate against gays in adoption. But the law can not compel them to continue assisting in adoptions.
The law can say that employers cannot discriminate against gay employees. But the law can not compel them to have employees.
The law can say that hospitals must perform adoptions abortions on demand. But the law can not compel the Church to keep its hospitals open should it decide to raze them.
The learned solons of the District of Columbia speak as if they don't really need the Church and its charities, that there is a long list of other organizations just itching to step up and fill the void should the Church choose to leave the city. This is entirely consistent with plans by the Obama administration to limit tax deductions for charitable contributions, moving such things under the aegis of government and out of the hands of independent organizations.
One doesn't have to be Catholic to see the value of the Church's charitable works. One doesn't have to subscribe to Church teachings to respect their right to abide by them as they see fit. And one doesn't even have to be a believer to see the threat to the common good being posed by this move by the DC City Council.
And that's coming from an agnostic gay marriage supporter who is still uncertain as to whether the Catholic Church has been a net boon or bane to modern civilization.

Israel Cleared Of War Crime Allegations By Judge Goldstone

Israel Cleared Of War Crime Allegations By Judge Goldstone

In September 2009, the UN Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict chaired by Justice Richard Goldstone submitted its report (the Goldstone Report) to the Human Rights Council in Geneva. The Report suggested that war crimes had been committed by all parties in the Gaza Conflict, and has served as the basis for an extensive political and legal campaign against Israel in the international arena.

Now Judge Goldstone paints a very different picture from the original report and concludes that Israel has been truthful all along.

The Volokh Conspiracy » Richard Goldstone: Chief Kangaroo

The Volokh Conspiracy » Richard Goldstone: Chief Kangaroo

It seems the Goldstone report, pinning the blame for all nastiness on Israel, was all wrong.

I think, additionally, that Goldstone took Israel’s refusal to participate in this “game” as a personal affront, rather than causing him, as he should have, to question the whole enterprise.