Seeking the Weave...

I am compiling a long entry on the 'Unimpeachable Sources' used by the media.

Here is a list of my favorites:

• Larry C. Johnson
• Paul Pillar
• Ray McGovern
• Joseph Wilson
• Richard Clark
• Russell D. Tice
• Sibel Edmonds
• Mary O’McCarthy
• Rand Beers
• Sandy Berger
• Madeleine Albright
• John D. Rockerfeller

They seem to spin and weave on one another. Very complicated. Very odd.

Some seem to have once been reasonable, but are having a hard time of it when the accusing finger of history points in their direction. Some seem to think the intelligence and security and policy organizations they worked for are conspiring to murder Americans. Most seem to want to recast history in a new, more palatable, light. Some are protecting an earlier Administration and a legacy and a belief structure - that is, a religion under siege.

All seem to accuse President Bush of not detecting and destroying al-Qaeda in the 8 months he had as President before 9/11. Most point to assessments from the mid-90's demonstrating the importance of fighting terror - without defending the five years of inaction that ensued under their watch. Most want a kinder, gentler response and interaction with organized terror.

Of all Mrs. Sibel Edmonds is the oddest case in the group. Where does she stand? She is very angry that the FBI dragged its feet before 9/11 regarding Islamic terror activity within the U.S.. In this, she seems to have many facts on her side but she quickly twisted inaction, incompetence, and stupidity into a great and grand conspiracy theory. She is suing everyone. She is a 'whistleblower' extraordinaire.

Odd, very odd…

The Wheel weaves as the Wheel wills...

The March of the NeoCons...

Kinda dumb, but kinda fun!!!

Here is a very odd thought.

The rocket scientists we call Hezbollah are also part of the Iranian/Syrian deterrence force. And, they are blowing their military assets in a kabuki dance while yelling Allah Akhbar at the top of their lungs. And, these rocketeers aren’t even tipping their missiles with WMD.

Time to recall the theater ‘general’ and remind him that there is a real war on. His theater of action was supposed to fix the enemy in place – not bring the enemy closer to the heart of a major combatant. Do you think Syria wants Israel roiling about on its borders until its ready? Do you think Syria wants these violent and useless turds floating around in their cities and population centers – getting bored, getting fanatical, getting frustrated, getting pissed at Assad? And, the battlefield will not be ready till Iran has multiple nuclear weapons – including some that demonstrate their capability with above ground tests…

This is odd, very odd.

I have more confidence in Bush/Blair than Olmert. If the strategy is to force or coerce Hezbollah to blow their assets and capability before they could actually cause damage than we have a very deep strategy – and one that points to a regional escalation of the conflict on our terms sooner rather than later. Don’t forget that mighty Iran will soon be on half rations for their refined fuel requirements. The beauty of subsidies and socialism. They seem to have forgotten that gasoline is far more expensive than oil. Yuk, yuk…

Oooo, aaaaaahhhh that PNAC thang!!!
The Great Right Wing Conspiracy!!!
The shadow government!!!
Skull and Crossbones!!!

Prescient Moonbat - NYT OpEd shows his credentials

Re(1): 'The Declining Terrorist Threat', NYT OpEd, 2001/07/10, Larry C. Johnson
Re(2): 'The Declining Terrorist Threat', OpEd reprinted in full
Re(3): 'Stay on Guard Against Terrorism', NYT Reader Response, Joseph Muckerman
Re(4): 'Mr. Counterterrorism Guru', National Review, Byron York

HT: 'Your a Dead Man', Confederate Yankee

UPDATED: Oh, dear god!!!

Larry Johnson proved Moonbat Prescient when he put his heart, soul, and reputation on the line writing a NYT OpEd titled ‘The Declining Terrorist Threat’ on July 10, 2001.

If you are silly enough to pay for pap and drivel in the NYT Select read his OpEd here.

Otherwise, here is this fine example of his prescient prognostication

An excerpt:

The greatest risk is clear: if you are drilling for oil in Colombia — or in nations like Ecuador, Nigeria or Indonesia — you should take appropriate precautions; otherwise Americans have little to fear.

Although high-profile incidents have fostered the perception that terrorism is becoming more lethal, the numbers say otherwise, and early signs suggest that the decade beginning in 2000 will continue the downward trend. A major reason for the decline is the current reluctance of countries like Iraq, Syria and Libya, which once eagerly backed terrorist groups, to provide safe havens, funding and training.

