Joust The Facts

A Vote Negated

As we approach the November mid-term elections, and with Republicans itching to strike while the iron is hot, it's worth remembering that there will most likely be some close elections.  And with close elections comes the potential for vote shenanigans to swing the result.  Here are a few links to keep in mind as we drop under 2 months to go.

First, former FEC nominee Hans von Spakovsky, now a senior legal fellow at the Heritage foundation, writes at National Review's The Corner about the aroma wafting from the Justice Department as regards the maintaining of proper voter rolls by the states.  It seems a number of states have had no one removed from their voter rolls due to death, which should certainly make one ineligible.  Several states have more registered voters than people of voting age, a situation that also exists in Philadelphia.

In the spring of 2006, I reviewed portions of the city of Philadelphia’s 2005 voting list. I found that underaged voters, deceased voters, and incarcerated felons were registered to vote and had remained on the voting list, despite the fact that none of them were eligible to vote in Pennsylvania (or, in most cases, anywhere else).

In Pennsylvania, a voter must be 18 or older as of the date of the election to be eligible to vote. Yet at least 130 voters on the list were under the age of 18. Thirty-four of whom had a birth year of 2004 — the year of the election. And 215 voters on the list had a birthdate of: “00-00-00.”

Just looking at the years of birth for the registered voters, I found 54 voters listed with years of birth ranging from 1825 – 1899. While it is possible that a voter born in 1899 could still be alive in 2004 (he or she would be 105), it is clearly impossible that someone born in 1825 would.

Digging a little bit deeper, I was able to find confirmed deceased voters still on the list. I took a sample of 385 registrants born between the years 1900 and 1905, and found that 51 (thirteen percent!) were in fact dead, according to the Social Security Death Index.

J. Christian Adams, a former voting rights attorney in the DOJ, is now a private citizen and is bringing lawsuits against his old bosses for their failure to enforce the portion of the law directing states to expunge ineligible voters from the rolls.  He notes that most often voter fraud is insufficient to swing an election; sometimes, though, it may be, or we would still have Senator Norm Coleman in Minnesota, and would have most likely had Governor Dino Rossi in Washington.  The potential problems are enormous with the smorgasbord of absentee ballots, hundreds of thousands in many cases, as well as provisional ballots and same-day registrations.

Every illegitimate vote for one candidate negates a legitimate on for the opposing candidate.  While voter suppression (and particularly intimidation) are more noteworthy due to direct negation of legitimate votes, opening the door to voting improprieties indirectly negates other legitimate votes.  The law gives the Justice Department under AG Eric Holder the responsibility for enforcing these provisions, and the DOJ is at this time sadly derelict in its duties with an election only two months away.  Mr. von Spakovsky writes

It’s too bad that a private citizen has to carry out the responsibility of the Justice Department because it has failed to do so and, in fact, refuses to do so for ideological and political reasons that have nothing to do with the impartial administration of justice.

Yes, it is too bad.  Maybe we should go to the purple finger?

The JTF "Quote Of The Day"

From Darleen Click, at Protein Wisdom, discussing the left's idea of morality vis a vis the right's.

Is it possible that Lakoff, et al, really do not understand why so many people reject the collectivist, statist principles of the Left? Certainly we are treated, yet again, to another “Tax the RICH” spiel from Robert Reich that can be boiled down to You people don’t spend your money the way WE think you should, so WE, Big Government, will take it and spend it the correct way!

Say what you will about Beck’s non-partisan, religiously themed, rally last Saturday (predictably the Left is … now moving to attack his Mormonism, but they’re not bigots of course), but no where was there any call for top-down, Big Government solutions. There was no demand for theocracy, only an urging for individual responsibility.

If one were to point out the major difference between, in Lakoff’s words, Progressive and Conservative morality, is that Progressives believe in controlling people (via Big Government) for their own good and Conservatives call for people to control themselves as individuals for their own good.

Now which is really the foundation of Liberty?

The left, as I've noted before, likes to pretend that they're operating on a frictionless plane or, if you prefer an alternate metaphor, that they can drop a rock in the pond and create no ripples.  Creating easy credit for those with limited ability to repay the loan was simply right and just, because isn't home ownership good?  And that easy credit would of course not inflate home prices and lead to foreclosures.  And paying for 99 weeks of unemployment is the right thing to do because those out of work need the money, even if sometimes they delay looking for work because of it.  And increasing business taxes has no effect at all on prices, business investment, employment, or even where a business decides to locate.

Conservatives are wary of the ripples.  And the reason this upcoming midterm election is shaping up to be a sea-change for the public is because a good chunk of independents, and even some democrats, are now also both aware of, and wary of, the ripples.

Out Of The Mouths Of ... Retiring Democrats

I just love the formulation of the headline, contrived to maintain the "tax cuts for the rich" demagoguery.  But it's inside the story that the truth gets told.  A truth, I might add, that we, among others, have been telling you for quite some time.

