Our new Secretary of State explains to the Europeans that we are not in fact European.

Money quote:

When Europeans talk of “stability” and “constructive engagement”, what they often mean is doing deals with dictators. A case can, of course, be made for such an approach. But, whatever else it is, it is not ethical. Miss Rice, by contrast, talks without embarrassment about exporting liberty.

“There cannot be an absence of moral content in American foreign policy,” she says. “Europeans giggle at this, but we are not European, we are American, and we have different principles.”

Yes indeed.

From the Stockholm Spectator:

“The inked fingers was disgusting,” Air America radio talk show host Janeane Garofalo declared on MSNBC in denouncing Republican lawmakers who, before and after the State of the Union, showed off an inked finger meant to demonstrate solidarity with Iraqi voters who dipped a finger in ink when they voted. To mock the display, Garofalo soon held up her hand in a Nazi salute as she predicted: “The inked fingers and the position of them, which is gonna be a Daily Show photo already, of them signaling in this manner [Nazi salute], as if they have solidarity with the Iraqis who braved physical threats against their lives to vote as if somehow these inked-fingered Republicans have something to do with that.”

I had seen this around the blogosphere and decided to let it pass as the ignorance of our betters in Hollywood. Besides, after the takedown administered by the South Park boys in Team America: World Police (where is that DVD!?) who takes these people seriously anyway? But when I found it linked by an Australian blogger from a Swedish blog, I thought I would share in the world wide mocking by posting this from Korea. Janeane, you rock! I bow before your superior intellect!

See also a funny take from Half-Bakered

And more here
from crosswalk.com

Via Tim Blair

And if you are easily offended by coarse language, don’t read this bit from Team America. Funniest quote from the funniest movie of the year in my opinion:
Continue reading →

Christopher Hitchens explains why Iraq is not comparable to Vietnam (notwithstanding the NY Times assertions to the contrary). Good stuff, go read it here.

Via Tim Blair

Jack Kelly’s column in today’s Toledo Blade is a must read. He deftly exposes how the media has been missing the story in Iraq. While incompetence may be factor in that, evidence suggests it is a deliberate slanting of the news by overemphasizing one aspect of the story and ignoring much of what has been and continues to be the real accomplishments of our soldiers in Iraq. As one G.I. put it:

“I’m tired of hearing the crap, the whole, well ‘We are barely hanging on, we’re losing, the insurgency is growing,” Marine Sgt. Kevin Lewis told Dan Rather, in Iraq for the election. “It’s just a small amount of people out there causing the problems. It’s a small number, and we’re killing them.”

The blogosphere has been buzzing for days about Eason Jordan, CNN’s top honcho, who recently accused American troops of deliberately targeting jounalists. Oh, you haven’t heard about this? Understandable if you rely on the MSM as your sole source on news. Well, the story is finally beginning to get some traction, thanks in no small part to bloggers like Ed Morrissey of Captain’s Quarters. I expect you will be hearing more on this, I am just waiting to see how the MSM chooses to spin a documented example of anti-American bias from one of their own.

Here’s what Kelly has to say:

The scandalous remarks of Eason Jordan, CNN’s top news executive, last week at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, and the failure of the major media to report them suggest the distortions are deliberate.

Mr. Jordan told a panel that the U.S. military had killed a dozen journalists in Iraq, and that they had been deliberately targeted. When challenged, Mr. Jordan could provide no evidence to support the charge, and subsequently lied about having made it, though the record shows he had made a similar charge a few months before, and also earlier had falsely accused the Israeli military of targeting journalists.

Mr. Jordan’s slander has created a firestorm in the blogosphere, but has yet to be mentioned in the “mainstream” media.

Gee, I wonder why not.

Yes, I wonder. Let’s see how this plays out in the coming days.

Via Captain’s Quarters

UPDATE: LaShawn Barber has a great round-up and loads of links if you want to read more on the Eason Jordan scandal.

