All Postings from December 2003
12/30/03Information on Baghdad's corrected murder rate numbers being given wide coverage
The National Post (one of Canada's two national newspapers) as well as a
large number of major papers such as the Ottawa Citizen and Vancouver
Sun gave the story wide play.
Mark Belling, who substituted for Rush Limbaugh on his national radio show, also discussed the information in yesterday's New York Post piece on Baghdad's murder rate (subscription required).
12/29/03
The New York Post has a very detailed discussion of the murder rate numbers in Baghdad.
12/28/03
An interesting piece in the WSJ (Should Journalists in War Zones Carry Weapons? 12/29) discusses journalists who carry guns for protection in Iraq (subscription required). The news story on reporters covering the Iraq war who carry guns never mentions the broader hypocrisy of the media on guns. Surely reporters, such as the New York Times reporter the piece focuses on, who feel their safety threatened, understandably want a gun for protection, but doesn�t that apply to others? The Times decision to back the reporter is also understandable. But just last week the Times had a news article criticizing professional athletes who own guns for self-protection (indeed, as typical for the Times, their reporter could not find a single expert defending the professional athletes�� decisions). In addition, reporters for the Times in Iraq are not the only ones who carry guns when their safety is threatened. Arthur O. Sulzberger, chairman for the New York Times, has had a permit to carry a concealed handgun in New York City, but the Times would fight against others being granted the same privilege.
It is too bad that we had to read about the Times reporter carrying a gun in the Wall Street Journal and not in the Times itself. Possibly then the Times would have found one expert supporting the practice.
12/19/03
My latest piece for National Review explains why part of the Supreme Court's decision on McCain-Feingold may already be irrelevant.
12/12/03
Unfortunately, there have been a lot of incorrect information regarding the relative murder rates in Baghdad and Washington DC. My latest piece in Investors' Business Daily goes through the sources of the different numbers and explains why some newspapers have published estimated murder rates for Baghdad that were possibly 28 times higher than they actually were for October.
Update: Michael O'Hanlon, a co-author of one of the articles that I commented on in my Investors' Business Daily piece, was helpful in getting to the bottom of these claims. First, he responded quickly and was not defensive when I asked him for his sources on the Baghdad murder rate. Second, in an e-mail he told me that he had himself tried to contact the Defense Department to obtain their estimates on the number of murders in Baghdad. Unfortunately, as often occurs with bureaucracies, they did not get him the information that he requested. In a recent e-mail exchange that I had with him he indicated: "you were more successful, and I commend you for that." (Link to a copy of the e-mail from O'Hanlon has been disabled at his request.)
12/11/03
On Wednesday night the Ohio Senate voted 25-8 and the Ohio House 69-27 to a compromise bill establishing a right-to-carry law. The governor has threatened to veto the law, but both houses have well over the 60 percent of the vote necessary to pass the legislation.
12/10/03
The ruckus over the 2000 Florida vote continues. My latest piece on National Review Online tries to debunk the various myths on the Florida vote.
12/7/03
Price controls are futile. They don't reduce the price of a product, but merely change the form that competition takes. The rent-seeking inherent in campaign donations is similar. I have long argued that even if all expenditures by independent groups were outlawed there are still other ways that can't be stopped for those groups to get their message across. A simple example involves just buying up a newspaper or a television station. Because of the first amendment the government can't regulate the content of a news program. The owner of a station could simply put out news stories that were more favorable to the candidates they preferred. It is very strange that we would outlaw an ad by a company or interest group, but otherwise allow that interest group to buy a TV station and put on a "news" segment that favored a particular candidate. It now appears that the NRA is seriously discussing buying a television station to do precisely that.
"We're looking at bringing a court case that we're as legitimate a media outlet as Disney or Viacom or Time-Warner," the NRA's executive vice president, Wayne LaPierre, told The Associated Press.
"Why should they have an exclusive right to relay information to the public, and why should not NRA be considered as legitimate a news source as they are? That's never been explored legally," he said in an interview. . . .
If the NRA were to be considered a media organization, it would be free to say what it wanted about candidates at any time and spend corporate money to do so, such as for commercials.
The group, financed in part with corporate money, is now banned under the campaign finance law from running ads, just before elections, that mention federal candidates who are on states' ballots.
12/4/03
John Fund has a typically well done piece at opinionjournal.com. Here are two of his examples:
The commercialization of education in China
The Wall Street Journal today has an interesting article on the front page about children in China today (subscription required). One paragraph especially stood out about the privitization of education. Even so-called communist China apparently has a more competitive education system than we do:
|
|