...

Larry C. Johnson is a former State Department counterterrorism specialist

In contrast, the famous Mr. Muckerman replied to Mr. Johnson's expert analysis on July 14, 2001 in 'Stay on Guard Against Terrorism'.

To the Editor:

Re ''The Declining Terrorist Threat'' (Op-Ed, July 10):

Larry C. Johnson contends that it is time ''to take a deep breath and reflect on why we are so fearful'' of the terrorist threat. He states that of the 423 terrorist incidents reported last year, only 153 were judged to be ''significant'' and only 17 involved American citizens or businesses.

What he does not say is that weapons of mass destruction and disruption continue to proliferate and continue to be acquired by so-called rogue states and organizations, many of whom have declared war on our nation. They can target our cities and infrastructure with missiles or hand-delivered terror weapons.

The attack on Pearl Harbor was successful because we, as a nation, had not crossed a mental threshold that admitted that our territory could be attacked. Let us not make that mistake again.

JOSEPH E. MUCKERMAN Alexandria, Va., July 10, 2001 The writer was director of emergency planning for the Pentagon from 1986 to 1992.

Can the MSM please offer a talking head position to Mr. Muckerman. This may surprise the editors of the NYT, but Mr. Muckerman was right. He also wrote an article I bet is rather intriguing: “Rethink the Nuclear Threat.” Orbis, Winter 1994, v. 38, no. 1, p. 99-

Personally, I have heard enough from Mr. Johnson.

More from Mr. Muckerman:

‘An Army at the Ready’ – NYT, September 6, 2000
‘Lesson of Pearl Harbor’ – NYT, December 16, 1999
‘Add Civil Defense’ – NYT, January 30, 1997

The fool Larry C. Johnson grabbed a pen and wrote himself into history...

But, at least when not being pumped up by the media as the expert of all terrorism experts he has a streak of honesty:

Of course, he didn’t give an inch, either. “I stand by everything I said in that piece,” Johnson says. “Go through it in detail. Put it into the right context. . . . Nowhere in that article did I say we needed to ignore Islamic terrorism.” Mark that up as another bold statement.

On the issue of his credentials, Johnson says he received commendations for his work at the CIA, but he takes a more modest tone than one might expect. “I don’t represent myself to be Mr. Counterterrorism Guru,” he says. “I get introduced as the deputy director of counterterrorism at the State Department. But my full title was deputy director for transportation security, antiterrorism assistance training, and special operations. In Washington, the longer your title, the less important you are, and I had a really long title.”

As for his connections — how he knows enough to speak about the CIA after 17
years away — well, that’s where the openness ends. “I’m not going to get into
the specifics of how I know what I know,” Johnson says. And that’s that.

Update (2006/07/26 2013 PST)

Dear god, there is a Guckert/Gannon angle to this...

If we get Johnson, Wilson, Plame, Momma Moonbat, Heltzik, Leopold, Greenwald, Frisch and all their assorted sock puppets together we can mix them all up for another 15 minutes of fame.

See You on the Other Side of Hell!!!

And, perhaps, the isolationist Left shall give us Total War...

We will know in a few weeks…

Gee, thanks...

The Left’s love and concern and correctness and decency in this lawless land leave them - and us - one solution since they cannot stomach the other. Their lack of willpower in standing against the Reich at the Rhineland may lead all of us to stand on the beaches of Normandy. Waiting. Killing. Mechanized. It may yet come to that.

But, we still have a few weeks.

The 2nd Conjecture may yet have some life.

Total War will be fought symmetrically by us and asymmetrically by the other side.

We will lose thousands to millions in shopping malls and sporting events and indefensible gathering places. The main target will be the glorious - and apostate - underbelly of Western Europe. The only thing that will save them is the ruthlessness they still have within them - special note: their police are not like our police. But, so soft, so near, so apostate. Even more so than the Great Satan. To reach out and touch them. A dream. A dream of others before.

They will lose millions to hundreds of millions when the next Bomber Harris takes command. Their infrastructure, their cities, and their military are unprotected. Our culture will forever change. We are still challenged with Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Tokyo, Dresden, and Monte Carlo. Those necessities will be a very distant memory. The only targets they have worth hitting are population centers.

At least we are talking about a 3rd Conjecture solution without 3rd Conjecture weapons.