WASHINGTON — Democrats in Congress are poised to play a leading role this month in thwarting their party's effort to raise income tax rates on the wealthy.

Tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 expire at the end of this year. President Barack Obama and Democratic congressional leaders have been eager to extend the breaks for individuals who earn less than $200,000 annually and joint filers who make less than $250,000. Those who earn more would pay higher, pre-2001 rates starting next year.

However, a small but growing number of moderate Democrats are balking at boosting taxes on the rich. Many face electorates that recoil at the mention of any tax increase. Some represent areas that are loaded with wealthier taxpayers. Further, some incumbent senators who don't face voters this fall are reluctant to increase taxes on anyone while the economy remains sluggish.

Without their support, the push to raise rates on the rich probably will fail.

"The economy is very weak right now. Raising taxes will lower consumer demand at a time when we want people putting more money into the economy," said Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., who isn't seeking re-election.

When you've lost Senator Bayh you've lost ... Senator Bayh, who's retiring at the conclusion of this Congress.  But you know who else thinks lowering taxes might just help a struggling economy?

President Obama.

Democrats play a funny game on taxes.  The game is called "let's pretend the economy is a frictionless plane," wherein taxes have no effect on behavior. You can raise taxes on the wealthy and it'll have no effect on the financial behavior of those wealthier individuals.  You can run up huge deficits with bogus "stimulus" spending, but there's no economic drag from the "revenue enhancements" that everyone will then see down the road.  But here we are, with the economy bogged down, economic uncertainty causing the withholding of business investment and job creation, and the more honest Democrats speak up, not only demonstrating that they really do know a little economics, but demonstrating that their previous statements were political bluster.  Sen. Bayh, after all, did vote for both the "stimulus" and ObamaCare.

There's one member of the administration's economic team who remains in denial, however.  Or, rather, make that former member.

Our prediction?  In desperation Democrats will eventually support extending tax rates at their current levels, and business will breathe a sigh of relief and capital investment and hiring will begin to pick up.  This may or may not save them some seats in the House and Senate, but with improving economic numbers Democrats will proudly face the cameras and pronounce that ...

...the "stimulus" is finally working, and that another stimulus would be even better.

...the now-Republican led Congress should raise taxes to close the deficit.

Hey, paraphrasing Dennis Green, they are who they are.

9/3/10 1300: Whoa.  The WSJ editorial staff looked at the clues and drew the same conclusion.

With the economy struggling and the polls turning sharply against them, Democrats are at sea about how to prevent an electoral rout in November. Reports yesterday said the White House may be panicked enough to contemplate new tax cuts. Allow us to suggest a salvage plan that would help the economy and perhaps also save the Democratic majorities on Capitol Hill: Return after Labor Day, extend all of the 2001 and 2003 tax rates at least through 2013, and then go home.

The editorial doesn't actually suggest that that's what'll happen, but what should happen if Democrats are concerned with either a) the economy of b) their own majorities.

Also, AEI's Kevin Hassett and Alan Viard, also writing in the WSJ, who note that taxing businesses as well as those who invest in business will propagate the problems of poor job growth.

For those who are determined to tax the rich at all costs, and are therefore willing to accept the claims of the Obama administration without scrutiny, the tax hikes may well make sense. But the evidence is clear that lifting the top rates will hamper the business investment upon which our nation's prosperity depends. That affects all Americans, not just 3%

Oh, Really?

From Reuters, President Obama discusses the sagging economy, and what can be done about it.  And, you know, he knew all along there were going to be problems this summer.

(Reuters) - President Barack Obama said on Sunday the U.S. economy was expanding, but not quickly enough, and there was no "magic bullet" that will fix its problems.

Obama said in an NBC interview that the batch of grim economic data over the past few weeks was something his administration had anticipated.

The growth rate revision late last week was for the second quarter.  But near the end of that second quarter both Mr. Obama and VP Joe Biden assured us  that this was "recovery surrmer."  And now they  tell us  that they anticipated this "grim economic data.  What was that about "blasts lies, disinformation."

Obama gave little indication in the interview of any new proposals that might be unveiled in the near future. He noted that that the "short-term politics" of the election season might make it hard to get such measures passed.

"We're in the silly season -- political season, which means that for the next two months there's gonna be constantly a contest in the minds of members of Congress," he said

No, Mr. Obama, "silly season" was your first 15 months, when you frittered away the chance to have a return to economic normalcy by allowing congressional Democrats to write a blank check on their spending projects with the non-stimulating "stimulus," by  focusing on ramming a lousy and costly health care package through against better judgement of the majority of the American people, and by waffling on the pending January 2011 tax increase.  (And no, I'm not going to go Big Media and call it "allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire."  An expiring tax cut is a tax increase.)  Economic certainty creates economic optimism.  And economic optimism, along with availability of capital in the private economy, creates jobs and growth.

