Google has blocked me from seeing my own blog. I can post, but I cannot read my own blog.
Just out of curiosity, can you read this? Just curious about what's going on.
Thanks.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Junk Economics
An online magazine called “The Week” posted an article by an eonomist about why he thinks the Stimulus Package passed by Congress last week will actually help the economy. For all my suspicions regarding President Obama and the frat boys at the Hill, Omnis Porcinus Modo, I would like to believe that there is actually some genuine interest in addressing the economic crisis, rather than just stuffing their own pockets and feeding their special interests with money desperately needed for better purposes. The writer was Brad Delong, and your first warning sign is that the professor hails from U.C. Berkeley. Things do not get better from there, but it’s still useful to look at his article, since it reflects the self-deluding mindset of the Left, how they can lie to themselves and push this fraud on the people.
The first lie by Delong comes early; he describes the bill as “$500 billion in extra government spending, and $300 billion in tax cuts”. Unfortunately, examination of the bill shows no real tax “cuts” to speak of. A genuine tax cut is a reduction in the tax rate. Everything related to taxes in the bill, however, comes down to either a credit applied to taxes, or special-interest exemptions for government contractors and one-time payments to state and local governments in exchange for permanent federal conditions on state and local government operations (which smells a lot like a violation of the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution). No reduction of tax rates or payment of any money exists for tax payers, in relation to the taxes paid or their identity as citizens. None whatsoever, so there are zero actual tax cuts in the bill. None whatsoever.
Delong has to know this, given his academic credentials and on the assumption that only a complete moron or a democrat would support so large and expensive a bill without at least reading it first. Delong compares government to “some group or another” who creates an era “in which production and employment are high and unemployment is low”. One wonders how Delong can imagine it, but he repeats his assertion that the federal government is “just like any other group of starry-eyed optimists whose eagerness to spend pulls the economy into a high-employment, high-pressure boom.”
Delong compares the present Porkfest to the housing boom (before 2005) and the Internet boom (before 1998). He contends, without bothering to lay out why he sees the comparison as valid, that simply spending tax money will create this boom – Delong crows that “the government’s money, after all, is as good as anybody else’s”.
But is it, leaving aside for a moment the fact that it's not the government's money, but the people's money we are discussing here? Delong claims that this bill should be compared to Reagan’s defense spending in the 1980s, or any number of private-company investments. But that’s cherry-picking at best; Delong makes no mention of the massive spending during the Vietnam War on defense, or the huge amounts of money spent on Welfare, Medicare, and the War on Drugs. Financially, all of those could be most charitably described as failures, characterized by inept or dishonest management and a lack of effective oversight. Delong knows this, yet chooses not to mention the evidence which not only weakens his claim, but which warns that government spending is, in the main, a bad idea when taken to extremes. Delong forgets that most economists now recognize that FDR’s policies of the 1930s not only did not help end the Great Depression, they extended the suffering for several years. The bill passed by Congress last week lays almost eight hundred billion dollars of debt on an already weary taxpayer, not to mention the interest on the thing, and for that there is not one penny spent to actually save a home facing foreclosure, create any private-sector jobs, or restore value to the stock market. Read the bill for yourself, and see how much it ignores the crisis that Obama himself said we could not afford to put off facing.
Perhaps some of that spending is worthy, even important. But none of it, not one penny, goes to address the most serious problems facing our nation today. And President Obama himself observed that one of the greatest threats we must face now is the massive deficit, yet in one stroke he has more than doubled it, for no need at all.
Government is inherently wasteful and inefficient. Remember the press reports about thousand-dollar hammers and ten-thousand dollar toilets? Remember hearing how the government could not even account for much of the money spent on Welfare? How many times have we heard about money designated for schools or police but spent on something it was never meant for? The problem is not the intent of the people crafting the program, it’s that large-scale programs run by people with no relevant experience or proven ability will always, always, waste resources, especially money.
If you want to understand why government is wasteful by its nature, consider any large company. There are different departments in that company, some which produce revenue and others which do not produce revenue. The manufacturing group, for example, creates value by turning raw resources into the product to sell, increasing the value by that work. On the other hand, the accounting department does not produce revenue. It is a necessary function, since the company needs to report on its actions and results, but accountants do not bring in money. The same for management; they can be valuable to the company, even vital, but they do not bring money in by their function. So, the company has to make enough money in its revenue-producing departments to cover the ones which don’t make money. Also, any successful company needs to trim fat and get rid of unnecessary costs. The motive to do that is the fact that waste eats profits and makes a company weaker.
Government is like a non-revenue-producing department of the company, in this case the company is the U.S. Economy. At its best, government provides vital functions for defense, safety, and law enforcement. At its worst, government eats tax money for no benefit to the country. There are three problems which make government more wasteful than private business, however. First, private business has top management in place to pursue one set of goals and objectives, while in government there are at two major political parties at work, with very different goals and objectives, as well as a horde of little empire-builders who cannot easily be fired and who consider themselves unanswerable to anyone. Second, all public corporations must submit annual reports with audited financial data complying with specific statutes carrying clear penalties for violations. Government has never submitted annual reports worthy of the name, since the United States government has never even pretended to follow Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). And third, all businesses which operate to make a profit are compelled by necessity to provide some product or service or both that the public will agree to purchase with money. If the public is not convinced to buy what the company sells, it’s over right there. Government, on the other hand, can and does compel its will upon the public, sometimes egregiously so. It’s no surprise at all to see a politician pay attention to the voters when he wants re-election, but not one politician asked for genuine public feedback on this swinefest of a bill before the vote.
Government eats money and lies. Always has, always will. This bill that Congress passed last week (a product of the democratic party, greed, and nothing else) is a deceitful crime against America. Anyone who would support it is criminal, incompetent, or both. But at least this article by Dr. Delong shows us the spin we can expect from the Left.
The first lie by Delong comes early; he describes the bill as “$500 billion in extra government spending, and $300 billion in tax cuts”. Unfortunately, examination of the bill shows no real tax “cuts” to speak of. A genuine tax cut is a reduction in the tax rate. Everything related to taxes in the bill, however, comes down to either a credit applied to taxes, or special-interest exemptions for government contractors and one-time payments to state and local governments in exchange for permanent federal conditions on state and local government operations (which smells a lot like a violation of the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution). No reduction of tax rates or payment of any money exists for tax payers, in relation to the taxes paid or their identity as citizens. None whatsoever, so there are zero actual tax cuts in the bill. None whatsoever.
Delong has to know this, given his academic credentials and on the assumption that only a complete moron or a democrat would support so large and expensive a bill without at least reading it first. Delong compares government to “some group or another” who creates an era “in which production and employment are high and unemployment is low”. One wonders how Delong can imagine it, but he repeats his assertion that the federal government is “just like any other group of starry-eyed optimists whose eagerness to spend pulls the economy into a high-employment, high-pressure boom.”
Delong compares the present Porkfest to the housing boom (before 2005) and the Internet boom (before 1998). He contends, without bothering to lay out why he sees the comparison as valid, that simply spending tax money will create this boom – Delong crows that “the government’s money, after all, is as good as anybody else’s”.
But is it, leaving aside for a moment the fact that it's not the government's money, but the people's money we are discussing here? Delong claims that this bill should be compared to Reagan’s defense spending in the 1980s, or any number of private-company investments. But that’s cherry-picking at best; Delong makes no mention of the massive spending during the Vietnam War on defense, or the huge amounts of money spent on Welfare, Medicare, and the War on Drugs. Financially, all of those could be most charitably described as failures, characterized by inept or dishonest management and a lack of effective oversight. Delong knows this, yet chooses not to mention the evidence which not only weakens his claim, but which warns that government spending is, in the main, a bad idea when taken to extremes. Delong forgets that most economists now recognize that FDR’s policies of the 1930s not only did not help end the Great Depression, they extended the suffering for several years. The bill passed by Congress last week lays almost eight hundred billion dollars of debt on an already weary taxpayer, not to mention the interest on the thing, and for that there is not one penny spent to actually save a home facing foreclosure, create any private-sector jobs, or restore value to the stock market. Read the bill for yourself, and see how much it ignores the crisis that Obama himself said we could not afford to put off facing.
Perhaps some of that spending is worthy, even important. But none of it, not one penny, goes to address the most serious problems facing our nation today. And President Obama himself observed that one of the greatest threats we must face now is the massive deficit, yet in one stroke he has more than doubled it, for no need at all.
Government is inherently wasteful and inefficient. Remember the press reports about thousand-dollar hammers and ten-thousand dollar toilets? Remember hearing how the government could not even account for much of the money spent on Welfare? How many times have we heard about money designated for schools or police but spent on something it was never meant for? The problem is not the intent of the people crafting the program, it’s that large-scale programs run by people with no relevant experience or proven ability will always, always, waste resources, especially money.
If you want to understand why government is wasteful by its nature, consider any large company. There are different departments in that company, some which produce revenue and others which do not produce revenue. The manufacturing group, for example, creates value by turning raw resources into the product to sell, increasing the value by that work. On the other hand, the accounting department does not produce revenue. It is a necessary function, since the company needs to report on its actions and results, but accountants do not bring in money. The same for management; they can be valuable to the company, even vital, but they do not bring money in by their function. So, the company has to make enough money in its revenue-producing departments to cover the ones which don’t make money. Also, any successful company needs to trim fat and get rid of unnecessary costs. The motive to do that is the fact that waste eats profits and makes a company weaker.
Government is like a non-revenue-producing department of the company, in this case the company is the U.S. Economy. At its best, government provides vital functions for defense, safety, and law enforcement. At its worst, government eats tax money for no benefit to the country. There are three problems which make government more wasteful than private business, however. First, private business has top management in place to pursue one set of goals and objectives, while in government there are at two major political parties at work, with very different goals and objectives, as well as a horde of little empire-builders who cannot easily be fired and who consider themselves unanswerable to anyone. Second, all public corporations must submit annual reports with audited financial data complying with specific statutes carrying clear penalties for violations. Government has never submitted annual reports worthy of the name, since the United States government has never even pretended to follow Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). And third, all businesses which operate to make a profit are compelled by necessity to provide some product or service or both that the public will agree to purchase with money. If the public is not convinced to buy what the company sells, it’s over right there. Government, on the other hand, can and does compel its will upon the public, sometimes egregiously so. It’s no surprise at all to see a politician pay attention to the voters when he wants re-election, but not one politician asked for genuine public feedback on this swinefest of a bill before the vote.
Government eats money and lies. Always has, always will. This bill that Congress passed last week (a product of the democratic party, greed, and nothing else) is a deceitful crime against America. Anyone who would support it is criminal, incompetent, or both. But at least this article by Dr. Delong shows us the spin we can expect from the Left.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Barack Obama - The O stands for Zero Honesty
“The times are too serious, the stakes are too high for this same partisan playbook” – August 28, 2008
“95% of working families will get a tax cut” – September 26, 2008
“I will put an end to lobbyists and special interests in Washington” – October 7, 2008
“What I’ve done throughout this campaign is to propose a net spending cut” - October 15, 2008
“I have been a strong proponent of pay-as- you-go. Every dollar that I've proposed, I've proposed an additional cut so that it matches.” – October 15, 2008
“to those Americans whose support I have yet to earn, I may not have won your vote tonight, but I hear your voices. I need your help. And I will be your president, too.” - November 4, 2008
“[The stimulus plan] contains an unprecedented level of transparency and accountability so that every American will be able to go online and see where and how we're spending every dime. What it does not contain, however, is a single pet project, not a single earmark, and it has been stripped of the projects members of both parties found most objectionable.” – February 9, 2009
“So my bottom line when it comes to the recovery package is: Send me a bill that creates or saves 4 million jobs. Because everybody has to be possessed with a sense of urgency about putting people back to work, making sure that folks are staying in their homes, that they can send their kids to college.” – February 9, 2009
Obama’s own words, nothing but lies.
