Category: Old Dish

FALLUJA FALLACIES

It isn’t over. The worst part of the battle might still be to come:

Until late Thursday, resistance in Fallujah had been piecemeal, with individual rocket, mortar, and rifle teams making surprise attacks. US heavy artillery, tank guns, and airstrikes have waged steady barrages, paving the way for marine infantry advances.
US military leaders have deemed the effort in Fallujah so far as a success. In three days of fighting, coalition units have swept across more than half the city, sustaining relatively few casualties. But Thursday night, casualties appeared to mount. Coalition forces have been targeted from mosques. They have uncovered unarmed sleeper cells that they believe have been seeded throughout the city and primed to strike after the initial assault.

Meanwhile, Mosul goes up in flames. And guess who’s wreaking havoc in Mosul? The same men who fled Falluja! The sad truth is that this insurgency cannot be subdued without a political solution that our early mis-steps made far, far more difficult. These grueling battles may be necessary, but they are really functions of our past failure than any guarantee of our future success.

GONZALEZ AND THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT

Their first victory, argues Ryan Lizza. The fundies didn’t want him for the Court and AG is a consolation prize. The man who defended torture and the suspension of the Geneva Conventions is therefore now in charge of defending our civil rights. Just remember: in the new Republican party, he’s the moderate.

QUOTE OF THE DAY: “As a Texas Supreme Court justice, Gonzales’ rulings implied he does not view abortion as a heinous crime… Why is President Bush betraying the babies? Justice begins with protecting the most vulnerable in our midst. Please, Mr. President – just say no to the unjust views of Alberto Gonzales.” – Judie Brown, president of the American Life League.

THE RIGHT’S COMIC HEROES: Are “The Incredibles” and “Team America” basically right-wing? That’s what some on the left thinks. If right-wing means dreary, joyless puritanism, then no. If it means backing self-reliance, celebrating individual freedom and abhorring Hollywood leftism, then sure. By the way, I’m amazed at how few people seem to have seen “Team America.” It’s genius in so many ways. And completely under-estimated by the reviewers. Go see it. I’m seeing the “Incredibles” this weekend. I don’t think I can stomach “The Polar Express.” Christmas itself makes me want to puke. Christmas propaganda, created by that pillar of sanctimony, Tom Hanks, is a highly elevated form of torture.

MATTHEW SHEPARD

I never joined in the sanctification of Matthew Shepard. What happened to him was appalling, evil, horrifying. But what gay rights groups made of it was, in my view, exploitative and crude. I gave up counting the number of direct mail requests for money I received using Matthew Shepard’s name. I wrote about my misgivings here. My opposition to hate crime laws is laid out here. Harper’s Magazine has already sketched the role that crystal meth may have played in the scenario that led to Shepard’s murder. Now ABC News has prepared an important, thorough and debunking review of what happened. I was tangentially involved in the documentary, but wasn’t privy to its most closely held findings. I have a feeling it will reveal how dangerous it is to rest an entire political argument on one incident, whose details were always murky and subsequently turned into myth.

WEEPING FOR ARAFAT: Here’s the BBC correspondent, Barbara Plett, finding herself in tears at the demise of Arafat:

To be honest, the coverage of Yasser Arafat’s illness and departure from Palestine was a real grind. I churned out one report after the other, without any sense of drama. Foreign journalists seemed much more excited about Mr Arafat’s fate than anyone in Ramallah. We hovered around the gate to his compound, swarming around the Palestinian officials who drove by, poking our microphones through their dark, half-open windows. But where were the people, I wondered, the mass demonstrations of solidarity, the frantic expressions of concern? Was this another story we Western journalists were getting wrong, bombarding the world with news of what we think is an historic event, while the locals get on with their lives? Yet when the helicopter carrying the frail old man rose above his ruined compound, I started to cry… without warning.

Do you think she’d shed a tear for the Pope? Or Mother Teresa? The far left’s attraction to foreign murder and tyranny endures, doesn’t it? Notice also this BBC timeline for Arafat’s life. The last two dates are his Nobel Peace Prize and the 2001 Israeli blockade in Ramallah. No mention of Camp David or Taba. The BBC has the historical objectivity of Stalin.

SCREAMING MEMES

A brilliant little blog.

EMAIL OF THE DAY: “Too many people misunderstand how a flat tax would work and fight it based on that misunderstanding. There are two key points that should be understood:
1) It would truly be simple. Most versions of the flat tax call for the elimination of all deductions except for personal exemptions based on the number of family members. There would be no calculation of mortgage interest, property taxes, health costs, etc. Taxpayers would simply determine their earned income, subtract their personal exemptions, and pay a tax on the balance.
2) It would ultimately be progressive. While the tax rate would be flat, the effective rate paid would be progressive with income. Most flat tax proposals provide for an exemption of $7,500 per family member, or $30,000 for a family of four. A family of 4 with an income of $30,000 would pay no taxes for an effective tax rate of 0%. Assuming a 17% flat tax rate, a family of 4 with an income of $50,000 would pay a tax of $3,400 ($50,000 – $30,000 = $20,000) for an effective rate of 6.8%; that same family with an income of $100,000 would pay a tax of $11,900 for a rate of 11.9%; and if their income were $1,000,000, they would pay $164,900 for a rate of 16.49%.
Opponents should give up complexity and lack of progressiveness as reasons not to have a flat tax. They’ll still be able to make opposing arguments such as “I want my mortgage deduction;” rich people should pay more than 17%; and we should always tax people more rather than reduce government spending.
There’s one other reason for a flat tax with no deductions. Congress loves to tamper endlessly with the tax code. Lobbyists and PACS are forced to wine, dine, and donate to protect their industries, or carve out exceptions that apply only to their clients. Tampering generates millions in the way of campaign contributions. A tamper-proof, flat personal and business income tax would eliminate at least a third of the influence peddling that makes Congress seem so sleazy.” More feedback on the smartest Letters Page on the web.

CARD’S LONGEVITY

A reader informs me that “Andrew Card has been Chief of Staff for less time (as of today) than H.R. Haldeman and James Baker. But most Chiefs of Staff last less than two years.” My broader point about Bush only appointing people with whom he’s extremely comfortable and usually promoting from within the cocoon – holds. Gonzalez is the first piece of evidence. Thomas’ appointment as Chief Justice would be the second.

JOHAN RESPONDS: The Index on Censorship’s critic of Theo van Gogh responds to his critics.