Re Op-Ed Columnist: It's Too Late for Later by Thomas L. Friedman in today's NY Times:
Once again, Tom strikes out. Tom was a big advocate of invading Iraq. Tom is a big advocate of globalization. Tom's new big issue is "global warming". Why quotes? Because Tom uses newspeak instead of saying "global warming created by mankind". That, after all, is what the "global warming" cultists mean when they speak of "global warming".
Remember: no one even knows if we are in a warming phase, since geological time is so long compared to the duration of fads, or the lives of humans. And, if the earth is in a warming phase, we do not know why.
One of the ironies in Tom's stupid column is that Tom is now blaming globalization for global warming. Tom has no shame! "Indeed, today’s global economy has become like a monster truck with the gas pedal stuck, and we’ve lost the key — so no one can stop it from wiping out more and more of the natural world, no matter what the global plan."
Now, if Tom really cares about preserving forests and biodiversity (forget about his blather about global warming), then he should advocate a new world policeman (not the U.S., thank you) to give Jakarta an ultimatum: stop deforestation, or we (the World Police) will bomb you.
Sunday, December 16, 2007
Friday, December 7, 2007
Islam and Religion
Re Op-Ed Contributor: Islam's Silent Moderates by Ayaan Hirsi Ali in today's NY Times:
All religions are stupid. Catholicism showed its barbarism during the years of the Inquisition. Islam is merely the craziest "religion". It has never been moderate, and never will be, since the Koran cannot be modified, and it was written with the blood of nonbelievers. Ms. Ayaan Hirsi Ali should know better. While I admire her enormous courage, she should know that it is impossible to be both a true Muslim and moderate. Islam, and all religions, were fictions created by fools who could not comprehend even the most elementary facts about our universe, so they invented religion. The problem with Islam is that, along with the fictional Allah, Muslims created an enormously detailed framework which justifies barbarism.
All religions are stupid. Catholicism showed its barbarism during the years of the Inquisition. Islam is merely the craziest "religion". It has never been moderate, and never will be, since the Koran cannot be modified, and it was written with the blood of nonbelievers. Ms. Ayaan Hirsi Ali should know better. While I admire her enormous courage, she should know that it is impossible to be both a true Muslim and moderate. Islam, and all religions, were fictions created by fools who could not comprehend even the most elementary facts about our universe, so they invented religion. The problem with Islam is that, along with the fictional Allah, Muslims created an enormously detailed framework which justifies barbarism.
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Philly Shoots Itself In Foot
Re Boy Scouts Lose Philadelphia Lease in Gay-Rights Fight by Ian Urbina in today's NY Times:
So, on June 1, 2008, the city of Brotherly Love will evict the Boy Scouts from "the birthplace of the Boy Scouts" where they have resided since 1928, because of the Boy Scouts' stated opposition to accepting as members boys who are openly homosexual. So, basically Philadelphia would prefer that its heterosexual boys join street gangs which breed murderers and drug dealers, rather than join the Boy Scouts.
So, on June 1, 2008, the city of Brotherly Love will evict the Boy Scouts from "the birthplace of the Boy Scouts" where they have resided since 1928, because of the Boy Scouts' stated opposition to accepting as members boys who are openly homosexual. So, basically Philadelphia would prefer that its heterosexual boys join street gangs which breed murderers and drug dealers, rather than join the Boy Scouts.
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Iranian National Intelligence Estimate of America
Re Op-Ed Columnist: Intercepting Iran's Take on America by Thomas L. Friedman in today's NY Times:
Mr. Friedman wrote a faux report from the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence, which he described as the "Iranian National Intelligence Estimate of America". In it he explains why the Iranians have nothing to worry about, since America is basically not following Tom's latest prescriptions. He singles out a few culprits whom he disagrees with, such as Lou Dobbs and Giuliani, but he fails to mention his advocacy of the Iraq invasion, and his many columns calling for nation-building in the Middle East and Afghanistan. (He also fails to mention the financial costs of those blunders: about $2 trillion.)
But I will agree with him on the stupidity of our ethanol subsidies. Ethanol is a waste of money, since it takes so much oil just to produce and distribute it, and to modify automobile engines to run on it.
I also agree that we need a Manhattan Project "to achieve energy independence". But this is where Tom wimps out. (I suspect he has an early record of opposing nuclear power.) He does not specifically call for R&D on nuclear fusion technology to produce electricity, nor does he call for more nuclear fission power plants.
Mr. Friedman wrote a faux report from the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence, which he described as the "Iranian National Intelligence Estimate of America". In it he explains why the Iranians have nothing to worry about, since America is basically not following Tom's latest prescriptions. He singles out a few culprits whom he disagrees with, such as Lou Dobbs and Giuliani, but he fails to mention his advocacy of the Iraq invasion, and his many columns calling for nation-building in the Middle East and Afghanistan. (He also fails to mention the financial costs of those blunders: about $2 trillion.)
But I will agree with him on the stupidity of our ethanol subsidies. Ethanol is a waste of money, since it takes so much oil just to produce and distribute it, and to modify automobile engines to run on it.
I also agree that we need a Manhattan Project "to achieve energy independence". But this is where Tom wimps out. (I suspect he has an early record of opposing nuclear power.) He does not specifically call for R&D on nuclear fusion technology to produce electricity, nor does he call for more nuclear fission power plants.
Saturday, December 1, 2007
How To Strengthen Our Economy
Re News Analysis: Wall St. Sees Silver Lining in Economy by Peter S. Goodman:
The actions of the Federal Reserve, namely, lowering short-term interest rates, are like putting a Band Aid on a deep wound.
The dollar has been falling steadily since the Bush invasion of Iraq. This war has cost us, directly and indirectly, between one and two trillion dollars. Since we are in debt, all of this cost must be borrowed, mostly from our adversaries (China and Arab Muslim nations). Lowering short-term interest rates puts downward pressure on the dollar, making our currency even weaker. Eventually, foreign owners of American securities will get tired of losing money, and cut their losses by selling our securities, causing our markets to crash.
It would be better to make fundamental changes to strengthen our economy. We need higher taxes to stop borrowing money from our adversaries. We need higher interest rates to encourage saving by ordinary Americans. We need to end the costly wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and bring home our troops. (There are better ways to fight the War on Terror.) We need to expand the production of nuclear (fission) power, in order to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. We need to spend $billions on nuclear fusion R&D.
The higher taxes should come from a more progressive income tax, and from tariffs. The latter means we need to exit from the WTO.
An idiot with a smart plan beats a genius with no plan. Right now, we have no smart plan to strengthen our economy. The plan I propose is tough medicine, but we live in a cruel world. We have no time to waste.
The actions of the Federal Reserve, namely, lowering short-term interest rates, are like putting a Band Aid on a deep wound.
The dollar has been falling steadily since the Bush invasion of Iraq. This war has cost us, directly and indirectly, between one and two trillion dollars. Since we are in debt, all of this cost must be borrowed, mostly from our adversaries (China and Arab Muslim nations). Lowering short-term interest rates puts downward pressure on the dollar, making our currency even weaker. Eventually, foreign owners of American securities will get tired of losing money, and cut their losses by selling our securities, causing our markets to crash.
It would be better to make fundamental changes to strengthen our economy. We need higher taxes to stop borrowing money from our adversaries. We need higher interest rates to encourage saving by ordinary Americans. We need to end the costly wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and bring home our troops. (There are better ways to fight the War on Terror.) We need to expand the production of nuclear (fission) power, in order to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. We need to spend $billions on nuclear fusion R&D.
The higher taxes should come from a more progressive income tax, and from tariffs. The latter means we need to exit from the WTO.
An idiot with a smart plan beats a genius with no plan. Right now, we have no smart plan to strengthen our economy. The plan I propose is tough medicine, but we live in a cruel world. We have no time to waste.
Crazy Energy Bill
Re Lawmakers Set Deal on Raising Fuel Efficiency by John M. Broder and Micheline Maynard:
The article says that House leaders reached a deal on proposed energy legislation. I am all in favor of the automobile mileage requirements (35 mpg). However, I think the proposal that most electric utilities produce 15 percent of their power from renewable sources, like wind and solar, by 2020, would be insane.
I have long argued that we need to produce most of our electric power from nuclear reactors. That would be the most efficient way to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and therefore weaken our enemies in the war on terror, because the more electricity we produce, the lower the price of electricity, and that would incentivize production of electric vehicles.
I have also long advocated R&D to develop viable nuclear fusion power. The advances made in the Bussard fusion reactor show the promise of that technology. Surely we can take a few billion dollars out of the trillions we are wasting in stupid Middle East wars and spend that money on fusion R&D.
Forcing utilities to spend billions on wind and solar is crazy. These technologies are proven failures. They will never yield the massive and growing energy needs of our nation. Requiring utilities to produce 15 percent of electricity from wind and solar would be the biggest gift to Osama bin Laden since the insane invasion of Iraq.
The article says that House leaders reached a deal on proposed energy legislation. I am all in favor of the automobile mileage requirements (35 mpg). However, I think the proposal that most electric utilities produce 15 percent of their power from renewable sources, like wind and solar, by 2020, would be insane.
I have long argued that we need to produce most of our electric power from nuclear reactors. That would be the most efficient way to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and therefore weaken our enemies in the war on terror, because the more electricity we produce, the lower the price of electricity, and that would incentivize production of electric vehicles.
I have also long advocated R&D to develop viable nuclear fusion power. The advances made in the Bussard fusion reactor show the promise of that technology. Surely we can take a few billion dollars out of the trillions we are wasting in stupid Middle East wars and spend that money on fusion R&D.
Forcing utilities to spend billions on wind and solar is crazy. These technologies are proven failures. They will never yield the massive and growing energy needs of our nation. Requiring utilities to produce 15 percent of electricity from wind and solar would be the biggest gift to Osama bin Laden since the insane invasion of Iraq.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Teddy Bear Named Muhammad
Re British Teacher Charged in Sudan by Jeffrey Gettleman in today's NY Times:
Quote from the article:
"The Sudanese government decided on Wednesday to charge a British primary school teacher with blasphemy, inciting hatred and insulting Islam after she allowed her 7-year-old students to name a class teddy bear Muhammad.
"If found guilty, the teacher, Gillian Gibbons, who taught at one of Sudan’s most exclusive private schools, could be sentenced to 6 months in jail and 40 lashes.
"“She will be brought in front of a judge and now she must prove her innocence,” said Rabie A. Atti, a Sudanese government spokesman."
Of course, this is a great example of how barbaric and backward Islamic countries are.
It also makes me wonder why westerners waste their time trying to teach such stupid people. I would prefer it if we minded our own business, and let Muslims stay in the Middle Ages, and stay stupid.
Quote from the article:
"The Sudanese government decided on Wednesday to charge a British primary school teacher with blasphemy, inciting hatred and insulting Islam after she allowed her 7-year-old students to name a class teddy bear Muhammad.
"If found guilty, the teacher, Gillian Gibbons, who taught at one of Sudan’s most exclusive private schools, could be sentenced to 6 months in jail and 40 lashes.
"“She will be brought in front of a judge and now she must prove her innocence,” said Rabie A. Atti, a Sudanese government spokesman."
Of course, this is a great example of how barbaric and backward Islamic countries are.
It also makes me wonder why westerners waste their time trying to teach such stupid people. I would prefer it if we minded our own business, and let Muslims stay in the Middle Ages, and stay stupid.
Kill Pakistani Taliban In Quetta
Re Op-Ed Contributor: Caution: Taliban Crossing by Arthur Keller (a former C.I.A. case officer in Pakistan) in today's NY Times:
Quote from article: "This year has seen a notable lack of Qaeda members killed or captured in Pakistan. The Afghan government has turned over detailed lists of names and addresses for Taliban members residing in Pakistan, particularly in the city of Quetta. Not only has this information not led to arrests, Pakistan has routinely continued to deny that the Taliban’s leadership is in Quetta. A Pakistani military officer told me last year (in an uncharacteristic fit of honesty): “If we are not catching the Taliban, it is not because the Taliban is so clever, or so good at hiding. We just aren’t trying.”"
The way forward should be clear. We need to establish "death squads" based in Pakistan to hunt down and kill members of al Qaeda and the Taliban who live there. While this may seem outlandish, considering that Pakistan is a sovereign country, it is not. Pakistan forfeited their sovereignty by harboring, aiding and abetting the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11. To do otherwise sends the following message to our enemy: you can attack the United States of America and then live happily ever after in Pakistan.
Somehow, George W. Bush thought that installing a puppet government in Afghanistan, and then invading Iraq, was the way to deal with our enemy. Clearly, such an insane policy was doomed to failure, and failure is what we are living with today.
I don't have a crystal ball, so I don't know who our next president will be, but I hope we get someone who is willing to do whatever it takes to crush our enemy and finally win the War on Terror.
Quote from article: "This year has seen a notable lack of Qaeda members killed or captured in Pakistan. The Afghan government has turned over detailed lists of names and addresses for Taliban members residing in Pakistan, particularly in the city of Quetta. Not only has this information not led to arrests, Pakistan has routinely continued to deny that the Taliban’s leadership is in Quetta. A Pakistani military officer told me last year (in an uncharacteristic fit of honesty): “If we are not catching the Taliban, it is not because the Taliban is so clever, or so good at hiding. We just aren’t trying.”"
The way forward should be clear. We need to establish "death squads" based in Pakistan to hunt down and kill members of al Qaeda and the Taliban who live there. While this may seem outlandish, considering that Pakistan is a sovereign country, it is not. Pakistan forfeited their sovereignty by harboring, aiding and abetting the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11. To do otherwise sends the following message to our enemy: you can attack the United States of America and then live happily ever after in Pakistan.
Somehow, George W. Bush thought that installing a puppet government in Afghanistan, and then invading Iraq, was the way to deal with our enemy. Clearly, such an insane policy was doomed to failure, and failure is what we are living with today.
I don't have a crystal ball, so I don't know who our next president will be, but I hope we get someone who is willing to do whatever it takes to crush our enemy and finally win the War on Terror.
Obama and Energy Policy
Hillary Clinton is supposedly "agnostic" regarding building more nuclear (fission) power plants, whereas Barack Obama supports building them.