“95% of working families will get a tax cut” – September 26, 2008
“I will put an end to lobbyists and special interests in Washington” – October 7, 2008
“What I’ve done throughout this campaign is to propose a net spending cut” - October 15, 2008
“I have been a strong proponent of pay-as- you-go. Every dollar that I've proposed, I've proposed an additional cut so that it matches.” – October 15, 2008
“to those Americans whose support I have yet to earn, I may not have won your vote tonight, but I hear your voices. I need your help. And I will be your president, too.” - November 4, 2008
“[The stimulus plan] contains an unprecedented level of transparency and accountability so that every American will be able to go online and see where and how we're spending every dime. What it does not contain, however, is a single pet project, not a single earmark, and it has been stripped of the projects members of both parties found most objectionable.” – February 9, 2009
“So my bottom line when it comes to the recovery package is: Send me a bill that creates or saves 4 million jobs. Because everybody has to be possessed with a sense of urgency about putting people back to work, making sure that folks are staying in their homes, that they can send their kids to college.” – February 9, 2009
Obama’s own words, nothing but lies.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
President Faust
Somewhere back in 2006, I became fascinated by Senator Barack Obama. While I am a firm Republican and Conservative, and a strong supporter of President Bush, I was impressed with the emergence of a Democratic party candidate who spoke about the need for rising above petty differences, and the opportunity for a national dialogue based on the needs of the country, rather than the self-serving business of politics as usual. If he meant what he said, and if this naïve-sounding young man could manage his work to match his claims, the promise of a new era in government seemed to be within grasp. I believe many millions of Americans believed in that promise, and trusted Senator Obama to be what he claimed to be.
Unfortunately, the many promises broken already by Obama make it increasingly obvious that Barack Obama had no intention of living up to the high ideals he used to get elected. Republicans discovered that ‘bipartisan’ meant having liberal pork orgies shoved down their throats, with a complicit media blaming as ‘obstructionist’ anyone conscientious enough to point out that the ‘stimulus’ bill was useless for its intended purposes and in its main effect as toxic as the mortgages which launched the recession. Democrats discovered that ‘closing Gitmo’ really meant sometime in the future, with rendition and relocation to similar camps very much in discussion. And apolitical people discovered lies in Obama’s promise to have all bills fully available to the public for five days of debate and discussion, and in his promise to respect all reasonable positions and opinions in policy matters. President Obama’s excuse for eviscerating his ideals immediately after taking office? “I won”, says Obama, demonstrating his clear alignment with Niccolo Macchiavelli … or perhaps more accurately Dr. Johann Faust.
For those unfamiliar with the legend, Dr. Faust sold his soul to the devil in exchange for a number of diabolical favors, including wealth and power. Considering his station and stature just ten years ago, a man might reasonably wonder how Barack Obama, for all his talents, managed to gain so much money and rise so fast on such feeble accomplishments as he has. More to the point, it seems that our modern Faust has it in mind to have someone else pay his debt, in this case the nation.
The text of this devil’s pact is here. The $790 billion bill includes (just for Title I of twenty-three separate titles in the Bill), $24 million for new buildings for the Dept. of Agriculture, $176 million for “agricultural research”, $50 million in “additional salaries” for Dept. of Agriculture employees, $145 million for “floodplain easements” (taking private land), an additional $145 million for the Agriculture Dept. general fund, $11.4 billion for “section 502” direct and unsubsidized guaranteed loans for homes (but only for the “rural housing insurance fund”), $200 million for administrative costs in applying the home loan money, $1.6 billion for the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, $2.5 billion to build broadband networks in rural areas, $100 million for the National School Lunch program, with another $400 million set aside for the Secretary of Education to use as he sees fit, another $150 million for the “Emergency Food Assistance” program for public schools, and $5 million for food assistance to Indian Reservations. That’s $16.895 billion dollars just for that first section, and not a penny of that creates even a single private-sector job, protects the public from loss of their investments or savings, or protects even a single house from foreclosure in any metropolitan area.
Title II hands out money to the Commerce and Justice departments, spending $13.02 billion, of which only one billion dollars is meant to be used to hire anyone – to be used to “hire and rehire” police officers to be used for special initiatives – governments are specifically prohibited from using this money for street patrol, routine criminal investigations, or any nominal law enforcement function. The rest is spent on administrative costs, government oversight, and new buildings or renovations.
Title III applies to the Department of Defense. $4.555 billion is allocated for research, operation and maintenance.
So, through just the first three titles $34.47 billion has been spent, and while some of the programs could be argued as important and necessary, not a penny of this money has been spent to address the three crises of mortgages in major population areas, solvency of the financial network, and unemployment in the private sector. Just as Doctor Faust wanted to do good things for his fellow man but failed because his fundamental assumptions were wrong, so too President Obama has chosen exactly the wrong tool, as he fails to understand that his position is by definition dishonest, since he uses a false claim to support massive spending that, less than a year ago, he himself understood could not be supported by the economy in place at this time. His demand for one-party dominance belies his promise to rise above partisan politics. His lies prove the character beneath his veneer. Like Faust, Obama cannot succeed in his dreams but continues to lie to himself that he can get out of his contract, that good intentions are sufficient excuse for whatever his sins.
But unlike Faust, Obama may be able to drag the country down with him when he goes.
Unfortunately, the many promises broken already by Obama make it increasingly obvious that Barack Obama had no intention of living up to the high ideals he used to get elected. Republicans discovered that ‘bipartisan’ meant having liberal pork orgies shoved down their throats, with a complicit media blaming as ‘obstructionist’ anyone conscientious enough to point out that the ‘stimulus’ bill was useless for its intended purposes and in its main effect as toxic as the mortgages which launched the recession. Democrats discovered that ‘closing Gitmo’ really meant sometime in the future, with rendition and relocation to similar camps very much in discussion. And apolitical people discovered lies in Obama’s promise to have all bills fully available to the public for five days of debate and discussion, and in his promise to respect all reasonable positions and opinions in policy matters. President Obama’s excuse for eviscerating his ideals immediately after taking office? “I won”, says Obama, demonstrating his clear alignment with Niccolo Macchiavelli … or perhaps more accurately Dr. Johann Faust.
For those unfamiliar with the legend, Dr. Faust sold his soul to the devil in exchange for a number of diabolical favors, including wealth and power. Considering his station and stature just ten years ago, a man might reasonably wonder how Barack Obama, for all his talents, managed to gain so much money and rise so fast on such feeble accomplishments as he has. More to the point, it seems that our modern Faust has it in mind to have someone else pay his debt, in this case the nation.
The text of this devil’s pact is here. The $790 billion bill includes (just for Title I of twenty-three separate titles in the Bill), $24 million for new buildings for the Dept. of Agriculture, $176 million for “agricultural research”, $50 million in “additional salaries” for Dept. of Agriculture employees, $145 million for “floodplain easements” (taking private land), an additional $145 million for the Agriculture Dept. general fund, $11.4 billion for “section 502” direct and unsubsidized guaranteed loans for homes (but only for the “rural housing insurance fund”), $200 million for administrative costs in applying the home loan money, $1.6 billion for the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, $2.5 billion to build broadband networks in rural areas, $100 million for the National School Lunch program, with another $400 million set aside for the Secretary of Education to use as he sees fit, another $150 million for the “Emergency Food Assistance” program for public schools, and $5 million for food assistance to Indian Reservations. That’s $16.895 billion dollars just for that first section, and not a penny of that creates even a single private-sector job, protects the public from loss of their investments or savings, or protects even a single house from foreclosure in any metropolitan area.
Title II hands out money to the Commerce and Justice departments, spending $13.02 billion, of which only one billion dollars is meant to be used to hire anyone – to be used to “hire and rehire” police officers to be used for special initiatives – governments are specifically prohibited from using this money for street patrol, routine criminal investigations, or any nominal law enforcement function. The rest is spent on administrative costs, government oversight, and new buildings or renovations.
Title III applies to the Department of Defense. $4.555 billion is allocated for research, operation and maintenance.
So, through just the first three titles $34.47 billion has been spent, and while some of the programs could be argued as important and necessary, not a penny of this money has been spent to address the three crises of mortgages in major population areas, solvency of the financial network, and unemployment in the private sector. Just as Doctor Faust wanted to do good things for his fellow man but failed because his fundamental assumptions were wrong, so too President Obama has chosen exactly the wrong tool, as he fails to understand that his position is by definition dishonest, since he uses a false claim to support massive spending that, less than a year ago, he himself understood could not be supported by the economy in place at this time. His demand for one-party dominance belies his promise to rise above partisan politics. His lies prove the character beneath his veneer. Like Faust, Obama cannot succeed in his dreams but continues to lie to himself that he can get out of his contract, that good intentions are sufficient excuse for whatever his sins.
But unlike Faust, Obama may be able to drag the country down with him when he goes.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Would You?
A thought about food in times of tribulation:
In 1941 Poland, it was a capital crime to give food to a Jew.
In 1967 China, it was a capital crime to give food to a Christian.
In 1972 Siberia, it was a capital crime in a gulag for an inmate to give food to a political prisoner.
In 1994 Rwanda, people were killed for sheltering or feeding Tutsi tribe members.
Would you risk your life to feed an outcast?
In 1941 Poland, it was a capital crime to give food to a Jew.
In 1967 China, it was a capital crime to give food to a Christian.
In 1972 Siberia, it was a capital crime in a gulag for an inmate to give food to a political prisoner.
In 1994 Rwanda, people were killed for sheltering or feeding Tutsi tribe members.
Would you risk your life to feed an outcast?
Saturday, February 14, 2009
National Bribery and Guilt Day
Yes, it’s that day again, when various industries conspire to assure you that if you really love that special someone, you will spend more money than you can afford on things that person neither needs nor has specifically said they even want. After all, if you really want to help someone improve their life condition, flowers that will die soon, candy that will rot their teeth and clog their arteries, and jewelry that will spend most of its time in a box inside a larger case somewhere are not really going to be the way to go. Of course, it’s not considered “romantic” if you don’t spend prime dollars on florists, choclatiers, and bling. This con game goes on every year, and somehow millions of Americans play along.
So if you’re wondering how Obama and the Donkey Congress decided to sell their Graft N’ Pork bill as some kind of ‘emergency economic stimulus’, just look at the fraud that is Valentine’s day, and you should see the template they used. In their case, however, the recipient of all that useless bilge is also expected to pay for it.
Makes ya wanna whack Cupid upside the head, doesn’t it?
So if you’re wondering how Obama and the Donkey Congress decided to sell their Graft N’ Pork bill as some kind of ‘emergency economic stimulus’, just look at the fraud that is Valentine’s day, and you should see the template they used. In their case, however, the recipient of all that useless bilge is also expected to pay for it.
Makes ya wanna whack Cupid upside the head, doesn’t it?
Thursday, February 12, 2009
The Lincoln Lunch
***
I was sitting at my desk late this morning, trying to decide when to take lunch, when an tall, lanky, and unexpected visitor sat down and scowled at me.
“May I help you?” I asked him. He leaned forward and extended a long arm to shake my hand.
“I need to talk to someone” he said, “I am exceptionally agitated and I think you may be able to assist me in recovering my composure, prior to the many unpleasant actions I am presently contemplating..”
“You have me at a disadvantage” I answered to the thin yet powerful man before me, “I apologize for anything I may have done to anger you, but I confess I am at a loss-”
The man stopped me with an upraised hand and a kinder expression.
“My apologies, sir. I did not mean to imply that you were the cause of my present discomfiture. It is the man who now holds my job and makes a mockery of my home and name … and on my birthday yet!”
Without thinking, I blurted “Strange, it’s Lincoln’s birthday today, and a tall thin strong guy like you could pass for –”
He stopped me again, this time with a chuckle, and an uncanny thought caught me as he spoke:
“Well, I have lost many things over time, but I should like to keep my own name, sir.
“Mister President?” I ventured.
Abe Lincoln shrugged. “I suppose I may still claim the honorific, though it has been a long time since I performed the office.
“Although the present occupant is certainly working to diminish the honor in that title.”
“So you are not a fan of President Obama?” I inquired.
“Not in the slightest” said Lincoln. “There is always room for gentlemen to disagree on points and in opinion, but the man is disparagement incarnate. His efforts are a slur upon the profession of law, the White House, the great state of Illinois, and against his people."
“Which efforts specifically?”, I asked Mister Lincoln.
“Where has he not been so?” countered Lincoln. “Every one of his gestures has been in connivance of election or contempt of his duty. He is willing to lay more taxes on people already burdened beyond what they can carry, he sees no sin in saying something to one man to gain his favor, and something else at another time, with no commitment to keep his word to anyone at all.”
“That makes him an ordinary politician, so far”, I suggested.
