Dull Hillary is a “Serious” Thinker

 The ever clever Mark Steyn, makes an astute observation on Hillary Clinton's new book:

...Hillary's constituency doesn't want soul-baring--that's playing on Ken Starr terms. They want dullness--the dullness that reassures them that Hillary, once you dig her out from the cigars and Gap dresses of posterity, is still the serious thinker and feminist icon they told us she was in 1992.

...Hillary's fans will buy the book, open Chapter One, and read, ''I wasn't born a first lady or a senator. I wasn't born a Democrat. I wasn't born a lawyer or an advocate for women's rights and human rights. I wasn't born a wife or mother . . . '' and think, well, that's just like the early bits of the Old Testament, all the begetting, or in this case all the things she wasn't begot as, so I'll just skip ahead to Chapter Two, and I'll bet it's really crackling along by now.

And Chapter Two begins: ''What you don't learn from your mother, you learn from the world' is a saying I once heard from the Masai tribe in Kenya.'' And you think, well, isn't that just wonderfully diverse, and she heard it from an actual tribe in Kenya! Any tribesman in particular? Or did they all yell it out in unison as her motorcade passed by? Either way, it's the sort of soothing multicultural sentiment that separates an enlightened progressive from rabid knuckle-dragging redneck Clinton-haters, and that's all you need to know. So you put the book up on the shelf and never open it ever again. [Mark Steyn, Sun Times, "Hillary yawner never gets to the good part", June 15, 2003]

Iran Recruits Saddam’s Scientists

From the UK's Telegraph:

Iran is recruiting top Iraqi weapons scientists to join a dangerous brain drain from Baghdad as international concern grows about Teheran's clandestine arms programme. The pro-Iranian Badr Brigade, an Iraqi Islamic militia, is helping scientists to travel through tribal areas north east of Baghdad and across the border for meetings with senior military and regime figures in Teheran, The Telegraph has learnt....Iran wants to switch from liquid to solid fuels to improve the performance of its long-range Shahab missiles, which may soon be able to reach Europe.

Last week Iran barred United Nations inspectors from taking samples from a suspect nuclear plant, heightening fears that the regime is secretly preparing to make enriched uranium, the crucial raw material for nuclear weapons. Donald Rumsfeld, the American defence secretary, issued a warning that Iran was actively working to develop a bomb... [The Telegraph, "Iran recruits Saddam's scientists to build long-range missile", June 15, 2003]

Medicaid for the Wealthy-Elderly?

William F. Hammond in the Sun on Medicaid in NYC:

Many--maybe even most--of the elderly patients using [Medicaid] benefits are not poor in the usual sense. They typically have comfortable houses and late-model cars. They might own profitable businesses. And they may be preparing to leave hundreds of thousands or even million of dollars to their children when they die. But if their long-term expenses exceed their cash flow--which is not uncommon, even for the well off--they can be considered "medically needy" and qualify for Medicaid coverage. And some very wealthy people, with the help of lawyers who specialize in "estate planning," are able to shift their money into trust funds controlled by their heirs, minimizing what they have to contribute toward their own care....

As a result, fully 78% of nursing home residents are Medicaid recipients, even though the elderly, as a group, are much wealthier than average. Many experts on long-term care, including operators of nursing homes, consider the situation a scandal. [2003/06/16]

History Shows ‘Road Map’ to be a Failure

Check out this open letter from Sen. Schumer to the President:

As you know, despite the fact that we are in different political parties, I have been a strong and outspoken supporter of your Mideast policies. You have understood three tenets that previous administrations, both Democrat and Republican, have failed to grasp: first, that Yasir Arafat is a barrier to peace because of his duplicitous ways; second, that Israeli settlements, whatever one's view of them, are not the causus belli for the conflict; and third, that an end to Palestinian suicide bombings and violence must be the first step in any peace process....

Recent history clearly disproves the proposition that settlements are the root cause of this conflict. At the 2000 summit in Taba, Egypt, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak courageously agreed to an American plan to give back virtually all of the West Bank to the Palestinians ­ including the settlements ­ in return for peace. This offer was summarily rejected by the Palestinian Authority with the backing of the majority of the Palestinian people....

I believe recent changes in approach taken by your administration threatens all that has been gained over the past two years. Equating, as the Roadmap does, the removal of settlements with ending Palestinian violence accepts a strategy that history has proven a failure....