Someone should tell Barack (and any other presidential candidates who support nuclear power) to look at nuclear fusion. If we would subsidize nuclear power (building nuclear fission plants and doing drastically more R&D on fusion, such as the Bussard Reactor) we would arrive sooner at the happy day when we no longer need to import oil. (Cheap and abundant electricity would lead to more electric vehicles, which means less dependence on oil, and generating electricity from nuclear fuel also means less dependence on oil, natural gas, and coal.) As a bonus, nuclear power does not produce greenhouse gas emissions, so this makes it attractive to the growing cadre of global warming alarmists.
It is very odd that as I write this, not a single candidate is talking about fusion power, when we are in a state of war because of our past stupid failure to more fully embrace nuclear power.
Someone should tell Barack (and any other presidential candidates who support nuclear power) to look at nuclear fusion. If we would subsidize nuclear power (building nuclear fission plants and doing drastically more R&D on fusion, such as the Bussard Reactor) we would arrive sooner at the happy day when we no longer need to import oil. (Cheap and abundant electricity would lead to more electric vehicles, which means less dependence on oil, and generating electricity from nuclear fuel also means less dependence on oil, natural gas, and coal.) As a bonus, nuclear power does not produce greenhouse gas emissions, so this makes it attractive to the growing cadre of global warming alarmists.
It is very odd that as I write this, not a single candidate is talking about fusion power, when we are in a state of war because of our past stupid failure to more fully embrace nuclear power.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Brooksianism
Re Op-Ed Columnist: Follow the Fundamentals by David Brooks in today's NY Times:
Dave is upset that the ideas of Lou Dobbs are winning the minds of Americans. He cannot figure out why ordinary Americans are not as thrilled as he is over immigration. (Perhaps he ought to read "From Sewage, Added Water for Drinking" in today's newspaper.) It troubles Dave that most Americans think that globalization and "free" markets are not good for them.
The problem with Brooksianism is that most of the benefits of immigration and globalization go to the rich (Dave's pals), whereas the costs go to ordinary Americans (Dave doesn't know any; the closest he gets to ordinary folks is brushing past them when he absolutely must perambulate on public sidewalks).
Now, in order to cope with this dichotomy and its accompanying cognitive dissonance, Dave creates a strawman which he calls "Dobbsianism" which "... rests at heart on a more existential fear — the fear that America is under assault and is fundamentally fragile. It rests on fears that the America we once knew is bleeding away." In logic, this is called the strawman fallacy; my dictionary defines it as "a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted". This fallacy is basically Dave's entire argument.
I don't watch Lou Dobbs' cable TV program, but I am familiar with his views, which I largely share. In any event, Mr. Dobbs doesn't need me to speak for him, so I won't. (Actually, I think I opposed the twin evils of immigration and globalization long before he did.)
Immigration and globalization both tend to lower the wages of ordinary Americans, and also lead to social problems and higher rates of crime.
Anyone who lived during the 1950s will tell you that life in America was much better before the current onslaught of legal and illegal immigration, and before there was such a thing as the "World Trade Organization". Few, back then, had ever heard of "globalization", and life was better. Most kids had two parents (usually their biological parents), most mothers raised their own children, and most fathers could look forward to a decent retirement. There was not as much drug and alcohol abuse, there were plenty of good jobs for high school and college graduates, and our twin deficits (national debt and trade) were much smaller. The federal income tax was much more progressive. The public parks were cleaner, and nearly everyone spoke English. There was less traffic, and plenty of clean water. Health care and education were far less expensive, even in 1950s' dollars. There was no talk of privatizing or killing Social Security.
But this world was not good enough for the Republicans, who anguished over the relatively small numbers of millionaires and billionaires, and who hated paying their fare share of income taxes. Thus begat what I call Brooksianism, which is still a work in progress, and will remain so, until the last drop of blood is squeezed from the rest of us, at which point Dave and his legions of greedy SOBs will leave the US once and for all, taking with them all the loot they feasibly can carry.
In the meantime, Dave and his fellow travelers will continue to try to get us to believe that this pain is actually good for us. What a guy!
Dave is upset that the ideas of Lou Dobbs are winning the minds of Americans. He cannot figure out why ordinary Americans are not as thrilled as he is over immigration. (Perhaps he ought to read "From Sewage, Added Water for Drinking" in today's newspaper.) It troubles Dave that most Americans think that globalization and "free" markets are not good for them.
The problem with Brooksianism is that most of the benefits of immigration and globalization go to the rich (Dave's pals), whereas the costs go to ordinary Americans (Dave doesn't know any; the closest he gets to ordinary folks is brushing past them when he absolutely must perambulate on public sidewalks).
Now, in order to cope with this dichotomy and its accompanying cognitive dissonance, Dave creates a strawman which he calls "Dobbsianism" which "... rests at heart on a more existential fear — the fear that America is under assault and is fundamentally fragile. It rests on fears that the America we once knew is bleeding away." In logic, this is called the strawman fallacy; my dictionary defines it as "a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted". This fallacy is basically Dave's entire argument.
I don't watch Lou Dobbs' cable TV program, but I am familiar with his views, which I largely share. In any event, Mr. Dobbs doesn't need me to speak for him, so I won't. (Actually, I think I opposed the twin evils of immigration and globalization long before he did.)
Immigration and globalization both tend to lower the wages of ordinary Americans, and also lead to social problems and higher rates of crime.
Anyone who lived during the 1950s will tell you that life in America was much better before the current onslaught of legal and illegal immigration, and before there was such a thing as the "World Trade Organization". Few, back then, had ever heard of "globalization", and life was better. Most kids had two parents (usually their biological parents), most mothers raised their own children, and most fathers could look forward to a decent retirement. There was not as much drug and alcohol abuse, there were plenty of good jobs for high school and college graduates, and our twin deficits (national debt and trade) were much smaller. The federal income tax was much more progressive. The public parks were cleaner, and nearly everyone spoke English. There was less traffic, and plenty of clean water. Health care and education were far less expensive, even in 1950s' dollars. There was no talk of privatizing or killing Social Security.
But this world was not good enough for the Republicans, who anguished over the relatively small numbers of millionaires and billionaires, and who hated paying their fare share of income taxes. Thus begat what I call Brooksianism, which is still a work in progress, and will remain so, until the last drop of blood is squeezed from the rest of us, at which point Dave and his legions of greedy SOBs will leave the US once and for all, taking with them all the loot they feasibly can carry.
In the meantime, Dave and his fellow travelers will continue to try to get us to believe that this pain is actually good for us. What a guy!
Monday, November 26, 2007
Foreclosure Pandemic
Re Op-Ed Columnist: Lost in a Flood of Debt by Bob Herbert (Nov. 24, 2007):
"I’ve been visiting some of the people who have been most affected by the subprime mortgage debacle. It’s a largely bewildered, frightened group that includes people like Dorothy Levey, a 79-year-old widow who sits alone inside the small house she has lived in for 41 years, afraid to answer the telephone or the door.
"She has every reason to be worried. The monthly note on her house in the city of Markham, just outside Chicago, is approximately 100 percent of her meager monthly income. Broke and behind in her payments, Ms. Levey expects a foreclosure notice to show up any day, followed by a visit from “the sheriff, or whoever they send to tell you to get out of your own home.”"
So begins Bob Herbert's column. While his prose is excellent, he misses one key ingredient in the current foreclosure pandemic: our form of capitalism demands that the average American pay tribute to the elect. We cannot have economic winners unless we all chip in. This sometimes means we must give up our homes or food or medicine, but this is what our Founding Fathers intended.
To the skeptics, I ask: how else can we pay hedge fund managers $1,500,000,000 per year? How else can we grant $50 million bonuses to Wall Street executives? The dough has to come from somewhere!
It is very easy for pundits to bellyache about little old ladies losing the homes they lived in for over 40 years, but not so easy for them to design a substitute system which produces billionaires.
Our role is clear. The elect must be given their due.
"I’ve been visiting some of the people who have been most affected by the subprime mortgage debacle. It’s a largely bewildered, frightened group that includes people like Dorothy Levey, a 79-year-old widow who sits alone inside the small house she has lived in for 41 years, afraid to answer the telephone or the door.
"She has every reason to be worried. The monthly note on her house in the city of Markham, just outside Chicago, is approximately 100 percent of her meager monthly income. Broke and behind in her payments, Ms. Levey expects a foreclosure notice to show up any day, followed by a visit from “the sheriff, or whoever they send to tell you to get out of your own home.”"
So begins Bob Herbert's column. While his prose is excellent, he misses one key ingredient in the current foreclosure pandemic: our form of capitalism demands that the average American pay tribute to the elect. We cannot have economic winners unless we all chip in. This sometimes means we must give up our homes or food or medicine, but this is what our Founding Fathers intended.
To the skeptics, I ask: how else can we pay hedge fund managers $1,500,000,000 per year? How else can we grant $50 million bonuses to Wall Street executives? The dough has to come from somewhere!
It is very easy for pundits to bellyache about little old ladies losing the homes they lived in for over 40 years, but not so easy for them to design a substitute system which produces billionaires.
Our role is clear. The elect must be given their due.
Down With Putin
Re Putin Says U.S. Meddling in Election by Clifford J. Levy in today's NY Times:
It is becoming ever more clear that Russian President Vladimir V. Putin suffers from severe paranoia. Normally, I would not give a rat's behind about the mental state of a foreign leader, but since Russia has thousands of nuclear-tipped missiles aimed at the US, I do care.
The time has come for the Russian people to take a cold, hard look at their leader. Just because Russia has made great strides economically under Putin does not mean he should lead Russia indefinitely. Hitler also made economic progress for Germany in the 1930s, and look how that episode turned out.
Putin brings to mind the image of an insecure man who struts around like a comic-book character. Yet, his worship by ordinary Russians seems to be a reversion to the cult of personality which prevailed when Stalin ruled Russia with an iron fist. (That episode also did not turn out well for Russia.)
Quote from the article:
"Mr. Putin contended that the election monitors, who are deployed by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, had canceled their plans to monitor the parliamentary balloting because of pressure from the State Department in Washington....
"“According to information we have, it was again done at the recommendation of the U.S. State Department and we will take this into account in our inter-state relations with this country,” he said. “Their goal is the delegitimization of the elections. But they will not achieve even this goal.”"
Somebody should explain to the former KGB operative the benefits of quitting while you are ahead.
It is becoming ever more clear that Russian President Vladimir V. Putin suffers from severe paranoia. Normally, I would not give a rat's behind about the mental state of a foreign leader, but since Russia has thousands of nuclear-tipped missiles aimed at the US, I do care.
The time has come for the Russian people to take a cold, hard look at their leader. Just because Russia has made great strides economically under Putin does not mean he should lead Russia indefinitely. Hitler also made economic progress for Germany in the 1930s, and look how that episode turned out.
Putin brings to mind the image of an insecure man who struts around like a comic-book character. Yet, his worship by ordinary Russians seems to be a reversion to the cult of personality which prevailed when Stalin ruled Russia with an iron fist. (That episode also did not turn out well for Russia.)
Quote from the article:
"Mr. Putin contended that the election monitors, who are deployed by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, had canceled their plans to monitor the parliamentary balloting because of pressure from the State Department in Washington....
"“According to information we have, it was again done at the recommendation of the U.S. State Department and we will take this into account in our inter-state relations with this country,” he said. “Their goal is the delegitimization of the elections. But they will not achieve even this goal.”"
Somebody should explain to the former KGB operative the benefits of quitting while you are ahead.
Down With General Musharraf
The world will be a better off without General Pervez Musharraf leading Pakistan.
Strangely, the United States supported Musharraf for years. Yet, when he was just a general, before his coup ousting Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif in 1999, Musharraf was fomenting an Islamic terrorist insurgency in India's Kashmir territory, and this helped create a rift between himself and Sharif. This is just one of many examples of the US supporting "freedom fighters" who turn against us. Which is why the US must learn to mind its own business.
It appears that either Sharif or Benazir Bhutto (or both in a unity government) will come out on top of Pakistan in 2008. This will be good. The US should give moral support to democracy in Pakistan, and try to have friendly relations with Pakistan's rulers, but we should not repeat the mistakes we made supporting Musharraf with billions of dollars in foreign aid.
Instead, we should make it clear to the next government in Pakistan that we expect them to rein in the Islamic insurgency in its western, tribal regions, and give us Osama bin Laden, or else we will take matters into our own hands. After all, we are at war with al Qaeda.
Strangely, the United States supported Musharraf for years. Yet, when he was just a general, before his coup ousting Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif in 1999, Musharraf was fomenting an Islamic terrorist insurgency in India's Kashmir territory, and this helped create a rift between himself and Sharif. This is just one of many examples of the US supporting "freedom fighters" who turn against us. Which is why the US must learn to mind its own business.
It appears that either Sharif or Benazir Bhutto (or both in a unity government) will come out on top of Pakistan in 2008. This will be good. The US should give moral support to democracy in Pakistan, and try to have friendly relations with Pakistan's rulers, but we should not repeat the mistakes we made supporting Musharraf with billions of dollars in foreign aid.
Instead, we should make it clear to the next government in Pakistan that we expect them to rein in the Islamic insurgency in its western, tribal regions, and give us Osama bin Laden, or else we will take matters into our own hands. After all, we are at war with al Qaeda.
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Sicko Saudi Arabia
Re Op-Ed Columnist: The Case for Illegal Mingling by Thomas L. Friedman in today's NY Times:
The government of Saudi Arabia "affirmed the sentence of 200 lashes for a 19-year-old Shiite girl who was sitting in a car with a male acquaintance last year when they were attacked by seven men who gang-raped both of them.
"The Saudi Justice Ministry said the young woman deserved 200 lashes and six months in prison, even though she had been raped, because she was guilty of “illegal mingling” — sitting in a car with a man who was not related to her."
What is the ideology which drives such barbarism? It has a name - Islam!
Now, Tom Friedman is Mr. Politically Correct, so what really galls him about this barbarism? "Two hundred lashes for a woman who was raped, under any circumstances in even the most traditional country, is barbaric — period." So far, so good. "But what also keeps tripping off my tongue is this phrase “illegal mingling.” It seems to me that if the Middle East could use more of anything these days it is more mingling — if not between the sexes then at least between the sects." So, he spends the rest of his column arguing for more "mingling". Too bad he doesn't have the courage to write what he no doubt is thinking: Islam is a barbaric ideology.