““But he promised to be different” countered Lincoln. “Remember ‘post-partisanship’? Remember when he wanted to be ‘everyone’s president’? I said it myself long ago: If once you forfeit the confidence of your fellow-citizens, you can never regain their respect and esteem.” .
“So you’re angry at President Obama” I said, in my usual slow grasp of the obvious.
“Well, I am also hungry. If you do not mind, could we go to Kim Son?” asked Lincoln. “I seldom get to try oriental food, but I have found I am fond of Dim Sum.”
So I and the sixteenth President of the United States, both of us wearing chinos and golf shirts, walked over to the Asian restaurant and enjoyed a lunch buffet which included Sushi, Dim Sum, and a variety of soups and noodles, finishing with sweetened tofu for dessert. After a time, Lincoln leaned back in his seat and smiled.
“I have eaten more in this meal than I usually eat in a day,” he said. “I was going to remark on the fact that despite being a foot shorter than me, you have me outdone in weight, but with food like this available, anyone would have to resist that temptation to eat too well.”.
I am a little sensitive to comments about my weight, and I did not want Mr. Lincoln to observe how many people maneged to keep their weight down, so I redirected our conversation to the original topic.
“When you first arrived sir, you mentioned that you thought I might be able to assist you with regard to our current President.”
Lincoln nodded somberly.
“He is an unprepared man, and surrounded by poor counsel.” opined Lincoln. “I fear what sort of course he will set under such conditions.”
“To be fair,” I said, “A lot historians say that your cabinet and advisers, especially your generals, were similarly limited in their abilities.”
Lincoln grimaced.
“But I could at least recognize a fool, and call him out for it” he said. “I could almost imagine that this Obama fellow seeks out inadequate men for his circle, in order that his own image may shine more brilliantly.
“I have seen it many times before.” finished Lincoln.
“So what can we do about it?” I asked. “Obama’s the President and he has the Congress backing him.”
“But he is wrong” said Lincoln flatly. “To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men. Where is the party of Conscience?”
“I think they’re on sabbatical” I answered. “The Republicans have not exactly been listening to the people, either.”
Lincoln became angry.
“ No man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent” he asserted strongly. “What manner of country have we now, when the people have no voice in their own affairs, and whole generations may be consigned without even the pretense of true democracy?”
“Things are dicey right now with the economy, and Obama is playing on that.” I told Lincoln. “It started when housing started to get risky, the government forcing banks to offer loans to people who could not possibly pay them back, and banks getting greedy trying to play on the ‘everyone gets an easy mortgage’ theme.”
Lincoln sighed. “I warned people years ago about just this kind of thing.” Lincoln shook his head. “You may not believe it, but I once said, ‘let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another, but let him work diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built.’ As I recall, it was tough to help people understand even then.”
Lincoln’s eyes blazed as he continued. “I know this theme playing out now, we have surely seen it many times before, but you cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves. You cannot build character and courage by taking away a man's initiative and independence.
“As difficult as it may sound, you must let men succeed or fail on their own efforts. Government should even the field, so each man has his chance, but inevitably to cushion men is to cripple them.”
Lincoln stood to leave, and shook my hand.
“So, where next?” I asked him.
“The library, I should think.” answered Lincoln.
“Have you considered visiting President Obama yourself?” I suggested. “Surely you could help him see the mistakes he is making by confronting him directly.”
Lincoln’s shoulders shrank. “He will not see me. He only has time for his friends and flunkies. I saw someone dressed up as me acting out the ceremony of my birthday, though poorly done and a buffoon to play the part. I think it was Will Farrell, in which case I should be offended.”
I was sitting at my desk late this morning, trying to decide when to take lunch, when an tall, lanky, and unexpected visitor sat down and scowled at me.
“May I help you?” I asked him. He leaned forward and extended a long arm to shake my hand.
“I need to talk to someone” he said, “I am exceptionally agitated and I think you may be able to assist me in recovering my composure, prior to the many unpleasant actions I am presently contemplating..”
“You have me at a disadvantage” I answered to the thin yet powerful man before me, “I apologize for anything I may have done to anger you, but I confess I am at a loss-”
The man stopped me with an upraised hand and a kinder expression.
“My apologies, sir. I did not mean to imply that you were the cause of my present discomfiture. It is the man who now holds my job and makes a mockery of my home and name … and on my birthday yet!”
Without thinking, I blurted “Strange, it’s Lincoln’s birthday today, and a tall thin strong guy like you could pass for –”
He stopped me again, this time with a chuckle, and an uncanny thought caught me as he spoke:
“Well, I have lost many things over time, but I should like to keep my own name, sir.
“Mister President?” I ventured.
Abe Lincoln shrugged. “I suppose I may still claim the honorific, though it has been a long time since I performed the office.
“Although the present occupant is certainly working to diminish the honor in that title.”
“So you are not a fan of President Obama?” I inquired.
“Not in the slightest” said Lincoln. “There is always room for gentlemen to disagree on points and in opinion, but the man is disparagement incarnate. His efforts are a slur upon the profession of law, the White House, the great state of Illinois, and against his people."
“Which efforts specifically?”, I asked Mister Lincoln.
“Where has he not been so?” countered Lincoln. “Every one of his gestures has been in connivance of election or contempt of his duty. He is willing to lay more taxes on people already burdened beyond what they can carry, he sees no sin in saying something to one man to gain his favor, and something else at another time, with no commitment to keep his word to anyone at all.”
“That makes him an ordinary politician, so far”, I suggested.
““But he promised to be different” countered Lincoln. “Remember ‘post-partisanship’? Remember when he wanted to be ‘everyone’s president’? I said it myself long ago: If once you forfeit the confidence of your fellow-citizens, you can never regain their respect and esteem.” .
“So you’re angry at President Obama” I said, in my usual slow grasp of the obvious.
“Well, I am also hungry. If you do not mind, could we go to Kim Son?” asked Lincoln. “I seldom get to try oriental food, but I have found I am fond of Dim Sum.”
So I and the sixteenth President of the United States, both of us wearing chinos and golf shirts, walked over to the Asian restaurant and enjoyed a lunch buffet which included Sushi, Dim Sum, and a variety of soups and noodles, finishing with sweetened tofu for dessert. After a time, Lincoln leaned back in his seat and smiled.
“I have eaten more in this meal than I usually eat in a day,” he said. “I was going to remark on the fact that despite being a foot shorter than me, you have me outdone in weight, but with food like this available, anyone would have to resist that temptation to eat too well.”.
I am a little sensitive to comments about my weight, and I did not want Mr. Lincoln to observe how many people maneged to keep their weight down, so I redirected our conversation to the original topic.
“When you first arrived sir, you mentioned that you thought I might be able to assist you with regard to our current President.”
Lincoln nodded somberly.
“He is an unprepared man, and surrounded by poor counsel.” opined Lincoln. “I fear what sort of course he will set under such conditions.”
“To be fair,” I said, “A lot historians say that your cabinet and advisers, especially your generals, were similarly limited in their abilities.”
Lincoln grimaced.
“But I could at least recognize a fool, and call him out for it” he said. “I could almost imagine that this Obama fellow seeks out inadequate men for his circle, in order that his own image may shine more brilliantly.
“I have seen it many times before.” finished Lincoln.
“So what can we do about it?” I asked. “Obama’s the President and he has the Congress backing him.”
“But he is wrong” said Lincoln flatly. “To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men. Where is the party of Conscience?”
“I think they’re on sabbatical” I answered. “The Republicans have not exactly been listening to the people, either.”
Lincoln became angry.
“ No man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent” he asserted strongly. “What manner of country have we now, when the people have no voice in their own affairs, and whole generations may be consigned without even the pretense of true democracy?”
“Things are dicey right now with the economy, and Obama is playing on that.” I told Lincoln. “It started when housing started to get risky, the government forcing banks to offer loans to people who could not possibly pay them back, and banks getting greedy trying to play on the ‘everyone gets an easy mortgage’ theme.”
Lincoln sighed. “I warned people years ago about just this kind of thing.” Lincoln shook his head. “You may not believe it, but I once said, ‘let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another, but let him work diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built.’ As I recall, it was tough to help people understand even then.”
Lincoln’s eyes blazed as he continued. “I know this theme playing out now, we have surely seen it many times before, but you cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves. You cannot build character and courage by taking away a man's initiative and independence.
“As difficult as it may sound, you must let men succeed or fail on their own efforts. Government should even the field, so each man has his chance, but inevitably to cushion men is to cripple them.”
Lincoln stood to leave, and shook my hand.
“So, where next?” I asked him.
“The library, I should think.” answered Lincoln.
“Have you considered visiting President Obama yourself?” I suggested. “Surely you could help him see the mistakes he is making by confronting him directly.”
Lincoln’s shoulders shrank. “He will not see me. He only has time for his friends and flunkies. I saw someone dressed up as me acting out the ceremony of my birthday, though poorly done and a buffoon to play the part. I think it was Will Farrell, in which case I should be offended.”
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Barack Obama, Bauer-Wanna-Be
Barack Obama thinks Jack Bauer is cool. He must, because the President is obviously trying to be like him in pursuing his agenda.
Jack Bauer started out in the first couple seasons as the head agent of CTU, a shadowy group who did pretty much as they pleased, accountable to no one, although Bauer was in frequent communication with the President, a tall urbane black man with no apparent qualifications for the job beyond his ability to speak seriously in deep tones. Barack Obama has made it clear he feels entitled to do as he pleases (“I won”, he reminds those who question his strident partisan tone), and he is accountable to no one. Barack Obama is also a tall urbane black man with no apparent qualifications for the job beyond his ability to speak seriously in deep tones, although we have yet to see Obama in an Allstate commercial.
Many of Jack Bauer’s discussions begin along the lines of “listen to me carefully and do exactly what I tell you to do.” Many of Obama’s early directives and orders are similarly lacking in debate and consideration of alternatives. As far as Obama is concerned, only his opinion matters. It’s not like he thinks he’s a dictator or some kind of king, though – he’s just following after what Jack would do.
Jack Bauer has an effective way of cutting through annoying details like discussing whether his plan is an effective solution to the crisis or just a risky bit of ego and arrogance, by assuring people that “there’s no time!”. President Obama has no interest in discussing alternatives or defending the massive pork in his “stimulus” bill, so he simply warns that failure to do as he demands could lead to “catastrophe”. Yet somehow Obama lacks Bauer’s panache’ when he tries that line. In fact, he begins to look distinctly uncool, almost Jimmy-Carterish in his clear inability to explain his program’s functions and defend it’s cost.
Barack Obama’s essential mistake is that just as Jack Bauer does not in fact exist, so too Obama’s explanation of his stimulus program is built using fictions and bald-faced lies. The Congressional Budget Office is no fan of Obama’s plan, warning that “President Obama's economic recovery package will actually hurt the economy more in the long run than if he were to do nothing”.
Worse, Obama’s plan does not directly help people who have already been impacted the most by the recession and financial crisis:
• The crisis began with the sub-prime mortgage crisis, with many Americans losing their homes to foreclosure; the stimulus package offers nothing to address these conditions, but instead offers a tax credit for people buying homes, although someone who has lost their home to foreclosure will be very unlikely to be in a position to buy another one anytime soon.
• The secondary crisis for many Americans is the devaluation of their 401k accounts and the plummeting value of their homes. But rather than create a plan which protects the remaining savings and encourages thrift, the Obama plan depends on spurring spending, even when households cannot afford to spend money on the obligations they already have.
• The scariest part of the recession so far, is the loss of jobs. President Obama himself has repeatedly said that the top priority needs to be creating new jobs. But the stimulus plan endorsed by Obama does not create jobs to match the need. Much of the money spent is not going to create jobs at all. The Wall Street Journal observed that $90 billion is going straight to Medicare, another $79 billion to supplement state revenues, and $43 billion for government transportation projects already underway. The WSJ notes that the little bit designed to create jobs will have no effect until late 2009 at the earliest.
No one points out the hypocrisy in rushing to avoid debate on a bill because of urgent need, when that bill will not even begin to do what is promised for half a year or more, if it works at all.
• The bill which just passed the Senate will cost every American who still has a job about $8800 in new taxes, plus interest. This at a time when everyone admits spending needs to be cut and no one can afford extra burdens.
That’s the biggest difference between Obama and Jack Bauer. When Bauer gets to be old or unbelievable, you can just turn off the TV. Obama plans to be controlling your life and eating out your wallet for a long, long time to come.