There were options, there were ifs...

Sturm und Drang..

Time, Still...

After the earthquake a fire passed; but Yahweh was not in the fire: and after the fire a still small voice. It was so, when Elijah heard it, that he wrapped his face in his mantle, and went out, and stood in the entrance of the cave. Behold, a voice came to him, and said, "What are you doing here, Elijah?"

The Deterrent Never Discussed…

There has been much bloviation regarding WMD and how Valerie Plame single-handedly destroyed the Iraqi WMD capability during Clinton’s era of ‘Peace and Prosperity’.

However, one lesson that was loud and clear to terrorist regimes has been lost in the shuffle. Namely, that American and coalition forces did invade a state that was known to have indigenously built and used WMD of various and lethal forms.

One result of that salient fact occurred when the valiant Moammar Khadafi, the el Presidente of Libya, unilaterally declared his WMD program following said invasion. A program as of yet unknown to the UN WMD sleuths – a couple of years before another unknown unknowable became known with regards to Iran.

Now, with the Libs railing that BusHitler knew there was no WMD prior to invasion; but instead instigated a very complex ruse based on Jewish CIA suicide operatives crashing planes (or shooting missiles if you are really serious about this) into really big and important buildings in an effort to make a grab for Middle-East oil.

Get it…

Libs, you may have blown the only deterrent available…

You see, America didn’t really invade a nation in the teeth of WMD…

They must still be the weak horse. They value life more than we value death.

Will the next WMD armed thug be deterred by our actions…

These folks (Ahmadinejad, Jong-Il, and Assad) are rather stupid, rather barbaric, and rather brazen.

So, the answer is – as I think is being made clearer by the day – Nope…

Bush and Rumsfeld let Osama Go!!!

How many times must one hear this ignorant rant:

Bush should have sent 50,000 paratroops into Afghanistan to deal with al-Qaeda and the Taliban and not count on indigenous support.

Constantly ranting ‘Bush letting Osama go’ in Tora Bora.
Wailing about this, crying about that.
It never ends.

So, let us start with a map:

Q1: Are you going to parachute your 50,000 airborne infantry into one area or spread them around. If you are going to spread them around how was that going to help in the capture and trial of bin Laden? If brilliantly dropping in on one spot, which spot? Why? If Tora Bora is your landing zone why wouldn’t al-Qaeda just traipse west into Iran or north into Turkmenistan or east into Pakistan? When al-Qaeda defines their movements are you simply going to airdrop more thousands to attack them in transition – into other countries.

Q2: Do you actually think we had 50,000 paratroops immediately available with the capability to airlift them promptly into Afghanistan? What kind of weapons do you think paratroops carry? Remember, we had President Clinton’s ‘Peace Dividend’ to spend! Are you really talking about changing the American military force structure before we were to strike al-Qaeda and the Taliban (like Shinkeki's 400,000 comment implied)? How many years did you want to expend in the effort to build that capability – and therefore, how long were you going to permit al-Qaeda to run free?

Q3: Assuming we have those 50,000 paratroops to spare (and I don’t think we had 50,000 jump qualified personnel in 2001 – period), can generate the necessary airlift capability, and figure out exactly where to drop them – how do you supply these guys?

The answers to the first two questions by these Armchair Generals imply that, at best, they can assume the nickname “General Maintenance”. The type of leaders and military strategists that ensure the base is clean and painted and the grass is cut – but can’t lead or implement change worth a damn. However, these bloviations are only hints of foolishness.

The proof is in the answer to Question 3. Supply and support of large military expeditions separate General Maintenance from General Patton. How do you supply a land locked nation like Afghanistan through the air? Whose airspace do you use? Do you have any idea of the material requirements for a force that large? How permanent were those ‘good will’ agreements you site so often (ah, the old ‘we blew all that post 9/11 goodwill’ argument) with nations such as Iran, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan?

If you contend we could have airdropped tens of thousands of paratroopers onto the precise spot to fix and destroy al-Qaeda and the Taliban without a buy-in from the indigenous peoples then you are a fool…

And, a fool is forever…

Keep Your Eyes on the Prize…

Re(1): ‘F-16 Fighting Falcon’, FAS Military Analysis Network
Re(2): ‘Extending the F-16 range’, Defense Update
Re(3): ‘Iran Special Weapons Facilities’, GlobalSecurity.org
Re(4): 'CIA Factbook - The Middle East Map', CIA Factbook

Israel may strike Syria with ground forces - and hold ground.

