Google aims to control the universe – Following in the steps of Lotus 1-2-3, now there’s Google spreadsheets so that they can track and follow every transaction in the world.

Math fun with the sign of Satan – Who knew that 666 was such an interesting number? Here’s one that Derb missed: if you add up all the number on a roulette wheel, the sum is 666. [18 pairs of 37 (1+36, 2+35, 3+34…..18+19) = 666] Creepy.

A shifting sense of equality

It’s interesting that the Left wing believe it’s perfectly reasonable to seize the assets of the “rich” through the death tax to achieve some kind of national goal of “equality.” A year ago, President Bush proposed a similar measure to reform Social Security by indexing benefits to either wages or prices, based on income. With this mathematical trick, the wealthy would receive fewer benefits while the lower-income class would continue to see their benefit grow when indexed to wages. This redistribution of wealth through indexed Social Security payments was (of course) rejected by the Democrats because it would supposedly undermine the political support for the program:

JIM LEHRER: But what about, why isn't the president getting more credit -- I'll ask you, Mark. Why isn't the president getting more credit from Democrats over the idea that it's progressive? In other words, he is going to preserve the benefits, the "promised benefits" for the low-income people by some measure but just take it out -- but lower the benefits, the perceived benefits of those who are better off?
MARK SHIELDS: I think, Jim, there's really not a political problem here; there's a philosophical problem. Social Security has been social and it's been security. It's been equal across the board.
JIM LEHRER: Everybody gets the same.
MARK SHIELDS: And once you start -- make it sort of on a welfare plan approach, the idea that well, those -- it means the program itself is vulnerable to popular support. The universality of the program has provided near universal popular and political support. And I think that's part of it.

A certain New York Times columnist saw through Bush’s nefarious plot:

Mr. Bush comes to bury Social Security, not to save it. His goal is to turn F.D.R.'s most durable achievement into an unpopular welfare program, so some future president will be able to attack it with tall tales about Social Security queens driving Cadillacs.

Perhaps Americans believe they can, or should, stay the course with Social Security because the inherent equality of the system can endure. (It can’t.) But if “equality” is the overriding concern for the Democrats then I have a proposal: extend the death tax to everybody. If Democrats are so sure about the need for equality in government payments, let’s see how Americans feel about equality of government taxation. Because, after all, they’re two sides of the same coin.

Mark Steyn: “Events at Haditha don’t change need for victory.”

A reason to believe

Matt Margolis is a friend of mine, but I wish that he and many others on the Conservative end of the political spectrum would abandon this line:

It's not just would-be Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California, but a boatload of Democrats newly running committees who would determine what legislation gets debated and which programs and agencies get scrutiny. We all know what's at stake here. Speaker Pelosi, and enough far-left Democrats to run committees that would make it virtually impossible to keep this country on the right track.

“Speaker Pelosi” – boo! While a Democrat-controlled House or Senate may motivate the conservative base, I very much doubt it’s enough to overcome current – or historical – trends. The GOP needs to rally it’s base with policy and positions and give social conservatives something to vote for, not against.

Life in Hooverville – Bizzyblog has a secret: “Psst: The Manufacturing Sector Is on Its Longest Winning Streak in Over a Quarter Century” Also in the WashPost, White House director Peter Wehner has “And now for some good news.”

California special election – The latest poll in CA-50 shows Bilbray up by a razor edge 2% over Busby. Two positives for the Republican candidate: Bilbray’s support is tilted towards the elderly (who vote) while Busby is popular among the kids (who don’t). And this poll was taken before Busby’s call for illegal voting. From Hotline Blog: “CA 50: Francine Busby really stepped in it with her "papers" comment regarding Latino voters. BTW, apparently having someone trail a candidate with a video recorder isn't a waste of time after all.”

After the Big Dig, how much more can you take? – From the Boston Globe: “State owes $86.6m to the U.S., audit says – Medicaid overcharges blamed on lax oversight.”

