Overnight Open Thread
— Maetenloch

So Who Cheats At Taxes?

Via Powerline comes the result of a recent study that tries to answer this question:

The typical American tax cheat is male, single and under the age of 45.

And it's not just taxes - they tend to cheat at everything.

"Their willingness to cheat is not limited to their taxes but spans a wide range of situations and behavior where they are looking to get away with something," said James Lou, U.S. chief strategist at DDB.
...

Tax cheaters are even more likely to steal money from a child. The survey found that while only 3% of non-cheaters would ever take money from their child's piggy bank, 28% of cheaters said they would.

Why? Because they believe they're morally superior:

Many cheaters also try to justify their behavior. Far more tax cheats said they are 'overall better people' and that they are 'special and deserve to be treated that way', compared to the people who said they don't cheat.

Ace has made the point many times that one of the big conceits on the Left is that by merely holding the correct political beliefs you immediately become a morally superior, more intelligent person. And when you think you're superior, well you also tend to assume that you deserve some prerogatives...like not paying all your taxes.

more...

Posted by: Maetenloch at 05:57 PM | Comments (808)
Post contains 642 words, total size 6 kb.

NATO: Hey, We'll Bomb The Rebels, Too
— Ace

National Review linked this with a "Who's on first?" quip. But I don't know.

Members of the NATO alliance have sternly warned the rebels in Libya not to attack civilians as they push against the regime of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, according to senior military and government officials.

As NATO takes over control of airstrikes in Libya and the Obama administration considers new steps to tip the balance of power there, the coalition has told the rebels that the fog of war will not shield them from possible bombardment by NATO planes and missiles, just as the regimeÂ’s forces have been punished.

“We’ve been conveying a message to the rebels that we will be compelled to defend civilians, whether pro-Qaddafi or pro-opposition,” said a senior Obama administration official.

It certainly sounds like a clusterfark, but...

If America wants to enter other states and declare a monopoly on sanctioned violence, well, that's a good way to keep outrages against civilians low, but comes at the cost of using American troops for every damn fight in the world.

If you're going to go a different way -- supporting indigenous fighters with air capabilities and intelligence -- you have to accept that there are going to be some vicious slaughters of civilians by "freedom fighters," but certainly you want as few such massacres as possible.

What do you do? You can threaten an end to air cover and supply. But that doesn't thwart a slaughter in progress.

I'm not sure a threat to attack the rebels we're supporting is necessarily a bad thing. We need them to keep it clean. The temptation in any war, especially a civil one, is to get dirty and vicious as soon as possible and then keep topping yourself. Our troops don't do that (except for the occasional psychopaths who are then court martialed), but we don't want to have to insert our troops into every situation where we might want to flex some military might.

If we're going to fight in this limited fashion (and I think the old Cold War model of limited support is well worth revisiting), we do need to let our "freedom fighters" know that there are some things we just won't/can't countenance, and there's no way we can stay in a fight if our "freedom fighters" decide to unleash their inner Al Qaeda.

As for actually bombing them, though: I really can't think of a more preposterous situation than bombing both sides in a civil war.

Oh, and meanwhile, SecDef Gates said there won't be any ground troops in Libya as long as he's serving in his job. So, like, implicitly, he's threatening to walk.

People point out that we already have had troops on the ground -- one of those shot-down pilots was almost certainly evacuated care of a SEAL team in a helicopter, and I'd imagine they touched boots on the ground during the operation.

I think he means apart from such things.

Although, of course, any time you have pilots in a war it means you're just one shoot-down away from a hostage situation.

Posted by: Ace at 02:00 PM | Comments (463)
Post contains 528 words, total size 3 kb.

Funny If It Weren't So Sad
— LauraW

Thanks to Dave L.

Posted by: LauraW at 11:09 AM | Comments (156)
Post contains 16 words, total size 1 kb.

The Real Budget Debate?
— Ace

Many people argue this, including, I think, Miss80sBaby. That the difference between $33 billion and $61 billion is trivial when neither sum is even 1% of our current yearly deficit (nevermind the whole budget, or the whole debt) and that the real fight is over structural, multiyear spending.

It's a good argument. My problem with it, though, is that I am tired of the Tomorrow, Tomorrow, Manana, Manana non-plan plan for reducing spending. We cannot be told always that big changes are coming in the future. That's how we got here -- we just kept permitting these problems to grow worse as we talked always about future changes.

So here's my basic problem: If you don't have the guts to fight for possibly-unpopular and fairly trivial cuts now, why on earth should I believe you're suddenly going to be filled with piss and vinegar and fighting spirit tomorrow, especially when it comes to the untouchable, third-rail, middle-class welfare programs?