Why?

The Osirak reactor was about 1,200 km from Israel..

That, in 1981, was the absolute outer limit of the bombing range of an F-16. There have been numerous improvements to the range and lethality of the F-16. This includes an extension to the combat range of the current variant – as described by ‘Extending the F-16 range’ in Defense Update. Per this article, Israel purchased these enhancements on or before 2004.

Now let us fast forward to Summer 2006…

Iran is sponsoring terror at Israel’s southern border

Syria is sponsoring terror at Israel’s northern border

Iran is ranting about obliterating Israel from the face of the earth.

But, Iraq – and thus American airspace – lies between Israel and Iran. It is very problematic to expect American armed forces to permit an Israeli air strike through their airspace – such permission would more than imply a coordinated effort. Would America accede to that? Personally, I think not.

Thus, the Iranian WMD sites are most likely beyond Israeli F-16 range as currently deployed. Even with American cooperation - which is problematic.

Let us assume that Israel has a few options to deal with Hezbollah and Hamas. Why chose an option that includes a significant ground campaign and an attack on an ‘innocent’ nation – ie. Syria.

Why…

One reason becomes clear when you look at a map.



Because the eastern portion of Syria is within F-16 combat range of the vast majority of Iranian WMD facilities and missile launch sites.

Thus, feint to Lebanon, strike Damascus, set up a combat airfield on that eastern appendage, and fly through an unpopulated portion of Turkish airspace to hit Iran's WMD development and deployment sites.

A New Favorite - Goldstein Fried Frisch

Re(1): 'Protein Wisdom', Jeff Goldstein
Re(2): 'Althouse.... The Stupidity Rays... Are Overwhelming...', Brad DeLong
Re(3): 'Excremental Sighting at University of Arizona', Me

Got a bit caught up in a dust up or two this week.

1. I have a new Frisch Face on my BlogRoll... Yuk, yuk... I have spent more time on Jeff Goldstein's Protein Wisdom since the Learned Professor jumped his child and wife. Tell me you don't smile when reading:

Watership Up?

From the August/September Reason (print edition):

Doctors at the Institute for Regenerative Medicine at Wake Forest University report success in regrowing healthy cells for diseased rabbit penises.

Researchers say the process could pave the way for treating impotence in human beings.—Which, while swell news for impotent males, is nevertheless a bummer for the French, who have long considered diseased rabbit penises something of a delicacy.

Or am I’m thinking of snails? Or the Koreans?

update: IS THERE A MULTICULTURALIST IN THE HOUSE?

I'm telling you, that is a funny post...

And, this is almost as telling as Dan Rather waiving the magic National Guard Papers:

Uh, wow.

And people wonder why some of us mistrust the traditional media.

I left my response in the comments at the TC site.

It’s my own fault, really. In fact, my grandmother always used to say, “never trust a female Tuscon Citizen reporter with a hyphenated last name; she’ll screw you like she was putting together shelving”—but did I listen?

No. No I did not.

Apologies, Grams. Your wisdom knows no bounds.

So, to Frischen things up a bit, I hereby and there-to-fore add Goldstein's Protein Wisdom to my blog roll.


2. Regretfully, I can't take Bradly DeLong's semi-coherent lefty rant site - did you know he was President Clinton's Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury - off my blog roll because he never was on it. I enjoyed schooling his little ones in the comments section of 'Althouse.... The Stupidity Rays... Are Overwhelming...'. It was sad when he excommunicated me and deleted all my posts. If Brad actually reads this I would like to challenge him to post those comments and have others determine whether or not I am a troll. Hey, Brad, keep it in context though...


3. I called Deborah Frisch a turd on her site. I think I'll stick with that... Concise... Clear... To the point... Clarity over Agreement!

And, now banned :-{

Re(1): 'Brad DeLong', Wikipedia
Re(1): 'Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal', Brad DeLong
Re(2): 'Althouse.... The Stupidity Rays... Are Overwhelming...', Brad DeLong

Brad DeLong, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under President Clinton, banned me from his site. He worked for Secretary of the Treasury Robert Rubin - a person who I have deep respect for...

I got banned for commenting at the 'Althouse.... The Stupidity Rays... Are Overwhelming...' post. You can see my name burning in effigy throughout the comments.