None dare call it class warfare

Writing in the WashPost, columnist Sebastian Mallaby demonstrates that open-mindedness for debate and discussion so characteristic of the contemporary Left:

It doesn't matter if you are liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican. There is no possible excuse for doing what Congress is poised to do this week: Abolish the estate tax.

Well: no excuse? None? Let’s press on nonetheless. Mallaby’s argument falls into two general points: lost revenue by abolishing the estate tax and the prospect of widening inequality. The first is silly and Mallaby doesn’t really expand on it past one paragraph that seems to be a harangue against all taxation that could have spawned from the Heritage Foundation:

If the abolitionists succeed, some other tax will eventually be raised to make up for the lost revenue. So which tax does Congress favor? The income tax, which discourages work? A consumption tax, which hits the poor hardest? The payroll tax, which is both anti-work and anti-poor? Really, which other tax out there is better?

None, I dare say! But as Alabama senator Jeff Sessions retorts, the death tax may be worst of all:

The list of reasons for eliminating the death tax is long. To begin with, this tax punishes thrift and saving. It tells people that it's better to spend freely during their lifetimes than to leave assets for their children and grandchildren, which will be taxed heavily by the federal government.

But this may be the most compelling reason that two-thirds of Americans think the death tax is unfair:

The death tax is double taxation. Most of the assets taxed at death have already been taxed throughout an individual's lifetime.

If the standard liberal defense against criticism of foreign policy is “don’t question my patriotism!” surely the domestic equivalent is “don’t call it class warfare!” Here’s Mallaby again:

People often remark on the perversity of popular support for estate-tax repeal. A majority wants to abolish the tax, even though only the richest 2 percent of households have ever had to pay it. Yet this shoot-your-own-foot weirdness is easily explained: Most people just don't know that, under the law's current provisions, a couple can bequeath $4 million without paying a penny to the government.

In other words: “What is wrong with you people?” In response, the Seattle Times explains the sense of the people in a divine editorial today titled “The fatally flawed inheritance tax”:

We understand that the Democratic base believes deeply that businessmen and women ought to be taxed. We think so, too. Tax their incomes for the federal treasury. Tax their spending. Tax their property at a rate that reasonably can be paid — 1 percent a year on buildings and land is all right. But a tax of 55 percent when someone dies is not reasonable. It is like being broken into and looted. Death is bad enough without amplification.

This is why the American people always tell pollsters the death tax is the most unfair one. It is not because people don't understand their economic interests. We think they have a good sense of their interests, but they also have a sense of morality. They denounce the death tax because it piles calamity upon grief, and they do not see why anyone would want to do that.

Only the Democrats.

Extra – From Decision08 - “Take it all Taxman!”: “In the entire column, Mallaby gives no good reasons why this is so, other than a distinct distaste for wealth and a love of ‘progressive’ taxation.”

Outlook 2008 - John Hawkins is right: Mark Warner is the most dangerous candidate the GOP could face in the 2008 presidential election. Only Southern governors can win the White House. Fortunately, he probably won’t make it through the primaries or the Hillary machine.

Radical Quebecois separatists, I’m sure - From Fox News: “Canadian Authorities Arrest 17 Suspects on Terror Charges” Roger Simon notes that characterization of these would-be terrorists thus far has been vague and mild “lest we might think them representative of a hostile ideology.”

Extra – Ace incredulously asks: “Is any left-wing blogger commenting on this story at all?” That war on terror is just a fabrication of the Bush administration. Nothing to see here.

More – Michelle Malkin notes that the suspects represent a “broad strata” of society. That would be the broad strata that reads Korans and has a name containing the letter “A.”

No no Nancy – Robert Novak has been beating this story for a while but here’s his latest: “Talk is increasing among House Democrats that if they fail to regain control after 12 years of a Republican majority, Rep. Nancy Pelosi should be replaced as the party's leader in the House.” Somewhat ironically, Novak cites Rahm Emanuel as Pelosi’s possible replacement. Since Emanuel is in charge of the Democrats’ Congressional Campaign Committee, it seems he would then have a vested interest in keeping Democrats away from Congress.