The economy will not grow until strong pro-growth policies create economic certainty.  And that won't happen until the current tax rates are extended, until health care reform is repealed and replaced, until ridiculous government spending is curbed, until government salaries and pensions are reined in.

And that won't occur until there's a Republican Congress.

Which is why  you're all antsy about  November.

8/30/10 0810: Or, put another way, those missteps may have midwifed the conservative rebirth.

We certainly have seen that latter impulse from the progressive commentariat in the wake of the failure of the Democratic agenda, and the resistance to its more radical elements from the American people.  How many times since town-hall meetings became forums of voter anger last year have we heard from mainstream opinion journalists that the US has become “ungovernable”?   Voters made clear that Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid were not qualified to make their personal choices for them on health care in particular, and their failed Obamanomics showed that they’re incompetent at running a top-down command economy.

The JTF "Quotes Of The Day"

"Women's" issues ... admittedly not my forte, so I look to others to keep me informed.  First, from Hot Air, Minnesota's Laura Brod:

This self-described “women’s” group and many like it are more interested in litmus tests on liberal social issues than on what will materially improve women’s lives in the real day-to-day world where we are raising kids, struggling to make ends meet, and hoping that we or our spouses don’t lose their job (or will find one soon).

For decades now we have talked about the glass ceiling women once faced, and to a certain extent still do. But I am more worried about the glass box that liberal feminists have placed women and “women’s issues” in, all tied up with a pretty pink bow. That glass box is all about keeping women and “women’s issues” firmly in their place on the left side of the political spectrum.

And Carol Platt Liebau at Townhall.com similarly writes on those looking at women's issues through a very narrow aperture.

All of them seem worried about the power and impact of Sarah Palin, and obviously they're right to be.  After all, she's not the one sitting around and obsessing about them. 

But they're also right to be worried about the status of their brand of feminism, because -- as a woman myself -- when I see this discussion about whether Sarah Palin is a "real" feminist (or rather, from this crowd, why she isn't), my first reaction is a big WHO CARES?  It's all such silly lefty in-crowd chitchat.

[...]

In fact, if feminism were simply about female empowerment and independence -- as its proponents sometimes try to claim -- Palin would be its poster girl.  She took on the "old boy's club" in Alaska and won; she's worked and raised a family; she's even had something of a house-husband, for Pete's sake!

No, the Palin experience simply reinforces what everyone knew already: "Feminism" as used by the old-school types is nothing more than a proxy for two things: Support for abortion and big government...

Somehow, these women want us to believe that it's advancing women's interests to replace social and economic dependence on a husband with social and economic dependence on big government. (Maybe they'll reconsider their thinking if we rephrase it as "Mr. Big Government"?!)

Read both, you'll be rewarded.  However, the principle applies much more broadly.  Thus Sarah Palin, who has clearly accomplished a lot in her 45 years to this point, isn't someone that inspires feminists because to them feminism seems to be about a) abortion and b) independence from a man even if dependent on the government.  And Clarence Thomas isn't authentic because he refuses to use racial grievance mongering as his weapon of choice.

Francona Blew The Game

It seems like armchair, Monday morning quarterbacking to look with 20-20 hindsight at last nights Sox-Rays tilt and point the finger of blame at one Terry Francona.  Well, it is.  But last night, in the bottom of the eighth inning when Francona sent Clay Buchholz out to throw his 107th pitch to start the inning I thought "Oh, this is a mistake."

You see,the Sox had just taken the lead on Tampa Bay 2-1 on a Victor Martinez home run (third in two nights), giving Buchholz a chance for his 16th win.  The Red Sox needed six more outs.  True, the usual setup  guy Daniel Bard had pitched last night.   Also true, closer Jonathan Papelbon had pitched the ninth inning last night as well.  But the team had Thursday off, so this would have required an inning from each for only the second night in a row.  Or he could  go to lefty rookie Felix Doubront, who has been remarkably reliable in a setup-for-the-setup role.

But no. After Buchholz had given seven outstanding innings Francona left him in for two more hitters.  The first, Rays' centerfielder B.J. Upton,took the second pitch, a belt-high inside curve, deep to left to tie the game.  Doubront and Bard did eventually pitch, and gave the Sox scoreless appearances. But rather than bring in Papelbon in a tie game, understandably, Francona went with Scott Atchison in the 10th, and  Rays' DH Dan Johnson, who's hitting .149 now, took Atchison deep to win the game.

This one's on you Terry.  You talk a good game about everyone on the 25 man roster doing their job when the time comes to produce wins.  But when it came time to put those expressions of faith in your players into action, you failed.  You needed six more outs.  Bard for three or even four, and Papelbon for two or three.  Worry about  tomorrow's game tomorrow.

Yes, also, in the seventh J.D. Drew should have dropped the foul fly  to right, rather than letting Carlos Pena tag and score that first Tampa Bay run.  But you  had a chance to help out your pitcher and get him a win by doing the right thing in the eighth, and you didn't. This  one's on you, Terry.