I think we have to fight on all of this and am really tired of feeling the fool because I bought into another "we promise we'll do all this great stuff next year" claim.

Posted by: Ace at 10:42 AM | Comments (221)
Post contains 201 words, total size 1 kb.

Bill Whittle: Michael Moore's Right: We Can Balance the Budget By Taking Money From The Rich!
— Ace

Ah, but there's a catch. Great video; stay with it. more...

Posted by: Ace at 10:14 AM | Comments (73)
Post contains 42 words, total size 1 kb.

Midday Cuteness Break
— Ace

From a website called Zooborns, specializing in pictures of adorable baby animals born in zoos, baby elephant bath-time: more...

Posted by: Ace at 09:58 AM | Comments (50)
Post contains 24 words, total size 1 kb.

Oh, Dear: Now I Do Think A Lame Sell-Out Compromise Has Been Reached On Spending, Because The Liberals Are Spinning It As A Conservative Victory
Update: Could Just Be More Liberal Spin
— Ace

Read Ed's post, which includes this reportage by Chuck Todd:

If the current Washington fight over spending was a game of chicken, the Obama White House would already be pulled over on the side of the road, as House Republicans continue to barrel down the deserted highway. The fact is, the White House and Senate Democrats keep caving, while House Republicans — at least publicly — have yet to budge an inch. The latest development, as Politico reports, is that the administration has agreed to an overall cut of $33 billion, which is near the number that the House leadership originally proposed (before the Tea Party caucus forced it to go higher). And now the White House appears to be backing away from its demand that no riders be attached to the deal. Press Secretary Jay Carney said there is no veto threat from the White House on a deal that contains ANY riders, as was originally the position.

You know why I don't like that?

Consider yesterday the story was "GOP gives up and agrees to pitiful $33 billion in cuts."

Now, today, the story seems to be: "Democrats cave and agree to huge $33 billion in cuts."

See? In both cases, it's the same figure, which I am capable of deciding for myself whether I believe it constitutes a win or loss.

My belief is this: Word has gone out. The Republican base won't accept the compromise-- so the Republican leadership can't do what they want to do.

But what if we can convince the base that the same lame $33 billion constitutes not a defeat for the GOP but a defeat for Obama and Reid? If we cast this as a victory, are they dumb enough to now call the same figure a win where before they'd call it a loss?

This could be the price of the deal -- Democrats, and their media allies, agree to put out the "Gee you sure whipped up but good" spin, which permits the Republicans to cave to the Democrats.

If someone has climbed into a tree and is all a-scared and wants to get back down, sometimes you have to help him in his climb-down.

Am I too cynical? I don't think so. All I know is that a deal I thought was a liberal victory yesterday is today being spun by liberals as a liberal defeat.

And I have to ask myself, "Why?" Why is a narrative being created here, that $33 billion, just three billion more than the Democrats' opening bid of $30 billion, is somehow a great victory for conservatives?

Is it because they want to help the conservative cause via positive messaging and tales of great triumph?

I rather... doubt that.

So why?

Oldest diplomatic move in the book: Allow an opponent who doesn't want to fight a face-saving out so he can withdraw with his honor superficially intact.

Actually... Now that I think about it, there's no strong reason to accuse Republican leadership of complicity in this scam.

As pointed out earlier, the Democrats are eagerly feeding stories to their liberal stenographers about deals being made and Republicans walking away from them.

This spin -- "We caved and caved and gave in on everything important and still those extremists wouldn't agree!" -- could just be part of that battlespace preparation. It's all of the same piece, right? It's all the same basic meme, in slightly different versions.

Thanks to RWC for pointing out that possibility -- which, I have to admit, has fewer moving parts and less of a conspiratorial vibe to it than mine does.

Posted by: Ace at 08:58 AM | Comments (137)
Post contains 666 words, total size 4 kb.

Oh No: Libyan Rebels Number Less Than 1,000, According to One Reporter
Plus, Grim Tidings: Is Qadaffy Preparing a War-Winning Abdication In Favor of His Daughter?
— Ace

Via Jim Geraghty, the reporter also says as far as actual "soldiers" the number's still lower.

Even with NATO (Sasha Fierce!) acting as their air force the rebels are still unable to take and hold territory.

Libyan rebels fled in headlong retreat from the superior arms and tactics of Muammar Gaddafi's troops on Wednesday, exposing the insurgents' weakness without Western air strikes to tip the scales in their favor.

...