….The President of the United States of America:

For younger workers, the Social Security system has serious problems that will grow worse with time. Social Security was created decades ago, for a very different era. In those days people didn’t live as long, benefits were much lower than they are today, and a half century ago, about 16 workers paid into the system for each person drawing benefits. Our society has changed in ways the founders of Social Security could not have foreseen. In today’s world, people are living longer and therefore drawing benefits longer — and those benefits are scheduled to rise dramatically over the next few decades. And instead of 16 workers paying in for every beneficiary, right now it’s only about three workers — and over the next few decades, that number will fall to just two workers per beneficiary. With each passing year, fewer workers are paying ever-higher benefits to an ever-larger number of retirees….

….If you’ve got children in their 20s, as some of us do, the idea of Social Security collapsing before they retire does not seem like a small matter. And it should not be a small matter to the United States Congress….

…We must make Social Security permanently sound, not leave that task for another day. We must not jeopardize our economic strength by increasing payroll taxes. We must ensure that lower income Americans get the help they need to have dignity and peace of mind in their retirement. We must guarantee there is no change for those now retired or nearing retirement. And we must take care that any changes in the system are gradual, so younger workers have years to prepare and plan for their future.

As we fix Social Security, we also have the responsibility to make the system a better deal for younger workers. And the best way to reach that goal is through voluntary personal retirement accounts. Here is how the idea works. Right now, a set portion of the money you earn is taken out of your paycheck to pay for the Social Security benefits of today’s retirees. If you are a younger worker, I believe you should be able to set aside part of that money in your own retirement account, so you can build a nest egg for your own future.

Here is why personal accounts are a better deal. Your money will grow, over time, at a greater rate than anything the current system can deliver – and your account will provide money for retirement over and above the check you will receive from Social Security. In addition, you’ll be able to pass along the money that accumulates in your personal account, if you wish, to your children or grandchildren. And best of all, the money in the account is yours, and the government can never take it away.

The goal here is greater security in retirement, so we will set careful guidelines for personal accounts. We will make sure the money can only go into a conservative mix of bonds and stock funds. We will make sure that your earnings are not eaten up by hidden Wall Street fees. We will make sure there are good options to protect your investments from sudden market swings on the eve of your retirement. We will make sure a personal account can’t be emptied out all at once, but rather paid out over time, as an addition to traditional Social Security benefits. And we will make sure this plan is fiscally responsible, by starting personal accounts gradually, and raising the yearly limits on contributions over time, eventually permitting all workers to set aside four percentage points of their payroll taxes in their accounts.

He said it, I believe it, and that settles it. Anyone disagree?

UPDATE: Welcome Instapundit readers. Glenn has honored me with my first ever Instalache.

Raven posted here earlier today about the Social Security reform debate. Coincidentally, I was perusing blogs last night and over at VodkaPundit I found these ads being run on TV and in print from our “friends” at MoveOn.org. Of course, a pretty safe position to take is simply if MoveOn is against SS reform, I’m all for it. But where’s the fun in that?

In the interest of full disclosure, I don’t personally have a dog in this fight because I am one of the lucky few Americans who are not covered by the SS program. My good fortune at being in the Civil Service Retirement System does not extend to my spouse however, and she is not a happy camper about the plan to “privatize” social security. And even though I have never posted on SS reform, that didn’t stop her from leaving this comment on my blog:

By the way I think permitting young people -under 40-to invest some of their money into private accounts, with matching funds from the government or private employers, is a pretty good idea provided it is on top of the normal (or slightly reduced depending on who is making the matching funds) contributions they would make to Social Security. This would make their retirement accounts portable which is a good idea in our mobile society. You can even eliminate the ceiling on deductions for Social Security. Let SSA administer the program like a thrift to keep administrative costs down, few choices and automatic rebalancing. That way if the investments tank, which can happen trust me, these young people are not left without a safety net. Social Security is suppose to be a safety net not a gamble. Besides, if you don’t keep the safety net in place and the investments do tank our country will end up paying for these people through welfare one way or another.