So it’s come to this – Telephone booths where you can use your cell phone in privacy. “Firms see market for a quiet place to call.”

Faith Night. Well, it can’t be worse than “Sports Night”


From the NY Times: “Sports and Salvation on Faith Night at the Stadium”

It has long been noted that in certain parts of the United States, a fine line separates sports from religion. But at a minor league indoor football game last month in Birmingham, Ala., fans may have witnessed as transparent an attempt to merge football and church as had ever been tried.

How out of touch are the NY Times elites with “flyover country?” Nowhere in the article is there a glancing mention of NASCAR – America’s fastest growing sport – where every race starts with a prayer.

Save the nukes

The Economist looks at the prospects for nuclear energy with new and safer designs including the meltdown-proof “pebble bed” reactor:

Yet political interest in nuclear power is reviving across the world, thanks in part to concerns about global warming and energy security. Already, some 441 commercial reactors operate in 31 countries and provide 17% of the planet's electricity, according to America's Department of Energy. Until recently, the talk was of how to retire these reactors gracefully. Now it is of how to extend their lives. In addition, another 32 reactors are being built, mostly in India, China and their neighbours. These new power stations belong to what has been called the third generation of reactors, designs that have been informed by experience and that are considered by their creators to be advanced. But will these new stations really be safer than their predecessors?

Clearly, modern designs need to be less accident prone. The most important feature of a safe design is that it “fails safe”. For a reactor, this means that if its control systems stop working it shuts down automatically, safely dissipates the heat produced by the reactions in its core, and stops both the fuel and the radioactive waste produced by nuclear reactions from escaping by keeping them within some sort of containment vessel. Reactors that follow such rules are called “passive”. Most modern designs are passive to some extent and some newer ones are truly so. However, some of the genuinely passive reactors are also likely to be more expensive to run.

Although cheaper than a blackout.

Michael Dukakis? Never heard of him.

Judge to Libby: no documents for you! – According to Byron York, the judge in the Scooter Libby case denied his request for papers about Valerie Plame's status at the CIA. The signal seems to be that the judge wants to keep the focus on the perjury case and not the politics swirling about.

Pressuring Persia

Well, we can breathe easier: “World power reach agreement over Iran nuclear program.” They don’t like it! A sanguine William Kucewicz opines that “Trade sanctions could prompt regime change in Iran.” But then there’s this splash of cold water from Slate:

The allied diplomats announced yesterday that if Iran doesn't spot enriching uranium, they're all now on the same page that Tehran should absolutely, without question, face "steps," "measures," "actions" and "negative disincentives." One word not used: "sanctions." The S-word isn't being used because, a small problem here, Russia and China haven't agreed to impose them.

My prediction: Iran will make some token gesture (say, suspending enrichment for six months) leading Russia and China to claim the mullahs are “cooperating.” There will no sanctions, especially from China, which is desperately dependent on Iranian oil.

Ursprache – I predict that the ratings for the Scripps National Spelling Bee tonight will be huge. Meanwhile, more proof that people will bet on anything: “Online gamblers bet on spelling bee.”

Follow-up – Well, I was so very wrong about the spelling bee ratings. Maybe I should have noted that I was watching “The Office” all night.

The kids can’t help it

Charlie Cook has a review of the history of midterm elections and history has not been kind to the President’s party. As always, I’m convinced the Democrats will engineer a Wellstone moment and unwittingly reveal to America their true nature:

It took me nearly one-third of my life to come to a simple conclusion: Liberals are elitists.

Now, maybe that's not such a big deal to some, but to me it has become quite bothersome. It's pretty clear to me now that average hard-working Americans, be they red-staters or blue-staters, can smell the stench of elitist, intellectual posturing by so-called liberals and progressives.

Maybe now’s a good time to mention Al Gore. Nah.