Tom quotes a report from Agence France-Presse: "“The Mahdi Army murdered and tortured and kidnapped people under Sharia law,” the police statement said. “They are the cause of the deaths of hundreds of people.”" Now, what the heck is Sharia? Islamic law! Yet, Tom is still focused on the sectarian strife.
The rationale behind Tom's thinking is then made plain: "The reason these events are important is that Iraq has become center stage for the struggle between a more moderate, modernizing Islamic outlook, advanced by the United States and some of its Iraqi allies, and another outlook, advanced by the Mahdi Army and Al Qaeda, that wants to “purify” the Muslim world of “the other.”
"The jihadists know that if they can defeat America — in the heart of their world — it would influence the whole region."
In other words, Tom is still trying to justify our insane invasion of Iraq, which he advocated. Still, he has learned a bit: "Attention: These pro-minglers are not Jeffersonian Democrats. But they do represent relatively more moderate strands of Sunnism and Shiism." Oh, I guess supporting the "moderate" Muslims is the reason why we are pouring blood and treasure into Iraq.
Finally, Tom ends with "Most Americans would still like to see us salvage something decent in Iraq — if it can be done at a reasonable cost."
Tom, nothing that can happen in Iraq will ever be worth the steep cost in blood and money that we have paid and have yet to pay. Those of us who have read your column for years have only one request of you: admit you were catastrophically wrong about Iraq, and stop pandering to the foreign Muslims. Until they turn Osama bin Laden over to us, they remain our mortal enemy.
The government of Saudi Arabia "affirmed the sentence of 200 lashes for a 19-year-old Shiite girl who was sitting in a car with a male acquaintance last year when they were attacked by seven men who gang-raped both of them.
"The Saudi Justice Ministry said the young woman deserved 200 lashes and six months in prison, even though she had been raped, because she was guilty of “illegal mingling” — sitting in a car with a man who was not related to her."
What is the ideology which drives such barbarism? It has a name - Islam!
Now, Tom Friedman is Mr. Politically Correct, so what really galls him about this barbarism? "Two hundred lashes for a woman who was raped, under any circumstances in even the most traditional country, is barbaric — period." So far, so good. "But what also keeps tripping off my tongue is this phrase “illegal mingling.” It seems to me that if the Middle East could use more of anything these days it is more mingling — if not between the sexes then at least between the sects." So, he spends the rest of his column arguing for more "mingling". Too bad he doesn't have the courage to write what he no doubt is thinking: Islam is a barbaric ideology.
Tom quotes a report from Agence France-Presse: "“The Mahdi Army murdered and tortured and kidnapped people under Sharia law,” the police statement said. “They are the cause of the deaths of hundreds of people.”" Now, what the heck is Sharia? Islamic law! Yet, Tom is still focused on the sectarian strife.
The rationale behind Tom's thinking is then made plain: "The reason these events are important is that Iraq has become center stage for the struggle between a more moderate, modernizing Islamic outlook, advanced by the United States and some of its Iraqi allies, and another outlook, advanced by the Mahdi Army and Al Qaeda, that wants to “purify” the Muslim world of “the other.”
"The jihadists know that if they can defeat America — in the heart of their world — it would influence the whole region."
In other words, Tom is still trying to justify our insane invasion of Iraq, which he advocated. Still, he has learned a bit: "Attention: These pro-minglers are not Jeffersonian Democrats. But they do represent relatively more moderate strands of Sunnism and Shiism." Oh, I guess supporting the "moderate" Muslims is the reason why we are pouring blood and treasure into Iraq.
Finally, Tom ends with "Most Americans would still like to see us salvage something decent in Iraq — if it can be done at a reasonable cost."
Tom, nothing that can happen in Iraq will ever be worth the steep cost in blood and money that we have paid and have yet to pay. Those of us who have read your column for years have only one request of you: admit you were catastrophically wrong about Iraq, and stop pandering to the foreign Muslims. Until they turn Osama bin Laden over to us, they remain our mortal enemy.
Hate Crimes
It is curious that the New York Times always seems to emphasize white on black hate crimes, whereas it seems that there is far more black on white crime. (See Op-Chart: The Geography of Hate by MARK POTOK, LUKE VISCONTI, BARBARA FRANKEL and NIGEL HOLMES.) In other words, black on white crime is less likely to be categorized as a hate crime than white on black crime.
Even so, according to a recent FBI report, as told by the Associated Press, "Of the 7,330 offenders identified by police, 58.6 percent were white, 20.6 percent were black". Compare that to the percentages of the population which are white (69) and black (12) (according to the 2000 census) and it would appear that a black person is more likely to commit a hate crime than a white person.
So, it appears that the NY Times is not objective when it comes to talking about race issues in the USA.
Even so, according to a recent FBI report, as told by the Associated Press, "Of the 7,330 offenders identified by police, 58.6 percent were white, 20.6 percent were black". Compare that to the percentages of the population which are white (69) and black (12) (according to the 2000 census) and it would appear that a black person is more likely to commit a hate crime than a white person.
So, it appears that the NY Times is not objective when it comes to talking about race issues in the USA.
Graft In British Defense Industry
Re Payload: Taking Aim at Corporate Bribery by Nelson D. Schwartz and Lowell Bergman in today's NY Times:
Before getting to the heart of this issue, it is curious how former FBI Director Louis Freeh, who botched things catastrophically just before and after 9/11, now works for the Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the kingdom’s former ambassador to the United States. (He is not alone. So does "one of the fathers of the F.C.P.A., the retired federal judge Stanley Sporkin". It often seems that people who work honorably all their lives, very often switch sides just in time to ruin their legacies. Then again, maybe Freeh figured he had already ruined his legacy.)
F.C.P.A. stands for "Foreign Corrupt Practices Act". This is one of the key laws with which the US is attempting to fight graft in international business.
It seems that the Brits have a real knack for bribery, and the big defense contractor BAE is the master of graft. Even Tony Blair is in favor of bribing the Saudis in order to get defense contracts with the Islamic country most affiliated with our mortal enemy, al Qaeda.
Of course, the US has its share of shady businesses, even if we are not in the same league as GB. "Halliburton, an oil services giant that was once headed by Vice President Dick Cheney, has disclosed that it is facing an F.C.P.A. investigation into its activities in Nigeria before, during and after Mr. Cheney’s tenure at the company. A spokeswoman for the vice president declined to comment. Halliburton did not respond to an interview request."
The article focuses mostly on the corrupt practices and gall which permeate the British company BAE.
"BAE said it is unaware of any investigations of the company in Hungary. “BAE Systems has very strong policies and processes in place which it is clearly committed to communicating to its employees and advisers,” a spokesman said. “Any action which is unlawful, dishonest, harmful to others or otherwise against our policies, is unacceptable.”"
Corruption on the scale of international business is always difficult to prove in courts of justice, especially when heads of state (e.g., Tony Blair) and turncoats like Louis Freeh are involved. Still, one can only hope that the threat of prison, fines and destroyed reputations will be able to overcome the enormous greed which incites BAE-scale graft.
Before getting to the heart of this issue, it is curious how former FBI Director Louis Freeh, who botched things catastrophically just before and after 9/11, now works for the Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the kingdom’s former ambassador to the United States. (He is not alone. So does "one of the fathers of the F.C.P.A., the retired federal judge Stanley Sporkin". It often seems that people who work honorably all their lives, very often switch sides just in time to ruin their legacies. Then again, maybe Freeh figured he had already ruined his legacy.)
F.C.P.A. stands for "Foreign Corrupt Practices Act". This is one of the key laws with which the US is attempting to fight graft in international business.
It seems that the Brits have a real knack for bribery, and the big defense contractor BAE is the master of graft. Even Tony Blair is in favor of bribing the Saudis in order to get defense contracts with the Islamic country most affiliated with our mortal enemy, al Qaeda.
Of course, the US has its share of shady businesses, even if we are not in the same league as GB. "Halliburton, an oil services giant that was once headed by Vice President Dick Cheney, has disclosed that it is facing an F.C.P.A. investigation into its activities in Nigeria before, during and after Mr. Cheney’s tenure at the company. A spokeswoman for the vice president declined to comment. Halliburton did not respond to an interview request."
The article focuses mostly on the corrupt practices and gall which permeate the British company BAE.
"BAE said it is unaware of any investigations of the company in Hungary. “BAE Systems has very strong policies and processes in place which it is clearly committed to communicating to its employees and advisers,” a spokesman said. “Any action which is unlawful, dishonest, harmful to others or otherwise against our policies, is unacceptable.”"
Corruption on the scale of international business is always difficult to prove in courts of justice, especially when heads of state (e.g., Tony Blair) and turncoats like Louis Freeh are involved. Still, one can only hope that the threat of prison, fines and destroyed reputations will be able to overcome the enormous greed which incites BAE-scale graft.
Friday, November 23, 2007
Terrorism in India
(This posting is not about American policy per se but is a freebie for anyone interested in Indian policies.)
It boggles my mind the degree to which many Indians are tolerant of Islamic terrorism.
In an article in today's NY Times (Courthouse Bombings Strike 3 Indian Cities by Amelia Gentleman) we are told of simultaneous bombings in three different cities, apparently in retaliation for "a recent decision by lawyers in Uttar Pradesh not to offer to defend terrorist suspects". Nowhere in the article does it mention Islam, but we all know that only one so-called "religion" constantly advocates and inspires (via the promise of 72 virgins in "Paradise") their brain-dead adherents to murder innocent people in the cause of their idiotic beliefs.
The solution to this problem in India is simple. Require all Muslims to renounce their faith or else face expulsion to the Islamic nation of their choice. This way, Indians can live in peace, and not have to worry about random acts of violence by deranged religious nutjobs.
It boggles my mind the degree to which many Indians are tolerant of Islamic terrorism.
In an article in today's NY Times (Courthouse Bombings Strike 3 Indian Cities by Amelia Gentleman) we are told of simultaneous bombings in three different cities, apparently in retaliation for "a recent decision by lawyers in Uttar Pradesh not to offer to defend terrorist suspects". Nowhere in the article does it mention Islam, but we all know that only one so-called "religion" constantly advocates and inspires (via the promise of 72 virgins in "Paradise") their brain-dead adherents to murder innocent people in the cause of their idiotic beliefs.
The solution to this problem in India is simple. Require all Muslims to renounce their faith or else face expulsion to the Islamic nation of their choice. This way, Indians can live in peace, and not have to worry about random acts of violence by deranged religious nutjobs.
Why Our Military Cannot Manage An Exit From Iraq
Our military is trained in fighting wars and countering insurgencies. It is really not trained in nation-building, and it is definitely neither trained nor suited for making foreign policy.
Recent news reports indicate, at a minimum, a temporary reduction in hostilities in Iraq. An optimist would even go so far as to say that the corner has turned, and the American engagement in Iraq is now in the end stage.
In an excellent article in today's NY Times by Michael R. Gordon, Plan Increases Role of G.I.'s in Iraq Training , we are told the specific operational tactics by our military to expedite the reduction of the American military role in Iraq. It is a slow process, and still very costly in blood and treasure. Despite the costs, it appears that there is light at the end of this tunnel.
But this report still infuriates many of us. The criticism of the American invasion of Iraq was never that it was an impossible task, but always a too costly project in terms of blood and treasure, and, most importantly, the wrong project.
After we were attacked on 9/11, the objective should have been the complete destruction of our enemy, al Qaeda. Invading Iraq was never the means to accomplish that goal. Bush's war in Iraq has actually helped our enemy, because it has weakened us, aided the recruitment of troops by our enemy, and taken our eyes off the real target of our revenge.
Every day that Osama bin Laden, his lieutenants, and the rest of al Qaeda are left breathing and free to attack us again, marks another day of failure for the United States, and we are now more than six years after the 9/11 attack. When I consider all that FDR and his generation did in less than four years after we were attacked at Pearl Harbor, it sickens me that we are still being led by the most incompetent President in American history.
Recent news reports indicate, at a minimum, a temporary reduction in hostilities in Iraq. An optimist would even go so far as to say that the corner has turned, and the American engagement in Iraq is now in the end stage.
In an excellent article in today's NY Times by Michael R. Gordon, Plan Increases Role of G.I.'s in Iraq Training , we are told the specific operational tactics by our military to expedite the reduction of the American military role in Iraq. It is a slow process, and still very costly in blood and treasure. Despite the costs, it appears that there is light at the end of this tunnel.
But this report still infuriates many of us. The criticism of the American invasion of Iraq was never that it was an impossible task, but always a too costly project in terms of blood and treasure, and, most importantly, the wrong project.
After we were attacked on 9/11, the objective should have been the complete destruction of our enemy, al Qaeda. Invading Iraq was never the means to accomplish that goal. Bush's war in Iraq has actually helped our enemy, because it has weakened us, aided the recruitment of troops by our enemy, and taken our eyes off the real target of our revenge.
Every day that Osama bin Laden, his lieutenants, and the rest of al Qaeda are left breathing and free to attack us again, marks another day of failure for the United States, and we are now more than six years after the 9/11 attack. When I consider all that FDR and his generation did in less than four years after we were attacked at Pearl Harbor, it sickens me that we are still being led by the most incompetent President in American history.
Thursday, November 22, 2007
Western Union Profits From Illegal Immigration
Border Crossings: Western Union Empire Moves Migrant Cash Home by Jason DeParle in today's NY Times, details how the former telegraph company makes huge profits from illegal immigration. It then uses these profits to aid illegal aliens, support organizations which aid illegal aliens, and oppose politicians such as Tom Tancredo who oppose illegal immigration.
Where Our Enemies Live
Foreign Fighters in Iraq Are Tied to Allies of U.S. by Richard A. Oppel Jr. in today's NY Times shows where the foreign al Qaeda insurgents in Iraq come from. The leading source countries are no surprise: Saudi Arabia, Libya, Algeria, and Morocco. These countries should head our list of bombing targets in the event that we finally decide to win and therefore end the war on terror, and/or we are attacked again on our homeland.
Here is the first of several quotes from the article:
"The data come largely from a trove of documents and computers discovered in September, when American forces raided a tent camp in the desert near Sinjar, close to the Syrian border. The raid’s target was an insurgent cell believed to be responsible for smuggling the vast majority of foreign fighters into Iraq.
The most significant discovery was a collection of biographical sketches that listed hometowns and other details for more than 700 fighters brought into Iraq since August 2006....
