This quiz showing where you would be most at home politically was kinda fun. And I think it pretty accurately captured my “hometown”.

Here’s what it says about me and where I live:

NW-You would feel most at home in the Northwest region. You advocate a large degree of economic and personal freedom. Your neighbors include folks like Ayn Rand, Jesse Ventura, Milton Friedman, and Drew Carey, and may refer to themselves as “classical liberals,” “libertarians,” “market liberals,” “old whigs,” “objectivists,” “propertarians,” “agorists,” or “anarcho-capitalist.”

So take the quiz and let’s see if you are living nearby…..

Via INDC

Here we have a senior editor for the Washington Post providing propaganda fodder for the Chinese. When I lived in the States the Post was a daily read. I became increasingly disgusted with the obvious bias displayed towards the intentions of the United States in general and President Bush in particular. So this man’s views as expressed here explains at least where the Post is coming from. America=bad, oppressive freedom hating regimes=”democracy means different things to different people.” Yeah, right.

Living here on the Korean peninsula has been interesting. I have talked to Koreans who are very skeptical of China’s intentions. And with good reason given their history. Many Koreans believe that China intends to dominate the world and they have the patience and resources to achieve that goal. With apologists like the Washington Post leading the way, they may take comfort in the perception that we lack the will to defend our way of life. I hope they are wrong about that.

Vigilance is in order. We have enemies within and without our borders.

Cross posted at The Wide Awakes

I’m not going to say I used to be a liberal. I think I still carry the same values and beliefs that I’ve always held (although I may have some new perspectives). I guess it’s like Joe Walsh said: “everybody’s so different, I haven’t changed.”

Looking at what is happening in the world today should warm the heart of any true “liberal.” Surely freedom and democracy and the end of tyranny are traditional liberal values. And yet the left in America (and in much of the world) has steadfastly stood in opposition to the forces that are bringing about the historic changes sweeping the Middle East. What’s up with that? And if these so-called liberals do not support liberation of the oppressed, what exactly do they stand for?

I have never linked to a corporate webpage before, but over at Starbucks.com they have a short Q&A with Jonah Goldberg, a founding editor of National Review Online. He made some points that got me thinking about just how meaningless words like liberal and conservative have become. The world is turned upside down and perhaps finally it is what we believe to be right and just that means more than the label assigned to those beliefs. And it seems that many of those who still proudly call themselves liberal stand for little more than opposition to the forces that are shaping this brave new world. I’m pretty clear on what they are against, but what exactly are they for?

Anyway, here is some of what Mr. Goldberg had to say:

Everywhere, unthinking mobs of “independent thinkers” wield tired clichés like cudgels, pummeling those who dare question “enlightened” dogma. If “violence never solved anything,” cops wouldn’t have guns and slaves may never have been freed. If it’s better that 10 guilty men go free to spare one innocent, why not free 100 or 1,000,000? Clichés begin arguments, they don’t settle them.

I can’t stand it when people say “give peace a chance” as if this was some great insight or suggestion. Imagine you’re sitting around the table in the Situation Room at the White House trying to figure out what to do about, say, China invading Taiwan. Generals are suggesting putting our ships on an intercept course. Diplomats are demanding we go to the Security Council for a resolution. The CIA is insisting there isn’t time as the People’s Liberation Army is already on the move. And some guy yells, “Wait, wait I got it!” Everyone turns to him for a helpful suggestion and he offers “Give peace a chance!”

I think liberalism is rusty and atrophied. Liberalism – by which I mean the political Left in America and not “real liberalism” or classical liberalism – has very little to offer. All of its ideas revolve around protecting, extending or tinkering with government programs and entitlements. In a sense what we call liberalism in America is small-c conservative, even reactionary. It’s based on a knee-jerk desire to defend the status quo. A few years ago Teddy Kennedy took to the floor of the U.S. Senate to denounce government scholarships (a.k.a. “vouchers”) for poor black kids to go to private school. Why? Because Kennedy’s idea of liberalism is whatever reliable liberal interest groups say it is. Liberalism began as a philosophy of limited government. Now what we call liberalism is instinct for the expansion of government at every turn.

Meanwhile, on the cultural front, liberalism seems obsessed with finding hypocrisy in its enemies. This strikes me as a form of philosophical and political surrender because it represents an unwillingness to stand for actual moral judgments. For example, when Rush Limbaugh was accused of drug abuse almost no prominent liberal was willing to condemn the behavior itself. They had to condemn the alleged “hypocrisy.” That’s fine, as far as it goes. But pointing out how others inconsistently apply their own principles is not a substitute for having principles of your own.