My wife’s daughter Ashley is a twenty-something professional with an entirely different perspective. She responded by saying:

Hmm, I am not rich enough to pay for baby boomer’s social security checks or their Viagra, which I just found out will be covered under Medicare. And although I think it is big of you to believe we young people should be “permitted” to save any money we have left over after paying our bills and old people’s retirement – I would like to keep all of my money. And if I blow it and I don’t have any money when I am old-tough cookies for me. If the government keeps taking my money it will be tough cookies for me anyway since I won’t be eligible for social security until 2051.

Makes sense to me, but commenter Carol did not see it that way and responded:

I don’t happen to think that if due to a fluctuating market, Ashley’s generation does not have the money to survive in old age that their children and grandchildren should have their taxes doubled to pay for the welfare programs needed to support Ashley’s generation. What do you think will happen? That America will simply let you starve? So you want them to basically hedge your bets? I believe a compromise is in order here that protects the money I paid in, that you plan to pay in and for future generations.

Ashley was not convinced by this argument, and revealed some rather strong feelings about the entire concept of social security:

My generation’s children and grandchildren are already going to have their taxes doubled to pay for my social security. Never mind them, I am going to have mine raised because the best solutions Dems can come up with is (1)getting rid of the ceiling (tax raise) (2)a more direct tax raise by upping the amount workers and their employers put it or (3) raising the retirement age (also basically a tax increase). So there you have it-the AARP and the liberals in their pocket have indeed solved the problem. I can work until I die to pay your generation’s retirement. I won’t need SS because I will die on the job. Besides, if you would stop with the knee jerk reactions, and listen to the plan that Bush put out there – it is a compromise. Everyone over a certain age (those close to retirement with no real prospects of being able to save at this point) will still get their checks. FDR was a friggin socialist-it was a stupid plan from the beginning and it has just grown worse over time.

Uh oh. The gauntlet has been laid down and Carol loves an argument. She responded:

You need to do your homework. I have no problem with permitting folks in your age group to invest a portion of your social security, a proposal by the way that was first floated by the Dems. I do have a problem with Bush changing the indexing of social security from wages to inflation. I needed to save 400k. Well it is 20 years later and I am not even half way there. The down turn in the market in 2000 and 2001 (the market has never returned to its pre 2000 levels) wiped out half of my thrift savings. That is the gamble you take. I accept that. Now however, Bush wants to reduce by nearly 60% the amount of social security that I would have been eligible to draw over the remaining (hopefully) 15 years of my life. That is calculated on my being able to withdraw at age 67. I might get lucky and realize only a 40% reduction. I had planned to retire at 60 but not withdraw until 67. I am too old to start investing part of my social security besides I am already gambling with my thrift. Social security was suppose to be my safety net. The Congressional Oversight Office calculates that with no change in the current system that by 2043 recipients will only be able to receive 73% of the benefits currently paid to recipients but that will be at 2043 dollars not 2005 dollars. Right now I only pay social security on the first 87k I earn. I am willing to pay it on all of the salary I earn in order that your generation does not have to take a reduction in benefits. I am willing that you should have a portable retirement, i.e., thrift that you contribute to just like I do and gamble with just like I do. The social security administration could administer this plan for the smallest amount of overhead just as the government currently administers the thrift. The mechanisms are already in place. This would save the government a considerable amount of money, money that could remain in the system to pay out the benefits that I have been paying towards for the past 32 years. Under Bush’s plan I will be an impoverished old lady.