About four out of every five detainees in American detention centers are Sunni Arab, even though Sunni Arabs make up just one-fifth of Iraq’s population."
This is why it is puzzling that so many pundits warn us not to withdraw from Iraq for fear that the Shiites in Iraq and Iran would slaughter the Iraqi Sunnis. In my book, that would be a great outcome, since not only are most of the insurgents we are fighting in Iraq Sunni, but also because the 9/11 attackers were all Sunni.
"American military and diplomatic officials who discussed the flow of fighters from Saudi Arabia were careful to draw a distinction between the Saudi government and the charities and individuals who they said encouraged young Saudi men to fight in Iraq. After United States officials put pressure on Saudi leaders in the summer, the Saudi government took some steps that have begun to curb the flow of fighters, the officials said."
Our foreign policy towards Saudi Arabia is irrational. First, their government did not take the required steps to curb the flow of fighters for several years, until we "prodded" them. Second, that government is a dictatorship which does not even represent the majority of the Saudi population, which hates us even more than the government. "Yet the senior American military officials said they also believed that Saudi citizens provided the majority of financing for Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia." I believe that "Saudi citizens provided the majority of financing for Al Qaeda" period. Ditto for the warm bodies as well.
"The largest foreign fighter hometown was Darnah, Libya, which supplied 50 fighters." So, add that city to our list of future bombing targets.
"For years American officials included Libya on the list of state sponsors of terrorism. But last year the United States removed it from that list and re-established full diplomatic relations, citing what Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice described as Libya’s “continued commitment to its renunciation of terrorism and the excellent cooperation” it has provided in the antiterrorism fight." What leadership! "But there were no Lebanese listed among the Sinjar trove, and only 56 Syrians, or 8 percent of the total." So, Lebanon, if not removed completely from the list of future bombing targets, should be placed at the very end of any such list.
"Saudis brought more money per person than fighters from other nations, the American officials said." No surprise. Every time we buy gasoline for our cars, we are giving money to Saudis who use it to kill Americans.
"Among the Saudi fighters described in the materials, 45 had come from Riyadh, 38 from Mecca, 20 from Buraidah and the surrounding area, 15 from Jawf and Sakakah, 13 from Jidda, and 12 from Medina." This suggests a priority list of targets by our bombers. Mecca and Medina also have symbolic value, since our enemy's religion plays such a large role in the present war.
"Sunni tribal sheiks in Iraq who risked their lives to fight extremist militants also faulted Saudi clerics." This demonstrates clearly that not all Muslims are our enemy. We should always be mindful that we can break the spirit of our enemy by killing large numbers of them and yet only a tiny percentage of them. That is how we won World War II.
Another example of the role Islam plays in this war: "“The bad imams tell the young people to go to Iraq and fight the American Army, because if you kill them or they kill you, you will go to paradise,” Sheik Adnan Khames Jamiel, a leader of the Albu Alwan tribe in Ramadi, said in an interview."
Islam is by no means a monolith, and we can use the ancient tactic of divide and conquer to defeat our enemy: "... the grand mufti of Saudi Arabia, Sheik Abdulaziz al-Asheik, condemned “mischievous parties” who send young Saudis abroad to carry out “heinous acts which have no association with Islam whatsoever.”"
The raid on Sinjar "happened in the predawn hours of Sept. 11, when American forces acting on a tip surrounded some tents six miles from the Syrian border". What irony.
"Most of the fighters smuggled by the cell were believed to have flown into Damascus Airport, and the rest came into Syria overland through Jordan, the officials said.
In some cases, one senior American military official said, Syrian authorities captured fighters and released them after determining they were not a threat to the Syrian government. Syria has made some recent efforts to turn back or detain suspected foreign fighters bound for Iraq, he said, adding, “The key word is ‘some.’”" As I have long argued, Syria should certainly be near the top of our target list, perhaps right after the "kingdom" of Saudi Arabia.
Here is the first of several quotes from the article:
"The data come largely from a trove of documents and computers discovered in September, when American forces raided a tent camp in the desert near Sinjar, close to the Syrian border. The raid’s target was an insurgent cell believed to be responsible for smuggling the vast majority of foreign fighters into Iraq.
The most significant discovery was a collection of biographical sketches that listed hometowns and other details for more than 700 fighters brought into Iraq since August 2006....
About four out of every five detainees in American detention centers are Sunni Arab, even though Sunni Arabs make up just one-fifth of Iraq’s population."
This is why it is puzzling that so many pundits warn us not to withdraw from Iraq for fear that the Shiites in Iraq and Iran would slaughter the Iraqi Sunnis. In my book, that would be a great outcome, since not only are most of the insurgents we are fighting in Iraq Sunni, but also because the 9/11 attackers were all Sunni.
"American military and diplomatic officials who discussed the flow of fighters from Saudi Arabia were careful to draw a distinction between the Saudi government and the charities and individuals who they said encouraged young Saudi men to fight in Iraq. After United States officials put pressure on Saudi leaders in the summer, the Saudi government took some steps that have begun to curb the flow of fighters, the officials said."
Our foreign policy towards Saudi Arabia is irrational. First, their government did not take the required steps to curb the flow of fighters for several years, until we "prodded" them. Second, that government is a dictatorship which does not even represent the majority of the Saudi population, which hates us even more than the government. "Yet the senior American military officials said they also believed that Saudi citizens provided the majority of financing for Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia." I believe that "Saudi citizens provided the majority of financing for Al Qaeda" period. Ditto for the warm bodies as well.
"The largest foreign fighter hometown was Darnah, Libya, which supplied 50 fighters." So, add that city to our list of future bombing targets.
"For years American officials included Libya on the list of state sponsors of terrorism. But last year the United States removed it from that list and re-established full diplomatic relations, citing what Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice described as Libya’s “continued commitment to its renunciation of terrorism and the excellent cooperation” it has provided in the antiterrorism fight." What leadership! "But there were no Lebanese listed among the Sinjar trove, and only 56 Syrians, or 8 percent of the total." So, Lebanon, if not removed completely from the list of future bombing targets, should be placed at the very end of any such list.
"Saudis brought more money per person than fighters from other nations, the American officials said." No surprise. Every time we buy gasoline for our cars, we are giving money to Saudis who use it to kill Americans.
"Among the Saudi fighters described in the materials, 45 had come from Riyadh, 38 from Mecca, 20 from Buraidah and the surrounding area, 15 from Jawf and Sakakah, 13 from Jidda, and 12 from Medina." This suggests a priority list of targets by our bombers. Mecca and Medina also have symbolic value, since our enemy's religion plays such a large role in the present war.
"Sunni tribal sheiks in Iraq who risked their lives to fight extremist militants also faulted Saudi clerics." This demonstrates clearly that not all Muslims are our enemy. We should always be mindful that we can break the spirit of our enemy by killing large numbers of them and yet only a tiny percentage of them. That is how we won World War II.
Another example of the role Islam plays in this war: "“The bad imams tell the young people to go to Iraq and fight the American Army, because if you kill them or they kill you, you will go to paradise,” Sheik Adnan Khames Jamiel, a leader of the Albu Alwan tribe in Ramadi, said in an interview."
Islam is by no means a monolith, and we can use the ancient tactic of divide and conquer to defeat our enemy: "... the grand mufti of Saudi Arabia, Sheik Abdulaziz al-Asheik, condemned “mischievous parties” who send young Saudis abroad to carry out “heinous acts which have no association with Islam whatsoever.”"
The raid on Sinjar "happened in the predawn hours of Sept. 11, when American forces acting on a tip surrounded some tents six miles from the Syrian border". What irony.
"Most of the fighters smuggled by the cell were believed to have flown into Damascus Airport, and the rest came into Syria overland through Jordan, the officials said.
In some cases, one senior American military official said, Syrian authorities captured fighters and released them after determining they were not a threat to the Syrian government. Syria has made some recent efforts to turn back or detain suspected foreign fighters bound for Iraq, he said, adding, “The key word is ‘some.’”" As I have long argued, Syria should certainly be near the top of our target list, perhaps right after the "kingdom" of Saudi Arabia.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
The Credit Crisis
Re Op-Ed Columnist: A Swarm of Swindlers by Bob Herbert in today's NY Times: This is one of those opinion columns which sheds no light at all on the key issue, but only muddles it. This happens when one looks at only one instance of a problem which is far more complicated than we are led to believe.
Of course, Rosa Dailey is a victim of our times. Her story is heartbreaking. However, we are told just one side. I would guess that she actually needed a loan to keep the house she lived in. Perhaps, the house would have been in foreclosure even sooner had she not taken out a loan. But we cannot tell this from the article, since it never explains the specifics of why she took the mortgage in the first place. "They knew that the woman who owned the house was old and sick and that her two aging daughters were struggling with illness and poverty as well." (Ms. Dailey is the daughter who survived after her mother and sister passed away.)
The real culprit is the American Capitalist system. It taxes everything in life in order to produce a relatively small number of super-rich people. So, while Bill Gates can own multiple residences containing millions of square feet of living space, people like Ms. Dailey lose their homes in their old age. Another example would be Lloyd C. Blankfein, chairman of Goldman Sachs, who will get a $75 million paycheck this year after his firm squeezed billions out of the "credit crisis" in our economy.
Mr. Herbert does us a service by spotlighting the losers in our economy, but it would actually do more good if he would dig deeper into the core factors affecting the widespread economic injustices of our modern society.
Of course, Rosa Dailey is a victim of our times. Her story is heartbreaking. However, we are told just one side. I would guess that she actually needed a loan to keep the house she lived in. Perhaps, the house would have been in foreclosure even sooner had she not taken out a loan. But we cannot tell this from the article, since it never explains the specifics of why she took the mortgage in the first place. "They knew that the woman who owned the house was old and sick and that her two aging daughters were struggling with illness and poverty as well." (Ms. Dailey is the daughter who survived after her mother and sister passed away.)
The real culprit is the American Capitalist system. It taxes everything in life in order to produce a relatively small number of super-rich people. So, while Bill Gates can own multiple residences containing millions of square feet of living space, people like Ms. Dailey lose their homes in their old age. Another example would be Lloyd C. Blankfein, chairman of Goldman Sachs, who will get a $75 million paycheck this year after his firm squeezed billions out of the "credit crisis" in our economy.
Mr. Herbert does us a service by spotlighting the losers in our economy, but it would actually do more good if he would dig deeper into the core factors affecting the widespread economic injustices of our modern society.
Monday, November 19, 2007
Dinosaurs
Has anyone spotted any dinosaurs lately?
Since the Bible implies that they were walking around here about 6,000 years ago, I figure some of them must still be around. I really doubt that global warming has killed off all those dinosaurs.
I would very much like to have a pet dinosaur. It would not have to be as big as, say, a T-Rex, but maybe about 1 or 2 meters tall with all 4 feet (?) on the ground. (I apologize for not being dinosaurically correct, but I must call them feet.)
Isn't it amazing how all these pointed-headed scientists could think that dinosaurs stopped roaming around the earth 65 MILLION years ago? We all know that just could not be, since God created the world only 6 thousand years ago.
Since the Bible implies that they were walking around here about 6,000 years ago, I figure some of them must still be around. I really doubt that global warming has killed off all those dinosaurs.
I would very much like to have a pet dinosaur. It would not have to be as big as, say, a T-Rex, but maybe about 1 or 2 meters tall with all 4 feet (?) on the ground. (I apologize for not being dinosaurically correct, but I must call them feet.)
Isn't it amazing how all these pointed-headed scientists could think that dinosaurs stopped roaming around the earth 65 MILLION years ago? We all know that just could not be, since God created the world only 6 thousand years ago.
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Abortion
Re Proposed Colorado Measure on Rights for Human Eggs by Kirk Johnson in today's NY Times:
The religious ideologues are always trying to impose their crazy views on the rest of us. "A proposed amendment to the Colorado Constitution that would give legal rights to fertilized human eggs...." This is definitely going overboard. I, for one, don't want to have to worry about a fertilized egg dragging me into court over a frivolous lawsuit.
I have a suggestion for all the religious nuts: pray as much as you want, but keep your religion to yourselves. As a great man once said, "religion poisons everything".
The religious ideologues are always trying to impose their crazy views on the rest of us. "A proposed amendment to the Colorado Constitution that would give legal rights to fertilized human eggs...." This is definitely going overboard. I, for one, don't want to have to worry about a fertilized egg dragging me into court over a frivolous lawsuit.
I have a suggestion for all the religious nuts: pray as much as you want, but keep your religion to yourselves. As a great man once said, "religion poisons everything".
Prepare to Bomb Pakistan
Re Op-Ed Contributors: Pakistan's Collapse, Our Problem by Frederick W. Kagan and Michael O’Hanlon in today's NY Times: here we go again. Two hawks who argued for us to invade Iraq and want us to stay there indefinitely, are now making the case for the United States to invade Pakistan. It is op-eds like this one which start us down roads which we cannot exit.
As is often the case, we cannot go back in time and implement a different foreign policy. We cannot erase our history of meddling in other countries' affairs. We cannot go back in time and prevent Pakistan from building nukes.
Instead, we must deal with the world the way it actually is today. And that part of the world known as "Pakistan" is a big problem.
Pakistan has 130 million people, five times the population size of Iraq, and probably many times as radical as Iraq, based on the number of madrases which train youth in terrorism, and their support of al Qaeda and the Taliban. Plus, they have scores of nukes.
"It would take a long time to move large numbers of American forces halfway across the world." That's right, but a bigger obstacle is that we don't have any more available troops, thanks to nation-building advocates like Kagan and O'Hanlon.
"And unless we had precise information about the location of all of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons and materials, we could not rely on bombing or using Special Forces to destroy them." True. But then two paragraphs later they write "One possible plan would be a Special Forces operation with the limited goal of preventing Pakistan’s nuclear materials and warheads from getting into the wrong hands." How could we do that without knowing the location of the nukes? This is a perfect example of the Alice in Wonderland thinking which underlies our current foreign policy. I wonder how these guys get away with it!
"A second, broader option would involve supporting the core of the Pakistani armed forces as they sought to hold the country together.... This would require a sizable combat force — not only from the United States, but ideally also other Western powers and moderate Muslim nations." Dream on! We don't have the troop strength, no other Western power wants to get muddled there, and why should we trust any Pakistani troops not to turn on us in the near future? Heck, the regular Pakistani army would be attacking us in no time.