I have asked Mr. DeLong to email me my comments stream. None of them were factually defeated by the commenters.

But I was told I was a troll - one who developed and wrote large, content driven, and primary sourced posts...

Here is a favorite response (part of a comment of mine italicized):

Boghie:

"What does this stat really mean? It means that to get ahead you have to take a
supervisory position. Your experience and skillset should progress to the point
that you should be able to attain a supervisory position."

When we're all--all 100% of us---suitably ensconced in supervisory positions, who will be the 'worker bees' whom we shall supervise?

Are you suggesting the reintroduction of slavery? Feudalism?

You are, aren't you? Not that we'd call it by those nasty names, naturally.

This is how you see the immigration problem, I presume. As a source of slaves and vassals.

How wonderfully fucking enlightened of you. Some of your rightwing buddies want to gas them, or at least shoot them on the barbed wire fence.

My comment dealt with a fact extrapolated from the starting and ending average wage for each President since LBJ - inflation adjusted to 2005 dollars. I would like to thank JLR for that information. Since Brad seems to be a happy hacker, here is the info:

Stunster-

The Bureau of Labor Statistics average hourly earning page does make for interesting reading. Just for fun I converted the average hourly earnings of all the available years for all private nonsupervisory positoins to 2005 dollars. Here are the numbers for the starting year and ending year of the presidents from 1964 on:

President(years) start/end (2005 dollars)

LBJ (1964/1968): 15.94/16.94
Nixon (1968/1974): 16.94/17.54
Ford (1974/1976): 17.54/17.36
Carter (1976/1980): 17.36/16.21
Reagan (1980/1988): 16.21/15.56
Bush I (1988/1992): 15.56/14.96
Clinton (1992/2000): 14.96/15.82
Bush II (2000/2005): 15.82/16.11

Here is an ordered list of these presidents with their fractional change per year of office

LBJ +1.6%
Clinton +0.72%
Nixon +0.59%
Bush II +0.37%
Reagan -0.50%
Ford -0.51%
Bush I -0.96%
Carter -1.66%

Not very scientific, but interesting to look at.
-JLR

Using JLR's inflation adjusted information I found that the average wage earners made (take home pay only reflects Federal taxes, not Social Security, Medicare, and State Tax):

Clinton:

Gross Income: $31,640
Taxable Income: 31,640 - 7,500 (Standard Deduction) = $24,140
Income Tax: $3,621
Annual Take Home: $28,019
Monthly Take Home: $2,335
Hourly Take Home: $14.01 off a gross salary of $15.82 per hour

Bush:

Gross Income: $32,220
Taxable Income: 31,640 - 10,000 (Standard Deduction) = $22,220
Income Tax: $2,578
Annual Take Home: $29,642
Monthly Take Home: $2,470
Hourly Take Home: $14.82 off a gross salary of $16.11 per hour

I simply asked this Stunster dude and his friend Anne (is that the PoliPundit troll of old) if they would rather have $29,642 take home pay or $28,019. It was an easy question. No tricks. I guess Brad did not like the fact that Bush gave this chap in the lowest income tax bracket an $0.81 per hour pay raise.

A hidden one, no doubt. And, one the President doesn't brag enough about.

But a pay raise no politico or company can take from him/her.

Love and Kisses Brad - kinda sad that the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury did not stoop low enough to contest these and other facts. I could have flaws in my computations, thinking, or general algorithm. A nice factual return by you or a top commenter would have been appreciated. That is something I get routinely at The Belmont Club and SecurityWatchTower. That is the least I could expect from a fine SESer such as yourself.

Enjoy the 'Fair, Balanced, and Reality-Based' community you created over there!!!

NYT Surprised by 2nd Annual Jump In Revenues since Tax Cuts...

Re(1): 'Surprising Jump in Tax Revenues Is Curbing Deficit', NYT, Edmund J. Andrews
Re(2): 'Budget Deficit Estimation...', BoghieOnYourSix, Me
Re(3): 'Response to 'Liberal and Loving It' - Ranking the American Presidents', Me
Re(4): 'Fiscal Flameout???', BoghieOnYourSix, Me
Re(5): 'Bush's Promise - To cut the deficit in half by FY2009', BoghieOnYourSix, Me
Re(6): 'Pull This Finger, Will You', BoghieOnYourSix, Me
Re(7): 'Eeyore Covers the Budget', PowerLineBlog, John Hinderaker

UPDATE: Brad DeLong removes a comment by me from his Blog
Re(8): 'Althouse.... The Stupidity Rays... Are Overwhelming...', Brad DeLong

Nice Try NYT!!!