I think the Right became associated with change for the fairly simple reason that the liberal pendulum went about as far as America wanted it to. Somewhere C.S. Lewis writes about how a man who takes a wrong turn in the road is not “progressing” by continuing in the wrong direction. Hence, a man who walks backward to where he took the wrong turn is in fact heading in a “progressive” direction. It’s a limited metaphor because life isn’t nearly so static. But conservatives are on the side of change because they are the ones who understand that heading in the wrong direction isn’t progress.

Interesting way to look at it. Still don’t know how I should be labeled, but I will settle for being on the side of progress rather than the mindless defense of a failed ideology.

As my friend Dennis is wont to say “I avoid trite phrases like the plague.” Me too. That’s my two cents worth anyway.

Cross posted at The Wide Awakes

I came across this article in the United Kingdom’s Times online publication. I’m firmly in the camp of those who say it is far too early to declare victory for the Bush doctrine of defeating terrorism through the power of freedom and democracy. But it does not hurt to reflect on just how much things have changed in the world since the U.S.A. received its wake-up call on the morning of September 11, 2001.

Little more than three years after US forces, backed by their faithful British allies, set foot in Afghanistan, the entire historical dynamic of this blighted region has already shifted.

Ignoring, fortunately, the assault from clever world opinion on America’s motives, its credibility and its ambitions, the Bush Administration set out not only to eliminate immediate threats but also to remake the Middle East. In the last month, the pace of progress has accelerated, and from Beirut to Kabul.

Confronted with this awkward turn of events, Reg’s angry successors are asking their cohorts: “What have the Americans ever done for us?” “Well, they did get rid of the Taleban in Afghanistan. ’Orrible bunch, they were.”

“All right, the Taleban, I grant you.”

“Then there was Iraq. Knocked off one of the nastiest dictators who ever lived and gave the whole nation a chance to pick its own rulers.”

“Yeah, all right. Fair enough. I didn’t like Saddam.”

“Libya gave up its nuclear weapons.”

“And then there’s Syria. Thousands of people on the streets of Lebanon. Syrians look like they’re pulling out.”

“I just heard Egypt’s going to hold free presidential elections for the first time. And Saudi Arabia just held elections too.”

“The Palestinians and the Israelis are talking again and they say there’s a real chance of peace this time.”

“All right, all right. But apart from liberating 50 million people in Iraq and Afghanistan, undermining dictatorships throughout the Arab world, spreading freedom and self-determination in the broader Middle East and moving the Palestinians and the Israelis towards a real chance of ending their centuries-long war, what have the Americans ever done for us?”

We’ve only just begun.

In addition to the satisfaction of watching these historic events unfold, it has been almost comical to watch the Bush hating crowd contort themselves in rage while claiming that these changes are occuring in the world in spite of Bush, not because of him. Yes, W is the luckiest SOB in history. The stupid monkey/evil genius has somehow managed to blunder into freeing millions of people while spreading the seeds of democracy in the heartland of despotism.

Vodkapundit Stephen Green shares an email from a Peace Corps volunteer that captures the angst of these so-called liberals when confronted with the reality that Bush may have actually been right:

A friend received an sms message from a Lebanese friend currently in Beirut. The message simply said “God Bless the USA”. We have very limited access to news so we immediately went online and started searching for news about the US. Was there a bombing? What happened?

While I was searching, she was messaging back and finally received a call from him. In lebanon the news was reporting that Syria was finally pulling troops out. People were having parties to celebrate. People were in the streets shouting “God Bless the USA” and “God Bless George Bush”.

Wow, this sounds like a time to celebrate right? But my friends looked like they had been punched in the stomach. Just that morning they had double teamed me and insisted that the bush regime was the most evil on the planet and of course in the history of the US.

So why were they not happy? One meekly commented that perhaps this was
actually the result of Iraq etc. in spite of Bush’s evil intentions.
The other simply kept quiet beyond asserting that it was a stupid mistake to think that Bush had anything to do with this development.

It was if their entire world was crashing down on them.

Pardon me while I gloat for 5 seconds………………………………….

Ok, enough of that. No time to waste on misguided fools, we have a job to finish.