"So, if we got a large number of troops into the country, what would they do? The most likely directive would be to help Pakistan’s military and security forces hold the country’s center — primarily the region around the capital, Islamabad, and the populous areas like Punjab Province to its south." I think the authors are in favor of bringing back the draft without actually saying that.
"We would also have to be wary of internecine warfare within the Pakistani security forces." Understatement of the year!
"Pro-American moderates could well win a fight against extremist sympathizers on their own." Not in this world!
"But they might need help if splinter forces or radical Islamists took control of parts of the country containing crucial nuclear materials." Do you think?
"If a holding operation in the nation’s center was successful, we would probably then seek to establish order in the parts of Pakistan where extremists operate." For the uninitiated, that is code for "nation building".
I think it would be a great idea if all the nation-building pundits, starting with these two authors, flew to Pakistan and tried to reason with the Islamic fundamentalists over there. Good luck!
So, let's put this in perspective. We were attacked by Islamic fundamentalists on 9/11. They have indicated several times that they plan to attack us with weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). With the government in Pakistan now in a shambles, and with radical Muslims laced all throughout Pakistani society, we have no choice but to warn them today, before it is too late, that if terrorists get their hands on Pakistani nukes and then use them against us, then we will retaliate against Pakistan with thermonuclear bombs. That, of course, would be the end of Pakistan.
Clearly, the problem in Pakistan today is their own problem. We are under absolutely no obligation to help Pakistan with its governance. If the Pakistanis choose to live in a Middle Ages civilization, so be it. But if any of their nukes are used against us, then Pakistan will cease to exist.
In conclusion, Pakistan had better get its act together. It wanted to have nukes. Now it is in the position of having to guard these WMDs with its very existence.
As is often the case, we cannot go back in time and implement a different foreign policy. We cannot erase our history of meddling in other countries' affairs. We cannot go back in time and prevent Pakistan from building nukes.
Instead, we must deal with the world the way it actually is today. And that part of the world known as "Pakistan" is a big problem.
Pakistan has 130 million people, five times the population size of Iraq, and probably many times as radical as Iraq, based on the number of madrases which train youth in terrorism, and their support of al Qaeda and the Taliban. Plus, they have scores of nukes.
"It would take a long time to move large numbers of American forces halfway across the world." That's right, but a bigger obstacle is that we don't have any more available troops, thanks to nation-building advocates like Kagan and O'Hanlon.
"And unless we had precise information about the location of all of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons and materials, we could not rely on bombing or using Special Forces to destroy them." True. But then two paragraphs later they write "One possible plan would be a Special Forces operation with the limited goal of preventing Pakistan’s nuclear materials and warheads from getting into the wrong hands." How could we do that without knowing the location of the nukes? This is a perfect example of the Alice in Wonderland thinking which underlies our current foreign policy. I wonder how these guys get away with it!
"A second, broader option would involve supporting the core of the Pakistani armed forces as they sought to hold the country together.... This would require a sizable combat force — not only from the United States, but ideally also other Western powers and moderate Muslim nations." Dream on! We don't have the troop strength, no other Western power wants to get muddled there, and why should we trust any Pakistani troops not to turn on us in the near future? Heck, the regular Pakistani army would be attacking us in no time.
"So, if we got a large number of troops into the country, what would they do? The most likely directive would be to help Pakistan’s military and security forces hold the country’s center — primarily the region around the capital, Islamabad, and the populous areas like Punjab Province to its south." I think the authors are in favor of bringing back the draft without actually saying that.
"We would also have to be wary of internecine warfare within the Pakistani security forces." Understatement of the year!
"Pro-American moderates could well win a fight against extremist sympathizers on their own." Not in this world!
"But they might need help if splinter forces or radical Islamists took control of parts of the country containing crucial nuclear materials." Do you think?
"If a holding operation in the nation’s center was successful, we would probably then seek to establish order in the parts of Pakistan where extremists operate." For the uninitiated, that is code for "nation building".
I think it would be a great idea if all the nation-building pundits, starting with these two authors, flew to Pakistan and tried to reason with the Islamic fundamentalists over there. Good luck!
So, let's put this in perspective. We were attacked by Islamic fundamentalists on 9/11. They have indicated several times that they plan to attack us with weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). With the government in Pakistan now in a shambles, and with radical Muslims laced all throughout Pakistani society, we have no choice but to warn them today, before it is too late, that if terrorists get their hands on Pakistani nukes and then use them against us, then we will retaliate against Pakistan with thermonuclear bombs. That, of course, would be the end of Pakistan.
Clearly, the problem in Pakistan today is their own problem. We are under absolutely no obligation to help Pakistan with its governance. If the Pakistanis choose to live in a Middle Ages civilization, so be it. But if any of their nukes are used against us, then Pakistan will cease to exist.
In conclusion, Pakistan had better get its act together. It wanted to have nukes. Now it is in the position of having to guard these WMDs with its very existence.
Gaza, Dreams and Religion
The people of Gaza are living in misery today. Their economy is poor, there are many street gangs inflicting violence on innocent people, and most of the population is despondent. It need not be this way.
Hamas runs Gaza. Hamas orders daily rocket fire at Israel, and plans terrorist attacks against Israelis. Hamas does this because their leaders are Islamic fundamentalists. That ideology will not allow them to stop hating Israel.
Suppose somehow all the people of Gaza, while asleep one night, had the same dream. In this dream, "God" spoke to them and told them that He is not Allah, there is no Allah, Muhammad was not a prophet, and the Koran is a work of fiction; the only way for the people of Gaza to please Him would be for them to make peace with the Israelis, and love their neighbors, and live ethical lives; religion poisons everything; all religions are false; no man can know His mind; He does not want to be worshipped.
The next day, Hamas and all the Muslims in Gaza would renounce Islam; crime would stop; the attacks on Israel would end; the leaders of Hamas would contact the Israeli leaders and state that they have "seen the light" and want peace; a peace treaty with Israel would be signed; all economic sanctions against Gaza would end; all physical barriers between Gaza and Israel would be removed; Gazans and Israelis would live in peace and prosperity.
The former Hamas leaders would spread the Word throughout the Middle East, and all its neighbors would seek peace with Israel. The message of Peace would then spread throughout the Islamic world, and eventually all 1,300,000,000 Muslims would renounce their false religion and try to live in peace with all other peoples. Al Qaeda would cease to exist, and the United States would declare an end to the War on Terror. Gitmo would be closed forever, and all political prisoners of the War on Terror would be released.
This is my dream.
Hamas runs Gaza. Hamas orders daily rocket fire at Israel, and plans terrorist attacks against Israelis. Hamas does this because their leaders are Islamic fundamentalists. That ideology will not allow them to stop hating Israel.
Suppose somehow all the people of Gaza, while asleep one night, had the same dream. In this dream, "God" spoke to them and told them that He is not Allah, there is no Allah, Muhammad was not a prophet, and the Koran is a work of fiction; the only way for the people of Gaza to please Him would be for them to make peace with the Israelis, and love their neighbors, and live ethical lives; religion poisons everything; all religions are false; no man can know His mind; He does not want to be worshipped.
The next day, Hamas and all the Muslims in Gaza would renounce Islam; crime would stop; the attacks on Israel would end; the leaders of Hamas would contact the Israeli leaders and state that they have "seen the light" and want peace; a peace treaty with Israel would be signed; all economic sanctions against Gaza would end; all physical barriers between Gaza and Israel would be removed; Gazans and Israelis would live in peace and prosperity.
The former Hamas leaders would spread the Word throughout the Middle East, and all its neighbors would seek peace with Israel. The message of Peace would then spread throughout the Islamic world, and eventually all 1,300,000,000 Muslims would renounce their false religion and try to live in peace with all other peoples. Al Qaeda would cease to exist, and the United States would declare an end to the War on Terror. Gitmo would be closed forever, and all political prisoners of the War on Terror would be released.
This is my dream.
Friday, November 16, 2007
Social Security
Re Op-Ed Columnist: Played for a Sucker by Paul Krugman: I agree with Krugman. Barack Obama has fallen for the false belief that Social Security is doomed. While Krugman focuses on the politics of this issue, which is "form", I will address the substance.
First, all the ideological doomsters purport to tell us with precision that the Social Security Trust Fund will run out of money by some date, such as 2041. What nonsense! Economists can't predict, with any accuracy, anything about our economy even one year from now! This forecasting business of economists has been shown time and time again to be as reliable as reading tea leaves, astrology, and palm reading. (See Nassim Taleb's "The Black Swan".)
In any event, the Trust Fund has been in surplus since it was created, and Social Security law can be modified (if need be) to borrow from the Treasury during any year it is in shortfall, and then pay back to the Treasury in the future years when it inevitably will be in surplus again. This is not rocket science.
I have an even better idea: get rid of the Social Security Trust Fund altogether, along with the payroll tax, and fund SS forever out of a more progressive federal income tax. End of problem!
First, all the ideological doomsters purport to tell us with precision that the Social Security Trust Fund will run out of money by some date, such as 2041. What nonsense! Economists can't predict, with any accuracy, anything about our economy even one year from now! This forecasting business of economists has been shown time and time again to be as reliable as reading tea leaves, astrology, and palm reading. (See Nassim Taleb's "The Black Swan".)
In any event, the Trust Fund has been in surplus since it was created, and Social Security law can be modified (if need be) to borrow from the Treasury during any year it is in shortfall, and then pay back to the Treasury in the future years when it inevitably will be in surplus again. This is not rocket science.
I have an even better idea: get rid of the Social Security Trust Fund altogether, along with the payroll tax, and fund SS forever out of a more progressive federal income tax. End of problem!
Down With China
Re China Stand on Imports Upsets U.S. by Steven R. Weisman in today's NY Times: again, China says one thing to US trade negotiators, and then does the opposite. Actions speak louder than words, and China's actions (not to mention its enormous trade surplus against the US) show clearly that it does not trade fairly.
The solution to this problem is for the US to exit the WTO, and put large tariffs on goods and services from China. I can guarantee that would get their attention, and also gain their respect. They have little respect for us because of our self-defeating foreign policies (e.g., Iraq) and trade policies (help the rest of the world at our own expense).
I believe that Ron Paul is the only candidate who would take us out of the WTO. We can only hope that this idea will catch on, sooner than later.
The solution to this problem is for the US to exit the WTO, and put large tariffs on goods and services from China. I can guarantee that would get their attention, and also gain their respect. They have little respect for us because of our self-defeating foreign policies (e.g., Iraq) and trade policies (help the rest of the world at our own expense).
I believe that Ron Paul is the only candidate who would take us out of the WTO. We can only hope that this idea will catch on, sooner than later.
Enemy Gains Ground
Re Militants Gain Despite Decree by Musharraf by Jane Perlez and Ismail Khan in today's NY Times: once again, there is more evidence that the enemy is gaining ground. The choice for the United States boils down to supporting Pakistani dictator General Pervez Musharraf or supporting democracy, but at this point it is not clear which path will lead to a better outcome for the US.
I think Pakistan needs a secular dictator who is brutal enough to smash the growing insurgency. Such a man would probably resemble a Pakistani version of Saddam Hussein. Musharraf appears too weak in comparison, and he has already proved over and over that he cannot defeat the insurgents nor control the tribal areas.
During times of peace, the US should support liberal democracies. But we should never forget that democracies are no guarantee of peace. Adolf Hitler was democratically elected in Germany in the 1930s, and look what he did.
A democratically elected president of Pakistan will likely not have the power to crush the insurgency nor wrest control of the tribal areas from the Islamic militants. Therefore, the best short-term outcome for the US would be for a more powerful Pakistani general to emerge who can replace Musharraf and change the tide of events in that nuclear-armed country.
I think Pakistan needs a secular dictator who is brutal enough to smash the growing insurgency. Such a man would probably resemble a Pakistani version of Saddam Hussein. Musharraf appears too weak in comparison, and he has already proved over and over that he cannot defeat the insurgents nor control the tribal areas.
During times of peace, the US should support liberal democracies. But we should never forget that democracies are no guarantee of peace. Adolf Hitler was democratically elected in Germany in the 1930s, and look what he did.
A democratically elected president of Pakistan will likely not have the power to crush the insurgency nor wrest control of the tribal areas from the Islamic militants. Therefore, the best short-term outcome for the US would be for a more powerful Pakistani general to emerge who can replace Musharraf and change the tide of events in that nuclear-armed country.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Neocon Op-Ed Madness
Re Op-Ed Contributor: Send the State Department to War by Max Boot: This was written by one of the leading neoconservatives who argued relentlessly in the 1990s that the United States should invade Iraq and oust Saddam Hussein.
Thinking that his ideas have not yet damaged America enough, Mr. Boot wants us to put nation-building into overdrive. But that's not all. "The Agency for International Development, in particular, has seen a precipitous decline in personnel. In the 1960s, it had 1,900 officers in South Vietnam alone. Today it has only 1,200 to cover the entire world, forcing it to rely mainly on contractors. If we expand its ranks, it could become our lead nation-building agency, sort of a global FEMA, marshaling the kind of resources that have been lacking in Iraq and Afghanistan." I see, we need to emulate AID in 1960s South Vietnam. Yeah, that led to one heck of an accomplishment! And who else but a nation-building ideologue would argue for our foreign policy institutions to be more like FEMA!
Here's another example of crap-for-brains, neocon thinking: "To buttress the growing corps of government reconstruction experts, we should have civilian reservists on call who could be summoned by the Agency for International Development in an emergency like military reservists. They could bring expertise in municipal administration, sewage treatment, banking, electricity generation, and countless other disciplines needed to rebuild a war-torn country. President Bush endorsed this notion in his last State of the Union address, but too little has been done to turn it into reality." Yeah, let's go totally bankrupt pouring our borrowed dollars into ingrate foreign countries. That always works to our future advantage - not!
Have you ever heard of the expression "when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging"? I guess Boot hasn't: "One of the most important shortages we have faced in Iraq and Afghanistan is in experienced police officers who can train local counterparts. Much of the job has fallen on the military police, whose troops are too few in number, and on civilian contractors, who are of uneven quality. We need to fill the vacuum by creating a federal constabulary force — a uniformed counterpart to the F.B.I. that, like the Italian carabinieri, could be deployed abroad.
