This puts things in perspective, and points out how we take our comfortable lives for granted.
Hat tip: Carpe Diem
"The Great Communicator" was President Ronald Reagan - of course. So, I can only hope to be, humbly, "The Fairly Decent Communicator".
This puts things in perspective, and points out how we take our comfortable lives for granted.
Hat tip: Carpe Diem
From The PRC Forum.
From the PRC Forum. Check back here tomorrow for the last part in this series.
From the PRC Forum. Check back here each day for another video in this series.
From the PRC Forum. Check back each day for another in this six-part series.
From the PRC Forum. Check back daily for the next video in the series.
From the PRC Forum. Check back daily for the rest of this series.
Another instant classic.
Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less. It's pretty simple and The FDC urges you to sign the petition here.
Link: sevenload.com
The FDC has told you before that Gore's lies are not about the science of global warming, are the means to an end - and we got a glimpse of that end today.
Maxine Waters, while grilling the Big Oil executives today, stated:
What this liberal will be all about, this liberal will be all about socializing...would be about...basically...the government...taking over and running all of your companies.>p>
As is stated at the end of the video, she's taking a page from Hugo Chavez.
The US Army Chorus nearly stole the show on the South Lawn of The White House. The video quality is not great, but also not important. The audio is what counts.
A smattering of the YouTube viewer comments that stood out:
In-Your-Face, but makes a great point:
"TREMENDOUS!! The greatest version of this tune I've ever heard! The Pope at the White House!! Separate that you liberal facists!!! "
And this from the viewer with the best ears, and an awesome grasp of the history:
"Listen carefully to the last verse. They sang the original line: As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free. This line was rewritten later to "let us *live* to make men free". A small, but significant, distinction, given the times in which we live. As it was in 1861, it is today."
Great comment.
Dan Mitchell, Senior Fellow at The Cato Institute, has posted Part III (the final installment) of The Center for Economic Prosperity's three-part series on The Laffer Curve on You Tube.
The crux of this tutorial demonstrates why a dynamic-scoring model of tax revenue estimating is much more accurate and realistic than Congress' static-scoring model.
The FDC linked to the first two videos in this series: #1 & #2
But the static vs. dynamic scoring doesn't just apply to economic tax-rate policy and the Laffer Curve. Methinks this static-scoring analysis is the folly of the global warming alarmists climate models, the Peak Oil crowd predictions of oil drying up, Paul Ehrlich and the population control advocates predictions of chaos, and so on.
H/T: Larry Kudlow
But...
...bargainers have an Achilles heel. They succeed as conduits of white innocence only as long as they are largely invisible as complex human beings. They hope to become icons that can be identified with rather than seen, and their individual complexity gets in the way of this. So bargainers are always laboring to stay invisible. (We don't know the real politics or convictions of Tiger Woods or Michael Jordan or Oprah Winfrey, bargainers all.) Mr. Obama has said of himself, "I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views . . ." And so, human visibility is Mr. Obama's Achilles heel. If we see the real man, his contradictions and bents of character, he will be ruined as an icon, as a "blank screen."
Much is being written today in honor and remembrance of the great conservative icon William F. Buckley Jr. Buckley, founder of The National Review, was a towering intellectual and the father of the modern American conservative movement. He will truly be missed.
"Erudite" seems to be a word that followed Buckley around. But, that seemed proper as Buckley was the kind of fellow who made large and arcane words cool.
Over at The Corner there is a lively and emotional conversation regarding Mr. Buckley's passing.
WFB gave an interview to the Wall Street Journal in 2005. A nugget:
"My view is unorthodox," Mr. Buckley says of the violence roiling the French suburbs. "It seems to me that a very hard dose of market discipline would distract the attention of the young revolutionaries from their frolics, traditional and otherwise, and my sense is that if they had to worry about how to eat, and buy food, they would stop screwing around and face reality. If these people didn't wake up in the morning thinking about what cars to burn -- instead of work -- they might not be having these problems."
Buckley is the one who put the "move" in the convservative movement.
Dan Mitchell, Senior Fellow at The Cato Institute, has posted Part II of The Center for Economic Prosperity's three-part series on The Laffer Curve on You Tube.
Before you hit the back button since you probably think this is just some boring economics stuff, please wait! Yes, I'm sure you need all you need to know about economics - "it's all about supply and demand". Yeah, sure. Well, there is much more, and if you want to learn one more important lesson about economics, it would be The Laffer Curve - more specifically the economics of tax rates and how they affect tax revenues.