The Libyan army first ambushed the chaotic caravan of volunteers, supporters and bystanders outside Gaddafi's hometown of Sirte, then outflanked them through the desert, a maneuver requiring the sort of discipline the rag-tag rebels lack.

The rebels had advanced, their pathway cleared by missiles, but Qadaffy's mercenary ground forces then just ejected them again.

A video report by Jake Tapper shows the retreating (running, really) rebels, and notes the CIA is "on the ground" in Libya and ready to help.

On that last point -- that sure seems like a politically helpful leak which is strategically harmful. Obama hands want to show the public they're "serious" so they put that out there. But if they were really serious, and not just trying to make a show of it, wouldn't that be withheld?

The world continues to ponder arming the rebels (um, what is there to ponder? You've chosen sides and chosen war and now you're going to refuse them weapons?), but if there are so few rebels, lacking any kind of battlefield discipline, what sort of weapon can help them?

Via Hot Air, Qadaffy's shelling the last western rebel-held town of Misrata...

Forces loyal to Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi shelled the rebel-held city of Misrata on Thursday and dozens of civilians have been killed in the past few days when their homes were hit, a rebel spokesman said.

Misrata, the last big rebel strong-hold in western Libya, has been encircled by pro-Gaddafi forces for weeks and repeated Western air strikes aimed at protecting civilians there have not so far succeeded in halting the attacks.

... and Qadaffy is now arming pick-up trucks with light weapons, hoping they won't draw the attention of NATO jets but will get the job done.

And the Vatican is confirming 40 civilian casualties in NATO airstrikes on Tripoli.

Now, if Obama has in fact arrived far too late and backed a losing cause, he's going to have to face a serious dilemma.

1. "Americanize" the war and win what the indigenous forces cannot.

2. Allow the rebels to lose in a war in which American prestige has been put into play.

I know how most presidents have answered this dilemma -- they've gone with 1. Since "Who Lost China?" was a potent political question in 1949-1950, American presidents have tended to become personally, egotistically, self-interestedly determined not to have a "loss" on their record (in addition to the better reasons for fighting a war), and have committed the US to slow-walking escalation and increasing direct involvement when faced with such a loss.

At first I didn't think this was a major worry because Obama is by nature a pacifist and the left would truly abandon him (I think) if he actually gave the order to inject American ground-fighters into a war of sketchy importance.

On the other hand, he is also a very vain man with what seems to be a messiah complex. And he's a political animal to his core.

I am now worried that if the rebels can't take the country (and it seems as if they can't) Obama will find himself justifying the deployment of ground troops into another country, not because it's vital to the national security, but just because he wants to seem "tough" in November 2012.

And on that note -- since Obama will not be able to run on his domestic accomplishments (it seems), the New York Times is suggesting he run as a "foreign policy president" in 2012.

A foreign policy president needs W's, doesn't he?

I supported an intervention on the premise that our involvement would be limited, and that we would, in fact, be willing to walk away if a limited intervention wasn't enough to win the war. That is, that we took a more grown-up attitude about it, calculated our exact level of desired involvement and refused to go any higher than this, and had the discipline, like a professional gambler, to fold the hand if it wasn't a winner. And not just keep pouring more money into the pot, hoping to get lucky.

I don't think Obama is wise or disciplined or mature, but I was counting on his basic pacifism to serve as a proxy for those virtues and keep our involvement in the skies.

I'm less confident of that now.

If the rebels are as few and undisciplined as it seems the only way to win the war is by lobbing a missile right on Qadaffy's head. And even that won't end the war, necessarily, because it's not Qadaffy's charisma and brains that keeps him in power, but the billions in gold from oil he's sitting on, and if he dies, presumably his son and daughter just start signing the mercenaries' checks.

And on top of that, it's not easy to hit a person with a missile. I remember during the War in Iraq that for a period of weeks we kept getting reports that we may have hit Hussein, but the missile was always just a little late, or the intelligence a little stale.

Here's a nightmare scenario I'm now worried about:

Qadaffy is now deploying his "sexy" blonde daughter Aisha as a sort of Arabic Joan of Arc to rally troops.

Aisha, dubbed the Claudia Schiffer of North Africa, is known for her designer sunglasses and supermodel looks...

The mum-of-three has been stripped of her role as a UN Goodwill Ambassador because of her support for her brutal dad.

The rumoured death of one of her closest brothers, Khamis, 27, last week is said to be behind her rallying call.

Aisha has hated the West ever since she was nine, when her adopted sister Hanna was killed by a US air raid on Tripoli as they slept. Since then Aisha, who married her cousin Ahmed al-Gaddafi al-Qahsi in 2006, has spoken out in support of the IRA and worked as a lawyer for former Iraq tyrant Saddam Hussein.