Its efforts could be supplemented by municipal policemen if we pass a law allowing the federal government to call up local police officers without loss of pay or seniority and to compensate hometown police departments for their absence. Along with these police officers, we need a deployable corps of lawyers, judges and prison guards who could set up functioning legal and penal systems abroad."
How about our military? "Even with increased participation from civilian branches of government, the armed forces will still have a major role to play in what President Bush calls the “Long War.” But not necessarily a kinetic role. If we can train and advise foreign militaries, they can fight our battles for us." Yeah, those Northern Alliance foreigners we hired in Afghanistan did an outstanding job hunting down Osama bin Laden on their own turf - Tora Bora. Thank God Eisenhower had a better idea.
"We will have a hard time prevailing in today’s war as long as fewer than one-half of 1 percent of all service members have any grasp of Arabic." Unless, of course, the bombsite controls our airmen use are written in English. Duh!
I have just one wish for Max Boot: please donate your services to al Qaeda. That would go a long way towards leveling the "playing field".
Thinking that his ideas have not yet damaged America enough, Mr. Boot wants us to put nation-building into overdrive. But that's not all. "The Agency for International Development, in particular, has seen a precipitous decline in personnel. In the 1960s, it had 1,900 officers in South Vietnam alone. Today it has only 1,200 to cover the entire world, forcing it to rely mainly on contractors. If we expand its ranks, it could become our lead nation-building agency, sort of a global FEMA, marshaling the kind of resources that have been lacking in Iraq and Afghanistan." I see, we need to emulate AID in 1960s South Vietnam. Yeah, that led to one heck of an accomplishment! And who else but a nation-building ideologue would argue for our foreign policy institutions to be more like FEMA!
Here's another example of crap-for-brains, neocon thinking: "To buttress the growing corps of government reconstruction experts, we should have civilian reservists on call who could be summoned by the Agency for International Development in an emergency like military reservists. They could bring expertise in municipal administration, sewage treatment, banking, electricity generation, and countless other disciplines needed to rebuild a war-torn country. President Bush endorsed this notion in his last State of the Union address, but too little has been done to turn it into reality." Yeah, let's go totally bankrupt pouring our borrowed dollars into ingrate foreign countries. That always works to our future advantage - not!
Have you ever heard of the expression "when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging"? I guess Boot hasn't: "One of the most important shortages we have faced in Iraq and Afghanistan is in experienced police officers who can train local counterparts. Much of the job has fallen on the military police, whose troops are too few in number, and on civilian contractors, who are of uneven quality. We need to fill the vacuum by creating a federal constabulary force — a uniformed counterpart to the F.B.I. that, like the Italian carabinieri, could be deployed abroad.
Its efforts could be supplemented by municipal policemen if we pass a law allowing the federal government to call up local police officers without loss of pay or seniority and to compensate hometown police departments for their absence. Along with these police officers, we need a deployable corps of lawyers, judges and prison guards who could set up functioning legal and penal systems abroad."
How about our military? "Even with increased participation from civilian branches of government, the armed forces will still have a major role to play in what President Bush calls the “Long War.” But not necessarily a kinetic role. If we can train and advise foreign militaries, they can fight our battles for us." Yeah, those Northern Alliance foreigners we hired in Afghanistan did an outstanding job hunting down Osama bin Laden on their own turf - Tora Bora. Thank God Eisenhower had a better idea.
"We will have a hard time prevailing in today’s war as long as fewer than one-half of 1 percent of all service members have any grasp of Arabic." Unless, of course, the bombsite controls our airmen use are written in English. Duh!
I have just one wish for Max Boot: please donate your services to al Qaeda. That would go a long way towards leveling the "playing field".
Good Column By Friedman
Finally, a column by Tom Friedman that I can agree with. In today's NY Times, Op-Ed Columnist: Coulda, Woulda, Shoulda argues for a dollar per gallon gasoline tax. This happens to be an idea I suggested many years ago, for the same reasons: we would send less money to our adversaries overseas, we would have a better energy policy, and a great source of government revenue.
Of course, I would like to see some of the revenue used for nuclear fusion R&D and building more nuclear fission power plants. (I would also like to see the United States exit the World Trade Organization and put tariffs on goods and services of nations which do not trade fairly with us, such as China, but that is a different - though related - issue.)
The gasoline tax would be similar to a tariff, and that is good, because American tariffs add to our federal treasury, as opposed to the treasuries of the countries we import from. The latter still make a lot of money off the American consumer, but tariffs would also favor American producers of goods and services.
A quote from Friedman's column:
“Think about it,” says Phil Verleger, an energy economist. “We could have replaced the current payroll tax with a gasoline tax. Middle-class consumers would have seen increased take-home pay of between six and nine percent, even though they would have had to pay more at the pump.
End quote.
That is another idea I favor. I have often called for eliminating the payroll tax and making the federal income tax more progressive. The payroll tax is the opposite of progressive: it is regressive; it hurts the middle and lower classes more than the upper class. This would not be "class warfare"; class warfare is what we have now, with the upper class waging war on the rest of America.
I like to call a spade a spade. So today, I applaud Tom Friedman's column.
Of course, I would like to see some of the revenue used for nuclear fusion R&D and building more nuclear fission power plants. (I would also like to see the United States exit the World Trade Organization and put tariffs on goods and services of nations which do not trade fairly with us, such as China, but that is a different - though related - issue.)
The gasoline tax would be similar to a tariff, and that is good, because American tariffs add to our federal treasury, as opposed to the treasuries of the countries we import from. The latter still make a lot of money off the American consumer, but tariffs would also favor American producers of goods and services.
A quote from Friedman's column:
“Think about it,” says Phil Verleger, an energy economist. “We could have replaced the current payroll tax with a gasoline tax. Middle-class consumers would have seen increased take-home pay of between six and nine percent, even though they would have had to pay more at the pump.
End quote.
That is another idea I favor. I have often called for eliminating the payroll tax and making the federal income tax more progressive. The payroll tax is the opposite of progressive: it is regressive; it hurts the middle and lower classes more than the upper class. This would not be "class warfare"; class warfare is what we have now, with the upper class waging war on the rest of America.
I like to call a spade a spade. So today, I applaud Tom Friedman's column.
Help the Homeless
We Americans are too wrapped up in our materialist lives to see the immediate world we live in. How else to explain how the richest nation on earth has not solved the problem of homelessness? We try to ignore the homeless as we go about our business. We forget the wise adage "There but for the grace of God go I".
Both the left and the right would object to my solution, because it involves both more government spending (alienating the right) and loss of some civil liberties (alienating the left).
I propose that we create a lot more housing for the poor, and require that the residents do some form of work. Free food, schooling and health care should also be made available. The government would provide day care for the small children, and all adults would be expected to comply with rules governing behavior and hygiene, and all recreational drugs, tobacco and alcohol would be forbidden. This means that the housing would be built in a camp-like setting.
Not all homeless would agree with these conditions, but at least we should offer them this as one option to a better life.
Both the left and the right would object to my solution, because it involves both more government spending (alienating the right) and loss of some civil liberties (alienating the left).
I propose that we create a lot more housing for the poor, and require that the residents do some form of work. Free food, schooling and health care should also be made available. The government would provide day care for the small children, and all adults would be expected to comply with rules governing behavior and hygiene, and all recreational drugs, tobacco and alcohol would be forbidden. This means that the housing would be built in a camp-like setting.
Not all homeless would agree with these conditions, but at least we should offer them this as one option to a better life.
Monday, November 12, 2007
Bomb Qatar
Re Op-Ed Columnist: Bring the Real World Home by Roger Cohen in today's NY Times:
Mr. Cohen does a good job of helping our enemy. (He must have a lot in common with the late George Koval.) In his column, he advocates that Americans watch Al Jazeera’s English news channel. That is just like telling Americans in 1942-5 to listen to Joseph Goebbels. Have we gone completely mad? Is down now up? Is bad now good?
I left the following message on Cohen's blog:
"We are at war with the 'Islamist Nation'. They attacked us on 9/11. So, instead of watching the media outlet dedicated to our Islamist enemy, we should be killing them. We should bomb Qatar, the capital of the enemy's propaganda machine. That is what FDR, Churchill, Eisenhower and Marshall would have done. Too many of us are confused due to Bush's idiotic responses to 9/11. We are at war. The locus is not Iraq."
The time for understanding our enemy passed in 2001. This is the time for annihilating our enemy. The main thing we need to know about the enemy is that they want us dead. There is nothing else we need to learn about them, unless we want to appease them.
So, let's kill the enemy. After what is left of them surrender unconditionally, then we can go about and try to understand why so many people grew to hate us (in case anyone out there doesn't know by now). (Hint: it has something to do with religion. It also has something to do with at least the six points identified by Michael Scheuer and Osama bin Laden.)
Mr. Cohen does a good job of helping our enemy. (He must have a lot in common with the late George Koval.) In his column, he advocates that Americans watch Al Jazeera’s English news channel. That is just like telling Americans in 1942-5 to listen to Joseph Goebbels. Have we gone completely mad? Is down now up? Is bad now good?
I left the following message on Cohen's blog:
"We are at war with the 'Islamist Nation'. They attacked us on 9/11. So, instead of watching the media outlet dedicated to our Islamist enemy, we should be killing them. We should bomb Qatar, the capital of the enemy's propaganda machine. That is what FDR, Churchill, Eisenhower and Marshall would have done. Too many of us are confused due to Bush's idiotic responses to 9/11. We are at war. The locus is not Iraq."
The time for understanding our enemy passed in 2001. This is the time for annihilating our enemy. The main thing we need to know about the enemy is that they want us dead. There is nothing else we need to learn about them, unless we want to appease them.
So, let's kill the enemy. After what is left of them surrender unconditionally, then we can go about and try to understand why so many people grew to hate us (in case anyone out there doesn't know by now). (Hint: it has something to do with religion. It also has something to do with at least the six points identified by Michael Scheuer and Osama bin Laden.)
Traitor
Re A Spy's Path: Iowa to A-Bomb to Kremlin Honor by William J. Broad in today's NY Times:
A few observations about this story about George Koval. No where in the article was the word "traitor" or "treason" used. No where did the reporter explicitly state that Koval was Jewish, but this was implied.
The article did point out that the traitor was ethnically Russian and born in the United States. He grew up in Iowa and may have done more damage to the United States than the famous Jewish traitors Julius and Ethel Rosenberg (who were executed for their perfidies in 1953).
Quote from the article:
On Nov. 2, the Kremlin startled Western scholars by announcing that President Vladimir V. Putin had posthumously given the highest Russian award to a Soviet agent who penetrated the Manhattan Project to build the atom bomb.
The announcement hailed Dr. Koval as “the only Soviet intelligence officer” to infiltrate the project’s secret plants, saying his work “helped speed up considerably the time it took for the Soviet Union to develop an atomic bomb of its own.”
.
.
.
Posthumously, Dr. Koval was made a Hero of the Russian Federation, the highest honorary title that can be bestowed on a Russian citizen.
End quote.
None of the Americans quoted in the article seemed to care that Koval was a traitor. The entire tone of the article was that Koval was brilliant, well-liked, athletic, and charming. It never said anything about his apparent dark side. Too bad we didn't catch this bastard while he was still in the US, and execute him along with his comrades, the Rosenbergs.
A few observations about this story about George Koval. No where in the article was the word "traitor" or "treason" used. No where did the reporter explicitly state that Koval was Jewish, but this was implied.
The article did point out that the traitor was ethnically Russian and born in the United States. He grew up in Iowa and may have done more damage to the United States than the famous Jewish traitors Julius and Ethel Rosenberg (who were executed for their perfidies in 1953).
Quote from the article:
On Nov. 2, the Kremlin startled Western scholars by announcing that President Vladimir V. Putin had posthumously given the highest Russian award to a Soviet agent who penetrated the Manhattan Project to build the atom bomb.
The announcement hailed Dr. Koval as “the only Soviet intelligence officer” to infiltrate the project’s secret plants, saying his work “helped speed up considerably the time it took for the Soviet Union to develop an atomic bomb of its own.”
.
.
.
Posthumously, Dr. Koval was made a Hero of the Russian Federation, the highest honorary title that can be bestowed on a Russian citizen.
End quote.
None of the Americans quoted in the article seemed to care that Koval was a traitor. The entire tone of the article was that Koval was brilliant, well-liked, athletic, and charming. It never said anything about his apparent dark side. Too bad we didn't catch this bastard while he was still in the US, and execute him along with his comrades, the Rosenbergs.
Sunday, November 11, 2007
Veterans Day
Today we honor all American veterans. My father is no longer with us, but on this day he is honored along with all the other veterans. He served in Europe during World War II.
How to Win the War on Terror
Osama bin Laden (OBL) and his fellow travelers in al Qaeda (AQ) do not fear death, since they believe that they will go immediately to "paradise" if they are killed in their jihad with us. That is one reason why I wrote in a previous post that we should use carpet bombing in our war with AQ.
The idea is to cause AQ and OBL in particular emotional pain for their acts of war against us. Ideally, if they suffered enough pain, they would eventually surrender to us or be betrayed by their fellow Islamists. But I have also called for the US to use its ample soft power to defeat AQ.
One target of our soft power should be the twisted religious ideology of OBL and AQ. We should get as many Islamic clerics as possible to denounce OBL and AQ, and explain how OBL has mis-read their faith.
But, if it turns out that that does not work because Islam itself is on the side of OBL and AQ (Michael Scheuer's position), then we should take it upon ourselves, in this time of war, to reform Islam ourselves.
As one who does not subscribe to any organized religion, and who agrees with Christopher Hitchens that "religion poisons everything", I have no compunctions about the United States attacking OBL's faith if that is what it will take to win this war. Obviously, if that premise is false, then there is no need for us to take that drastic step. But unless and until we see a groundswell of Islamic clerics from around the world stating unequivocally that OBL and AQ are wrong in their interpretations of Islam, we shall have to assume that task ourselves.
Keep in mind that in a different era, we fought enemies much more powerful than AQ, and they subscribed to ideologies too: Nazism and the worship of the Japanese Emperor. Yet, after we had inflicted enough pain on the populations which supported our enemies, they discarded their ideologies and surrendered unconditionally to us. We should work towards the very same outcome with OBL and AQ.
The idea is to cause AQ and OBL in particular emotional pain for their acts of war against us. Ideally, if they suffered enough pain, they would eventually surrender to us or be betrayed by their fellow Islamists. But I have also called for the US to use its ample soft power to defeat AQ.