Economic Uncertainty In The Age Of Obama

As it pours outside my home this morning, on a vacation day that I had planned to take my family to Fenway Park for the afternoon Red Sox game against the Seattle Mariners (perhaps the rain is fitting?), I note that the so-called "recovery summer" is currently neither.  Read that Mike Allen report at Politico.com.  It is best seen as a work of fancy, wishful thinking that clicking your heels together like Dorothy and chanting "there's no place like a growing economy" will doubtless make it so.  The actions of the government have, with the exception of stabilizing some giant financial institutions with money that is being paid back, failed rather dramatically.

There's the efforts in housing, including HAMP and the home-buyers tax credit.  Result?  A plunge in home sales now that the credit has expired, and government-assisted mortgage restructuring that has helped one-tenth of the number it was alleged to help, has interfered with more successful private efforts,is leading to a second round of defaults, and (I'm sure) is more costly than it ever was projected to be.

In order to stabilize the residential markets, jobs have to return and prices have to stabilize.  The Obama administration has gotten in the way of both processes.  Thanks to ill-advised taxpayer-subsidized interventions, prices have remained unrealistically high, and no one wants to buy until they pay the right amount for the value of their investment.  And until we quit penalizing capital and introducing massive ambiguities into regulatory regimes and expanding them, jobs won’t get created and new buyers won’t materialize anyway.

There's the uncertainty over the looming tax increase due to the unwise expiration date on the Bush-era tax cuts.  Here it is, nearly September, two months before the mid-term elections on which Congress-folk will be focusing, and for all we know in this down economy everyone, or perhaps only the producers and job-creators, will be facing a sizable stifling tax increase.

Then there's Obama-care, with its court-challenged individual mandate, its burdens on small businesses that produce most of the jobs, and its cost-cutting fantasies that everyone now understands were more wishful fancy on the part of those who passed it.  Notably, those who passed it touting those savings now no longer make that case.

Yesterday Republican John Boehner of Ohio, the minority leader, called (among other things) for a reversal of many of these harmful policies.  Ruth Marcus in the Washington Post proves to be scared of the mythical boogieman in the closet, rather than the actual monster in the room.

Let's take Boehner's prescriptions seriously for a moment. Dispense with the most obviously political parts -- firing the economic team, as if that would change the underlying policy

Perhaps not, but that''s an Obama problem, not a Boehner problem.

Leave out, also, the phony controversy. Boehner denounced an obscure provision of the health care law that requires businesses to report expenditures greater than $600. It was a good idea -- cracking down on tax cheats -- poorly executed. Both sides want to change it.

It's not clear that both sides want to change it - if so, it could easily have happened already as the problem is now well known and Republicans are squarely behind removing it.  This is not a "phony" controversy at all.  It'll be very real to the businesses that have to abide it.

And forget the Republican's favorite legislative bogeymen -- measures to enact cap-and-trade, or to make it easier for unions to organize. Those aren't likely to pass.

Yes, but these further burdens to the struggling economy are not likely to pass primarily because of Republican opposition.  Ms. Marcus thus gives no credit to Republicans for their "good" (in her estimation) ideas.  She appears, however, to be agreeing that Cap & Trade and card check are indeed bad ideas, and that is a useful admission.  Step One, perhaps.

So the Boehner plan boils down to the internally inconsistent demands that the president forswear any plan to increase taxes during a recession and that he immediately put the brakes on spending -- during that very recession.

These are not internally inconsistent.  It will be detrimental to raise taxes in a recession - that much you can count on.  And the Obama spending has been on "stimulus" projects that have not stimulated and on protection (and expansion) of government employees, many of whom have both excessive salaries (e.g., Bell, CA) now and unsustainable pensions to come.  Cut their pay by 20%?  Why not?  It's not as if their pay is lower than private sector comparative jobs.  And, while you're at it, eliminate any unnecessary or redundant jobs.  And give them the same retirement options the rest of us have - 401k, Social Security, and IRAs.

Economic uncertainty is built into the Obama economic program.  If Mr. Obama were truly concerned about recovery he certainly wouldn't have pursued the mother of all uncertainties and bigger government boondoggles, which only adds to the uncertainty.  And the debt.

Fact Checking An AP Fact Check

Continuing its water-carrying for the Obama Administration, the Associated Press tries to debunk some of the "misconceptions" surrounding the controversy over the Ground Zero Mosque.  They try to convince us that, gee, it's not really at Ground Zero, it's a whole 2 blocks away.  And isn't this antithetical to the American tradition of religious freedom?  Number one on their hit list?  The misconception that Imam Rauf, heading up the mosque project is a radical.

No one has established a link between the cleric and radicals. New York Police Department spokesman Paul Browne said, "We've identified no law enforcement issues related to the proposed mosque."

Well, one thing you don't need is a link between Rauf and radicals if you can show that the Imam himself is a radical.  Then you really don't need the link, do you?  The AP gives us a head start later in this section.