Here's a fetching picture of her, with the troops:

Other pictures make me wonder who should be more insulted by the phrase "the Claudia Schiffert of North Africa," Claudia Schiffert or North Africa? All I can think is that I'm at a country club mixer and Rodney Dangerfield just said "last time I saw a mouth like that it had a hook in it."

But here's how Qadaffy can win the war:

Abdicate and place his daughter in the presidency, or whatever they call Tyrant for Life there.

What would the West do? Would we attempt to kill a mother of three that's supposedly pretty?

Wouldn't that move be a coalition-defeating ploy? Couldn't they claim that constitutes a "compromise," in as much as Qadaffy himself is out of power and, supposedly, "reforms" can now proceed, and wouldn't the Arab League desert us at that point? (For all that counts for, which isn't much.)

I'm wondering if Qadaffy isn't raising his daughter's profile and getting her headlines calling her "Woman of War" in order to execute just this ploy.

And what do we do then?

And check out Aisha's psychological profile -- she hates the West because Reagan's airstrike on her father killed her sister, and she supports the terrorist IRA and worked as a lawyer for all-around champion democrat Saddam Hussein.

Worst of all possible worlds?

Contingency Plan: Waterhouse points out that, as it looks currently, Qadaffy can probably win this thing militarily, so he probably doesn't need to resort to my tricksy tyrant-swap-out.

That's a good point. But in that case I suggest it as his Plan B. I mean, I don't suggest it in the sense I'm trying to give the guy useful advice. I mean, I speculate that this might be a contingency plan.

Posted by: Ace at 08:40 AM | Comments (164)
Post contains 1408 words, total size 9 kb.

The AARP: aka The Professional Left
— LauraW

'Organizations.'

According to this blockbuster report, released today by the House Ways and Means Committee, AARPÂ’s support of ObamaCare and, specifically, the Medicare cuts was entirely rational and self-serving. The Committee found, after an 18 month investigation, that AARP stands to reap an extra billion dollars in profits from ObamaCare. (Yes, that is billion with a B.) Worse, this extra profit is largely BECAUSE of the Medicare cuts.

AARPÂ’s members may face uncertainty over their future health care because of the cuts, but AARP faces certain windfall profits for itself.

And best of all, this is almost pure profit, because AARP does little but rent its name to others.

How do all these leftists make a fabulous income in a capitalistic society while constantly opposing it and contributing as little as possible to it?

'Organizations.'

The moral of this history lesson is this: if given power, the Professional Left becomes a danger to society and themselves. Closing down their shop will not just save the country and the economy - it will also save these "professionals" from their own kind.

-----------------------------
Don't compromise, and never forget that their morals are crooked, their logic is flawed, their honor is stolen, their motives are corrupt, their methods are criminal, and their goal is a disaster.

They don't see themselves this way, of course; if you are a socialist, then 'working' in one of these organizations must feel like being a conscientious objector of some sort.
You get a good life while keeping at arm's length the despicable beast that provides it.

Posted by: LauraW at 08:07 AM | Comments (42)
Post contains 271 words, total size 2 kb.

Trump: Maybe Obama's Sitting on the Birth Certificate Because It Says He's a Muslim
— Ace

I'm starting to get a little worried by this.

My old position was that this was Obama's problem and that it really couldn't hurt Republicans because the question "Then why doesn't he just release the damn thing?" would strike most people as a reasonable one.

My new worry is that he's pushing this so hard it will force others to take and re-take and re-re-take positions on this, which isn't really in the party's interest.

I know people who are convinced he's an alien (and yeah, he would be an alien, if neither natural-born nor naturalized, and he definitely was never naturalized) think this is all to the good because at the end of the day there's a big payoff.

I don't. I think he has the birth certificate and, if pressed, will release it, which will damage (although not fatally, but still) anyone who's made an issue of it.

Mainstreaming a theory is only a good thing if that theory is actually true. If it's false, and provably so, it's damaging to be among those mainstreaming it.

As of yet I still think, overall, this is pretty harmless, because most in the GOP aren't rising to the bait (whether it's Trump's bait or Obama's sucker-punch bait). And it's never a bad thing to have someone off flanking you to your right; by comparison, you can claim to be "moderate," even if you're pretty rightist.

Still, I'm worried that if this gains some traction and politicians see a (short-term) advantage to pushing this position, it will wind up burning them.

Posted by: Ace at 07:39 AM | Comments (314)
Post contains 288 words, total size 2 kb.