One target of our soft power should be the twisted religious ideology of OBL and AQ. We should get as many Islamic clerics as possible to denounce OBL and AQ, and explain how OBL has mis-read their faith.
But, if it turns out that that does not work because Islam itself is on the side of OBL and AQ (Michael Scheuer's position), then we should take it upon ourselves, in this time of war, to reform Islam ourselves.
As one who does not subscribe to any organized religion, and who agrees with Christopher Hitchens that "religion poisons everything", I have no compunctions about the United States attacking OBL's faith if that is what it will take to win this war. Obviously, if that premise is false, then there is no need for us to take that drastic step. But unless and until we see a groundswell of Islamic clerics from around the world stating unequivocally that OBL and AQ are wrong in their interpretations of Islam, we shall have to assume that task ourselves.
Keep in mind that in a different era, we fought enemies much more powerful than AQ, and they subscribed to ideologies too: Nazism and the worship of the Japanese Emperor. Yet, after we had inflicted enough pain on the populations which supported our enemies, they discarded their ideologies and surrendered unconditionally to us. We should work towards the very same outcome with OBL and AQ.
Review of "Imperial Hubris"
I finally completed reading "Imperial Hubris" by Michael Scheuer. This book was published in 2004, but it may be the best book available which both explains how we got to this point in the Bush version of the "war on terror", and what we ought to do next.
I do not agree with the former CIA employee Scheuer on everything, but have nothing but respect and admiration for him and his service to our nation. He learned a lot about al Qaeda (AQ) while he was Chief of the Bin Laden Issue Station. He explains in detail why we were attacked on 9/11, and how the Bush policies have strengthened AQ while weakening the US.
So, where do we disagree? He elevates bin Laden a bit too much for my taste, and prefers not to call AQ a terrorist organization, but rather a worldwide insurgency. The former stems from his deep understanding of Osama bin Laden (OBL), and the latter from his point that 9/11 was not the act of terrorists but an act of war. A lot of this is just semantics, since I agree with Scheuer in the details.
Scheuer is not correct on how we should fight AQ. It is easy enough to say what we did wrong, but what we should have done in September or even October 2001 is not what we need to do today. Yes, we should have used a massive military invasion force and surrounded and annihilated AQ and OBL. Having failed to do that, the way forward today must be different. I explain how in my next post.
I do not agree with the former CIA employee Scheuer on everything, but have nothing but respect and admiration for him and his service to our nation. He learned a lot about al Qaeda (AQ) while he was Chief of the Bin Laden Issue Station. He explains in detail why we were attacked on 9/11, and how the Bush policies have strengthened AQ while weakening the US.
So, where do we disagree? He elevates bin Laden a bit too much for my taste, and prefers not to call AQ a terrorist organization, but rather a worldwide insurgency. The former stems from his deep understanding of Osama bin Laden (OBL), and the latter from his point that 9/11 was not the act of terrorists but an act of war. A lot of this is just semantics, since I agree with Scheuer in the details.
Scheuer is not correct on how we should fight AQ. It is easy enough to say what we did wrong, but what we should have done in September or even October 2001 is not what we need to do today. Yes, we should have used a massive military invasion force and surrounded and annihilated AQ and OBL. Having failed to do that, the way forward today must be different. I explain how in my next post.
The Friedman Twist
It is so much fun to watch Tom Friedman twist in the wind. In his column in today's NY Times ( Op-Ed Columnist: Democracy's Root: Diversity ) he writes "A senior French official suggested to me that maybe we in the West, rather than trying to promote democracy in the Middle East — a notion tainted by its association with the very Western powers that once colonized the region — should be focusing on promoting diversity, which has historical roots in the area." Of course, he fails to mention that he was at the front of the media herd agitating that the United States install democracy in the Middle East, and that is why he supported Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Now democracy is to Islam as oil is to water, so Tom has to contort himself a bit while he tries to sneak in the notion that maybe what the Islamic countries really need is a little diversity. Duh!
I think Tom's next book should be about all the things he got terribly wrong since he started his op-ed column. There is certainly a lot of material to work with.
Now democracy is to Islam as oil is to water, so Tom has to contort himself a bit while he tries to sneak in the notion that maybe what the Islamic countries really need is a little diversity. Duh!
I think Tom's next book should be about all the things he got terribly wrong since he started his op-ed column. There is certainly a lot of material to work with.
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Stop Aid To Afghanistan
Re a letter from M. Ashraf Haidari, Political Counselor, Embassy of Afghanistan to the NY Times today ( Letter: Toward Afghan Success ):
"How should we overcome these and other obstacles raised by Mr. Cohen? By ending regional interference as the main source of instability in Afghanistan; long-term Marshall Planning to rebuild Afghan state institutions and the economy; and ensuring international unity of effort to succeed in Afghanistan."
No. We should not try to rebuild Afghanistan; that is their job. We cannot afford to rebuild every country that played a role in 9/11. That would reward the transgressors. Part of the punishment of getting bombed by the United States for attacking us on 9/11 is the cost of rebuilding. That price should be paid by Afghans for harboring al Qaeda. We Americans should not have to pay twice for 9/11.
"How should we overcome these and other obstacles raised by Mr. Cohen? By ending regional interference as the main source of instability in Afghanistan; long-term Marshall Planning to rebuild Afghan state institutions and the economy; and ensuring international unity of effort to succeed in Afghanistan."
No. We should not try to rebuild Afghanistan; that is their job. We cannot afford to rebuild every country that played a role in 9/11. That would reward the transgressors. Part of the punishment of getting bombed by the United States for attacking us on 9/11 is the cost of rebuilding. That price should be paid by Afghans for harboring al Qaeda. We Americans should not have to pay twice for 9/11.
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Some Bush Chickens Coming Home To Roost
The article Stocks Tumble on Weak Dollar and Oil Prices by Michael M. Grynbaum in today's NY Times is just a typical story about the noise in the stock markets. You can always count on newspaper editors coming up with meaningless explanations for the normal gyrations in the stock market.
However, the following quote caught my attention: "Investors were alarmed by a report this morning that a top Chinese government official said China would shift its foreign currency reserves away from the “weak” United States dollar, further eroding confidence in the currency and sending it to a new low against the euro."
All you die-hard Republicans who want to keep taxes low and spending high (translation: nation-building), probably never gave much thought to this modern version of the much-reviled "free lunch". (That would be the "free lunch" programs Republicans talked about in the same breath as "welfare queens" a few decades ago, when the GOP was apoplectic about runaway Demoncrat spending.) Well, it would appear that the bill may have to be "paid" sooner than a lot of experts thought. If the market thinks we are being fiscally irresponsible, one of its options is to devalue the dollar, and that has been happening for years. But if the Chinese start selling the mountain of dollars they have accumulated, the tumble of the dollar could easily turn into the crash of the dollar. And if that happens, as they say, "all bets are off". A stock market crash would be the least of our worries.
Stay tuned.
However, the following quote caught my attention: "Investors were alarmed by a report this morning that a top Chinese government official said China would shift its foreign currency reserves away from the “weak” United States dollar, further eroding confidence in the currency and sending it to a new low against the euro."
All you die-hard Republicans who want to keep taxes low and spending high (translation: nation-building), probably never gave much thought to this modern version of the much-reviled "free lunch". (That would be the "free lunch" programs Republicans talked about in the same breath as "welfare queens" a few decades ago, when the GOP was apoplectic about runaway Demoncrat spending.) Well, it would appear that the bill may have to be "paid" sooner than a lot of experts thought. If the market thinks we are being fiscally irresponsible, one of its options is to devalue the dollar, and that has been happening for years. But if the Chinese start selling the mountain of dollars they have accumulated, the tumble of the dollar could easily turn into the crash of the dollar. And if that happens, as they say, "all bets are off". A stock market crash would be the least of our worries.
Stay tuned.
More Reasons Why We Need To Develop Fusion Power
Some quotes from High-Priced Oil Adds Volatility to Power Scramble by Mark Landler in today's NY Times:
"Even in developed countries like Canada, rising oil prices can cause dislocation. The region around the oil sands in northern Alberta is the closest thing the developed world has to a 19th-century boom town. The influx of workers has created a shortage of skilled labor in neighboring British Columbia, where construction is under way for the 2010 Winter Olympics.... But perhaps no country has reveled in its oil wealth like Russia. NetJets Europe, the private-jet company, plans to open an office in Russia because the traffic between Moscow and London has become so dense. This month, Christies will stage what it expects to be a record-setting auction week dedicated to Russian art, including the auction of a Faberg egg made for the Russian royal family. Russians have kept Londons high-end real estate market buzzing. There are a lot of Russian buyers around who are prepared to pay a vast amount of money, said Michael Chetwode of the Home Search Bureau. Back home, Russias oil wealth is trickling down. Mr. Putin is using it to finance priority national projects, like improved health care and education, and access to affordable housing. Oil may also help Mr. Putin cling to power after he leaves the presidency, perhaps as prime minister. As he noted recently, We all remember what state the country was in seven, eight years ago. Eight years ago, oil was trading at $16 a barrel."
From Warning on Impact of China and India Oil Demand by Jad Mouawad and Julia Werdigier, also in today's Times:
"the International Energy Agency warned that demand for oil imports by China and India will almost quadruple by 2030 and could create a supply “crunch” as soon as 2015 if oil producers do not step up production, energy efficiency fails to improve and demand from the two countries is not dampened.... High economic growth in China and India could push oil prices to $159 a barrel by 2030, the agency said."
That's an odd forecast. $300 a barrel by 2030 would be more like it.
"As the need for oil imports grows, and supplies level off in many industrial nations, the world will become increasingly reliant on a smaller number of oil-exporting countries, mainly Russia and in the Middle East. As a consequence, the agency said, global energy security will increasingly be at risk."
One can only hope that the United States develops viable nuclear fusion power some time before oil reaches $200 per barrel.
"Even in developed countries like Canada, rising oil prices can cause dislocation. The region around the oil sands in northern Alberta is the closest thing the developed world has to a 19th-century boom town. The influx of workers has created a shortage of skilled labor in neighboring British Columbia, where construction is under way for the 2010 Winter Olympics.... But perhaps no country has reveled in its oil wealth like Russia. NetJets Europe, the private-jet company, plans to open an office in Russia because the traffic between Moscow and London has become so dense. This month, Christies will stage what it expects to be a record-setting auction week dedicated to Russian art, including the auction of a Faberg egg made for the Russian royal family. Russians have kept Londons high-end real estate market buzzing. There are a lot of Russian buyers around who are prepared to pay a vast amount of money, said Michael Chetwode of the Home Search Bureau. Back home, Russias oil wealth is trickling down. Mr. Putin is using it to finance priority national projects, like improved health care and education, and access to affordable housing. Oil may also help Mr. Putin cling to power after he leaves the presidency, perhaps as prime minister. As he noted recently, We all remember what state the country was in seven, eight years ago. Eight years ago, oil was trading at $16 a barrel."
From Warning on Impact of China and India Oil Demand by Jad Mouawad and Julia Werdigier, also in today's Times:
"the International Energy Agency warned that demand for oil imports by China and India will almost quadruple by 2030 and could create a supply “crunch” as soon as 2015 if oil producers do not step up production, energy efficiency fails to improve and demand from the two countries is not dampened.... High economic growth in China and India could push oil prices to $159 a barrel by 2030, the agency said."
That's an odd forecast. $300 a barrel by 2030 would be more like it.
"As the need for oil imports grows, and supplies level off in many industrial nations, the world will become increasingly reliant on a smaller number of oil-exporting countries, mainly Russia and in the Middle East. As a consequence, the agency said, global energy security will increasingly be at risk."
One can only hope that the United States develops viable nuclear fusion power some time before oil reaches $200 per barrel.
Intellectual Arrogance
The Merriam-Webster's online dictionary defines arrogance as "an attitude of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner or in presumptuous claims or assumptions".
I enjoy tweaking intellectual arrogance. That is because we have such tiny brains and such low intelligence, and yet man presumes to know so much. As I said in the previous post, if there is a God, He must be laughing at us.
The ideologues of every stripe are the most foolish. (You know who you are. You are the "true believers".) This is a very large set of people. Of course, it includes the stated enemy of the United States: al Qaeda (AQ). It includes all religious extremists from every major religion, and all cultists. It also includes people who worship guns. It includes all the eco-terrorists (the people who transitioned from tree-hugging to demolition). It includes the anti-abortionists who think it is ok to murder doctors who perform abortions. It includes the creationists. It includes the global warming hypesters. Of course, this is a partial list.
But the affliction of intellectual arrogance also includes non-ideologues. For example, atheists who know there is no God. And we should not leave out the many flavors of conspiracy theorists. At the top of that list would be those who ardently believe that the Bush family blew up the World Trade Center (and not AQ), and claim to have "proof". And let us not forget all the billionaires who think they earned their wealth, and that luck had nothing to do with it. In a similar vein, we add the CEOs of successful businesses who think they deserve most of the credit, as opposed to their employees and "lady luck".
Finally, I add myself to this compendium, for having the temerity to compile it.
If I left out any deserving groups, I was not playing favorites, and I promise to add your favorite group to my list at a future date.
I enjoy tweaking intellectual arrogance. That is because we have such tiny brains and such low intelligence, and yet man presumes to know so much. As I said in the previous post, if there is a God, He must be laughing at us.
The ideologues of every stripe are the most foolish. (You know who you are. You are the "true believers".) This is a very large set of people. Of course, it includes the stated enemy of the United States: al Qaeda (AQ). It includes all religious extremists from every major religion, and all cultists. It also includes people who worship guns. It includes all the eco-terrorists (the people who transitioned from tree-hugging to demolition). It includes the anti-abortionists who think it is ok to murder doctors who perform abortions. It includes the creationists. It includes the global warming hypesters. Of course, this is a partial list.
But the affliction of intellectual arrogance also includes non-ideologues. For example, atheists who know there is no God. And we should not leave out the many flavors of conspiracy theorists. At the top of that list would be those who ardently believe that the Bush family blew up the World Trade Center (and not AQ), and claim to have "proof". And let us not forget all the billionaires who think they earned their wealth, and that luck had nothing to do with it. In a similar vein, we add the CEOs of successful businesses who think they deserve most of the credit, as opposed to their employees and "lady luck".