He has denounced the terrorist attacks and suicide bombing as anti-Islamic and has criticized Muslim nationalism. But he's made provocative statements about America, too, calling it an "accessory" to the 9/11 attacks and attributing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children to the U.S.-led sanctions in the years before the invasion.

Calling America an "accessory" to the 9/11 attack is not "provocative," it's flat out wrong and inflammatory.  Or "radical," if you will.  Perhaps the AP could fact check that assertion.  And questionable research in the Lancet seems to always have a home with America-bashers, which Christopher Hitchens notes and deconstructs here.  In Imam Rauf's words, "we tend to forget, in the West, that the United States has more Muslim blood on its hands than al-Qaida has on its hands of innocent non-Muslims."  "We," indeed.

But let's leave all that radical talk aside, and instead wonder whether some additional evidence might surface of truly radical statements.  That would change things, wouldn't it? Terrorism specialist Steve Emerson claims to have the goods, 13 hours of audiotapes.  Hat tip: Ace of Spades, who helpfully adds

Obama and the MFM staked the entirety of their crdibility and judgment on the assertion that this was a moderate man interested only in peace, and of course in no way a supporter of terrorism, and anyone who suspected otherwise was an ignorant bigot with a heart full of hatred.

I have to admit, however, that I found it irrelevant whether the Imam was "radical", or whether it was really Ground Zero.  My opposition to the siting of the Ground Zero Mosque was based on the following:

1. Roughly 3000 people were killed when two planes were hijacked and flown deliberately into the World Trade Center towers
2. These planes were hijacked and flown into the towers by 19 Muslim men murdering in the name of Islam.
3. Islam has a history of building monuments to their conquests.  This is to be called Cordoba House, Cordoba in Spain being the capital of the Caliphate.  And yes, two blocks away is close enough.
4. Having been shocked and hurt at the release of Abdel Baset al-Megrahi now one year ago, the Lockerbie bomber who was granted compassionate release with allegedly three months to live and was celebrated on his arrival in Libya, I did not wish for similar insult to come to the families of those who lost their lives on 9-11.

Let them build it elsewhere.  Frankly, all of Manhattan should be off-limits for this project.

Slow And Slower

An interesting article in the Wall Street Journal tomorrow, on the steadily slowing American distance runner.

But it's not just that slower, less well-trained runners are competing in races. In absolute terms fewer U.S. runners are running fast. Except for Ryan Hall (on a faster course in London), no American-born runner has ever run faster than Alberto Salazar's 2:08:13 marathon in New York in 1981. Meanwhile, three times as many male runners achieved the same qualifying time in the U.S. Olympic marathon trials in 1984 as in 2008. The story is the same at nearly every event up the distance ladder. With the exception of a few standouts (for example, Alan Webb), U.S. runners cannot match the times of their earlier progenitors.

Times have also slowed among the "sub-elite" or so-called club runner, the ranks from which champions emerge. Consider that in 1978 more than 2,000 runners broke three hours at the Boston marathon. In 2002, with a field nearly three times as large, only about 1,000 runners broke the three-hour barrier. At the seven-mile Falmouth Road Race, in 1979, a finishing time of 36 minutes was good enough only for 84th place. But in 2009, the same time would have earned 34th place.

So, yes, the Kenyans that win Boston every year are fast, but they're not dramatically faster than the winning times in marathons past.  But the American runners are struggling to compete at that relatively consistent elite level.  For example, Robert K. Cheruyiot won in 2003 in 2:10:11; in 1982 Alberto Salazar won in 2:08:52.

No, I don't have an answer.

The Economic Downturn: A Housing Policy Reminder

The entire article in today's Wall Street Journal by a former Fannie Mae VP is well worth reading.  Edward Pinto calls some of the paths under consideration today nonsense, and explains why.  Most important, particularly if you don't want to wrap your brain around the policy choices, is this little history lesson.

In 1991, the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs was advised by community groups such as Acorn that "Lenders will respond to the most conservative standards unless [Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac] are aggressive and convincing in their efforts to expand historically narrow underwriting."

Congress made this advice the law of the land when it passed the inaptly named Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 (GSE Act of 1992). This law imposed affordable housing mandates on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Thus, beginning in 1993, regulators started to abandon the common sense underwriting principles of adequate down payments, good credit, and an ability to handle the mortgage debt. Substituted were liberalized lending standards that led to an unprecedented number of no down payment, minimal down payment and other weak loans, and a housing finance system ill-prepared to absorb the shock of declining prices.

In 1995, HUD announced a National Homeownership Strategy built upon the liberalization of underwriting standards nationally. It entered into a partnership with most of the private mortgage industry, announcing that "Lending institutions, secondary market investors, mortgage insurers, and other members of the partnership [including Countrywide] should work collaboratively to reduce homebuyer downpayment requirements."

The upshot? In 1990, one in 200 home purchase loans (all government insured) had a down payment of less than or equal to 3%. By 2006 an estimated 30% of all home buyers put no money down.