H/T: Larry Kudlow.
If that's not quite your cup of tea (and you're ready for a chuckle), try this video with Arthur Laffer and Merle Hazard...
Although it is the policy of The FDC not to partake in schadenfreude, but in this case it is a bit fun to witness The Times twisting in the wind.
The Times' David Brooks has in tomorrow's paper an inside peek at the McCain campaign, and notest that:
"At his press conference Thursday, McCain went all-in. He didn’t just say he didn’t remember a meeting about Iseman. He said there was no meeting. If it turns out that there is evidence of an affair and a meeting, then his presidential hopes will be over. If no evidence surfaces, his campaign will go on and it will be clear that there were members of his old inner circle consumed by viciousness and mendaciousness. "
Rick Moran examines the carcass of the smear.
UPDATE:
The Times ombudsman doesn't agree with Bill Keller's spin of his four reporters lame smear of McCain:
"A newspaper cannot begin a story about the all-but-certain Republican presidential nominee with the suggestion of an extramarital affair with an attractive lobbyist 31 years his junior and expect readers to focus on anything other than what most of them did. And if a newspaper is going to suggest an improper sexual affair, whether editors think that is the central point or not, it owes readers more proof than The Times was able to provide."
What are the limitations of free speech and a free press? We might find out soon with the recent shut down of wikileaks.org by a US judge. "Shut down" is a vague term - dozens of mirror sites have popped up all over the internet.
What is wikileaks.org? According one of the mirror sites:
Some of the more notable leaks on the site are documents concerning the rules of engagement for American troops in Iraq, a military manual concerning the operation of prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and other evidence of what it has called corporate waste and wrongdoing. In the interest of US national security, The FDC will not link to any of these mirror sites. The genie is out of the bottle though, and the documents can easily be found in about 0.17 seconds via Google.
This will likely turn out to be one of the biggest tests of the freedom of the press since the Pentagon Papers. There's lots of debate about this issue on the web, and it's likely to heat up. The debate isn't necessarily formally decided along party lines.
Regarding government leaks in general, Gabriel Schoenfeld, writing on today's Wall Street Journal Editorial Page:
"Today, the secrets that are routinely leaked to the press typically concern operational intelligence, i.e., secrets about ongoing intelligence programs. The New York Times's publication in 2006 of details of the joint CIA-Treasury program to monitor al Qaeda financial transactions is one of the most egregious cases in point. But one could cite many other damaging leaks.
Such unauthorized disclosures of classified information have the direct and obvious effect of conveying vital information to America's adversaries. They have a range of harmful second-order effects as well.
The ever-present possibility of disclosure throws a wrench into the machinery of deliberation. In this environment, discussion of policy alternatives must be confined to small groups of reliable officials, and certain policy alternatives cannot be discussed at all lest their disclosure generate outrage.
Also, foreign governments cannot depend upon the U.S. to protect their secrets, and therefore cannot share them. When that happens, communication even among friendly states, a vital part of intelligence, dries up.
What's more, leaks aimed at influencing policy subvert the rule of law and the democratic process. Decision-making that is supposed to be the work of a democratically elected government is supplanted by the decision-making of anonymous officials and Pulitzer-Prize seeking journalists -- individuals who have private agendas.
This state of affairs -- government policy hijacked by leakers, government decision-making paralyzed by the fear of leaks and the repercussion of leaks -- is exceptionally dangerous. And worse is yet to come."
What's worse that's yet to come? Wikileaks.org and the whack-a-mole mirror sites.
A conservative ex-CIA officer recommends direct talks with Iran. Have the neo-cons turned to doves?
Not quite. According to Reuel Marc Gerecht's opinion in today's New York Times, it's his strategy "to apply American soft and hard power".
Mr. Gerecht offers up a thoughtful, realist analysis that ought to be considered. Mahmoud, whaddaya say? It's a lot better solution than the hugs, kisses, apologies, and bouquets of flowers that would be offered up by a hyopthetical President Obama.The Bush administration should advocate direct, unconditional talks between Washington and Tehran. Strategically, politically and morally, such meetings will help us think more clearly. Foreign-policy hawks ought to see such discussions as essential preparation for possible military strikes against clerical Iran’s nuclear facilities.