Cross-posted at The Wide Awakes

from my former hometown paper in Columbia, South Carolina, The State.

Via: INDC

Liberal gadfly and frequent commenter Carol (full disclosure: she is also Mrs. LTG) had some harsh words for bloggers and accused us of doing a disservice to the nation in our takedown of Eason Jordan. She was critical of my citing the Washington Times and suggested I consult a “real” source like the Wall Street Journal. Ok, how about this editorial from columnist Peggy Noonan:

“Salivating morons.” “Scalp hunters.” “Moon howlers.” “Trophy hunters.” “Sons of Sen. McCarthy.” “Rabid.” “Blogswarm.” “These pseudo-journalist lynch mob people.”

This is excellent invective. It must come from bloggers. But wait, it was the mainstream media and their maidservants in the elite journalism reviews, and they were talking about bloggers!

Those MSMers have gone wild, I tell you! The tendentious language, the low insults. It’s the Wild Wild West out there. We may have to consider legislation.

When you hear name-calling like what we’ve been hearing from the elite media this week, you know someone must be doing something right. The hysterical edge makes you wonder if writers for newspapers and magazines and professors in J-schools don’t have a serious case of freedom envy.

The bloggers have that freedom. They have the still pent-up energy of a liberated citizenry, too. The MSM doesn’t. It has lost its old monopoly on information. It is angry.

Please go read the whole thing. She has some wonderful insights on this new age of journalism and access to information.

Thanks Carol. You were right. The WSJ did a much better job here than the Times.

Now, I don’t have any reason to believe that Ed Morrissey of Captain’s Quarters posted this in response to my commenter Carol, but he may as well have. Oh yeah, the Washington Times wrote an editorial agreeing with Ashley. Makes me proud to know that the big boys have stepped up to the plate in response to this little inter-family squabble….

READ THIS POST!

All I can say is I wish I had said it. Since I didn’t, let me just say “ditto”.

It truly is a new world. Eason Jordan’s resignation is an incredible victory for the blogosphere as it demonstrates that the MSM can no longer set the agenda on what will be considered news.

Jordan’s exposure as a biased anti-American hack would never have occurred ten years ago. Through the power of the Internet and some incredible first rate reporting by Michele Malkin, Ed Morrissey and many, many others this story became a news event that ultimately could not be ignored. Even now the MSM’s grudging acknowledgement of what occurred at Davos fails to fully report the depth of Jordan’s transgressions over several years, instead spinning the story as Jordan being a victim of bloggers bloodlust. As Captain’s Quarters notes, Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post reports:

Gergen said last night that Jordan’s resignation was “really sad” since he had quickly backed off his original comments. “This is too high a price to pay for someone who has given so much of himself over 20 years. And he’s brought down over a single mistake because people beat up on him in the blogosphere? They went after him because he is a symbol of a network seen as too liberal by some. They saw blood in the water.”

Which of course completely ignores similar remarks Jordan made in Portugal last November:

Eason Jordan, chief news executive at CNN, said there had been only a “limited amount of progress”, despite repeated meetings between news organisations and the US authorities.”

“Actions speak louder than words. The reality is that at least 10 journalists have been killed by the US military, and according to reports I believe to be true journalists have been arrested and tortured by US forces,” Mr Jordan told an audience of news executives at the News Xchange conference in Portugal.

Apparently, the MSM still doesn’t get it, which is sad. But in the end that does not matter. Because in this brave new world in which we live, thousands of bloggers will report the news traditional media wants to hide or ignore. And with each passing day more and more viewers of the networks and major newspapers are discovering that alterantive news sources are available that are proving to be more reliable and fair. Which is not to say that bias does not exist in the blogosphere, but that bias is acknowledeged up front. The traditional media’s insistence on maintaining the charade of impartiality will only serve to diminish what remains of its crediblity.

It is good that Jordan is gone. It is exceptional that the tide has turned in the power struggle for fair and balanced reporting. How many more frauds like Dan Rather and Eason Jordan will it take before the MSM understands the peril of bias?

The big blogs did the heavy lifting here. But all bloggers can take pride and satisfaction from their part in spreading this story and keeping it alive until it had to be reported by the mass media outlets. The pajamadeen have prevailed in this battle. And the taste of victory is sweet indeed.

cross posted at The Wide Awakes

Today I wanted to briefly share my thoughts on media bias. Not the obvious kind we see from the likes of Dan Rather or Bill Moyers. The examples are countless and displayed on a daily basis, so I’m not going to rant about the liberal slant in the way news is reported. If you haven’t figured that out by now you likely aren’t the type of person who cares about the truth. And if you have, then you have found other resources to fact check what we read in our newspapers.