Jack Bauer started out in the first couple seasons as the head agent of CTU, a shadowy group who did pretty much as they pleased, accountable to no one, although Bauer was in frequent communication with the President, a tall urbane black man with no apparent qualifications for the job beyond his ability to speak seriously in deep tones. Barack Obama has made it clear he feels entitled to do as he pleases (“I won”, he reminds those who question his strident partisan tone), and he is accountable to no one. Barack Obama is also a tall urbane black man with no apparent qualifications for the job beyond his ability to speak seriously in deep tones, although we have yet to see Obama in an Allstate commercial.
Many of Jack Bauer’s discussions begin along the lines of “listen to me carefully and do exactly what I tell you to do.” Many of Obama’s early directives and orders are similarly lacking in debate and consideration of alternatives. As far as Obama is concerned, only his opinion matters. It’s not like he thinks he’s a dictator or some kind of king, though – he’s just following after what Jack would do.
Jack Bauer has an effective way of cutting through annoying details like discussing whether his plan is an effective solution to the crisis or just a risky bit of ego and arrogance, by assuring people that “there’s no time!”. President Obama has no interest in discussing alternatives or defending the massive pork in his “stimulus” bill, so he simply warns that failure to do as he demands could lead to “catastrophe”. Yet somehow Obama lacks Bauer’s panache’ when he tries that line. In fact, he begins to look distinctly uncool, almost Jimmy-Carterish in his clear inability to explain his program’s functions and defend it’s cost.
Barack Obama’s essential mistake is that just as Jack Bauer does not in fact exist, so too Obama’s explanation of his stimulus program is built using fictions and bald-faced lies. The Congressional Budget Office is no fan of Obama’s plan, warning that “President Obama's economic recovery package will actually hurt the economy more in the long run than if he were to do nothing”.
Worse, Obama’s plan does not directly help people who have already been impacted the most by the recession and financial crisis:
• The crisis began with the sub-prime mortgage crisis, with many Americans losing their homes to foreclosure; the stimulus package offers nothing to address these conditions, but instead offers a tax credit for people buying homes, although someone who has lost their home to foreclosure will be very unlikely to be in a position to buy another one anytime soon.
• The secondary crisis for many Americans is the devaluation of their 401k accounts and the plummeting value of their homes. But rather than create a plan which protects the remaining savings and encourages thrift, the Obama plan depends on spurring spending, even when households cannot afford to spend money on the obligations they already have.
• The scariest part of the recession so far, is the loss of jobs. President Obama himself has repeatedly said that the top priority needs to be creating new jobs. But the stimulus plan endorsed by Obama does not create jobs to match the need. Much of the money spent is not going to create jobs at all. The Wall Street Journal observed that $90 billion is going straight to Medicare, another $79 billion to supplement state revenues, and $43 billion for government transportation projects already underway. The WSJ notes that the little bit designed to create jobs will have no effect until late 2009 at the earliest.
No one points out the hypocrisy in rushing to avoid debate on a bill because of urgent need, when that bill will not even begin to do what is promised for half a year or more, if it works at all.
• The bill which just passed the Senate will cost every American who still has a job about $8800 in new taxes, plus interest. This at a time when everyone admits spending needs to be cut and no one can afford extra burdens.
That’s the biggest difference between Obama and Jack Bauer. When Bauer gets to be old or unbelievable, you can just turn off the TV. Obama plans to be controlling your life and eating out your wallet for a long, long time to come.
Monday, February 09, 2009
The Good, the Bad, and Obama
First, some good news. This country has been through some really, really tough times in its history, and we have always gotten through them. Being a man of faith, I count that as grace from God, with more than a little bit of American character seeing us through, the stubborn refusal to give up on what is right and true, and the unyielding belief that this country exists for a noble purpose, one not dependent on the moment or on popular opinion. We will pay for our mistakes and make some more along the way, but in the end we will prevail.
Now the bad news. While I have read of such times, never in my personal experience have I seen the nation so superficial and concerned with trivial matters as now, and never before have I see our elected officials as disinterested in their sworn duty to the people as I do now. That’s in both parties, not just the ones in power now. While there are still some good men and women in federal office, they are fewer now than I have ever seen before. The majority have no concern about the cost they lay on the taxpayers, they care only for winning their own re-election by any means necessary. They care nothing for what is coming when Social Security collapses, what will happen when the world sees we will no longer keep our commitments to defend our friends and root out terrorists in their own training and recruiting grounds, or what will happen when the government finally asks Americans to pay for a system which rewards corruption and greed while punishing individual success and self-reliance.
And then there is Barack Obama. His minions shouted down those who dared to point out his utter lack of experience and poor choice of associates, as racists and hate-mongers. It quickly became ‘obstructionist’ for anyone to follow up on Obama’s promises or question how he would accomplish his grand vision, which was quietly and quickly deleted from his web site as each proved too difficult, too unrealistic, or a total impossibility. Perhaps he will grow into the job, but thus far he has shown remarkably poor judgment, a shallow understanding of the major issues, and an inability to lead in office to anything like the image he cast as a candidate.
Now the bad news. While I have read of such times, never in my personal experience have I seen the nation so superficial and concerned with trivial matters as now, and never before have I see our elected officials as disinterested in their sworn duty to the people as I do now. That’s in both parties, not just the ones in power now. While there are still some good men and women in federal office, they are fewer now than I have ever seen before. The majority have no concern about the cost they lay on the taxpayers, they care only for winning their own re-election by any means necessary. They care nothing for what is coming when Social Security collapses, what will happen when the world sees we will no longer keep our commitments to defend our friends and root out terrorists in their own training and recruiting grounds, or what will happen when the government finally asks Americans to pay for a system which rewards corruption and greed while punishing individual success and self-reliance.
And then there is Barack Obama. His minions shouted down those who dared to point out his utter lack of experience and poor choice of associates, as racists and hate-mongers. It quickly became ‘obstructionist’ for anyone to follow up on Obama’s promises or question how he would accomplish his grand vision, which was quietly and quickly deleted from his web site as each proved too difficult, too unrealistic, or a total impossibility. Perhaps he will grow into the job, but thus far he has shown remarkably poor judgment, a shallow understanding of the major issues, and an inability to lead in office to anything like the image he cast as a candidate.
Friday, February 06, 2009
An Unprepared President
President Obama is not off to a good start. Not since Nixon has a sitting President blamed his inability to get his agenda rolling on individual media types, and even Nixon did not go this far overboard until about 1973, five years into his Presidency. Obama did not even make five weeks before telling Republicans he could not work with them if they listened to radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh. The issue is not whether Limbaugh is a self-important blowhard (he is); it’s that the President of the United States diminishes himself and his office to obsess about an individual citizen, especially one not elected to any office. Obama has effectively raised the profile of Limbaugh to his own national image. It’s worth noting that despite years of jibes and taunts from Limbaugh, President Clinton never let anyone sense that he considered Limbaugh a big deal. Will an ‘enemies list’ be next for Obama?
I have not listened to Rush Limbaugh for a long time. Not my taste these days. If Obama had realized that even many conservatives are not all that inspired by El Rushbo, he might have been able to work things out with the Right before careening into this present mess he’s made, but then again all indications are that despite campaign promises of “post-partisanship”, Obama never intended Republican participation in government to be anything more than getting conned or dragged into backing his agenda. Again, a more experienced politico would have seen the dangers of thinking he can fly his programs in reality the way they play out in planning, but Obama was elected partly because he has no resume.
Obama is also in trouble because of the “stimulus” bill sitting in the Senate right now. First warning sign was when Obama’s press secretary started backing off and trying to separate the White House from “the bill in Congress”; a hint that Obama was surprised by the flak he was taking. Second problem was Obama’s mistake in blaming Republicans for not backing his plan, trying to bully his way to victory by casting them as opposed to recovery by opposing his plan. The reason it was a mistake was twofold – first, public support for the bill is dropping, as it fails to show just how all this spending is supposed to result in new jobs, especially when so many are needed to revive the economy, and second because it betrays the political spin of the bill.
Three essential political facts exist about the stimulus bill:
1. Democrats have majorities in both the House and Senate, they do not need a single Republican vote
2. Because of heavy Democrat majorities, the bill will include massive spending and promote liberal policies
3. The Democrats have tried hard to get Republicans to sign onto the bill, in order to sell it as “bi-partisan”
The Democrats do not need Republicans to get their bill passed, so why the sell to get them on-board? Because this bill won’t create jobs, won’t put money into the pockets of ordinary Americans, and will cost a lot in future taxes. Democrats need Republicans’ names on the vote so they can deflect the blame when it comes. But Republicans have figured out that there is no way they can support this bill – it is really nothing more than a massive theft of taxpayer money, and the only way that Republicans can win is to oppose it. If the bill works Democrats will take credit, all of it, no matter whether Republicans sign on or not, and if it fails the way it looks sure to do, anyone connected to it is in real trouble. Consequently, the Republican strategy is to oppose the bill, to force either radical changes to avoid the disastrous course the White House is now on, or to put on record that this bill belongs completely to Obama and the Democrats. Obama failed to understand the need to compromise to get what you want, and as a result is left with the choice of giving up major portions of his bill or accepting full responsibility for its likely failure, responsibility which would forbode real and serious consequences in the 2010 midterm elections. The Republicans are usually clumsy at political floorplay, but Obama has shown incredibly poor foresight and judgment in not seeing this long ago.
The real problem for Obama is beginning to appear, one he never expected to see after being elected – the dissolution of his political capital. Obama first gained prominence by winning against the Clinton machine, which made his team the dominant force in the Democratic party. His increasing strength during the general campaign gave Obama the aura of an irresistible force, and a lot of politicians signed onto his entourage in the expectation that his agenda would sweep in a new era of Democratic and Liberal control, not seen since the days of Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society. But less than a month after taking office, Obama has made a series of blunders – nominees with serious problems that disqualified them from consideration, the appearance of narcissistic indifference to the disaster in Kentucky and the Ozarks, not visiting the towns struck by the storm or making a point to mention the suffering and deaths, and now his clumsy inability to sell his first major initiative. The gleam of the Obama veneer is already fading and his obvious petulance at the early cracks in the Democrats’ efforts to shove the bill through without any real debate or effective opposition warns of a man less capable than the job requires.
I have not listened to Rush Limbaugh for a long time. Not my taste these days. If Obama had realized that even many conservatives are not all that inspired by El Rushbo, he might have been able to work things out with the Right before careening into this present mess he’s made, but then again all indications are that despite campaign promises of “post-partisanship”, Obama never intended Republican participation in government to be anything more than getting conned or dragged into backing his agenda. Again, a more experienced politico would have seen the dangers of thinking he can fly his programs in reality the way they play out in planning, but Obama was elected partly because he has no resume.
Obama is also in trouble because of the “stimulus” bill sitting in the Senate right now. First warning sign was when Obama’s press secretary started backing off and trying to separate the White House from “the bill in Congress”; a hint that Obama was surprised by the flak he was taking. Second problem was Obama’s mistake in blaming Republicans for not backing his plan, trying to bully his way to victory by casting them as opposed to recovery by opposing his plan. The reason it was a mistake was twofold – first, public support for the bill is dropping, as it fails to show just how all this spending is supposed to result in new jobs, especially when so many are needed to revive the economy, and second because it betrays the political spin of the bill.
Three essential political facts exist about the stimulus bill:
1. Democrats have majorities in both the House and Senate, they do not need a single Republican vote
2. Because of heavy Democrat majorities, the bill will include massive spending and promote liberal policies
3. The Democrats have tried hard to get Republicans to sign onto the bill, in order to sell it as “bi-partisan”
The Democrats do not need Republicans to get their bill passed, so why the sell to get them on-board? Because this bill won’t create jobs, won’t put money into the pockets of ordinary Americans, and will cost a lot in future taxes. Democrats need Republicans’ names on the vote so they can deflect the blame when it comes. But Republicans have figured out that there is no way they can support this bill – it is really nothing more than a massive theft of taxpayer money, and the only way that Republicans can win is to oppose it. If the bill works Democrats will take credit, all of it, no matter whether Republicans sign on or not, and if it fails the way it looks sure to do, anyone connected to it is in real trouble. Consequently, the Republican strategy is to oppose the bill, to force either radical changes to avoid the disastrous course the White House is now on, or to put on record that this bill belongs completely to Obama and the Democrats. Obama failed to understand the need to compromise to get what you want, and as a result is left with the choice of giving up major portions of his bill or accepting full responsibility for its likely failure, responsibility which would forbode real and serious consequences in the 2010 midterm elections. The Republicans are usually clumsy at political floorplay, but Obama has shown incredibly poor foresight and judgment in not seeing this long ago.
