May 6, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
James Taranto has this observation about the writer of the Reuters dispatch from Havana about the "artists and intellectuals" who are supporting Castro:The author of the Reuters dispatch was Marc Frank. So we're just wondering: Is it the same Marc Frank who wrote a piece of pro-Castro, anti-American propaganda called "TV Marti vs. the Cuban People"? Is this the same Marc Frank who wrote the 1993 book "Cuba Looks to the Year 2000," and who, according to this article from Communist Voice, "has spent a number of years in Cuba as the correspondent for the Soviet revisionist CPUSA's [Communist Party USA] newspaper People's Daily World"? ["Best of the Web Today," 5/5/03]
May 6, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
"Look, Colin Powell went to Damascus not because Colin Powell got up some day and decided he wanted to go Damascus," Rumsfeld said. "He went to Damascus because the president of the United States decided it made sense for the secretary of state to go to Damascus. "Now, if you don't like the decision, don't blame the secretary; blame the president." [Associated Press, 5/4/03]
So now we're supposed to abstain from criticizing the president? And who advised him that going to Damascus was the right thing to do, anyway?
May 5, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
Cirque du Soleil's newest is the damndest thing you ever saw--unless you've been before, and even then it's right up there among the damndest. And X2 is a worthy successor to X-Men. Yes, I have quibbles--and maybe I'll have time to write about them at some point--but I thoroughly enjoyed myself at both.May 5, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
Here is a quote from an anonymous reader on Ernesto "Che" Guevara (1928-67), who was was captured and killed in the mountains of Bolivia in 1967 at the age of 39:...for all his violent exploits, Che seems to have accomplished relatively little. His campaigns in Africa and Bolivia were utter failures, and he wore out his welcome in Cuba not too long after the Revolution. In fact, it's hard to identify anyone in this book who ended up better off as a result of his actions. Perhaps this book documents something we've known all along: that Che's romantic image dwarfs his actual accomplishments, and that the myth was much bigger than the man.
Another reviewer from
BookList explains her fascination with Che, and how she:
...can identify with Che's concern for the poor and hungry, even if that identification is tempered in [her] rush to store up goods, even if giving alms to the poor is more fashionable than taking a heroic stance to elevate them.
Judging by the results for all of Che's liberal "concern" and his murderous "heroics," it looks like he has accomplished as much for the "poor" as the lefitist hypocrites who approve of his ends but not his "heroic" means. Judging by the results it would have been better if he never lived. For the life of a real hero see the Academy Award nominated documentary
Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life.
May 3, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
Whether poor families stay married shouldn't be a matter of public policy; those who act destructively should bear the cost of their own behavior. In today's world, welfare supports these families; public policy is concerned with whether or not welfare encourages irresponsible behavior that the taxpayer is expected to subsidize.
The Associated Press reports that the portion of black families headed by single women dropped by four points since welfare reform passed in 1996, contrary to the predictions of the naysayers. The article claims that "the surging economy of the late 1990's probably had more to do with the gains for black families than did welfare reform," but adds that "The increase came despite a recent drop in blacks' income." (Note that the number of black families headed by married couples is still only 47.9 percent.)
According to Mickey Kaus, "the economy has boomed and busted before--and before the mid-1990s the family trends for blacks moved relentlessly downhill for decades ... I doubt that honest liberals... think that welfare reform wasn't also a major part of the cause."May 3, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
Michael Kinsley writes like a typical rationalist: his focus is typically on others' contradictions, not on the truth--and even when he has something positive to say he has to do it dialectically. Nevertheless, he has a point here:
Republicans do give reasons for wanting to make big projected deficits even bigger. They say that tax cuts spur the economy and eventually will generate revenue to wipe out the deficits. They say that big deficits will force the government to cut spending. These arguments are contradictory and bogus. If the deficit will eliminate itself, it will not create pressure to cut spending. If tax cuts always spur so much growth that they pay for themselves, can we cut taxes to zero and still break even on revenue? If the trick stops working at some point higher than zero, how can we assume it will work for us? And if the purpose of tax cuts is to force spending cuts, why doesn't the governing party at least propose enough spending cuts to cover the cost? "I'm eating all this pie so I'll get fat and be forced to diet." Do you buy that one? [Michael Kinsley, Slate.com, 5/1/03]
Or another way to put it: The typical supply-side Republicans think that cutting taxes will allow them to avoid the moral battle over cutting spending--because they are fundamentally unwilling to challenge the altruistic premise behind the welfare state. But it's nothing but self-delusion.--Paul Blair
["I'm eating all this pie so I'll get fat and be forced to diet" is a poor analogy--a much better one is "I will be expropriating less pie, so I will be forced to diet." The only problem is that reduced taxation combined with no spending cuts will force the government into either increasing the deficit or inflation to pay for its prodigality.--Mark Da Cunha]