"[T]he financial crisis was triggered by a reckless departure from tried and true, common-sense loan underwriting practices," Sheila Bair, chair of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, noted this June. One needs to look no further than HUD's affordable housing policies for the source of this "reckless departure." If the mortgage finance industry hadn't been forced to abandon traditional underwriting standards on behalf of an affordable housing policy, the mortgage meltdown and taxpayer bailouts would not have occurred.

And when were these policies put in place?  I'll give you a hint - it wasn't during the tenure of George W. Bush.  And who was one of the most vocal (and protective) proponents of the policies?  Why, none other than Rep. Barney Frank, (D-MA).

Rep. Frank: I do think I do not want the same kind of focus on safety and soundness that we have in OCC [Office of the Comptroller of the Currency] and OTS [Office of Thrift Supervision]. I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing. . . .

Right, best we not focus on "safety and soundness," and instead just roll the dice.  That was in 2003, the same year that Mr. Bush's administration proposed reining in the GSE's.  This from the same guy who thinks President Obama is having problems politically because he didn't blame Republicans enough upon taking over.

Prognostic Caution And Lockerbie

There is an old doctor joke. 

A patient is sitting in his doctor's office and the physician reviews the medical facts, and states, "Mr. Howard, I'm sorry to tell you that you've got cancer.  You have only six months to live." 

The patient pauses, then says "Doc, that's terrible news.  I don't have a job now, and I was hoping to get back to work after the surgery.  I don't know if I'll be able to pay off what I owe you by then."

Whereupon the doctor gives Mr. Howard six more months.

When it comes to the Lockerbie bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 and the only man convicted for the attack it seems truth is stranger than fiction.

LONDON – The regrets of a cancer expert who assessed the only man ever convicted of the 1988 Lockerbie jetliner bombing have intensified the anger felt by victims' relatives over Scotland's decision to release the Libyan on compassionate grounds.

Professor Karol Sikora and other experts had said Abdel Baset al-Megrahi probably had only three months to live when he was freed from a Scottish jail last August and allowed to return home to Libya. But one year later, Al-Megrahi, who is being treated for prostate cancer, is still alive.

Sikora, one of three experts who assessed al-Megrahi's health for Libyan authorities, was quoted by Britain's Observer newspaper Sunday as saying he should have been more cautious about the chances of survival.

"If I could go back in time, I would have probably been more vague and tried to emphasize the statistical chances and not hard fact," Sikora was quoted as saying.

"In medicine we say 'Never say never and never say always,' because funny things happen. All you can do is give a statistical opinion," said Sikora, dean of the School of Medicine at Buckingham University, in central England.

Prostate cancer can be fatal, but it's very common for a patient to die with prostate cancer rather than from it.  For a prisoner who participated in the mass slaughter of 270 innocent people, the entire system should have been extremely cautious in predicting al-Megrahi's demise from it.

A report made public by Scottish authorities shows the Scottish Prison Service's medical chief, Andrew Fraser, was advised by four specialists at the time of al-Megrahi's release. The report described the three-month prognosis for al-Megrahi as "reasonable," but confirmed that none of those consulted ruled out that al-Megrahi might live longer.

Precisely why he should still be in prison in Scotland.  It was, however, sold to the public on the currency of that three month prognosis.

Sikora told the Observer he remains certain al-Megrahi will die of cancer, "I suspect in the next few weeks. To tell the truth, I'll be quite glad because we can move on."

Some people never learn from their mistakes.

The JTF "Quote of the Day"

From Sarah Palin's Facebook page, a question (among many) for Mr. Obama in light of his statement on the Ground Zero Mosque.

If those who wish to build this Ground Zero mosque are sincerely interested in encouraging positive "cross-cultural engagement" and dialogue to show a moderate and tolerant face of Islam, then why haven't they recognized that the decision to build a mosque at this particular location is doing just the opposite?

Indeed.

Now, such a legitimate question as this can, and often are, when filtered through the media, presented with wholly unsupportable spin.  See, for example, "GOP takes harsher stance toward Islam" from Ben Smith, who ought to know better than that, and Maggie Haberman at Politico.

Obama's remarks provide a clear, national focus for the simmering question of Islam in American life, and Republicans showed every sign Saturday of beginning to capitalize on it, with Republican candidates in New York and Florida seeking to inject the issue into local races as Democrats largely held their silence.

That stance in the GOP — both in terms of political strategy and policy views — appears to be carrying the day. Most of the potential Republican presidential hopefuls, led by Sarah Palin, came out sharply against the mosque.

