Ten According to Mark Sheids on CNN:

Simpson used to delight in exposing the disconnect between the editorial and advertising sections in the AARP’s magazine: The former would describe impoverished, older Americans sentenced to survive on dog-food, while on the next page glossy ads offered year-long, around-the-world cruises.

With characteristic understatement, the Wyoming maverick defined the AARP as ” 35 million Americans bound together by a common love of airline discounts and automobile discounts. … They’re selfish, greedy. They don’t care about their grandchildren a whit.”

As one of those grandkids, I wish someone would stand up for me. Sadly, it looks like Ted Kennedy is my champion in trying to kill the Medicare Bill.

This article “Ten Capitalist Myths” shows that today’s socialists wear the green cloak of environmentalists. I don’t have time to critque the article other than to offer this tidbit. The article states:

Governments must regulate trade to enforce “free trade,” they must regulate commerce to encourage and enable competition, and they should help protect the weak; all of which can translate into “takings” in some form.

I am utterly perplexed how people who fear businesses taking control of people’s lives can whole-heartedly support government. Governments can be far more tyrannical and oppressive than business ever can be. This is because governments can legally throw people in jail, take property, and kill people. Businesses can’t legally do these things. Furthermore, after last week’s energy bill, how can anyone argue that government will protect the weak? Government is far more likely to protect the rich and those who are well-connected politically.

Writing on the Energy Bill and the Medicare bill, Joe Klein of Time magazine writes:

The week’s events illuminate a fundamental difference between Democrats and Republicans on domestic policy. The Democrats are boxed into complicated and unpopular positions because they tend to stand on principle

I love a good role reversal. The Democratic Staff of the House Appropriations Committee has produced a report that shows that Republicans are dishing out pork in record amounts. The Washington Post reports:

In 1992, Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), the future House speaker, told colleagues: “Democrats . . . see no contradiction between adding a billion and a half dollars in pork-barrel [spending] for the politicians in their big-city machines and voting for a balanced budget amendment.”

But a rising tide of GOP spending on home-district projects is making those Democrats of yesteryear look like mere pikers of pork, according to a 15-page study just released by the minority staff of the House Appropriations Committee.

The study finds that the number of home-state projects earmarked in various bills has skyrocketed under the GOP, despite the party’s rhetorical commitment to reining in a profligate federal government.

According to the Sierra Club (and I think they are right on this), it you get 4-5 times more energy yielded by ethanol derived by “energy crops” like switchgrass and poplars that is required to produce it, but ethanol from corn takes 34% more energy than it yields. Of course the Energy Bill has provisions for ethanol from corn.

As I noted a couple days ago, a number of people wrote short essays for the Guardian on the subject of President Bush’s trip to England. Besides Fredrick Forsyth, Salam Pax, the Baghdad blogger wrote a piece in the Guardian. Salam’s essay was condesending and rather irriatating. Salam writes:

I hate to wake you up from that dream you are having, the one in which you are a superhero bringing democracy and freedom to underdeveloped, oppressed countries. But you really need to check things out in one of the countries you have recently bombed to freedom. Georgie, I am kind of worried that things are going a bit bad in Iraq and you don’t seem to care that much. You might want it to appear as if things are going well and sign Iraq off as a job well done, but I am afraid this is not the case.

I don’t care for Salam’s tone or what he has to say. I agree completely with James Lileks take on Salam Pax. Lileks writes:

Hey, Salam? Fuck you. I know you

Some op-ed writers are prolific becuase their articles have no substance. It is easy to write 750 words when you don’t have to have any evidence to support your position. A good example is Michael Kinsley’s op-ed in today’s Washington Post. He starts out by claiming that

Republicans have had a talent for geographical chauvinism since Nixon’s Southern Strategy. Wherever a Democratic candidate happens to be from, that place turns out to be isolated and unrepresentative and not part of the real America.

I think he may have a good point, but the rest of the article does not contain one quote from a Republican. If Republicans have used this strategy for 30 years, it should be easy to get a couple good quotes. Because Kinsley does not include any quotes, I can only assume that he is wrong, or he is lazy.

In the Washington Post’s editorial today about tobbacco regulation, they argue:

The challenge of creating a reasonable regime for public-health regulation of tobacco has gone unmet far too long. While Congress has dithered, far too many children have gotten hooked on nicotine and far too many adults have grown sick and died. Congress should not be in a bigger hurry to bail out tobacco farmers than to let the FDA begin the urgent task of regulating cigarettes.

Why would FDA’s regulation of tobacco decrease the rate of kids starting to smoke? The FDA regulates drugs, and yet kids still get hooked on illegal drugs. Unless the FDA bans tobacco, which is highly unlikely given that states and the Federal government are relying on tobacco settlement money to fund government programs, what else is the FDA going to do so kids don’t get hooked? Even if the FDA bans tobacco, people are still going to smoke.

Everyone knows that smoking is bad for you. Given that, what else is the FDA going to do, other than drive up the price of cigarettes? And what is so bad about using a product that you know will kill you? Last time I checked, its my life, not the life of an FDA regulator.

The Washington Post is opining today that it agrees with Phillip Morris that the FDA ought to regulate tobacco. How can the Washington Post be so naive? Why would a company voluntarily ask to be regulated? Phillip Morris wouldn’t do this unless it thought that it could make more money this way. Does Phillip Morris think that it can game the system and take advantage of its competitors and consumers? I don’t know but I’m very suspicious whenever a company volunteers to be regulated.

Judging by the trailer for Dr. Seuss’ The Cat in the Hat, the movie looks like it is terrible. The early reviews say that the movie is indeed terrible some reviewers even say that it is unwatchable. John Anderson of Newsdays says that the movie is “the worst holiday movie ever.”