SOME ECONOMICS

It looks like Associated Press are now outdoing Reuters for bias: AP actually lies: "A widely circulated Associated Press article says, "The wealthiest 20 percent of households in 1973 accounted for 44 percent of total U.S. income, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Their share jumped to 50 percent in 2002.".... By using the word "jumped," the AP story clearly implies the income share of the top 20 percent "jumped to 50 percent in 2002." In fact, the share fell to 49.7 percent in 2002 from 50.1 percent in 2001. To describe a falling number as a "jump" seems remarkably shameless, even in an election year...... And although the story claims the share at the top "has steadily increased," it actually rose from 46.9 percent in 1992 to 49.8 percent in 2000 (when Bill Clinton was president), but has not risen at all since then". For the most notorious AP lie, see here.

Rich poor people: "Much is made of the fact that the US has a higher poverty rate (and in something called 'shameful,' child poverty rate) than all of the other OECD countries. It does indeed sound terribly bad doesn't it? Yet the fact that poverty rates are relative within a country, not either absolute or relative across countries is not mentioned. All that has actually been noted with such poverty rates is that the US has a wider distribution of income, not something that we didn't already know." And as Blithering Bunny notes: "Nearly half the statistically defined 'poor' have air conditioning, more than half owned cars, and more than 20,000 'poor' households have their own heated swimming pools or Jacuzzis".

Benefits of the Bush tax cut for dividends: "The new rates have made a difference since becoming law in May 2003. The tax cut not only reduced the burden on individuals, it also reduced the cost of capital to corporations. The economic benefits of the lower dividend tax rates will increase over time, and they will be even greater if Congress makes the rate cuts permanent -- and greater still, if the taxation of dividends is completely eliminated."

The recent Australian triumph over union coercion: "All workers had a win on Thursday. The High Court ruled that unions cannot compel people who are not members to pay them a fee if they receive union-negotiated pay rises. And it barred unions from taking industrial action over anything except wages and conditions in any enterprise. Union leaders are already denouncing the decision. They say non-members are bludgers, but ignore the obvious fact that sustainable pay rises are based on productivity, rather than union intervention. Senior official John Maitland says unions should be able to "talk about" anything they like, from childcare to the environment. And so they should, but stating a case does not include taking industrial action in pursuit of activist agendas".

***********************************

ELSEWHERE

Great if it happens: "Israel and Russia today signed an agreement to fight terrorism and agreed to explore every possible means to step up intelligence gathering to root out the "global scourge.""

I think Jeff Jacoby has a point in saying that, of all the speeches at the GOP convention, "no speech evoked the Gipper's legacy more truly than Schwarzenegger's"

Another fake Christian: "How sad for Christians that their bishops whisper religion, but shout politics. I say this because Melbourne's Archbishop Peter Watson has preached to the Anglican Synod on "How the nation of Australia stands at this time". In his address, Watson ticked all the Left's boxes. Tampa, bad. Border protection, inhuman. Election, a time to "talk about truth in politics". Iraq, a "mistake". Medicare, broken. University fees, too high. Global warming, deadly. Logging, evil. And so on..... Why would it have been more Christian to have done nothing as Saddam Hussein kept murdering Iraqis, mutilating critics, paying terrorists and devising terrible weapons? Why is it more Christian to believe in the myth that we can halt global warming, if such warming is indeed occurring? And surely it's not Christian to support the modern cult of tree worship, and so break the second commandment? Silent on saving babies, but loud on saving trees. Welcome to the post-Christian church".

The New York Times has been highly critical of the GOP seeking votes among Bible Christians but thinks it is great for Democrats to seek votes among "modern" Christians. No double standards there of course.

But "modern" Christians are not really modern at all, of course. As Rothbard points out, Communistic Christians go back to before the time of Luther. America was partly founded by one branch of them in fact. They abandoned communism only under the pressure of starvation.

A rather gripping parable about why America is at war in Iraq here

There are some facts and figures here about the higher birthrate among conservatives. Leftists are doomed by their own self-preoccupation.

Hard for women to have both careers and kids: "In a recent speech that was largely ignored by the news media, the United Nation's chief demographer declared that the very existence of some nations has now been endangered by fertility decline, and the international community's insistent call for "gender equality" is making the problem even worse".

There are reports that the Niger uranium story, (a story hysterically seized on by antiwar commentators as a "lie") may have had its origin in France, that it may in fact have been a set-up by the notorious French intelligence service.

I noted yesterday that the local tentacle of the Murdoch media in my home town of Brisbane gives both conservative and Leftist views a fair run. But what would a really conservative media outlet be like? The Happy Carpenter has some interesting scenarios.

I have just put up a book review here that has a bit of a laugh at the difficulties the Left have in explaining why the USA and its allies invaded Iraq.

I have just put up on LEFTISTS AS ELITISTS an article about the problem of elite influence in the Australian Labor Party.

For more postings, see GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, GUN WATCH and EDUCATION WATCH. Mirror sites here, here and here

**************************

The vast hatred of President Bush coming from the Left seems to focus almost entirely on his Iraq policy and a claim that it is "stupid" or dishonest. Yet the world's most successful and influential Leftist intellectual -- the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom -- is a vigorous supporter of that policy. It shows that everything said to justify the Leftist hatred of Bush is mere camouflage. What they really hate is someone non-Leftist wielding great power. The hatred is purely emotional and envious -- with only the slightest pretense to reasoning tacked on. As usual, principles have nothing to do with it.

The conflict between conservatives and Leftists is not usually a conflict between realists and idealists. Mostly it is a conflict between realists and people who will say anything to win applause

Comments? Email me here. If there are no recent posts here blame Blogger.com and visit my mirror site here or here. My Home Page is here or here.

********************************