And on the House side:

Thirty-four Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives, including the two senior Democrats, complained to President Bush on Friday about his criticism of an Israeli assassination attempt....

"We were deeply dismayed to hear your criticism of Israel for fighting acts of terror. The attack on Hamas leader Abdel Rantissi was clearly justified as an application of Israel's right to self-defense," they said in a letter....

"Just as the United States has the right to prosecute the war on terrorism, Israel has the same right to fight terrorism in its own neighborhood and its own capital," they added. [Yahoo News]

20/20 Hindsight

From James Taranto Friday:

As this March CNN/Money report notes, opponents of Iraq's liberation had much higher estimates of the cost of war....This wasn't the only thing war opponents told us during the prewar debate that turned out not to be true. They said the U.S. would suffer thousands of casualties. They said ordinary Iraqis would resent American "invaders" rather than welcome them as liberators. They said the "Arab street" would rise up in outrage. They said Iraq's liberation would set off a new wave of terrorism. They said the war would be a "quagmire"...

Some war foes even said--get this!--that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and would use them on American troops. Well pardon us for asking, but if Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, *where are they?*

It's possible that this was all just a massive failure of intelligence, but we can't help suspecting that war opponents knew better and deliberately misled the public in an effort to establish a pretext for keeping a mass-murdering dictator in power. In either case, they now face a yawning credibility gap. The American people deserve nothing less than a full congressional investigation into the false claims of antiwar politicians, scholars, journalists and activists. If they lied to us about Iraq, how can we ever trust them to talk us out of future wars?

Hillary Clinton’s Presidential Ambitions

From Yahoo News:

Former U.S. First Lady Hillary Clinton says she feels sorry for everyone who was caught up in the scandal of her husband's affair with Monica Lewinsky -- including Lewinsky herself. ... "That is a point I tried to make in the book is that this very personal, painful experience for us as a couple and a family was brought to public light not by people who cared about my husband's soul or our marriage," she added. "You know, they were motivated by political malice." [Mrs.] Clinton denied having presidential ambitions herself. "I have no intention of running for President," she said. "No intention, and no planning under way." [Yahoo News, "Mrs. Clinton: I Feel Sorry for Lewinsky"]

Yeah right.

The Antitrust Action Center

The Center for the Advancement of Capitalism is joining the fight against antitrust in America's courtrooms and administrative proceedings. There new The Antitrust Action Center highlights cases where CAC plans to file amicus briefs or provide support for businesses unjustly prosecuted under antitrust laws. including:

  • A group of 1,000 physicians in Dallas-Fort Worth proved no match for FTC lawyers, who forced the doctors to disavow their right to seek greater compensation from health plans.
  • Two San Diego physician groups tried to work together in search of fairer compensation from a local hospital. The FTC decided to make a federal case out of this, scuttling the physicians' negotiations and imposing sanctions to ensure they wouldn't try it again.
  • The FTC's war on physician rights continues in New Mexico, where a local physician group is facing dissolution for collectively negotiating with health insurance companies.
  • Scotch tape giant 3M was sued by a competitor who claimed they couldn't fairly compete with 3M's superior line of office products. A Philadelphia jury decided 3M's market success should be punished to the tune of more than $68 million. Following a defeat in its first appeal, 3M now heads to the Supreme Court.
  • Weyerhaeuser beat its competitors in the lumber market. The competitors fought back with an antitrust lawsuit, and won a jury award of more than $78 million. Weyerhaeuser isn't giving up though, and vows to continue fighting for their rights to succeed in the marketplace.
  • Seven years ago, the Federal Trade Commission forced Boston Scientific to share its patented catheter technology with a competitor. When that competitor later decided to exit the market, the FTC claimed it was Boston Scientific's fault, and convinced a federal judge to fine the company a record $7,040,000.
  • The federal government is looking to undo an already-completed merger in order to protect Kentucky's schoolchildren from the threat of higher school milk prices.

French President Jacques Chirac Eats Crow (Again)

From Yahoo News:

PARIS - France and the United States are engaged in relationship of dialogue and trust, French President Jacques Chirac told business leaders from the French-American Business Council on Friday. Before dozens of major U.S. and French corporate heads, Chirac said Paris and Washington had a period of "discord about how to disarm Iraq the president's spokeswoman Catherine Colonna quoted Chirac as saying. The two countries spoke frankly to one another but will "continue to be faithful allies," Colonna quoted Chirac as saying. Relations between the two countries are strong and have been forged by history and "took root in the same values: respect for liberty, human dignity, justice and peace," Chirac said.

