The Deets

Wow, this is one heck of a misunderstanding of a study. Especially coming from the former Secretary of Education. Freakonomics clearly explains that abortion can be correlated with future crime rates based on the fact that most women who choose to have an abortion do so because they’ve decided they’re not emotionally or financially capable of raising the child properly. Race was not deciding issue.

Is it possible that this is more applicable to African American women due to their lower than average income levels? Perhaps, but again, race is not the reason for the abortions.

By the way, according to William Bennett’s biography posted on his radio show web site, “He is also the chairman of Americans for Victory over Terrorism, a project dedicated to sustaining and strengthening public opinion as the war on terrorism moves forward.” What the heck is that? Some kind of propaganda machine?

Bill Bennett: “[Y]ou could abort every black ba … [Media Matters]: “Addressing a caller’s suggestion that the ‘lost revenue from the people who have been aborted in the last 30 years’ would be enough to preserve Social Security’s solvency, radio host and former Reagan administration Secretary of Education Bill Bennett dismissed such ‘far-reaching, extensive extrapolations’ by declaring that if ‘you wanted to reduce crime … if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down.’ Bennett conceded that aborting all African-American babies ‘would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do,’ then added again, ‘but the crime rate would go down.’”

It’s hard to follow the logic of the letter to the editor posted below. The reason gasoline isn’t cheaper is because:

1. We’re too incompetent to get Iraq’s oil production up to a normal capacity.

2. Bush has put no pressure on his friends in Saudi Arabia to increase production. In fact, he waived sactions this week on Saudi Arabia, deciding they don’t need to address their sex trade issues.

3. Disturbances in oil production always raise the price of oil. Does a disturbance in Middle East oil increase the cost of extracting and refining oil in Texas? Guess who profits from this scenario?

4. Apparently, the writer has moved on to Bush’s 5th or 6th talking point justifying the invasion. It’s no longer about WMDs, front line of the war on terror, bringing democracy to the Middle East, avenging the attempted murder of Bush’s father, or protecting Iraq’s oil fields. Now it’s about, “inviting an underprivileged child into the world community.” Wow. I wonder why Bush didn’t use that as the initial justification to Congress? They would have gone for that, right?

5. How morbid to use a death count as a comparison between two wars. I believe the comparisons to Vietnam are generally built upon parallels such as the sketchy justification for entering the war, the gradual escalation without formally declaring war, the rosy description of progress from DC while we hear the latest body count on TV every night, dwindling support from the international community, and the lack of a well-defined success goal.

Sounds like a 100% FOX News consumer to me.

Not about oil

When the war in Iraq began, there were activists in Alexandria who protested U.S. involvement by toting signs that read "No War For Oil." If this were a war for oil, why is gasoline over $2 per gallon? We are not colonizing Iraq to keep it for ourselves; we are inviting an underprivileged child into the world community. Someday Iraq will be a very productive member of the global economy, and our involvement there ensures that.

For those who think that this is another Vietnam, remember that during the eight years that we were involved there, there were more than 58,000 American fatalities, compared with the 1,914 who have died in Iraq.

Yes, there’s still work to be done, and it would be irresponsible to bring this child into the world and leave it alone.

Duke Trana, Alexandria, Minn.”>Letters from readers: “Not about oil

When the war in Iraq began, there were activists in Alexandria who protested U.S. involvement by toting signs that read ‘No War For Oil.’ If this were a war for oil, why is gasoline over $2 per gallon? We are not colonizing Iraq to keep it for ourselves; we are inviting an underprivileged child into the world community. Someday Iraq will be a very productive member of the global economy, and our involvement there ensures that.

For those who think that this is another Vietnam, remember that during the eight years that we were involved there, there were more than 58,000 American fatalities, compared with the 1,914 who have died in Iraq.

Yes, there’s still work to be done, and it would be irresponsible to bring this child into the world and leave it alone.

Duke Trana, Alexandria, Minn.”

Most people realize there is a certain amount of photo-opping involved in being president. That should go without saying. What really matters is the action rather than the words or photos, right? That being the case, I could care less if Clinton played Hearts while flying over a tornado-ravaged area of Florida. I could also care less if Bush stayed on vacation during Katrina . . . if the victims were receiving the support and care they needed on the ground.

Presidents DON’T need to tour damaged areas to get a feel for what happened. They have TVs, just like the rest of us.

Presidents DO need to appoint competent people to run the departments responsible for responding to disasters.

Presidents DO need to property fund our country’s infrastructure so it can withstand known pending natural disasters.

Those are two MAJOR strikes against Bush, which truly effect American lives.

NetLets: “Clinton’s contrived compassion

In ‘Another flood, another FEMA’ (Commentary, Sept. 13), Ashley Shelby queries ‘Why did Grand Forks deserve a better response to a catastrophic natural event than New Orleans?’

Shelby concludes that it was not due to the magnitude of Hurricane Katrina or the more forward planning and timely response of the local and state officials but rather, ‘I think the more likely answer is that the administration in charge (that being the Clinton administration) felt, at core, a fundamental empathy for American citizens who had lost everything through no fault of their own.’

Apparently Shelby never read Lt. Col. Robert Patterson’s book ‘Dereliction of Duty.’ Patterson was one of the military aides who was in charge of the black bag or ‘nuclear football’ which must accompany the president of the United States at all times.

Patterson describes in his book how in February of 1998 President Clinton and his staff decided to visit a tornado-ravaged area of Florida where 40 people had lost their lives. The commander in charge of the helicopter flight over the area had gone to great lengths to plan the flight route so that President Clinton could get a real sense of the damage. Patterson writes, ‘The President, however, was busy playing a game of Hearts with his pals.’ He couldn’t be bothered — not even to look out of the window occasionally.

