Sounds nice, but if this isn't the Communist Call to Action, then I don't know what is. Except, it's not just for Communists any more, the Democrats see fit to use it as their manifesto!

Oh I agree, the notion sounds just fine, but when used in the context of your government, it can't be taken any other way than BIG Government and Socialism.

"It's a core value that we think organizes the entire political agenda for progressives," said John Halpin, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. "With the rise of materialism, greed and corruption in American society, people want a return to a better sense of community _ sort of a shared sacrifice, a return to the ethic of service and duty."

From my perspective, this is all backwards. The rise of greed and corruption is the result not of too little government, but rather the rise of government and its increasing influence in our lives. So, the Democrats believe that to instill a better sense of community, they can force federal social programs down our throat? This might make sense to welfare recipients, but to those of us that understand economics it makes none.

Once again, democrats are trying to use class warfare to paint the "rich" as evil.

"But liberals say that Republican policies promote a "radical individualism" _ advocating individual retirement accounts above Social Security, health savings accounts over affordable insurance, and tax cuts that Democrats say benefit only the rich."

"Radical individualism"? To Democrats, any individualism is radical. How is encouraging me to save and be personally responsible bad? Well, the democrats would want you to think that because that leaves the "less fortunate" out in the cold. Well, no. It means that people might actually learn to fend for themselves and find non-governmental solutions to their problems.

I would much rather have a social security system that kicks in only for those who really need it rather than to force it on everyone. Right now, I am paying 15% of my income in taxes to support social security checks that go to Barbara Streisand - how does that make sense?

Further, what's lost here is that the quote TRIES to indicate that you have to have one or the other. In fact, if you provide HSAs to "rich" people and make other changes to our "almost" socialized medical  system, you could probably also have more affordable insurance rates for everyone. If people have better ways to save on their own, less people will need Social Security and it will be there for those who might truly need it.

Bottom line, the Common Good sounds so nice, but as you can see from the quote above, it's really just a recipe for continuing the current broken Social Security system, moving towards 100% socialized medicine and higher taxes. That's not the common good, that's good for 10% of the people and bad for the remaining 90% of us that don't need the gov't to get by.

Onto another point I happen to agree with  from the same article from John Hawkins:

JHL "You don't have to "pay" for tax cuts in a country taxed as heavily as the United States. That's because when taxes are extremely high, cutting them actually increases the amount of revenue that the government receives. That may sound counterintuitive, but it's true. Take a look at the Laffer Curve to get an explanation."

Hoodo - I don't think anyone could say exactly what the right tax rate would be to maximize revenues, but I can tell you that the liberal idea that "cutting taxes" means less revenue is entirely wrong. My favorite analogy was an economics professor of mine that used the price of beer at a liquor store (I just happen to really like beer!!). If the liquor store wanted to maximize profits, couldn't he just raise the price of a six-pack to $20? Of course, we all know that is folly because even I wouldn't pay that much for beer - I'd start drinking wine!! So in fact, by raising the price, the liquor store owner may in fact reduce his profits. The same is true of tax rates. If the gov't took 90% of my earnings, I think we could all agree that it just might not be worth working. In fact, we know that a tax rate that high would NOT increase tax revenues and would in fact make it worse for EVERYONE including those that rely on tax revenues for gov't assistance programs. So what is the proper rate? Is it still too high today? Maybe. Maybe not. But one thing I know for 100% sure, most people that argue against tax cuts do not understand this concept and use emotion, class warfare and personal attacks as their key arguments instead.

For those that suggest that a 0% tax rate is just as obviously insufficient and would bring revenues to $0, I would argue that while it is true that gov't revenues would be $0, that it is still possible that EVERYONE would benefit (and not just the rich). Further, I'll take this opportunity once again to mention the Fair Tax. This would replace the income tax with a consumption tax.

That is the title of a recent article y John Hawkins, proprietor of Right Wing News. The article basically rattles through about 20 brief points some of which I think are very good, some of which I actually disagree with. I will post some of those point and what I think of each. Here's the first point to start with:

JH - "If greenhouse gasses are indeed responsible for global warming, there is no practical way that exists, worldwide, to cut them by a margin large enough to make a real difference. So even if you think global warming exists and is caused by man, there's no real solution for the problem."

Hoodo (Well, I'm finally back!!) - Realistically, there is little chance for a solution if it's incumbent on people, or their governments, to solve the problem. About half of the world's population lives in China and India and as their economic prosperity booms, so too will their emissions. It is doubtful that their governments have any desire to curb emissions. The relatively few industrialized nations that do care and currently emit a preponderance of CO2 will soon be dwarfed by China and India. Further, there is no practical solution in Europe and the U.S. Why? Because higher fuel efficiency standards for new cars are meager at best. Because we are addicted to emission producing industries. Because anything the government mandates will have minimal impacts on our standard of living or they will face being voted out. Thus, I believe the author is correct in saying that if in fact we created global warming, then we have little chance of fixing it through any means available to us today. I believe that if we do have to do something about it, the solution will come from technological advancement.

That said, I don't believe we'll have to do much. Why?

First, the Earth is a system in balance. For every thing that we do to "harm" it, the Earth has a balancing response.