So that's what the French Revolution was about. And all this time I thought the French opposed the war because they wanted to Saddam to pay for all those arms they sold them, and to maintain their oil contracts with Saddam.

From Cox and Forkum:

In Defense of Waksal and Stewart

Writes Ed Cline of the Ayn Rand Institute:

Sam Waksal's criminal sentencing to seven years and a multi-million dollar fine, and Martha Stewart's status in judicial purgatory, indicted for "lying" about her innocence, demonstrates that America has turned 180 degrees away from its founding principles. The laws under which these two have been charged and persecuted are precisely the kinds of laws--general warrants and writs of assistance--that were debated and declared unconstitutional not only in many pre-Revolutionary colonial courts, but by Charles Pratt, Lord Camden, who was chief justice of Britain's Court of Common Pleas, in 1765!

When our own Constitution was being framed some 20 years later, general warrants, which allowed the government to arrest someone without specifying charges, and writs of assistance, which allowed government agents to search one's property on mere suspicion of violating a commercial or fiat law, and who were indemnified against any suits for damages, were not incorporated anywhere in the Constitution by the Founders, who abhorred them. These extralegal powers constituted one of the reasons Americans began a revolution!

 

The Plight of Iranian Students

From Foxnews.com:

TEHRAN, Iran -- Pro-clergy militants on motorcycles chased down protesters and beat them with clubs early Friday, the third night of anti-government demonstrations in Tehran, witnesses said. The student-led protests were aimed at Iran's hard-line clerics, who control the security forces and are locked in a power struggle with reformist President Mohammad Khatami....Meanwhile, former president Hashemi Rafsanjani (search) called on Iran's youth not to fall into what he described as an American trap by denouncing the country's political leadership. "I advise the youth, especially students ... that they should be careful not to fall into trap dug out by the Americans," Rafsanjani told worshippers at Friday prayers at Tehran University.

Writes David Holcberg of the Ayn Rand Institute:

Hundreds of Iranian students took to the streets last week to protest the dictatorial religious rule under which they live. They were calling for a separation between mosque and state, and in doing so were risking their lives.

These students could use all the help they can get in their fight against Iran's terrorist regime. But--for all their professed concern about human rights--the Western media and the Bush administration seem indifferent to the students' plight. If our president believes a militarily attack on Iran--the world's most active state sponsor of terrorism--is unwarranted at this point, he should at least give his full support to the students' cause. Such support would go a long way to show freedom-seeking Muslims worldwide, who suffer under secular or religious political oppression, that America stands with them in their struggle for freedom. Such support would also show our enemies that we are serious about defeating them.

A few words spoken by President Bush in support of the Iranian protestors would surely help bring down the regime--without the need of a war. So why isn't the president speaking out?

Related Reading: Iran, Not So Far Away [Hat Tip: Chip Joyce]

War on Iraq Under Budget

Looks like the Iraqi war came in very close to its budget:

A short conflict that used fewer missiles, sparked fewer oil field fires and created fewer refugees than anticipated produced a lower-than-expected financial cost for the major combat in Iraq...

...A detailed account of expenses won't be complete for months, but senior administration officials say the cost of deployment and combat will be just less than the $62.6 billion Congress approved in March as emergency funding for Operation Iraqi Freedom. It is the first time officials have offered a tally. [USA Today, "Short conflict, less ammo kept war cost down", June 13, 2003]

Some other interesting points from the article:

The price for the combat phase is about $220 per American. The Persian Gulf War in 1991 cost $76 billion in today's dollars...

Planners budgeted $593 million to care for as many as 2 million refugees, a problem avoided when urban combat was less extensive than expected. The refugee count was less than 100,000...

...$200 million was earmarked for emergency food supplies for Iraqis, but no major shortages occurred. [USA Today]

Cognition Never Results From Coercion

The New York Sun, being a conservative paper, is bad on religion--maybe not as bad as Christian conservatives, but you'll get the occasional column from a rabbi giving the religious justification for war in Iraq, or an offhand comment in an editorial saying that the Jews' right to be in Israel derives from their religion.

Monday's paper contained an unsigned editorial praising Hillary Clinton for saying that she has relied on prayer as her "primary source of help":

[T]he moment that struck us most --and that probably did the most to help Mrs. Clinton win over the independent, middle-American voters that she will need to get elected president in 2008--was when Ms. Walters asked Mrs. Clinton about her faith and how it helped her during her difficult times....

