lucas-photo.com

Somebody in the paper today actually accused Bush of being a terrorist. And that made me think:

I guess he snuck into Iraq
under cover of broad daylight,
rebuilt hospitals and churches,
installed a democratic government,
opened the schools and colleges,
vaccinated hundreds of thousands of children,
flushed out al-Qaeda,
restarted the economy,
trained their security forces,
provided interim defense for the country,
and started restoring women’s rights,
all in the name of striking terror
into the hearts of Iraqis.

If he’s a “terrorist”, seems to me he’s not a very good one.

Now of course, Bush has some shortcomings.

Everybody does. I still have lots of teeth marks in my tongue from eight years of Clinton.

But I’d be lying if I said I was sure that I’d face a test like September 11 as well as the President did.

I also think that almost anyone who’s being completely honest with themselves could make the same statement.

So somebody in the paper today accused Bush of being a terrorist. And that made me think:

One of the little-discussed benefits
of having a society that encourages free speech
is that it makes it easier to figure out
who’s been willing and able
to think seriously about an issue
before forming an opinion,
and who shouldn’t be trusted with anything
much more valuable
than a used match.

Well, we’re at that time of year, where the airwaves are saturated with tax-preparation and tax-software advertisements featuring happy people waving their tax refund checks in the air.

One would think that if they were to consider how much money was taken from them in the first place, their mood would be a little more somber.

Apropos, I bought The FairTax a few weeks back, skeptical about the concept as I understood it, but trying to be open-minded. I read the book looking for the “deadly hand-wave”, the dismissal of critical assumptions by simply skipping lightly over them.

There weren’t any.

The whole concept is well-researched, well-intentioned, and intelligently presented. Potential “deadly hand-waves” are replaced with in-depth tracking of the assumptions made and the historical precedents behind their thinking. Boortz makes it entertaining– even where he reins in his predictable opinions on certain highly-partisan topics– and Representative Linder’s co-authorship lends serious credibility to the movement.

So I suggest you read it. The book is short enough that practically anyone could finish it in a week of spare-time reading.

But if even that is too much for you right now, spend five minutes reading the FairTax FAQ, or the first page of the plain English summary.

You’re going to start hearing a lot of debate over this issue in the coming weeks, as the grassroots support continues to grow. If you take nothing else from this post, take my word on this: Anyone who attacks this plan by claiming that it will increase your taxes is either misinformed or outright lying. Whatever else may be up for debate, FairTax was designed from its inception to bring the same amount of revenue to the government as it receives right now.

So, yes, if you haven’t figured it out yet, I am a convert.

Former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis said,

“The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.”

I can’t add anything to that.

Well here’s your head start for 2006… start memorizing now!

… then Zeta, Eta, Theta, Iota, Kappa, Lambda….

Sheesh.

What’s most amazing to me is that we grapple with energy crises on two fronts… not enough petroleum, and too much solar in the form of tropical storms. Seems like someone clever ought to be able to figure out a way to get that energy into a more usable form.

You know, a bus that’s five minutes late is a minor inconvenience.

A bus that’s five minutes early is worse than useless.

Well, the local newspaper is at it again, wielding statistics like a blunt instrument trying to support one of their pet theories.

To quote:

Five years ago, the Florida Legislature repealed a state law that required motorcyclists to wear helmets.

Three years later, according the the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, motorcycle-related highway fatalities had increased by more than 81 percent in Florida.

Gainesville Sun, Jan 19, 2006

They go on to blame lawmakers, the insurance industry, and the guy behind the tree for not fixing this tragic situation, wringing their collective hands about the undetailed and undocumented surge of vegetative motorcyclists kept alive by machines at hideous public expense.

Talk about leaving some facts untold.

Here’s a brief list of the questions that must be answered before anyone can begin to understand, or address, the issue.

• Most obviously, what percentage of those killed were wearing helmets?
• What is meant by a “motorcycle-related highway fatality”? Does it include non-motorcyclists?
• Why was that one year chosen as a statistical source? Was it extraordinary? Do other years reflect another trend?
• What was the rate of all highway fatalities for that time period?
• What was the per-capita rate of motorcycle accidents? Given Florida’s population boom, it may have gone down.
• How many cases are we actually talking about? What are the actual costs to society? Would we be better off if we spent our effort addressing other, more prevalent issues?
• How many accidents were so severe that a helmet would have been irrelevant?
• How many of the riders were experienced? How many were brand new?
• Did the bikes tend to be high-powered sport models, or more sedate touring bikes?
• What were the age statistics for the fatalities?
• How many of the victims had taken a motorcycle safety course?

And most importantly, and always overlooked,

How many accidents were avoided , because a motorcyclist’s view and hearing weren’t impaired by wearing a helmet?

The last one can’t be answered, of course– you can’t measure something that didn’t happen. But the point is, one should always consider carefully any such slam-dunk arguments before accepting them.

And the bigger point is this. I’ve read pros and cons on the issue, and with very rare exceptions, I choose to wear a helmet, because I believe I’m marginally safer by doing so.

I am proud and honored to live in a state where that choice is mine to make, where that responsibility is mine to bear.

I’ve never had anything against shock-jock Howard Stern. He’s witty and most of the stuff he does is just show.

But a couple of nights ago he was on Larry King suggesting that everyone should subscribe to satellite radio.

His proposal was that, for $12.95 a month, you could get all this wonderful content. And you’d spend way more than $12.95 just to go to the movies these days. And there’d be no commercials!

I shuddered.

That’s almost the exact same argument that the cable industry sold us to get us off broadcast television.

Then the SuperStations came along, and the cable companies didn’t block their local ads. So more cable channels started running ads.

Now we pay way more than the cost of a movie just to watch television– and there are more ads than there ever were on broadcast. And we are paying for the “privilege” of watching them.

So, Howard, how long before an advertising-driven channel creeps its way into the xmsphere? Something really valid like NFL or Major League Baseball, or just a really popular talk or music program?

How long after that before there are as many ads on satellite radio as there were on broadcast radio?

This isn’t just complaining about advertisments. It’s a possibility that should concern everyone, and here’s why.

If advertising dollars move to the xmsphere (and the cable example suggests that, eventually, they will) then those dollars will not be going to independent broadcast radio. And advertising is their major source of income. The few that survive will be forced to join a conglomerate just to stay afloat.

That means that there will no longer be a delivery method for open, unencumbered, independent speech. You want to listen to your music and talk shows, but you don’t have the cash? Sorry, you’re out of luck.

And while your local broadcast station will still be around, they’re going to say-and-play what the home office tells them to… including the information that influences how you decide to vote.

So $12.95 a month for the privilege of listening to the broadcast that I now get for free? That’s a compelling offer, Howard.

But I have a better one.

Unfortunately I’d need to be on satellite radio to tell you what it is.