The real problem for Obama is beginning to appear, one he never expected to see after being elected – the dissolution of his political capital. Obama first gained prominence by winning against the Clinton machine, which made his team the dominant force in the Democratic party. His increasing strength during the general campaign gave Obama the aura of an irresistible force, and a lot of politicians signed onto his entourage in the expectation that his agenda would sweep in a new era of Democratic and Liberal control, not seen since the days of Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society. But less than a month after taking office, Obama has made a series of blunders – nominees with serious problems that disqualified them from consideration, the appearance of narcissistic indifference to the disaster in Kentucky and the Ozarks, not visiting the towns struck by the storm or making a point to mention the suffering and deaths, and now his clumsy inability to sell his first major initiative. The gleam of the Obama veneer is already fading and his obvious petulance at the early cracks in the Democrats’ efforts to shove the bill through without any real debate or effective opposition warns of a man less capable than the job requires.
Thursday, February 05, 2009
A Thought About Why So Few People Stand Up for Ideals
My ancestors were Anabaptists from Scotland. Having been treated as slaves by their brutish British overlords, they had no love for anyone who thought he had the right to own other people. So it was natural for them to become abolitionists, and militant about the christian duty to fight against Slavery and all such tyrannies. They volunteered for the Civil War eagerly, seeing in it their opportunity to back their ideals with actions.
More than a dozen men of my family went to that war - two survived, and both of them maimed by their injuries. Their valor left the family with no one to manage their land, and so they lost it, no one to bring about new generations, and so many of the lines simply died out. The men who survived the war, indeed made money from it, were the same men who became notorious "carpetbaggers" from the North and who formed groups like the Klan in the South. To stand for universal human ideals was to risk losing all, and many men did just that.
And many people have learned that cruel lesson, over and over again, that to stand up in such a world is to risk being hammered down. It's easy to speak your opinion when you are risking nothing, and when you have many friends around to back you up. It's a rare man, even today, who will dare to be unpopular, let alone truly risk himself to help someone who is cast as an undesirable.
More than a dozen men of my family went to that war - two survived, and both of them maimed by their injuries. Their valor left the family with no one to manage their land, and so they lost it, no one to bring about new generations, and so many of the lines simply died out. The men who survived the war, indeed made money from it, were the same men who became notorious "carpetbaggers" from the North and who formed groups like the Klan in the South. To stand for universal human ideals was to risk losing all, and many men did just that.
And many people have learned that cruel lesson, over and over again, that to stand up in such a world is to risk being hammered down. It's easy to speak your opinion when you are risking nothing, and when you have many friends around to back you up. It's a rare man, even today, who will dare to be unpopular, let alone truly risk himself to help someone who is cast as an undesirable.
Monday, February 02, 2009
Punxsutawney Phil Banned by White House
Gobbler's Knob (ONN) - After seeing his shadow and forecasting six more weeks of winter, eminent groundhog Punxsutawney Phil was condemned by President Obama and banned from all future participation in events supported with federal funds. Explaining the move, Obama said “This is a time of unprecedented crisis and we are obligated to work together to advance my agenda for the good of the nation. I won, not that overfed hamster, and he has no business obstructing my plans. Besides, I’m from Hawaii and all this snow and ice is harshing my mellow. Everything will be fine just as soon as you all agree with me!”
Federal authorities installed a replacement guru-groundhog, a New York product which some observers said bore a striking resemblance to former Illinois Governor Blagojevich. The substitute fur-faced prophet toed the party line, not only predicting imminent spring, but also that Obama would cause job creation by his desire alone that it should be so, and that anyone who disagreed with The One was “a hater like Rush Limbaugh”. The New York audience was not notably impressed.
Back in Pennsylvania, Phil refused all questions from the media but did attempt to chew off Keith Olbermann’s face, to the delight of the crowd. “Sure and that’s what happened to Helen Thomas as well” claimed an anonymous citizen.
No real groundhogs were harmed in the making of this parody.
Federal authorities installed a replacement guru-groundhog, a New York product which some observers said bore a striking resemblance to former Illinois Governor Blagojevich. The substitute fur-faced prophet toed the party line, not only predicting imminent spring, but also that Obama would cause job creation by his desire alone that it should be so, and that anyone who disagreed with The One was “a hater like Rush Limbaugh”. The New York audience was not notably impressed.
Back in Pennsylvania, Phil refused all questions from the media but did attempt to chew off Keith Olbermann’s face, to the delight of the crowd. “Sure and that’s what happened to Helen Thomas as well” claimed an anonymous citizen.
No real groundhogs were harmed in the making of this parody.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
An Unending War
Thursday was an interesting day, if a long one. I spent it speaking with various doctors, and discussing my prognosis with Dr. Paul Mansfield at MD Anderson Cancer Center. Before speaking with Dr. Mansfield, however, I reviewed my test results with Dr. Fournier. It’s a nasty bit of a reminder, to see the proof that the little mutants are still there, not doing anything that needs an immediate response but there all the same. I have mentioned before that I am lucky, yet it’s never over. I can do most normal things that anyone does, but then again the word ‘normal’ changed forever for me.
No, it’s not a medical blog thing, but I take the present crisis very seriously, pretty much the same way. We’re never going to be ‘normal’ again, not the way it used to men. Not the financial crisis, which in the end comes down to the usual foolishness of people not doing their homework in how they invest their money and the usual con men cheating them because of it, the usual government people seizing the chance to spend tax money on things we don’t need and can’t really afford, in order to pay off the people they owe for their political careers, and the usual media inability to give us facts, instead trying their best to exaggerate every bump in order to get ratings, and the eventual exasperation in general when all these facts finally become too obvious to ignore anymore. We will survive this mess because we always do.
But there are groups, and governments as well, who think the world would be better if a lot of Americans died, and if the US was castrated militarily and economically. They are supported by enemies within the US as well as without. They hurt us badly on 09/11/01, and our traitors showed their colors by pretending America deserved it, and that our response should be apology and surrender. That war has not ended, nor will it in our lifetimes.
We have no choice but to win.
No, it’s not a medical blog thing, but I take the present crisis very seriously, pretty much the same way. We’re never going to be ‘normal’ again, not the way it used to men. Not the financial crisis, which in the end comes down to the usual foolishness of people not doing their homework in how they invest their money and the usual con men cheating them because of it, the usual government people seizing the chance to spend tax money on things we don’t need and can’t really afford, in order to pay off the people they owe for their political careers, and the usual media inability to give us facts, instead trying their best to exaggerate every bump in order to get ratings, and the eventual exasperation in general when all these facts finally become too obvious to ignore anymore. We will survive this mess because we always do.
But there are groups, and governments as well, who think the world would be better if a lot of Americans died, and if the US was castrated militarily and economically. They are supported by enemies within the US as well as without. They hurt us badly on 09/11/01, and our traitors showed their colors by pretending America deserved it, and that our response should be apology and surrender. That war has not ended, nor will it in our lifetimes.
We have no choice but to win.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Jobs, Education and Policy
Charge more but offer less. That’s essentially the game plan thrown out by John E Potter to Congress this week, as the Postmaster General of the USPS once again admitted that his organization is incompetent, corrupt, and bloated.
What’s significant is not that a government bureaucracy would – as usual – refuse to address the causes of its problems (once again it appears that accountability, like paying taxes, is only for the ‘little people’), but that Congress is an accomplice in that denial. This is evidenced by the new “stimulus” bill, which provides pretty close to nothing for the average American but saddles the nation with nearly another trillion dollars in debt. That’s not to say the first one was a great idea, but at least that one involved getting money to people and it is – theoretically – paid for by reductions in this year’s tax refunds (if you have not read through your tax instructions for this year, get ready for a shock – the government is all about taking your money, and they are determined to do just that, no matter what they say in front of the cameras). The new “stimulus” includes a mess of government spending which does all but nothing to help mainstream American businesses and communities, and which effects won’t be seen for two to three years, and a tax-cut component which basically rewards people who don’t pay taxes, and does nothing for employers who need help finding a way to keep the employees they have now, let alone hire any new ones. Unemployment, alas, is also not a problem for the bureaucrat to worry about, but one of those things that only hit those unfortunates who work to support their families.
I have been thinking about this mess, and the heart of things is unemployment. If folks lose jobs, they worry and spend less, which in turn hurts the economy and causes more job loss. The only way to stop that cycle is for enough people to get new jobs that the people getting jobs outnumber the people still losing jobs. Well, it should surprise no one that our good elected officials in Congress lied to us; they’re not going to help in the jobs market, not least because they never really could help. Ask anyone who has been in a hiring position, and they will tell you that government never significantly impacts the job market. Government jobs fall into three broad categories – the military, bloated over-staffed positions that could be better done by private companies, and pure pork positions which do nothing but eat tax money. Jobs are always available, even during the Depression some companies were hiring, but to get those jobs you had to be in the right place at the right time, but you also had to be well-qualified. And sorry, “well-qualified” means being able to do the job and to prove your credentials, not being the right race or gender or culture.
There’s a lot of whining about jobs going overseas or jobs that do not pay well. And there are groups which exist solely to force companies to provide jobs to people who frankly are not interested in working hard, and to pay a “living wage”, which always means about twice as much as the job is worth. Look, imagine you were going to buy a car, and you chose the Hyundai over the Mercedes because you couldn’t afford the Benz. “Living wage” is the same thing as someone coming up and telling you that even though you bought the Hyundai, you have to pay the Mercedes price, just because they want you to do that. Same logic, folks. If you want a job that pays a certain amount of money, then you best get off your butt and make your services worth that kind of coin. A high school diploma and a resume that shows nothing more complicated that customer service and jobs that primarily involve data entry, are not jobs that lead to high pay or security.
There are really only three ways to get a good-paying job, and by the way, a job that is less likely to get cut in a recession. One way is to develop a necessary expertise that is in short supply. The problem there is that over time those niches get filled, look at what happened to IT. The second way is to be related or a really good friend to the owner of a successful business. The other 99.99% of us will move on. The last way is to continue your education.
Now, ‘education’ is a trite word, and I am not saying what we hear so often from job counselors, that getting a degree (or an advanced degree) will by itself mean a better career. I personally knew a couple guys with doctorates who could not hold long-term jobs at decent pay. I mean that we all have brains, which are meant to be used effectively at important tasks. In third grade that means book reports, at the Masters’ level that means a defensible thesis, but in the real world of employment that means doing a bit of research and analysis on the community and environment you have, and making informed choices on your strategy and actions. I did not choose to earn my MBA because some Godmother in a glittering tutu promised I would be rich if I did, I chose that path on the basis of Houston’s economy, the relative proportion of MBA-holders to significant positions in management in my industry, and after discussion on the issue with some people whose opinion I value. After my MBA, will take a few more courses and then sit for my CPA license exams, which decision was made in a similar manner. And as the years go by, I will further add coursework and continuing education to my resume in order to stay current not only in my field, but to be aware of business conditions where I live and work.
It is significant to consider now the effect of policy. For long-term meaningful employment, a person must have appropriate and continuing education, and they must be proactive in using their knowledge. This strategy not only makes the individual more valuable, it improves the company which hires that person, and as a whole the nation becomes more competitive in global commerce. It should be noted, however, that the government does not support this strategy, except at the level of lip service. If the government would like to really address unemployment and the nation’s long-term interests, then there needs to be a ‘stimulus’ program which benefits education quality for working Americans who want better employment and those who will soon enter the workforce, rather than payoffs to Abortion clinics.
What’s significant is not that a government bureaucracy would – as usual – refuse to address the causes of its problems (once again it appears that accountability, like paying taxes, is only for the ‘little people’), but that Congress is an accomplice in that denial. This is evidenced by the new “stimulus” bill, which provides pretty close to nothing for the average American but saddles the nation with nearly another trillion dollars in debt. That’s not to say the first one was a great idea, but at least that one involved getting money to people and it is – theoretically – paid for by reductions in this year’s tax refunds (if you have not read through your tax instructions for this year, get ready for a shock – the government is all about taking your money, and they are determined to do just that, no matter what they say in front of the cameras). The new “stimulus” includes a mess of government spending which does all but nothing to help mainstream American businesses and communities, and which effects won’t be seen for two to three years, and a tax-cut component which basically rewards people who don’t pay taxes, and does nothing for employers who need help finding a way to keep the employees they have now, let alone hire any new ones. Unemployment, alas, is also not a problem for the bureaucrat to worry about, but one of those things that only hit those unfortunates who work to support their families.