There's so much wrong in this snippet it's hard to know where to begin.  Mr. Obama hardly clarified the issue with his remarks, despite dragging out his rhetorical tic "let me be clear."  He failed utterly to address the divisive plan to build the mosque, instead limiting his statement to the constitutional question of whether it is permissable.  He used Thomas Jefferson's hosting of an ambassador from Tunisia as verification of Islam's place in America.  He set up an equivalence between intolerance of Muslims and sentiments that the mosque should be build elsewhere, an equivalence that doesn't exist.  The "simmering question" isn't Islam's place in American life.  Rather, it's Islam's respect for American values, something the planners of the mosque have not demonstrated.

Smith and Haberman write that Sarah Palin "came out sharply against the mosque."  Sharply?  Harsher?  These are words written with intent.  In fact, No Republican or conservative that I have read since Mr. Obama's speech have come out "sharply" with a "harsher" stance toward Islam, including Sarah Palin.  (see the quote above at the link)  What they have done, rather, is to come out "sharply" and "harshly" against Mr. Obama's formulation of the questions involved, which is legitimate.

And by the way, Mr. Smith and Ms. Haberman, the silence of Democrats indicates not tolerance of Islam, but that they too feel that the President's rhetoric is unsupportable, and that they feel trapped by it.

Throwing It All Away

Of all of the frustrating losses this year by the Boston Red Sox, they have in the last two evenings, Thursday in Toronto and last night in Arlington, TX, perhaps reached the zenith (or is it nadir?) of frustration for themselves and their fans.  Ugly is a word that does not do justice.  First, a look at Thursday night's meltdown:

Just when the Red Sox were building the momentum needed to turn their fractured season into something hopeful, Papelbon cast it away. Handed a two-run lead to protect in the ninth inning against the Toronto Blue Jays, the closer allowed three runs, and the resulting 6-5 loss left the Red Sox stunned.

“These days happen,’’ Ortiz said. “It never gets easier.’’

The Sox took a 5-2 lead into the ninth, seemingly poised to win their fourth straight game and draw closer to a playoff berth. With John Lackey having thrown only 91 pitches, manager Terry Francona let him stay in the game.

Lackey threw a gopher ball to Jose Bautista leading off the ninth inning.  Bautista has done that to a lot of pitchers this year, and Lackey had thrown less than 100 pitches.  The manager, Terry Francona, played it "safe" and brought in the closer.  This did not work out as planned.  Two pitches later the lead was one run, and one out later it was tied.  The winning run would score on a medium depth sacrifice fly to a weak-armed Jacoby Ellsbury.

Last night may have been worse.  Handed an 8-2 lead after 3 1/2 innings, Sox "ace" Josh Beckett did not pitch like it.

One night after the Sox had squandered a three-run lead in Toronto, they did themselves one worse, giving up a game in which they had knocked the opposing starter out after just three innings and held a six-run lead.

“Those are games we certainly need to win, and we didn’t,’’ Francona said.

In the end, though, this was about Josh Beckett.

Coupled with Beckett’s last performance, against the Yankees Aug. 8, the Sox starter has now allowed 13 earned runs over his last 9 2/3 innings, his ERA ballooning even further to 6.51. He failed to get out of the fifth inning in his last start, and just made it through the fifth last night, each time putting a burden on a bullpen that hasn’t always been up to the challenge.

The Sox and August "swoons" are the stuff of legends ... and photoshop contests.  Well, the truth hurts sometimes.  There will certainly be nights when a Cliff Lee or a C.C. Sabathia pitches a gem.  And there'll be nights when your own starter is roughed up and knocked out.  But losing three run leads in the ninth inning, or six run leads in the fourth after roughing up the opposition starter leaves a lasting hurt among the players and the fans.

Sure, they've had a lot of injuries this year, with a lot of games lost to injury by star players.  Josh Beckett, Victor Martinez, Dustin Pedroia, Kevin Youkilis Mike Cameron.  You're not going to win them all.  But you have to win the ones you should.  And right now the Sox aren't doing it, largely due to an inept bullpen and a closer, Jonathan Papelbon, who lacks command of the strike zone.

Former Baltimore Orioles' pitching coach Ray Miller used to teach the mantra, "work fast, change speeds, throw strikes" to his pitchers to get them to be successful.  For a closer, Papelbon doesn't work fast, rarely changes speeds, and when he does he rarely throws that change for strikes.  On top of that, his 94-96 mph fastball is wild in the strike zone, outside when it should be in, or finding the middle of the plate.  The opposing hitters wouldn't be in the bigs if they couldn't hit fastballs.  He has a lot of saves this year, but not many of them were "easy saves," retiring his assigned three hitters in order.

At this point you can only really hope that the bullpen comes around a little and at least doesn't blow the easy ones.  That the other four starters - Lackey, Lester, Matsuzaka and Bucholz - continue to pitch well and deep into games.  And that Dustin Pedroia returns to help an offense that hasn't been as bad as predicted.

My Question On The "Ground Zero Mosque"

You know the story by know.  Muslim developers, including an Imam, are attempting to build a 13 story Islamic Cultural Center, including a large mosque, 2 blocks from the crater left by the fall of the World Trade Center towers from the attack of September 11, 2001, an attack carried out by 19 Muslim extremists.  President Obama weighed in on the matter last night.