Finally, I add myself to this compendium, for having the temerity to compile it.
If I left out any deserving groups, I was not playing favorites, and I promise to add your favorite group to my list at a future date.
Stem Cell Research
Yesterday was a black day for New Jersey. The headline in The NY Times this morning was "New Jersey Voters Defeat Stem Cell Measure". I am sure that most of the "no" votes were cast because NJ voters had the state's fiscal problems in mind, but no doubt a large factor was the objection to this research on religious grounds, particularly by the Roman Catholic Church (yes, that's the one which gave us the Inquisition) and New Jersey Right to Life. This is troubling.
If there is a God, why would He be offended by stem cell research? Would He not want his creation, human beings, to acquire new knowledge?
I think that that the folks who voted against stem cell research on religious grounds believe that God would be offended by the deaths of some embryos, and/or God would be offended by the possibility of humans cloning humans.
Apart from the issue of whether or not there is a God, there is an easier issue to grapple with: assuming that there is a God, and only one God, and also a personal God, how can man have the audacity to know what God thinks? After all, this would be the God who created at least one universe containing about 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (10 to the power 21) stars, and He may have created intelligent life to exist on at least one planet revolving around every "sun".
I find it mind boggling that man has the hubris to imagine that he knows how "God" thinks. I find it even more incredible that some men can claim "God" speaks to them, and that millions or even billions of people accept claims like that which are so preposterous. But then again, I should not be so surprised, since man's brain is so tiny and so prone to superstition.
If there is a "God", I would guess (I do not know) that He is laughing at our stupidity. Maybe He created us for laughs.
If there is a God, why would He be offended by stem cell research? Would He not want his creation, human beings, to acquire new knowledge?
I think that that the folks who voted against stem cell research on religious grounds believe that God would be offended by the deaths of some embryos, and/or God would be offended by the possibility of humans cloning humans.
Apart from the issue of whether or not there is a God, there is an easier issue to grapple with: assuming that there is a God, and only one God, and also a personal God, how can man have the audacity to know what God thinks? After all, this would be the God who created at least one universe containing about 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (10 to the power 21) stars, and He may have created intelligent life to exist on at least one planet revolving around every "sun".
I find it mind boggling that man has the hubris to imagine that he knows how "God" thinks. I find it even more incredible that some men can claim "God" speaks to them, and that millions or even billions of people accept claims like that which are so preposterous. But then again, I should not be so surprised, since man's brain is so tiny and so prone to superstition.
If there is a "God", I would guess (I do not know) that He is laughing at our stupidity. Maybe He created us for laughs.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Gun Control Redux
I left the following comment at the site of someone on the other side of the gun control debate:
Robb, thanks again for the "revisitation rights". I nearly exhausted myself trying to keep up with the dialog, and if anyone checks they will see I have addressed every point multiple times.
Comments by guys like "straightarrow" are a good reason why this debate sometimes gets ugly. The first rule in a debate or any conversation is to listen to the other person. I have listened, and I have responded. It is pointless for me to respond to the same unintelligent attacks over and over again. For the record, I have given my responses at 4 different websites, and yes, the reiteration is tiresome.
Too often the pro-gun side accuses me of statements I never made. Then they refute the "straw man". Too often they cite "facts" which are irrelevant to my position. (Many of the facts are relevant to the topic of gun control, but not relevant to the position I hold. That is a big difference.)
There are trillions of true "facts" on the issue of gun control, most of them unknown to us mere mortals. As I have said many times, the social sciences are not testable like the hard sciences, and there are no genuine "proofs" in them, as there are in mathematics, such as in geometry. Therefore, we must rely on our personal experiences, judgments and opinions to navigate this and other political issues, and avoid the intellectual arrogance too often demonstrated on both sides of every issue.
I think the time has come for me to return to the other issues which I actually care more about than "gun control".
Robb, thanks again for the "revisitation rights". I nearly exhausted myself trying to keep up with the dialog, and if anyone checks they will see I have addressed every point multiple times.
Comments by guys like "straightarrow" are a good reason why this debate sometimes gets ugly. The first rule in a debate or any conversation is to listen to the other person. I have listened, and I have responded. It is pointless for me to respond to the same unintelligent attacks over and over again. For the record, I have given my responses at 4 different websites, and yes, the reiteration is tiresome.
Too often the pro-gun side accuses me of statements I never made. Then they refute the "straw man". Too often they cite "facts" which are irrelevant to my position. (Many of the facts are relevant to the topic of gun control, but not relevant to the position I hold. That is a big difference.)
There are trillions of true "facts" on the issue of gun control, most of them unknown to us mere mortals. As I have said many times, the social sciences are not testable like the hard sciences, and there are no genuine "proofs" in them, as there are in mathematics, such as in geometry. Therefore, we must rely on our personal experiences, judgments and opinions to navigate this and other political issues, and avoid the intellectual arrogance too often demonstrated on both sides of every issue.
I think the time has come for me to return to the other issues which I actually care more about than "gun control".
Ron Paul
I thought about supporting Ron Paul for President, because I agree with him on Iraq and Afghanistan, and because presidents have much more leeway in foreign policy than they do in domestic affairs. But I do not agree with him in how we should deal with al Qaeda (AQ).
He only wants to use letters of marque and reprisal to capture and kill the enemy. While these Constitutional instruments should be used, we need to do a lot more in this "war on terror". (The latter expression may not be the best one, in light of Michael Scheuer's ideas expressed in "Imperial Hubris", but I will continue to use it until I finish his book and come up with something better, perhaps along the lines of "war on AQ insurgents" or something less cumbersome.) I have already said what I would do (see below).
Still, what he says about Iraq and Afghanistan, and about what led to 9/11, I could not agree with more. He stands heads and shoulders above all the presidential candidates of both major parties on these critical issues. I wish him well, and thank him for his many services to our nation.
He only wants to use letters of marque and reprisal to capture and kill the enemy. While these Constitutional instruments should be used, we need to do a lot more in this "war on terror". (The latter expression may not be the best one, in light of Michael Scheuer's ideas expressed in "Imperial Hubris", but I will continue to use it until I finish his book and come up with something better, perhaps along the lines of "war on AQ insurgents" or something less cumbersome.) I have already said what I would do (see below).
Still, what he says about Iraq and Afghanistan, and about what led to 9/11, I could not agree with more. He stands heads and shoulders above all the presidential candidates of both major parties on these critical issues. I wish him well, and thank him for his many services to our nation.
Monday, November 5, 2007
Response to the Armed Canadian
I have to respond here to your post dated 11/5/07 so that I can respond to your comments as I read them.
First, I have to hand it to you guys. You always find a way to say something like "I can kill you dead with ....".
"As to guns being confiscated or restricted based on lethality, .... Such a statement illustrates that you have no firearms knowledge and do not understand that "lethality" has numerous variables." Nothing in my statement requires that I know all the variables which affect lethality. My statement is true regardless of those variables.
"What you feel is irrelevant." You referenced my comment "but surely all of you has seen some guns which you privately must have felt ought to be illegal". Clearly, the usage of the word "felt" was synonymous with "believed", so you misunderstood my point.
"I don't care how a particular guns based solely on how they appear make you feel." Again, it was not about appearance. You missed my point. Guys like you who are very knowledgeable about firearms ought to be able to identify guns that are too lethal. You may still disagree, but my point was not about "appearance" but about "reality".
"It should take more than revulsion to dictate laws". I agree. Never had anything to do with my views.
"So you don't need to worry about it. RPGs and their ilk are already heavily regulated." I never worried about RPGs. (I worry about al Qaeda bringing a nuke onto American soil.) The point was "The line between a legal gun and illegal gun will always be blurry and somewhat arbitrary".
"So I ask you, what intelligent gun laws are you looking for?" I have answered this question many times over the past few days. OK, here goes: The laws I want, I am not qualified to write. You are in a better position to write them, along with other responsible folks, and I guess you have to throw in some attorneys. But the main thing is this: it should be national (so it is simpler for everyone), and it should prevent some of the mayhem in which, today, guns play a role. (It's ok with me if the national law specifies different rules for different regions of the US.) Now, this is my opinion. The important thing for me is that the laws get improved over time, over where they are today. And it is more important that they get improved, than precisely how fast the changes occur, or if the changes are in stages, or if there are grandfathering provisions. Note: improved certainly includes removing sections of the existing laws which are deemed not effective in reducing crimes committed with guns.
Thank you for the nice recap on existing gun laws. It was very informative.
"what intelligent gun control did these laws fail to take into account?" Impossible to answer, but a mind experiment might point the way. Again, since we are delving into human behavior, society, and culture, there are no simple "tests" as in physics, no "proofs" as in geometry. But I would like to see an analysis of how guns, manufactured legally, end up in the hands of the bad guys. (Try not to muddle this thought experiment with cliches about locking up the thugs; we can all agree to that, but we need to deal with the world as it is, not as it should be.) Perhaps this type of analysis could lead to better laws and/or regulations.
"The problem with this idea is simple: What if the result you are after is unachievable?" That is possible (in a theoretical sense) but not likely. All of our laws will evolve over time, zigging and zagging, better and worse, but better over time. I find it hard to imagine that we cannot do better.
"And these ineffective, "feel good" laws are never repealed...." Like I said, they should be.
"All these laws do is move the bar...." That is true, and for all laws in general. Again, this is not physics. Laws are not perfect, ever.
"you don't "experiment" with Constitutional rights." Apart from my never suggesting that, we are constantly interpreting our glorious and beautiful Constitution.
"We've had 73+ years of experimentation and what is the result? Criminals still get guns and still use them." We must never lose our faith in man's ability to make progress.
"Until we address the base cause of gun crime, the criminal himself, we will not have the peace you are looking for." Two points:
1. I always said we have to work on both: lock up the criminals and improve the gun controls.
2. If truth be told, this is not about the peace I am looking for. The peace I am looking for will come after we have erased al Qaeda from the globe. (I got drawn into this debate in a roundabout way, but I take full responsibility for it, and have enjoyed much of it.)
"But this balance must work against the criminal and not 99% of the law-abiding citizens out there. What does it say about our society that this criminal minority is the one serving to impose legal and legislative tyranny on the rest of us? This isn't the way it is supposed to be." I agree, and I see this in all walks of life. Most of the irritating laws we can blame on the "bad guys" for not being honest, decent, etc.
"Law enforcement is the answer, not gun control. Improve that and we will improve everything." You and I disagree, but I applaud your civility and knowledge.
First, I have to hand it to you guys. You always find a way to say something like "I can kill you dead with ....".
"As to guns being confiscated or restricted based on lethality, .... Such a statement illustrates that you have no firearms knowledge and do not understand that "lethality" has numerous variables." Nothing in my statement requires that I know all the variables which affect lethality. My statement is true regardless of those variables.
"What you feel is irrelevant." You referenced my comment "but surely all of you has seen some guns which you privately must have felt ought to be illegal". Clearly, the usage of the word "felt" was synonymous with "believed", so you misunderstood my point.
"I don't care how a particular guns based solely on how they appear make you feel." Again, it was not about appearance. You missed my point. Guys like you who are very knowledgeable about firearms ought to be able to identify guns that are too lethal. You may still disagree, but my point was not about "appearance" but about "reality".
"It should take more than revulsion to dictate laws". I agree. Never had anything to do with my views.
"So you don't need to worry about it. RPGs and their ilk are already heavily regulated." I never worried about RPGs. (I worry about al Qaeda bringing a nuke onto American soil.) The point was "The line between a legal gun and illegal gun will always be blurry and somewhat arbitrary".
"So I ask you, what intelligent gun laws are you looking for?" I have answered this question many times over the past few days. OK, here goes: The laws I want, I am not qualified to write. You are in a better position to write them, along with other responsible folks, and I guess you have to throw in some attorneys. But the main thing is this: it should be national (so it is simpler for everyone), and it should prevent some of the mayhem in which, today, guns play a role. (It's ok with me if the national law specifies different rules for different regions of the US.) Now, this is my opinion. The important thing for me is that the laws get improved over time, over where they are today. And it is more important that they get improved, than precisely how fast the changes occur, or if the changes are in stages, or if there are grandfathering provisions. Note: improved certainly includes removing sections of the existing laws which are deemed not effective in reducing crimes committed with guns.
Thank you for the nice recap on existing gun laws. It was very informative.
"what intelligent gun control did these laws fail to take into account?" Impossible to answer, but a mind experiment might point the way. Again, since we are delving into human behavior, society, and culture, there are no simple "tests" as in physics, no "proofs" as in geometry. But I would like to see an analysis of how guns, manufactured legally, end up in the hands of the bad guys. (Try not to muddle this thought experiment with cliches about locking up the thugs; we can all agree to that, but we need to deal with the world as it is, not as it should be.) Perhaps this type of analysis could lead to better laws and/or regulations.
"The problem with this idea is simple: What if the result you are after is unachievable?" That is possible (in a theoretical sense) but not likely. All of our laws will evolve over time, zigging and zagging, better and worse, but better over time. I find it hard to imagine that we cannot do better.
"And these ineffective, "feel good" laws are never repealed...." Like I said, they should be.
"All these laws do is move the bar...." That is true, and for all laws in general. Again, this is not physics. Laws are not perfect, ever.
"you don't "experiment" with Constitutional rights." Apart from my never suggesting that, we are constantly interpreting our glorious and beautiful Constitution.
"We've had 73+ years of experimentation and what is the result? Criminals still get guns and still use them." We must never lose our faith in man's ability to make progress.
"Until we address the base cause of gun crime, the criminal himself, we will not have the peace you are looking for." Two points:
1. I always said we have to work on both: lock up the criminals and improve the gun controls.
2. If truth be told, this is not about the peace I am looking for. The peace I am looking for will come after we have erased al Qaeda from the globe. (I got drawn into this debate in a roundabout way, but I take full responsibility for it, and have enjoyed much of it.)
"But this balance must work against the criminal and not 99% of the law-abiding citizens out there. What does it say about our society that this criminal minority is the one serving to impose legal and legislative tyranny on the rest of us? This isn't the way it is supposed to be." I agree, and I see this in all walks of life. Most of the irritating laws we can blame on the "bad guys" for not being honest, decent, etc.
"Law enforcement is the answer, not gun control. Improve that and we will improve everything." You and I disagree, but I applaud your civility and knowledge.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)