I have been thinking about this mess, and the heart of things is unemployment. If folks lose jobs, they worry and spend less, which in turn hurts the economy and causes more job loss. The only way to stop that cycle is for enough people to get new jobs that the people getting jobs outnumber the people still losing jobs. Well, it should surprise no one that our good elected officials in Congress lied to us; they’re not going to help in the jobs market, not least because they never really could help. Ask anyone who has been in a hiring position, and they will tell you that government never significantly impacts the job market. Government jobs fall into three broad categories – the military, bloated over-staffed positions that could be better done by private companies, and pure pork positions which do nothing but eat tax money. Jobs are always available, even during the Depression some companies were hiring, but to get those jobs you had to be in the right place at the right time, but you also had to be well-qualified. And sorry, “well-qualified” means being able to do the job and to prove your credentials, not being the right race or gender or culture.
There’s a lot of whining about jobs going overseas or jobs that do not pay well. And there are groups which exist solely to force companies to provide jobs to people who frankly are not interested in working hard, and to pay a “living wage”, which always means about twice as much as the job is worth. Look, imagine you were going to buy a car, and you chose the Hyundai over the Mercedes because you couldn’t afford the Benz. “Living wage” is the same thing as someone coming up and telling you that even though you bought the Hyundai, you have to pay the Mercedes price, just because they want you to do that. Same logic, folks. If you want a job that pays a certain amount of money, then you best get off your butt and make your services worth that kind of coin. A high school diploma and a resume that shows nothing more complicated that customer service and jobs that primarily involve data entry, are not jobs that lead to high pay or security.
There are really only three ways to get a good-paying job, and by the way, a job that is less likely to get cut in a recession. One way is to develop a necessary expertise that is in short supply. The problem there is that over time those niches get filled, look at what happened to IT. The second way is to be related or a really good friend to the owner of a successful business. The other 99.99% of us will move on. The last way is to continue your education.
Now, ‘education’ is a trite word, and I am not saying what we hear so often from job counselors, that getting a degree (or an advanced degree) will by itself mean a better career. I personally knew a couple guys with doctorates who could not hold long-term jobs at decent pay. I mean that we all have brains, which are meant to be used effectively at important tasks. In third grade that means book reports, at the Masters’ level that means a defensible thesis, but in the real world of employment that means doing a bit of research and analysis on the community and environment you have, and making informed choices on your strategy and actions. I did not choose to earn my MBA because some Godmother in a glittering tutu promised I would be rich if I did, I chose that path on the basis of Houston’s economy, the relative proportion of MBA-holders to significant positions in management in my industry, and after discussion on the issue with some people whose opinion I value. After my MBA, will take a few more courses and then sit for my CPA license exams, which decision was made in a similar manner. And as the years go by, I will further add coursework and continuing education to my resume in order to stay current not only in my field, but to be aware of business conditions where I live and work.
It is significant to consider now the effect of policy. For long-term meaningful employment, a person must have appropriate and continuing education, and they must be proactive in using their knowledge. This strategy not only makes the individual more valuable, it improves the company which hires that person, and as a whole the nation becomes more competitive in global commerce. It should be noted, however, that the government does not support this strategy, except at the level of lip service. If the government would like to really address unemployment and the nation’s long-term interests, then there needs to be a ‘stimulus’ program which benefits education quality for working Americans who want better employment and those who will soon enter the workforce, rather than payoffs to Abortion clinics.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
On War Against Terrorists, Part 3
There are more than one billion professed Muslims in the world. US Intelligence says that at its height, Al Qaeda numbered perhaps fifty thousand members and another hundred thousand supporting persons. That works out to about 0.015% of all Muslims. If all terrorist groups and – let’s be generous – all radical Islamist groups which desire to attack the West and Israel are counted, that number reaches a total of perhaps ten million people, or just 1.0% of all Muslims. While Islam has many factions which are hostile to American values and policies, it must be understood at the outset that the overwhelming majority of Muslims have effectively nothing in common with terrorists. The common complaint from the West that Muslims must protest the behavior of terrorist groups misses the point that most Muslims already consider terrorists to be well beyond the pale, so that protesting against them would make no more sense than believing that young white Christian men should disavow any connection to Ted Bundy, Timothy McVeigh, or Charles Manson – it should not be necessary to state the obvious.
This is not to claim that the Muslims are just like Christians, except for a few different customs and spiritual practices. Islam is a strongly evangelistic faith, based on the belief that only Islam is true in God’s eyes, all other beliefs being in error or outright rebellion against God. Tradition is revered in Islam, because Islamic law (Sharia) is rooted in the teachings of the Prophet Muhammed and his hand-picked disciples and successors (the Caliphs). This is roughly comparable to the old Roman Catholic practice of considering the Church of Rome to hold the full authority of Peter as granted by the word of Jesus Christ Himself, back in the day when the Pope could call up armies to kill in the name of God. It should be noted, however, that the Caliphs of Islam are long removed to the past, so that no current Imam has the authority to speak for all of Islam. From time to time, someone gets bold enough to declare himself the Mahdi, basically the Muslim equivalent of the Messiah, which effort up to now has invariably resulted in a bloody war of conquest, ending in the death of the false Mahdi and his supporters. This point is significant, in the light of reports that the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has been pushing to have himself proclaimed the Mahdi of Islam or Twelfth Imam (the ‘hidden Imam’). This is not merely narcissism, but also a power play intended to promote the ascendancy of the Iranian race, the Aryans (yes, those Ayrans) as the natural leaders of Islam. Ahmadinejad appears to be playing Sunni against Shia in order to advance a racial caste to the top, conveniently his own. While to Western eyes and ears this kind of claim may appear laughable, there are various accounts which purport to describe the physical appearance of the Mahdi, and Ahmadinejad has been spinning the ones which happen to work in his favor (not all of them do, of course).
Ahmadinejad’s attempts to spin himself as a spiritual leader are part of the Middle East political movement renewing state ties to religion. This is actually a periodic cycle for the region, dating back to the Islamic Caliphates prior to the Fatimad Empire, which shifted the center of power to Egypt and created a meritocracy in the government. This secularization was further continued by the Khan invasions of the thirteenth century, which saw the Mamluks come to power through their defense of the nation (note, defense of the nation, not the faith). Later, Islam became influential in politics again under the Ottoman, Safavid, and Mughul empires, but as the names imply, this regional division of power devolved the unity of Islam still further.
Following the first World War, the Ottoman Empire essentially collapsed, and the vacuum was partly addressed by the rise of Wahhabism, a movement begun in the eighteenth century which argued that Muslims were being punished by Allah for an impure faith. It is important to understand that the leader of that movement allied himself with one Abdul Ibn Saud, who successfully claimed the territory of present-day Saudi Arabia for himself, and not coincidentally this territory included the two holiest places in Islam, the cities of Mecca and Medina. Saud’s success seemed to indicate that radical Islam could prevail over the colonial powers, restoring Muslims to their rightful control of their own land.
To Muslim eyes after World War 2, modern history shows the consistent rise of Muslim power, from the removal of colonial powers, to the end of secular masters, to the increased wealth and power worldwide of Islamist states. The existence of Israel and the annoying habit of Americans in demanding that their views become global polity aside, the leaders of the Islamist movement came to believe that their power and influence would only increase, and all that was left to do was to simply follow through.
‘Following through’ did not work out so well. Attempts to invade and destroy Israel failed over and over again, and frequently cost the Muslim forces much more than it did the Israelis. The various oil crises posed threats to the United States, but they too seemed to end to the Americans’ advantage. The Islamists have a bad knack of choosing the wrong friends, from Germany in both World Wars, business negotiators who could not see beyond the end of the decade, and religious leaders whose extreme ideology made their doctrines inpracticible in any real sense. Unfortunately, rather than admit errors and rethink the strategy, the Islamists in positions of power reacted with hostility and malice. It is no random fact that the Muslim Brotherhood, which engaged in small-scale murders and thuggery in the 1920s, evolved into more elaborate and extensive conspiracies to topple undesirable regimes (e.g. the Shah), blackmail wealthy families into bankrolling terrorist operations (Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Egypt, especially), and seek to eradicate western presence through violence and intimidation.
The western response also evolved. Early capitulation in paying ransoms and acceptance of hard-line Muslim dogma (such as refusing to do business with Jews, women, or blacks in positions of importance as corporate representatives) became less attractive as groups became less mercenary and more bloodthirsty. American businesses began demanding better protection from their own government, and mercenary armies came into being to protect western compounds and facilities. Eventually, this need to protect American interests influenced official policy under the Reagan and Bush Administrations. Even the Clinton Administration supported sub rosa operations, which were accepted by Middle East governments because they did not embarrass the officials personally. But by the end of the twentieth century, it was becoming apparent that terrorist groups had taken on a new dimension; the façade of legitimacy.
The recent conflict between Israel and Hamas in the Gaza territory is a solid example of what happens when terrorists are allowed to gain political power and to present themselves as the duly elected representatives of the people. But Hamas is not the first group to play this role. Elements of the PLO, Islamic Jihad, and of course Al Qaeda have all played the game of diplomat, in some cases becoming able to claim the image of respectability, as seen in Afghanistan under the Taliban, the Sudan, and Yemen. This was a tipping point for the George W. Bush Administration, the concern that the sense of control in their own territory would lead to attacks on American soil. This concern, of course, was built in large part on the character and scale of the 9/11 attacks. The profile of the conflict, as well as the stakes, changed completely almost overnight.
This is not to claim that the Muslims are just like Christians, except for a few different customs and spiritual practices. Islam is a strongly evangelistic faith, based on the belief that only Islam is true in God’s eyes, all other beliefs being in error or outright rebellion against God. Tradition is revered in Islam, because Islamic law (Sharia) is rooted in the teachings of the Prophet Muhammed and his hand-picked disciples and successors (the Caliphs). This is roughly comparable to the old Roman Catholic practice of considering the Church of Rome to hold the full authority of Peter as granted by the word of Jesus Christ Himself, back in the day when the Pope could call up armies to kill in the name of God. It should be noted, however, that the Caliphs of Islam are long removed to the past, so that no current Imam has the authority to speak for all of Islam. From time to time, someone gets bold enough to declare himself the Mahdi, basically the Muslim equivalent of the Messiah, which effort up to now has invariably resulted in a bloody war of conquest, ending in the death of the false Mahdi and his supporters. This point is significant, in the light of reports that the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has been pushing to have himself proclaimed the Mahdi of Islam or Twelfth Imam (the ‘hidden Imam’). This is not merely narcissism, but also a power play intended to promote the ascendancy of the Iranian race, the Aryans (yes, those Ayrans) as the natural leaders of Islam. Ahmadinejad appears to be playing Sunni against Shia in order to advance a racial caste to the top, conveniently his own. While to Western eyes and ears this kind of claim may appear laughable, there are various accounts which purport to describe the physical appearance of the Mahdi, and Ahmadinejad has been spinning the ones which happen to work in his favor (not all of them do, of course).
Ahmadinejad’s attempts to spin himself as a spiritual leader are part of the Middle East political movement renewing state ties to religion. This is actually a periodic cycle for the region, dating back to the Islamic Caliphates prior to the Fatimad Empire, which shifted the center of power to Egypt and created a meritocracy in the government. This secularization was further continued by the Khan invasions of the thirteenth century, which saw the Mamluks come to power through their defense of the nation (note, defense of the nation, not the faith). Later, Islam became influential in politics again under the Ottoman, Safavid, and Mughul empires, but as the names imply, this regional division of power devolved the unity of Islam still further.
Following the first World War, the Ottoman Empire essentially collapsed, and the vacuum was partly addressed by the rise of Wahhabism, a movement begun in the eighteenth century which argued that Muslims were being punished by Allah for an impure faith. It is important to understand that the leader of that movement allied himself with one Abdul Ibn Saud, who successfully claimed the territory of present-day Saudi Arabia for himself, and not coincidentally this territory included the two holiest places in Islam, the cities of Mecca and Medina. Saud’s success seemed to indicate that radical Islam could prevail over the colonial powers, restoring Muslims to their rightful control of their own land.