“I understand the emotions that this issue engenders. Ground zero is, indeed, hallowed ground,” the president said in remarks prepared for the annual White House iftar, the sunset meal breaking the day’s fast.

But, he continued: “This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country, and will not be treated differently by their government, is essential to who we are.”...

Aides to Mr. Obama say privately that he has always felt strongly about the proposed community center and mosque, but the White House did not want to weigh in until local authorities made a decision on the proposal, planned for two blocks from the site of the Sept. 11 attack on the World Trade Center.

I have a question.  How many mosques - in New York or elsewhere - have been closed down or their plans halted due to religious intolerance, such that building this mosque to make a stand for religious freedom and tolerance justifies poking a finger in the eyes of New Yorkers, families of the victims, and other Americans still hurting from those attacks?

This isn't about religious freedom or tolerance.  I'm quite certain that this would be a non-story if the plans were to build in Hoboken, Queens, or Washington Heights.  The President wants America to demonstrate that "our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable."  How about expecting that the Muslim developers would show their understanding of the pain felt by all Americans following that attack by not building it there.

Americans' commitment to religious freedom is unshakable.  That's not what this is about.  This is about logistics and decency.  What should the President have said?  How about this:

"This is America, and we have an unshakable commitment to religious freedom, tolerance, equality of opportunity and equal treatment in the eyes of the government.  It's written in the words of our Constitution, and lived in the actions of Americans every day. It's not that the developers cannot build their Center so close to Ground Zero.  I would hope, however, that they would not.  In sensitivity to the loss of nearly 3000 American lives they should choose to build elsewhere.  Doing so would build a sturdier cultural bridge, show humility about the terrorism of 19 men acting falsely in the name of Islam, and demonstrate a profound understanding of America and Americans."

Or is Mr. Obama really, in Dorothy Rabinowitz' construct, the "Alien in the White House?"

8/14/10 1130:  Looks like I'm on exactly the same page as Scott Johnson.

If it is another mosque that is wanted, as Obama suggests, ordinary Americans desire only that it be built somewhere else in New York. Obama's invocation of the First Amendment right of the free exercise of religion is not on point.

In the good old USA, citizens have a right to do many wrongs. One such wrong would be the establishment of a Muslim shrine at Ground Zero. Obama simply does not engage the point. He does not argue that the establishment of a Muslim shrine at Ground Zero would be right.

Tim Geithner Would Know About "Deeply Irresponsible"

Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, via the Associated Press, on "extending the Bush Tax Cuts," otherwise known as preventing a tax increase in the middle of an economic recession and struggling recovery.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said Tuesday it would be "deeply irresponsible" for the Obama administration to support a wholesale extension of Bush era tax cuts, including breaks for the wealthy.

Geithner said in a nationally broadcast interview that President Barack Obama strongly believes those reductions should be retained for the "95 percent" of taxpayers with individual incomes under $200,000 a year and families below $250,000.

In more personal terms, I believe it much more "deeply irresponsible" to dodge the taxes you do owe, as Mr. Geithner did until it became untenable as the nominee for his current cabinet position.

Nobody likes a know-it-all, so perhaps there was some useful humanity in Tim Geithner's imperfect answers during yesterday's Senate confirmation hearings. The Treasury nominee faced questions about his failure to pay payroll taxes for several years, and he's lucky the votes on his confirmation will come from Senators, and during a financial panic, rather than from a jury of his taxpaying peers.

Perhaps the most embarrassing moment for Mr. Geithner was his attempt to evade the questions by Arizona Senator Jon Kyl on why he had only remedied the error on back taxes for two of the four years. Because the statute of limitations had run out on the 2001-2002 tax payments, Mr. Geithner was not legally required to pay them -- and didn't until a Treasury confirmation hearing seemed possible.

But instead of fessing up that he had obeyed only the letter of the law, he insisted yesterday that, gee whiz, the earlier tax dodge didn't even occur to him -- an excuse that came off as legalistic and implausible. His replies finally brought Mr. Kyl to insist, "Would you answer my question rather than dancing around it -- please?"

Mr. Geithner replied that "I did not believe I was avoiding my liability," and that he had worked in government his entire life and "would never put myself in the position where I was deliberately not meeting my obligation as a taxpayer."

Right.  Mr. Geithner, allow me to advise you on some terminology that may help your concept of responsibility, both governmental and personal.  "Allowing the Bush Tax Cuts to expire," after the current tax rates have now been in place for 7 years, is in reality a tax increase.  "Extending the Bush Tax Cuts" is really preventing said tax increase.  Most importantly, "meeting your obligation as a taxpayer" means paying what you owe.  And I shouldn't have to tell a treasury secretary that.

You want to be responsible?  Don't raise taxes during a recession.  Instead, ease back on the clearly non-stimulative governmental spending.  That would be responsible government.