You get a Smiley Face

So evil corporate income tax has almost tripled during the Bush Economic Blight, and individual income tax revenue has grown substantially. And, the deficit is shrinking rather dramatically in this era of war and corruption. That is something you have to admit – but great grudge work and slight of hand.

So your fine article deserves a Fisking!!!

Here is the Gist of your Argument – as mouthpiece for the Loony Left:

Democrats and many independent budget analysts note that overall revenues have barely climbed back to the levels reached in 2000, and that the government has borrowed trillions of dollars against Social Security surpluses just as the first of the nation's baby boomers are nearing retirement.

For most of the article the NYT uses numbers from FY2001 (the last Clinton budget – a point never made), but here they choose to use FY2000 numbers. Why??? Because in the context of later discussions the NYT denigrates the revenue increase as being the result of rich people selling stocks and bonds – that is, investment taxes. Thus, doom is around the corner.

But, hey look at this hand will you… Not that hand stupid… Over here we are talking about the last Great Man’s personal income tax revenues coming in at a mite over 1 Trillion dollars. And while we are talking about a huge increase in FY2006 revenues we shall pull the FY2005 revenues out of the hat over here. See, that Monkey of a President only yanked $927 Billion out of your wallet. Quiet about the earlier comment we had to make about the growth in all forms of revenue since last year… Stop looking at the Monkey bringing in over $1 Trillion this year – it must be a clerical mistake.

When will you audiences suspend disbelief and just watch the show. We had to tell you about evil corporations paying three times as much tax than they did in FY2001. Look at FY2000 where they were forced to redistribute $207 Billion. Shut up about projections of Halliburton et al greasing the skids to the tune of $350 Billion for FY2006. Look at this hand, please…

Over here, President BusHitler hasn’t even come to Clinton’s second to final numbers. This chump only brought in $927 Billion last year in individual income taxes and an obvious one-off of $278 Billion from Halliburton’s war profiteering.

Let us continue:

"The fact is that revenues are way below what the administration said they would be a few years ago," said Thomas S. Kahn, staff director for Democrats on the House Budget Committee. "The long-term prognosis is still very, very bleak, and the administration doesn't have any kind of long-term plan."

One reason the run-up in taxes looks good is because the past five years looked so bad. Revenues are up, but they have lagged well behind economic growth.

The surge could also evaporate as quickly as it appeared. Over the past decade, tax
revenues have become much more volatile, alternately soaring and plunging in the
wake of swings in the stock market and repeatedly defying government projections.

Mr. Kahn et al, please take in this set of numbers (and we even forget about the subsequent damage caused by 9/11 and Katrina – I can’t figure out why the numbers looked so bad after 9/11 and pre-2003 tax changes):

FY2001 (President Clinton’s last budget, in billions)

GDP: 10,128

Individual Income Tax: 994
Corporate Income Tax: 151
Total Revenues: 1,990
DOD Expenditures: 290
Social Security Expenditures: 489
Deficit: +127 (surplus)

FY2006 estimate (current budget, in billions)

GDP: 13,100
Individual Income Tax: 1,027
Corporate Income Tax: 352
Total Revenues: 2,375
DOD Expenditures: 512
Social Security Expenditures: 603
Deficit: -280(deficit)

Note the growth in GDP, Individual Income Tax, Corporate Income Tax, DOD expenditures, and Social Security expenditures.

Here is something to think about. Let us balance the budget! First, index Social Security Benefits to inflation rather than wages and bring them to balance with receipts and investment growth. Then cut our Defense budget in half. That will fix it. What, you will not talk about Social Security and you cannot politically cut the DOD budget. Then what are you going to do? Don’t know.

My guess is that President Bush figures 9/11 and Katrina are rare events. So, President Bush is figuring that if the economy grows at the steady and sustainable rate his administration is promoting - while spending is being brought steadily and sustainably under control - than the deficit will shrink. Not a bad idea – where is yours?