I realize you are a good and dutiful daughter and that you would never let me starve or otherwise live poorly. However, if you experience the same unfortunate luck with the market that I have experienced then you will not be able to afford to assist me without impoverishing yourself at a time when you will be ready for retirement. I am not totally against Bush’s plan but I am not totally for it either and who can blame me? There is also the concern that the additional debt the Bush plan would add to the already burgeoning national debt could cause a downturn in the market further killing my thrift! I am not asking your generation to continue paying into a system that will not be around to give you anything in return. I know the feeling as politicians have been predicting the demise of the social security system since I was 20! I am willing to pay social security taxes on all of my income. That is not a raise in taxes for you until you make more than 87k a year and if you were already making that much then I would not feel bad about suggesting that you pay it. I am willing to take a small cut in benefits but not 40% and certainly not 60%. The alternative is that you will pay for my care as an old lady at a time in your life when you probably thought you’d have a little extra cash and are ready for retirement yourself. That is what would keep you from being able to retire!

Ashley was far from convinced, and she gets the last word.

As a dutiful daughter I will most certainly take your advice and do more homework. Unfortunately, I suspect that my homework will lead to a violation of the 5th commandment because it will prove you wrong.

1. You are paying ss taxes on $90,000 not $87,000. Do your homework.. (Damn, I have already violated the 5th commandment)

2. When that socialist set up SS he was playing a game with the American people. He set the retirement age several years after the life expectancy. SS was never meant to be a retirement fund – only a feel good sop to idiots.

3. I have pointed out already that I will never be able to retire. It seems my grandmother’s generation was a bit randy and my generation has a lot of people we need to take care of. (I remember that when I was at USC I had a Chinese sociology professor who explained to us one day that China would collapse because the “sandwich” generation would not be able to care for both their parents and their children. The equivalent is my generation in America.)

3. Of course I would take care of you in your dotage, that was what families were for before Big Brother.

4. I skirted around this in my first post so as not to make you feel old but the cut-off age where retirees would still receive their checks under Bush includes you. (What the hell-I have already broken the 5th commandment by not buying what you are selling hook, line, and sinker.)

6. What the hell good would 73% of my benefits due me at 2005 dollars in 2043?!?! (Oh, that’s right–according to the letters Michael and I got from the SSA we are not eligible for full benefits unless we WORK until we are 75-so that is probably more like (to pull a fairly conservative number out of my…)55% at 2005 dollars. Whoopee! There is no way we could save that much by ourselves.)

7. If you were paying SS on more than $87,000–oops, scratch that I mean $90,000–that would not benefit me in any way. The gov’t would either give it to crack heads or spend it on pork and I will still end up in a worse position.

8. Bottom line–it is theft. The gov’t is stealing my money. It IS my money. I go to work everyday and I earn it. I love you Mom, but it is not your money and it is not the government’s money. It is my money. You raised me to be a hard worker but if you had told me so it was so the gov’t could steal from me maybe I would have considered other options. I could have been a crack whore-liberals would claim it was because I was downtrodden and I would have had a free ride for life. Or, I could have become a housewife with a pile of kiddies-conservatives would say I was doing my wifely duty and given me lots of nice tax cuts like the Child Income Credit. As it is I am paying for the welfare Moms, the soccer Moms, the Viagra needin’ leacherous old men, and I am staring down the barrel at having to fund the bingo and golf money for the enormous Baby Boomer generation–give me a break, can I please keep something for me??

Fascinating debate. My position is a simple one. Republicans say its your money and your responsibility. Invest wisely or suffer the consequences. Dems say you can’t be trusted with your money, give it to the government and the nanny state will do what is best for you. Hmm, tough choice, eh? Sorry Carol.

What I think is going to be particularly interesting is how this issue plays out with the voters. I suspect that many people Ashley’s age have similar views towards social security. If this drives young voters to the Republicans the Democratic party base is further eroded. Then again the Republican boomers who are a sizable voting block may defect if they see their dreams of a comfortable retirement disappearing. MoveOn aligning with the AARP is the best description of strange bedfellows I can imagine. I suspect that as the debate over SS continues in Congress (and in families) we will see more of these shifting alliances. Looking forward to seeing how it all shakes out politically.

cross posted at The Wide Awakes