To Muslim eyes after World War 2, modern history shows the consistent rise of Muslim power, from the removal of colonial powers, to the end of secular masters, to the increased wealth and power worldwide of Islamist states. The existence of Israel and the annoying habit of Americans in demanding that their views become global polity aside, the leaders of the Islamist movement came to believe that their power and influence would only increase, and all that was left to do was to simply follow through.
‘Following through’ did not work out so well. Attempts to invade and destroy Israel failed over and over again, and frequently cost the Muslim forces much more than it did the Israelis. The various oil crises posed threats to the United States, but they too seemed to end to the Americans’ advantage. The Islamists have a bad knack of choosing the wrong friends, from Germany in both World Wars, business negotiators who could not see beyond the end of the decade, and religious leaders whose extreme ideology made their doctrines inpracticible in any real sense. Unfortunately, rather than admit errors and rethink the strategy, the Islamists in positions of power reacted with hostility and malice. It is no random fact that the Muslim Brotherhood, which engaged in small-scale murders and thuggery in the 1920s, evolved into more elaborate and extensive conspiracies to topple undesirable regimes (e.g. the Shah), blackmail wealthy families into bankrolling terrorist operations (Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Egypt, especially), and seek to eradicate western presence through violence and intimidation.
The western response also evolved. Early capitulation in paying ransoms and acceptance of hard-line Muslim dogma (such as refusing to do business with Jews, women, or blacks in positions of importance as corporate representatives) became less attractive as groups became less mercenary and more bloodthirsty. American businesses began demanding better protection from their own government, and mercenary armies came into being to protect western compounds and facilities. Eventually, this need to protect American interests influenced official policy under the Reagan and Bush Administrations. Even the Clinton Administration supported sub rosa operations, which were accepted by Middle East governments because they did not embarrass the officials personally. But by the end of the twentieth century, it was becoming apparent that terrorist groups had taken on a new dimension; the façade of legitimacy.
The recent conflict between Israel and Hamas in the Gaza territory is a solid example of what happens when terrorists are allowed to gain political power and to present themselves as the duly elected representatives of the people. But Hamas is not the first group to play this role. Elements of the PLO, Islamic Jihad, and of course Al Qaeda have all played the game of diplomat, in some cases becoming able to claim the image of respectability, as seen in Afghanistan under the Taliban, the Sudan, and Yemen. This was a tipping point for the George W. Bush Administration, the concern that the sense of control in their own territory would lead to attacks on American soil. This concern, of course, was built in large part on the character and scale of the 9/11 attacks. The profile of the conflict, as well as the stakes, changed completely almost overnight.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
On War Against Terrorists, Part 2
Shortly after the end of the War of 1812, a strange event took place which changed the world. Naval officers, then diplomatic officials of the American and British governments agreed to cooperate to seek out and destroy pirate operations in the Caribbean Sea. The new policy took decades to fully effect, but eventually ended piracy in the Western Hemisphere as a major threat. The episode is significant not only because of the drastic shifts in policy, but also as a rejection of the contemporary belief that piracy was impossible to eradicate, a problem the civilized would have to accept and deal with as an unpleasant reality. It is further significant that the effort to wipe out piracy was not limited to one nation, nor was it the property of only one political party. The effective resolution of international terrorism by Jihadist factions requires a similar purview.
The shock of the 9/11 attacks united the nation – for a moment – and focused attention on the true cause and foundation of the culprits. But soon after, groups reverted to their nominal postures, which behavior may be generally categorized as reactive, passive, and proactive.
The majority of Americans hold a position regarding terrorism that may be described as reactive. That is, their desire for a certain action is in response to something that happens to provoke that reaction. Therefore, when thousands of Americans were killed in the 9/11 attacks, most Americans wanted to find and attack the men responsible. Most Americans supported the invasion of Afghanistan to remove the Taliban, because of clear connections between the Taliban and Al Qaeda. The war in Iraq was also initially popular, because of Saddam Hussein’s behavior which appeared to demonstrate support for terrorism (which was true) as well as a threat of WMD use (which turned out not to be true). Reactive opinions tend to shift focus over time, preferring predictable routine to unusual conditions.
Some Americans opposed any military action whatsoever with regard to the terrorist attacks. This position is the passive position. These people want terrorism to treated as a crime, with the nominal legal framework used to pursue and punish the attackers. The problem with the passive approach is that it has already been shown to be ineffective against large groups, as the planners and leaders stay out of legal reach. The 1993 bomb attack against the World Trade Center built a case against only the lowest-level participants, for example.
The third group contends that the best strategy in attacking terrorism is to strike at its source. This group is the proactive or peremptory group. The position is often controversial, as is evidence by shifting public and congressional opinion on the Iraq war, but has a solid core of support, especially among military. The proactive strategy has not been used successfully very often, although there are historical precedents in the Napoleanic Wars, the campaigns of Genghis Khan, and the Six Day War of 1967, among others.
The significant lesson in addressing these three groups, is to understand that all three exist to varying degrees, and any effective plan must take all of them into consideration.
The shock of the 9/11 attacks united the nation – for a moment – and focused attention on the true cause and foundation of the culprits. But soon after, groups reverted to their nominal postures, which behavior may be generally categorized as reactive, passive, and proactive.
The majority of Americans hold a position regarding terrorism that may be described as reactive. That is, their desire for a certain action is in response to something that happens to provoke that reaction. Therefore, when thousands of Americans were killed in the 9/11 attacks, most Americans wanted to find and attack the men responsible. Most Americans supported the invasion of Afghanistan to remove the Taliban, because of clear connections between the Taliban and Al Qaeda. The war in Iraq was also initially popular, because of Saddam Hussein’s behavior which appeared to demonstrate support for terrorism (which was true) as well as a threat of WMD use (which turned out not to be true). Reactive opinions tend to shift focus over time, preferring predictable routine to unusual conditions.
Some Americans opposed any military action whatsoever with regard to the terrorist attacks. This position is the passive position. These people want terrorism to treated as a crime, with the nominal legal framework used to pursue and punish the attackers. The problem with the passive approach is that it has already been shown to be ineffective against large groups, as the planners and leaders stay out of legal reach. The 1993 bomb attack against the World Trade Center built a case against only the lowest-level participants, for example.
The third group contends that the best strategy in attacking terrorism is to strike at its source. This group is the proactive or peremptory group. The position is often controversial, as is evidence by shifting public and congressional opinion on the Iraq war, but has a solid core of support, especially among military. The proactive strategy has not been used successfully very often, although there are historical precedents in the Napoleanic Wars, the campaigns of Genghis Khan, and the Six Day War of 1967, among others.
The significant lesson in addressing these three groups, is to understand that all three exist to varying degrees, and any effective plan must take all of them into consideration.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
On War Against Terrorists, part 1
During the Revolutionary War, British General William Howe's men captured the American Nathan Hale spying on British fortifications. Hale is immortalized among Americans for his final words, "I only regret that I have but one life to give my country". Few people remember that Howe was originally inclined to let Hale live, being impressed with his manners and courage. However, some British officers contended that Hale had been involved, possibly a leader, in the burning of Manhattan in 1776 (while a member of Knowlton's Rangers) to prevent it from falling into enemy hands. While mulling this charge against Hale, Howe was also advised that Hale allegedly participated in sniper attacks as a member of Ethan Allen's "Green Mountain Boys". Howe chose to believe that Hale had been a sniper, which in his view was an illegal and cowardly act, and he forthwith ordered Hale's execution. This incident was representative of the time; Americans revered Hale, Allen, and Washington as heroes while the British regarded their style of warfare as cowardly and unacceptable behavior for civilized military officers.
Even the British, of course, nowadays consider Washington a legitimate hero, but context is essential in grasping the meaning of public debates. It was said that Alexander ordered the immediate execution of enemy archers captured in battle, as he considered it unmanly to kill only from a distance. Of course, this was also the general whose siege tactics included catapulting the corpses of animals killed by plague into cities they attacked. In ancient China, an archer was allowed to shoot at his opponent, but could not fire his second shot until his opponent, if able, returned fire himself. Custom varied in different places and times, but was firm where it was known.
The Aztecs had a strict rule against deliberately killing an enemy on the battlefield, which sounds magnanimous until you consider that they thought it wasteful, the deaths serving a much more useful purpose as human sacrifices in ceremony. And of course in more modern times, there are the distinctive combat styles of the Nazis and the Soviets – the Nazis would commonly accept surrender from a town’s leaders only if they personally executed a number of ‘undesirables’ (partisans or Jews, for example), to show their loyalty to the Reich and by the way seal their own complicity in murder, while the Soviets often broke families apart in contentious zones, raising the children as parentless wards of the State in order to keep them “clean” of their heritage and any tendency to avenge dead parents.
All of this seems to apologize for the character of the terrorist. In fact, however, when examined more closely it reveals just how false the “culture” of the global jihad truly is. The Aztecs were brutal, yet controlled in their selection of victims and manner of killing. On the other hand, as mighty an empire as Britain was in its heyday, the British were extremely scrupulous about protecting innocents – not because the innocents had “rights”, but because as they considered themselves a superior people the British restrained themselves. Yet culture after culture has learned that it cannot compel its enemies to abide by its protocols. The Aztecs could not force the Spaniards to fight as they did, nor could Rome make Hannibal fight by its rules. Ask the British about their war in Ireland, or the Soviets about the mujahadin. Or for that matter, why China is having so much trouble crushing Tibet? No plan to fight terrorism is going to be effective unless you understand your enemy’s plan, boundaries, and limits.
Boundaries and limits are two very different things. The short explanation is that boundaries are what you will not do, while limits set off what you cannot do. Nations and cultures which enjoy a sense of superiority are likely to establish ethical boundaries which subversive groups do not use. It is an unresolved debate whether such boundaries are helpful or a liability in the war, the decision must be considered case by case but for here it is important to recognize that this difference exists in most asymmetrical conflicts.
For the civilized world (for here, we may simply say those nations which generally cooperate with the United States in security matters and which generally work to prevent terrorist operations in their territory or using their resources), winning against terrorists includes the identification of their limits – determining then implementing what would cripple their operational ability. Essentially this means attacking the three legs of recruiting, logistics, and communication of terrorist groups. The chief focus of the Bush Administration war in the Middle East employed these objectives to good result. Regardless of policy, the Obama Administration has both the resources and personnel to continue this focus effectively in a number of different ways.
The greatest threat from any terrorist group is the wide range of targets, methods, and tools it may use. The first attempt against the World trade Center in 1993 used a truck bomb, but in 2001 very different tactics were used. We are soberly reminded of the IRA taunt after an attempt on the Royal Family that evil men ‘only need to be lucky once’. No matter how Obama is seen by the world, it is certain that terrorists will attack the United States again as soon as they are able, and likely personally attack Obama as well.
Every President is a high-profile target, and the celebrity image of Barack Obama is certainly not masking his profile. This is not to say that things would be different for anyone else in the office, but that there is a clear and significant personal risk for Obama regardless of his policy or strategy choice. If by some chance that was not enough to lock his focus on the problem, President Obama should consider that his wife and daughters are also high-profile targets, especially to terrorists who consider Americans weak for valuing women as equal to men. The naïve idea that if we retreat that our enemies will leave us alone, is quickly dispelled by even a brief look at the history of terrorism, from the Black Hand in the 19th Century, to the various incarnations of Socialist radical groups in the 20th Century, to the Jihadist movements of the 21st Century.
Even the British, of course, nowadays consider Washington a legitimate hero, but context is essential in grasping the meaning of public debates. It was said that Alexander ordered the immediate execution of enemy archers captured in battle, as he considered it unmanly to kill only from a distance. Of course, this was also the general whose siege tactics included catapulting the corpses of animals killed by plague into cities they attacked. In ancient China, an archer was allowed to shoot at his opponent, but could not fire his second shot until his opponent, if able, returned fire himself. Custom varied in different places and times, but was firm where it was known.