When it was time to align Marine One with the press helicopter for a picture, the president quickly peered out the window, feigning an interested and grief-stricken expression. The sole reason for the trip, in his mind, apparently was for that photograph.

So much for Shelby’s hypothesis.

Don Spartz, Baxter, Minn.”

John Hinderaker on Powerline appears outraged by recent statements former President Clinton made about the current administration on last Sunday’s morning talk shows. For some odd reason, hearing some critical analysis of the current administration out of the mouth of the president who oversaw an amazing eight years of piece and prosperity is almost too much for Hinderaker to take:

Power Line: Uncharted Territory, Once Again: “This has never happened before. Until now, both parties have recognized a patriotism that, at some level, supersedes partisanship. Consistent with that belief, former Presidents of both parties have stayed out of politics and have avoided criticizing their successors. Until now. The Democrats appear bent on destroying every element of the fabric that has united us as Americans.”

As if that isn’t bad enough, Hinderaker’s statements are not even true. It didn’t take more than a few seconds to Google the query:

“former president bush” “criticized clinton”

That brought me to this AP article from September, 2000 where former President Bush (#41) did indeed criticize Clinton while campaigning for his son in 2000:

“Bush questioned the Clinton-Gore administration’s overseas military policies…”

“He also said George W. would “restore honor and decency” to the White House.“

“The elder Bush also criticized Clinton’s decision last week to release oil from the nation’s strategic petroleum reserve to combat high fuel prices.”

Interestingly, one of the big issues at that time was the price of gas for consumers. Former President Bush was explained while stumping for his son that prices would come down if we elected his son, which would lead to the opening of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Of course, ANWR hasn’t opened, and if it did, would have little effect on the price of gas, since it simply isn’t large enough to lower our dependence on foreign oil. Interestingly, the price of oil has average MUCH higher under the current President Bush than it did under Clinton.

Also, during the 2000 campaign, George W Bush stated (2:52 into audio clip titled, “Energy Policy and Politics“) that the Strategic Petroleum Reserve was meant “for war” or times of major disruptions. Now that we’re both in a war (actually two wars), and have a major disruptions (Katrina), Bush has failed to use the Strategic Petroleum Reserves, causing the prices to skyrocket and hurt American consumers.

Would President Clinton be wrong to criticize the current president for his irrational and hypocritical energy policy? When is it appropriate to cross this line (which hasn’t existed at least as far back at Bush 41’s criticism of Clinton)?

AM1500’s Bob Davis claimed there were only two prevailizng theories on the cause of the Great Depression on his radio show this morning. However, as Wikipedia’s page on this topic shows, that’s not really the case. An more importantly, the theory help by FDR that was the basis for his recovery plan (which worked) is not one of the two theories Mr. Davis suggested.

The caller prompting the comments from Bob Davis was trying to point on some parallels between the economy of the 1920’s and today, which would clearly point toward the scenario outlined below. We are certainly experiencing a time of increase disparity in the distribution of wealth, and that’s only accelerating due to the abolition of the estate tax and other tax cuts for the rich that are taking place at the same time our country’s poverty numbers are increasing.

The rising tide for the rich is not rising all boats, so fewer people can fully participate in today’s economy (afford housing, get credit, etc.) which creates more of a drain on our government.

Causes of the Great Depression - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: “A maldistribution of purchasing power

One theory held by many at the time and since, including Franklin Roosevelt and his brain trust, holds that the fundamental maldistribution of purchasing power, the greatly unequal distribution of wealth throughout the 1920s, caused the Great Depression.

According to this view, wages increased at a rate that was a fraction of the rate at which productivity increased. As production costs fell quickly, wages rose slowly, and prices remained constant, the bulk benefit of the increased productivity went into profits. As industrial and agricultural production increased, the proportion of the profits going to farmers, factory workers, and other potential consumers was far too small to create a market for goods that they were producing.”

Bret Thiele nails it in his take on Roberts’ work for President Reagan:

His client’s lawyer

Neither the Senate nor the American public should let the Bush administration and Supreme Court chief justice nominee John Roberts get away with their oft-repeated talking point that Roberts did not profess far-right views during his tenure in the Reagan administration, but rather was simply and objectively representing his client.

Of course, lawyers have an ethical duty to be zealous advocates for their clients, but they are under no duty to work for a client who wants to use the attorney’s skills to achieve an unjust result.

The Reagan administration sought to erode and deny civil rights to racial minorities and women. Rather than simply saying, "I won’t use my skills to help you achieve those unjust ends — no matter how large a paycheck you wave in front of me," Roberts gladly advocated for those ends.

That alone should call into question not only his independence but his morality.

Bret Thiele, Duluth”>Letters from readers: “His client’s lawyer

Neither the Senate nor the American public should let the Bush administration and Supreme Court chief justice nominee John Roberts get away with their oft-repeated talking point that Roberts did not profess far-right views during his tenure in the Reagan administration, but rather was simply and objectively representing his client.

Of course, lawyers have an ethical duty to be zealous advocates for their clients, but they are under no duty to work for a client who wants to use the attorney’s skills to achieve an unjust result.

The Reagan administration sought to erode and deny civil rights to racial minorities and women. Rather than simply saying, ‘I won’t use my skills to help you achieve those unjust ends — no matter how large a paycheck you wave in front of me,’ Roberts gladly advocated for those ends.

That alone should call into question not only his independence but his morality.

Bret Thiele, Duluth”