What is more insidious is the liberal bias in what the MSM chooses to call news, and just as importantly, their bias in what they choose not to report.

Exhibit 1: The media feeding frenzy over the remarks of LT GENERAL James Mattis. Yes, this warrior had the audacity to say killing the bad guys was fun. Every major news organization in the US (and throughout the world) jumped all over this “story”. OK, maybe it was not a delicate or PC thing to say. And maybe the harsh truth of the General’s feelings towards our enemies was shocking to some. Was it news? If so, did it warrant the level of coverage the media devoted to the story?

Exhibit 2: The Eason Jordan affair. “CNN’s top news executive, said last week at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, 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.”

Now that is news. If true, the press should be all over this story. A huge scandal. Mr. Jordan told a conference of world leaders that American soldiers had engaged in the systematic murder of journalists. Where is the outrage? Where are the Congressional investigations? This goes far beyond mere “torture”.

Oh wait a minute. Jordan has no evidence to support his scurrilous claims. And that is news too. Here we have the head of a major news organization disparaging our troops with false accusations, and for over a week the MSM has refused to report the story. As amazing as it is disgusting.

Well, the story will break soon. And I predict Eason Jordan is toast. But if not for the blogosphere, the MSM would have never exposed one of their own.

A soldier says he finds fun in killing the scum we are fighting. The press is outraged. A news executive blantantly lies when he calls our soldiers murderers. *chirp* *chirp* That’s the bias I’m talking about. It is sick and it is wrong.

“Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.”

A special thanks to some of the many bloggers who have taken the lead to make sure this outrage does not stand:

Captain’s Quarters
PowerLine
LeShawn Barber

Hat Tip to: Cao’s Blog
and Mudville Gazette

cross posted at The Wide Awakes

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

This post at Iraq the Model brought tears to my eyes. How we have come to take our own liberty for granted. How sweet it was to watch 9 million people drink from the spring of freedom for the first time.

Beautiful.

UPDATE: Corrected typo on number of voters, and fixed link.

WTF? Just unbelievable political stupidity. If your heard John Kerry on Meet the Press you know what I’m talking about. And don’t get me started on Teddy Kennedy. Captain’s Quarters notes that despite their opposition to the invasion of Iraq, Chirac, Schroeder and Kofi F’n Annan had high praise for the Iraqi people’s courage in exercising their right to a free vote. Meanwhile, the Democratic leadership in America has nothing to say but its retreat and run mantra. Ed Morrissey nails it:

Moderate Democrats must be puzzled and at least somewhat concerned that their leadership has allowed itself to become so infected with Bush hatred that they can no longer recognize opportunities to build trust with the American electorate on national security. The automatic gainsay of anything accomplished by the Bush administration has almost completely destroyed their credibility — and the measured and intelligent reactions of Chirac, Schroeder, and Annan shows how badly the Democrats screwed up today.

It really scares me to watch the Democrats self-destruct this way. A one-party system is dangerous. Without a brake applied by a viable opposition party, things could actually get ugly and the fears of the liberal left could become self-fulfilling prophecies. Where are the reasonable voices in the party? Is there no one to take the sage advice of Ann Althouse?

Here’s my advice to anti-war bloggers who want to avoid embarrassing themselves: express relief that the feared violence did not occur, happiness for the Iraqi people who got to vote, concern about the new government’s willingness to be fair to the people in the more violent areas who were deterred from coming out to vote, and reconfigure your anti-war position into concern about the great risk that was taken. Worry about the next war: the more success in Iraq, the more inspiration to take on bolder ventures, and the next one might go horribly. Like a defeated candidate, focus on the next election. I heard one commentator on NPR say that after the great success in voting for the Afghans, the Palestinians, and the Iraqis, it’s beginning to “look like a trend.” What if the neo-cons are right? Consider it — without your usual reflexive invective. If they turn out to be right, don’t you have to be happy that you were wrong?

One can only hope.

And this one says it all.

Via Cao’s Blog

He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his
enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes
a precedent that will reach to himself.

–Thomas Paine

Hat tip: Armies of Liberation