The Aztecs had a strict rule against deliberately killing an enemy on the battlefield, which sounds magnanimous until you consider that they thought it wasteful, the deaths serving a much more useful purpose as human sacrifices in ceremony. And of course in more modern times, there are the distinctive combat styles of the Nazis and the Soviets – the Nazis would commonly accept surrender from a town’s leaders only if they personally executed a number of ‘undesirables’ (partisans or Jews, for example), to show their loyalty to the Reich and by the way seal their own complicity in murder, while the Soviets often broke families apart in contentious zones, raising the children as parentless wards of the State in order to keep them “clean” of their heritage and any tendency to avenge dead parents.
All of this seems to apologize for the character of the terrorist. In fact, however, when examined more closely it reveals just how false the “culture” of the global jihad truly is. The Aztecs were brutal, yet controlled in their selection of victims and manner of killing. On the other hand, as mighty an empire as Britain was in its heyday, the British were extremely scrupulous about protecting innocents – not because the innocents had “rights”, but because as they considered themselves a superior people the British restrained themselves. Yet culture after culture has learned that it cannot compel its enemies to abide by its protocols. The Aztecs could not force the Spaniards to fight as they did, nor could Rome make Hannibal fight by its rules. Ask the British about their war in Ireland, or the Soviets about the mujahadin. Or for that matter, why China is having so much trouble crushing Tibet? No plan to fight terrorism is going to be effective unless you understand your enemy’s plan, boundaries, and limits.
Boundaries and limits are two very different things. The short explanation is that boundaries are what you will not do, while limits set off what you cannot do. Nations and cultures which enjoy a sense of superiority are likely to establish ethical boundaries which subversive groups do not use. It is an unresolved debate whether such boundaries are helpful or a liability in the war, the decision must be considered case by case but for here it is important to recognize that this difference exists in most asymmetrical conflicts.
For the civilized world (for here, we may simply say those nations which generally cooperate with the United States in security matters and which generally work to prevent terrorist operations in their territory or using their resources), winning against terrorists includes the identification of their limits – determining then implementing what would cripple their operational ability. Essentially this means attacking the three legs of recruiting, logistics, and communication of terrorist groups. The chief focus of the Bush Administration war in the Middle East employed these objectives to good result. Regardless of policy, the Obama Administration has both the resources and personnel to continue this focus effectively in a number of different ways.
The greatest threat from any terrorist group is the wide range of targets, methods, and tools it may use. The first attempt against the World trade Center in 1993 used a truck bomb, but in 2001 very different tactics were used. We are soberly reminded of the IRA taunt after an attempt on the Royal Family that evil men ‘only need to be lucky once’. No matter how Obama is seen by the world, it is certain that terrorists will attack the United States again as soon as they are able, and likely personally attack Obama as well.
Every President is a high-profile target, and the celebrity image of Barack Obama is certainly not masking his profile. This is not to say that things would be different for anyone else in the office, but that there is a clear and significant personal risk for Obama regardless of his policy or strategy choice. If by some chance that was not enough to lock his focus on the problem, President Obama should consider that his wife and daughters are also high-profile targets, especially to terrorists who consider Americans weak for valuing women as equal to men. The naïve idea that if we retreat that our enemies will leave us alone, is quickly dispelled by even a brief look at the history of terrorism, from the Black Hand in the 19th Century, to the various incarnations of Socialist radical groups in the 20th Century, to the Jihadist movements of the 21st Century.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
The Beginner
I try to be fair when discussing a new President. The fact is, I have not had one in my lifetime that really got me enthused at first. It may seem strange, since I am such a supporter now, but the main reason I was supporting W in 2001, was because he was not Al Gore. I despised Bill Clinton when he first took office, only raising my opinion of him after a few worthy accomplishments. Reagan won me over quickly, but even there at first I did not know what to expect from him, whether he would deliver on his promises. I saw Carter for the charlatan he was as soon as he decided to run. I liked Ford as a person (who didn’t?), but was never excited about him as President. And so on.
But in every case, there were at least clear indicators of how the man would lead. W Bush, Clinton, Reagan and Carter had been governors. The elder Bush had been in government service for many years, as had Ford and Nixon and Johnson. The only guy who was clueless in office at the start was Kennedy.
Oh yes, the “Camelot” President. In some ways, this is hopeful for President Obama. Kennedy pushed hard for Civil Rights, he pushed significant income tax cuts, and JFK was the muse for the moon missions. On the other hand, Kennedy badly bungled the Bay of Pigs crisis, his response to a steel strike was to all but nationalize the industry, and in general Kennedy’s term was a mix of going along with Congress’ policies-in-place, and getting the US deeply involved in Vietnam, although it took LBJ to really lock us there. Barack Obama is like John Kennedy in that he is a man of image far more than substance, that he lacks the political pull to compel Congress to give up its lust for spending, especially earmarks. Even if Obama means well, it is difficult to imagine him overcoming an entrenched DC machine and the Machiavellian workings of his own party.
But in every case, there were at least clear indicators of how the man would lead. W Bush, Clinton, Reagan and Carter had been governors. The elder Bush had been in government service for many years, as had Ford and Nixon and Johnson. The only guy who was clueless in office at the start was Kennedy.
Oh yes, the “Camelot” President. In some ways, this is hopeful for President Obama. Kennedy pushed hard for Civil Rights, he pushed significant income tax cuts, and JFK was the muse for the moon missions. On the other hand, Kennedy badly bungled the Bay of Pigs crisis, his response to a steel strike was to all but nationalize the industry, and in general Kennedy’s term was a mix of going along with Congress’ policies-in-place, and getting the US deeply involved in Vietnam, although it took LBJ to really lock us there. Barack Obama is like John Kennedy in that he is a man of image far more than substance, that he lacks the political pull to compel Congress to give up its lust for spending, especially earmarks. Even if Obama means well, it is difficult to imagine him overcoming an entrenched DC machine and the Machiavellian workings of his own party.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
The Rest of Racism
The elites have their day. The media, Hollywood, and a certain demographic subset of the nation are rejoicing in the inauguration of Barack Obama. Certainly the historic nature of swearing in the first black President of the United States is evident, although its been more than slightly overdone in its impact. That was made evident to me earlier this year by my wife.
My wife happens to be Chinese, from HK actually but close enough to the mainland to resent the hell out of the idea that only blacks suffered from racism. Long after blacks gained their freedom, Chinese were routinely treated like slaves, and some of the most obscene hate crimes in history were committed against Asians. In his book “The Seven States of California”, Philip Fradkin quotes a historian who said that the Los Angeles massacre of Chinese on October 24, 1871 was “probably the biggest mass lynching in the history of California, if not the whole country.” (pg 369). In 1880, the Chinese living in the mining town of Hop Alley outside Denver were driven from town, and dozens of Chinese were murdered. The exact number is unknown because the bodies were dismembered and denied proper burial. Riots against Chinese, mass lynchings, and the burnings of their communities for no offense beyond being there were common in the United States for more than eighty years.
There has never been a formal apology from the United States government, or from any of the state or local governments concerned, for the murder of hundreds if not thousands of Chinese on American soil. Before 1917, Chinese were not even commonly recorded in census records and were generally denied the opportunity to become citizens under any conditions, even when they were born in the United States. I should not have to even mention the treatment of law-abiding American citizens of Japanese genealogy during World War 2.
This does not mean that Asians alone suffered. Historian Ken Gonzales-Day noted that American Indians and Latinos, along with Chinese, were regularly subjected to brutal treatment, and were victims of lynchings far more often than were blacks (Lynching in the West, 1850-1935, pg 27).
This is not to diminish the suffering of blacks in America, but to note the hypocrisy in the spotlight given only to that race when discussing race issues. When prominent activist groups want a discussion on race, the designated leaders are always black, and the issues always focus on their race first and foremost. Blacks are assured quota minimums in government money, jobs, school placement, and even government representation (recall the demand by Democrats that Obama’s replacement must be a black man or woman), at a time when no such privileges are extended to other races, and in the case of Asians a ceiling seems to be imposed to keep ‘too many’ of them from attending top schools. Simply put, for more than a generation there has been a strong push to advance black Americans, while ignoring other minorities who have suffered just as much, and in some cases personally worse, than blacks.
Barack Obama was not elected because he was the best-qualified candidate. He won because Americans wanted change, because he was able to win the job, and because as a black he had political capital that better-qualified opponents in his party could not access. In itself, this is no sin; many people have won office in the past under similar circumstances. But given the many claims that Obama somehow represents a victory over Racism, that America by his office has moved beyond the days where it should address its past, the disparity in how different races are treated, especially the preference granted blacks in almost all things, proves a different, a more insidious, form of racism still thrives in America.
Racism is not defeated by putting someone of the “right” color into power. It is not over when one group supplants another. It is not even finished by punishing a selected demographic, or by assuring advancement by skin color. It can only be ended when the character of the individual and the skill of his or her mind and work determine the treatment. Until then, for all his eloquence and grandeur, President Obama’s attention to Racism is no more than a new chapter in an old con game. But he’s not fooling everyone he believes are fooled.
My wife happens to be Chinese, from HK actually but close enough to the mainland to resent the hell out of the idea that only blacks suffered from racism. Long after blacks gained their freedom, Chinese were routinely treated like slaves, and some of the most obscene hate crimes in history were committed against Asians. In his book “The Seven States of California”, Philip Fradkin quotes a historian who said that the Los Angeles massacre of Chinese on October 24, 1871 was “probably the biggest mass lynching in the history of California, if not the whole country.” (pg 369). In 1880, the Chinese living in the mining town of Hop Alley outside Denver were driven from town, and dozens of Chinese were murdered. The exact number is unknown because the bodies were dismembered and denied proper burial. Riots against Chinese, mass lynchings, and the burnings of their communities for no offense beyond being there were common in the United States for more than eighty years.
There has never been a formal apology from the United States government, or from any of the state or local governments concerned, for the murder of hundreds if not thousands of Chinese on American soil. Before 1917, Chinese were not even commonly recorded in census records and were generally denied the opportunity to become citizens under any conditions, even when they were born in the United States. I should not have to even mention the treatment of law-abiding American citizens of Japanese genealogy during World War 2.
This does not mean that Asians alone suffered. Historian Ken Gonzales-Day noted that American Indians and Latinos, along with Chinese, were regularly subjected to brutal treatment, and were victims of lynchings far more often than were blacks (Lynching in the West, 1850-1935, pg 27).
This is not to diminish the suffering of blacks in America, but to note the hypocrisy in the spotlight given only to that race when discussing race issues. When prominent activist groups want a discussion on race, the designated leaders are always black, and the issues always focus on their race first and foremost. Blacks are assured quota minimums in government money, jobs, school placement, and even government representation (recall the demand by Democrats that Obama’s replacement must be a black man or woman), at a time when no such privileges are extended to other races, and in the case of Asians a ceiling seems to be imposed to keep ‘too many’ of them from attending top schools. Simply put, for more than a generation there has been a strong push to advance black Americans, while ignoring other minorities who have suffered just as much, and in some cases personally worse, than blacks.
Barack Obama was not elected because he was the best-qualified candidate. He won because Americans wanted change, because he was able to win the job, and because as a black he had political capital that better-qualified opponents in his party could not access. In itself, this is no sin; many people have won office in the past under similar circumstances. But given the many claims that Obama somehow represents a victory over Racism, that America by his office has moved beyond the days where it should address its past, the disparity in how different races are treated, especially the preference granted blacks in almost all things, proves a different, a more insidious, form of racism still thrives in America.
Racism is not defeated by putting someone of the “right” color into power. It is not over when one group supplants another. It is not even finished by punishing a selected demographic, or by assuring advancement by skin color. It can only be ended when the character of the individual and the skill of his or her mind and work determine the treatment. Until then, for all his eloquence and grandeur, President Obama’s attention to Racism is no more than a new chapter in an old con game. But he’s not fooling everyone he believes are fooled.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Monday
I just heard I have to go back in for more medical 'consultation'.
The networks continue to compare Barack Obama to heroes both historic (Lincoln) and current (Sullenberger) on no basis other than being successful and black.
My dogs ate another sweater.
My Bears fell out of the AP Top 25.
My intention to produce a brilliant essay was pre-empted by meetings and lawyer discussions.
Yep, its Monday.
The networks continue to compare Barack Obama to heroes both historic (Lincoln) and current (Sullenberger) on no basis other than being successful and black.
My dogs ate another sweater.
My Bears fell out of the AP Top 25.
My intention to produce a brilliant essay was pre-empted by meetings and lawyer discussions.
Yep, its Monday.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