[I]t is an amazing thing to see a liberal icon such as Mrs. Clinton speak so publicly, and in such a positive way, about her religion.... Yet if Mrs. Clinton keeps challenging the liberal conventions on prayer and finds some other issues with which she can pleasantly surprise sensible, centrist voters, she may just make some inroads in 2008. [June 9, 2003, New York Sun]

and an even worse lead editorial defending providing public facilities for religious purposes:

On Friday,a three-judge panel of its judges held, two-to-one, that New York City cannot lock out the Bronx Household of Faith Church from public school facilities used by other groups because such an action would constitute "viewpoint discrimination." In doing so, the circuit court reversed its own decision of 1997, to conform with Supreme Court precedent from the intervening years....

There is a holdout, however, in Judge Roger Miner, who issued a dissent that smacked of hostility and defiance....

Judge Miner's churlishness, we suppose, is of little consequence given the outcome of the case. America sided with the Bronx Household of Faith in a brief filed by the Department of Justice.... Meanwhile, the people of the Bronx and the rest of New York have won a famous victory--one that will enable the religious persons among us to stand on a more equal footing with others in access to our public spaces. [June 9, 2003, New York Sun]

I had the following letter published Wednesday in response:

There is no relevant difference between forcing an individual to contribute more to a candidate than he would voluntarily offer, and forcing an individual to contribute more to a religion than he would voluntarily provide ["Faith of the Bronx," June 9]. Both are violations of free speech. That the coercion is accomplished through taxation, or that the money supports all positions equally, make the action no more voluntary.

There is no "viewpoint discrimination" here: The state has no business providing public facilities or tax money to promote any system of ideas--atheistic, religious, communist, capitalist, democratic, or fascist. Cognition never results from coercion. Law, and the police power of the state, are properly concerned only with people's actions, not with their ideas. [New York Sun]

Education: Less Government Needed

Writes David Holcberg of the Ayn Rand Institute:

President Bush's new plan to improve elementary and secondary education will fail for the same reason that all previous plans have failed: the way to improve education is not more government involvement but less--much less.
 
In fact, education in America will substantially improve only when the government's virtual monopoly on education is replaced by a free market, where bad schools go out of business, incompetent teachers are fired, and worthless curriculums are dumped.
 
As long as schools and teachers are not accountable to parents but to the government, students will be trapped in our current educational system, with little hope of getting the knowledge and thinking skills they need to succeed in life.

Bush’s Moral Relativism

Writes David Holcberg of the Ayn Rand Institute:

After this week's suicide bombing on a Jerusalem bus that killed at least sixteen and wounded many more, it is worth asking again: How many more Israelis have to be murdered before President Bush wakes up to the reality that only a total war against Palestinian terrorists will stop these attacks?
 
President Bush should stop acting as if the Israeli government and the Palestinian regime were morally equal. The Israeli government represents a free country, which protects (to a large extent) the individual rights of its citizens, and acts only in self-defense to eliminate the terrorists that threaten its people. The Palestinian regime, in sharp contrast, is a collection of terrorists and supporters of terrorism put together by the father of international terrorism, Yasir Arafat; it's a regime that has no respect for the individual rights of its own people, and whose main goal is the destruction of Israel.
 
Thus the road map President Bush is trying--and succeeding--to shove down Israel's throat was doomed to failure from the start. It is past time for President Bush to abandon such misguided moral relativism and choose sides: he is either with Israel or with the terrorists.

Attacks on Martha Stewart a Moral Abomination

Writes Professor Harry Binswanger on the government's assault on Martha Stewart: 

"Martha Stewart is being attacked out of hatred of the good for being the good. She is being made an example of--which is the utilitarian theory of justice--because she is 'too perfect.' Note that she was not charged with insider trading--the government doesn't have evidence to support that. Nor is she being charged with perjury: she made no testimony under oath. Essentially, she is being charged with protesting her innocence! Such protests, the government claims, is "stock manipulation." They claim that proclaiming her innocence constituted wrongly trying to keep her own stock in her own company from falling--by denying the unprovable government assertions!" [June 10, 2003, HBL]

Voice of Capitalism

Capitalism news delivered every Monday to your email inbox.

Subscribed. Check your email box for confirmation.

Pin It on Pinterest