Second, I don't believe the warming of the Earth is necessarily bad. Alarmists contend that life will be miserable - for those that survive of course, but I don't believe the hyperbolic negativity and we know there are positive affects from warming as well even though you won't hear about them in the MSM.

Third, to me this "overwhelming scientific evidence" is about as believable as the hype around DDT. Think about the last 30 years of science and how much has gone back and forth: breast feeding (good, bad, currently good), Butter (margarine, back to butter), Global COOLING on the cover of Time in the 70s. In 50 years from now (if I'm still alive), we will look back at this and go "OOPS."

Fourth, every time we try to FIX nature, we mess it up more. In the 50s and 60s, we undertook a huge project to "maintain" the Florida Everglades. In the 90s, we realized that we made it worse and spent billions "fixing" it again. Why does this happen? Because we THINK we understand nature better than we really do. We don't.

Bottom line. I believe in nature and our environment (yes, a Republican that cares!). I PREFER things that are in harmony with the environment, and so I take conservation seriously. I ride my bike to work and that's a hell of a lot better than a 60mpg Prius that STILL EMITS CO2. I'm even looking into solar power for our home (but too expensive at the moment - still need better technology).

Right! There are none. Oh well. So much for the media and global warming alarmist obsession. And in fact, it appears that the season may as well be over.

Interestingly, the story indicates that part of the reason for the unusually mild hurricane season is El Nino - which is a WARMING of Pacific waters which causes wind shear and thus makes it more difficult for Atlantic hurricanes to form. So I'm sure there are some activists out there saying "SEE, WARMER WATER!!" But this just another example of the falseness of the hysteria. Alarmists by the very definition assume the worst. What we see here is that warmer is not necessarily worse. In fact, this is a great example of many where nature keeps itself in balance.

I heard a portion of Hugh Hewitt's (admitted Conservative) radio program yesterday afternoon. He was interviewing a 20 year veteran reporter, Eric Black (closet liberal), of the liberal Minn. Star Tribune. The topic was mostly about a democratic ad that Black reviewed as "misleading" and "exaggerated." Hewitt argued that the Strib did not go far enough in condemning the "lies" in the ad.  Towards the end of the interview though, Eric Black really wanted to bring up a question that I feel is an important question, and here is what he said:

EB: Right. There’s a tension in my mind. I know you don’t think this is reasonable, but I’m trying to frame this in the way it appears to me. The tension in my mind is whether it’s better to have a system in which people are attempting to overcome their biases, are striving for some sort of a definition of fairness, which I agree is largely in the eye of the beholder, and very difficult to obtain, and as a result of that strategy, let’s call it a strategy or goal or a norm…as a result of that, our not disclosing their biases, or whether it’s better to just have open bias disclosed, but filtering and coloring everything that comes through.

First, I think it speaks volumes that Black is able to admit that it is not as simple as saying "I will be fair" and thus make the MSM less liberal. When you are surrounded by people that think the same way - liberal - you cannot be any more fair than if you are surrounded by conservatives. The problem of course, is that there are very few MSM outlets that employ conservatives in greater number than liberals.

But overall, I think it is a very fair question. Which is better:

• being secretive about how you view things and then trying to be fair, or
• being open about your beliefs and being intellectually honest.

I think the answer is easy. Of course, to me the premise of Black's question is that Hewitt and others are openly conservative and, by not trying to "overcome" that bias, have a less fair, objective and honest view of the news. I believe therein lies the mistake. While liberals may not like them, I believe the people like Michael Medved, the Powerline guys and Hewitt are intellectually honest. If you can buy that, then how are they any less fair than someone who doesn't divulge their bias. Further, there is a difference between News and Editorials. The entire Hugh Hewitt show is an Editorial that attempts to be fair by being honest about his positions, provide thorough analysis and offering opposing view points on his show for debate. Meanwhile the Strib publishes biased stories in the form of news which people are supposed to accept as "truth."

Also, while liberals often show disdain for conservative talk radio as being one-sided, it misses the point that most of talk radio is a discussion of topics started in the liberal-leaning MSM. Talk radio doesn't report new news, rather it adds the conservative counter-point. It also provides light on stories that are ignored in the MSM but are of interest to conservatives. The biggest example of this is good news from Iraq. The MSM reports explosions and bombings everyday, but when is the last time you heard of a new school opening or increased oil production or more insurgents rounded up or increased control in the hands of Iraqis? Pretty much never unless you find a conservative outlet. Then the left scoffs at this by suggesting that talk radio is trying to tell us that things in Iraq are going well. NO!! They are filling out the rest of the story that the MSM ignores.

There are always 2 sides to the story. ALWAYS. The recent NIE leak for instance. Liberals read it and honestly see it as a condemnation of the Iraq policy. Conservatives read it and believe it is a vindication of the policy. Neither one is lying, but only one side is admitting to their bias. I listen to the MSM all the time, but I also like to get the REAL other side from conservative sources like Powerline. The solution to the biased media problem is not more "trying to be fair" while not exposing their biases. The solution has to be 1) more reporting of facts and less editorializing in news stories (this has become rampant even at the AP and Reuters) and 2) open disclosure of bias while being intellectually honest. Period.

It will be very interesting, I believe, to see what the media will look like in another 10 or 20 years. I suspect it will look very different from today.