But, remember one must look at my right hand when I gesture with it – don’t look at my left hand. My right hand is showing increasing government spending while my left hand illustrates a shrinking deficit – both in real terms and as a ratio. I can’t see the pattern. I am lost. I am thinking like Bill Keller and the rest of the word smiths and Congressional Intelligencia – that is, I ain’t got no idea what numbers and trends mean.

So, for the John Kerry’s of the world here is a nice little chart:

Fiscal Year	GDP	Tax Revenue	Deficit	% of GDP	% of Tax Revenue
FY2004	11,743	1,798	412	3.51%	22.91%
FY2005	12,479	2,053	318	2.55%	15.49%
FY2006	13,400	2,285	286	2.13%	12.52%

That chart implies that economic and revenue growth is expanding faster that even drunken Republicans can spend it. And, let us not forget Senator Landrieu’s demand for more Katrina relief – remember she wanted $200 Billion more than she got. So where would we be if the other drunks were in power?

I guess this about sums up the MediaCrat opinion:

Tax receipts amounted to about 17.5 percent of the nation's gross domestic product in 2005, far below the level five years ago and still slightly below the average of 18 percent since World War II. Spending, by contrast, is running at about 20 percent of gross domestic product .

The recent average for tax receipts is 18 percent – so 17.5 percent is a significant cut to the NYT (please refer to NYT stock price). And, what about Clinton’s sustainable DotCom boom ratio of 20.6 percent. That is certainly sustainable – especially when it is almost 3 percent over norm and there are no wars, no massive natural disasters, and no recession.

And we will be at war forever, and have cities wiped off the map every year, and economic doom is just around the corner.

Makes sense to me!!!

But, then again, we might draw down our troops in Iraq, the weather might be balmy and sweet, and the recent downturn in the stock market might point to those rich bastards (and me) selling appreciated stock and paying those damn capital gains taxes…

And, then I ran across this telling chart at PowerLine:

That makes even more sense to me!!!

Note:
One last comment, the shrinking deficit and growing revenues are not surprising. My numbers for FY2006 are from February and I easily predicted the actual deficit numbers for FY2005. Mr. Andrews should take some time out of his CommonDreams and DailyKOS reads and check out some primary sources. I am eternally grateful to Jayson (formerly of PoliPundit) for directing me to the primary data in his 'Hooverville' posts.

UPDATE: (2006/07/09 2151)
I just had the honor of haveng a version of the above removed as a comment in a Brad DeLong's blog post titled 'Althouse.... The Stupidity Rays... Are Overwhelming...'. The honor of it all... But, I put some time in it. Guess he didn't like the fact that I called him on some opinion or another - but I definitely didn't Frisch him. The only time that has ever happened to me in the past was when the Huffington Post ran an article about the rich using loopholes to avoid taxes. I had to post a comment with a link to her public tax records (she was running for Governor of California the year before) and mention that while she had 4.5 million in income she paid $700 in taxes - like a pig at the trough. To her credit, the post was restored. Kinda sneaky about it...

Excremental Sighting at University of Arizona

Re(1): 'Protein Wisdom', Jeff Goldstein
Re(2): 'A New Low for the 'Progressives'', LittleGreenFootballs, Charles Johnson
Re(3): 'white flag', South(west)paw, Deborah Frisch
Re(4): 'A Psychologist's Defense of Ward Churchill', CounterPunch, Deborah Frisch
Re(5): 'On Blogosphere Manners - BRING IT ON', Left2Right, Comment by Deborah Frisch
Re(6): 'UCLA Faculty Diversity: Updated',ProfessorBainbridge, Can be titled: 'When Deb's Attack'
Re(7): 'Dang, will Deb pick on me now?', Deinonychus Antirrhopus, Deb Comments - Toughly!
Re(8): And, now the 'Maoist Internationalist Movement References our fine Professor...
Re(9): 'An Abbeyfest dispatch from Why, Arizona', Tuscon Weekly, Frish going to AbbeyFest

Deborah Frisch
Former Psychology Professor
University of Arizona

Ooo, a special note on bottom - AbbeyFest!!!









This Tepid Turd (a Progressive - most certainly) makes the following mea culpa:

July 08, 2006
white flag

I wrote some inflammatory comments at a blog by a guy named Jeff Goldstein called protein wisdom that infuriated many bloggers and commenters. Many of these bloggers emailed my boss at the University of Arizona to tell on me.

In hindsight, the things I wrote were over the line of nastiness. I apologize to Mr. Goldstein.

I have resigned from the University of Arizona so there is no need for other enraged people to write to administrators there.

Some blogs have posted comments that I perceive to be physically threatening. I have contacted the FBI and the Pajamas Media staff to determine how to proceed with this aspect of this unbelievable experience.

My intention in this post is to de-escalate the situation. The comments that started this all were nasty, not threatening. But I feel very threatened by the response.

Jeff - I lost my job. You won. Could you call off the troops?

Here is a compilation of comments this Learned Professor excreted on the Protein Wisdom blog site:

"..I’d like to hear more about your “tyke” by the way. Girl? Boy? Toddler? Teen? Are you still married to the woman you ephed to give birth to the tyke?

Tell all, bro! as I said elsewhere, if I woke up tomorrow and learned that someone else had shot you and your “tyke” it wouldn’t slow me down one iota. You aren’t "human” to me. So if you could just tell me the AGE and SEX of your “tyke,” I’d be stoked!

Thanx!

Ooh. Two year old boy. Sounds hot. You live in Colorado, I see. Hope no one Jon-Benets your baby.

Are you still married to the woman you humped to produce the toddler? I reiterate: If some nutcase kidnapped your child tomorrow and did to her what was done to your fellow Coloradan, Jon-Benet Ramsey, I wouldn’t give a damn.

You know, Jeff, I just don’t get it. You say, and I believe you, that a human female chose to procreate with you and you have produced a 2 year old progeny.

But you live in Colorado and I really can’t believe there are women desperate and/or stupid enough to procreate with the likes of you.

What am I missing, dude?

Bring it on, hombre.

Bring it on."

My guess is that folks pulled on their basketball sneakers, yanked on a pair of shorts and a tee-shirt and brought their game to the gym.

Sounds like she lost - she didn't have much game...

And, now the Mighty Excremental melts into diarrhea – to flow ever so slowly down to the turd farm to be processed and disposed of properly. Probably a non-organic process – oh the humanity of it all.

Mrs. Frisch, I would like to remind you and all the other future and past Excrementals on the web – The Net is Forever… Your Mea Culpa and your comments will be perused for years and decades and maybe centuries.

Yeah, your 15 minutes of fame!

Google: ""Deborah Frisch" for lifelong entertainment!!!

Can we start calling this type of commenter the 'Frischy Excremental'?

Note: Special thanks to the University of Arizona for prompt and proper action!

UPDATE:

I (Professor Frisch) was going for Abbeyfest VIII--the eighth annual gathering of members of an Internet list devoted to Edward Abbey. The abbeyweb ensnares libertarians, anarchists, activists and desert rats. Although I've been a member for five years, this was my first Abbeyfest.

Faith...

Re(1): 'Faith and Understanding', MySandmen, Dueller88

Note: This post is a slightly modified version of a comment logged in the reference.

Faith of all types plays a major role in major events.

If pushed hard enough, the West (referenced in your post as the Judeo-Christian tradition) pushes back hard. Generally, our culture stands by a social more of 'Live and Let Live.'

The corollary, however, is 'Kill or be Killed.' That came in WWII, the Civil War, the Revolutionary War, the War of Roses, ..., the 30 Years War, the Roman/Germanic Wars, the Persian Wars, ...

Faith (religious and/or secular) played a role in all. These eras were defined by sharply delineated belief structures. We are in an era of sharply delineated belief structures - internal and external.

Our great luck (and I really don't believe in luck) has provided us eight years of tremendous leadership which in the end may stem the destruction that seemed imminent on 9/11. But, will the internal conflict subside to the point that we can resolve the external conflict without huge amounts of bloodshed? Will the other parties in the external conflict stand down - defeated and demoralized, or at least accepting of ‘Live and Let Live' social mores?

We shall see internally. Will our culture destroy the NYT, the current incarnation of the Democratic Party, and the weak kneed concepts of the Liberal 60's - and then rebuild and restructure them. Or will the NYT, the Democratic Party, and the 60's Liberals defeat and change the culture? My guess here is the former. I think we are past the tipping point.

We shall see externally. President Bush is attempting to resolve the external threat (or at least the ones we can see today) through 'soft power' - I know the Libs will look askance at that, but think again... Can a shining city on a hill be built, culturally defined, and draw an entire civilization out of the gap? Or will that civilization march right past and into the abyss.

Right to were faith forces action.