It would appear that the Bush Administration does not realize that Osama bin Laden (OBL) and al Qaeda (AQ) are happy with the present course of events. We fell for OBL's trap when we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. It has already cost us about a trillion dollars (considering future liabilities such as cost of extracting our troops and future health care for disabled veterans). In fact, the Congressional Budget Office reported last month "that the cost of a long-term United States troop presence in Iraq, similar to the U.S. commitment in South Korea, could reach $2 trillion or more in 2008 dollars". (Source: "CBO projects long-term troop presence in Iraq could be costly" by Peter Cohn in CongressDaily dated September 20, 2007.)
There are less expensive ways to defeat OBL and AQ. In a past posting ("How To Defeat Al Qaeda"), I explained how we could win the war using soft power. Today, I will explain how we could win the war using hard power.
Let us suppose that we withdrew our military forces from Afghanistan and Iraq, save for a few military bases. We would defend these bases using any and all military options at hand: mine fields, advanced artillery, air power.
Further suppose we brought home all troops from South Korea. This is important, since it is the aim of AQ to defeat us first economically. (That is why they attacked the World Trade Center. They are happy we are nation-building in Iraq and Afghanistan because it is such a drain on us economically. For further evidence, look at the collapse of the dollar and the tripling of oil prices since we invaded Iraq.) Bringing home the troops from Korea will save us billions of dollars.
Next, we develop military plans to wipe out any or all of about 20 different cities in nations where a majority of the populations support terrorism. By this I mean complete destruction using conventional weapons (as opposed to WMDs), as we did during World War II in Europe. These plans should be "on the shelf", ready to use at a moment's notice.
The next step would be for the American President to give a televised speech during which he would announce our intention to escalate the war on terror, and demand the unconditional surrender of OBL and all the leaders of AQ. He would give them 24 hours to do this. If this demand is not met, the US would select one city and then proceed to flatten it. Then, after a suitable interval, the American president would make another speech and promise the same result, but indicate that the next attack would be on two cities, then three cities, and so on.
I anticipate two strong and reasonable objections to this policy:
1. It is too harsh.
2. How would this process end if OBL were among the dead?
As to the first, it is harsh, but we are at war. There is no reason to think that AQ would not use a WMD in Manhattan as soon as it gets its murderous hands on such a weapon, and that is only a matter of time. AQ signed the death warrants of its own people the day OBL planned the 9/11 attacks, and current polling clearly demonstrates that OBL is a hero to people everywhere, and they support AQ in their hearts, if not directly. Besides, we should look forward to the day when America is once again at peace with these nations, just as we are now at peace with Germany and Japan, our enemies during WWII. But that day will not come soon if we "stay the course" and bleed to death in Iraq and Afghanistan, nor would it come soon were we to surrender to AQ. Therefore, we have no choice but to increase the level of pain until AQ's supporters finally decide that this is not a war that they can win.
As for the second objection, since AQ is a worldwide organization, it would be impossible for the US to kill the entire leadership in the manner proposed here. Therefore, some AQ leaders would survive several American strikes, and would tell us where OBL was hiding when we killed him. But in all likelihood, OBL himself would survive all such strikes, and surrender himself.
I realize that this is not a politically correct solution to our current war on terror. In fact, I prefer the solution I posted in "How To Defeat Al Qaeda". But I think we are running out of time, especially considering AQ's announced intentions and the unstable situation in nuclear Pakistan.
It is also true that America is partly to blame for the mess we are in. I have long and frequently argued that we should never have fought wars in Korea, Vietnam, or Iraq. We should have "minded our own business" when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in August 1990.
But we cannot turn back the hands of time, and we do not live in an ideal world. We have to deal with the world as it is today, not as it might have been.
So far, we have tried to avoid collateral damage. We have used "smart bombs". We have allowed people around the world to finance terrorism without paying a price. We have allowed a hateful ideology to spread, and now it threatens our very existence. So, it is now a time for real war. On our terms, not on the enemy's terms. A war we will win. But first, we need to take off the gloves. Innocent people do die in wars. The sooner we realize this, the sooner even more innocent people will survive to live another day.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Review of Come On People
I recently read Come On People by Bill Cosby and Alvin F. Poussaint. I recommend it to all Americans.
I applaud the authors for addressing one of the root problems in the African-American community: unwed mothers. The authors correctly point out that this is not just about the behavior of girls. Both genders are responsible, and not just kids, but also adults.
The authors cite many statistics. Well over half of all black children are born to unwed mothers, and well over half of all marriages end in divorce.
Without fathers in the household, the cards are stacked against children being raised properly. Not only is there a lack of healthy discipline, but there are few role models for young black males.
The book also offers sound nutritional advice. In fact, in almost all areas, the theme is, stop being a victim, and take responsibility for your own life.
Good advice for all Americans, regardless of race.
For more information about this book, go to BillCosby.com.
I applaud the authors for addressing one of the root problems in the African-American community: unwed mothers. The authors correctly point out that this is not just about the behavior of girls. Both genders are responsible, and not just kids, but also adults.
The authors cite many statistics. Well over half of all black children are born to unwed mothers, and well over half of all marriages end in divorce.
Without fathers in the household, the cards are stacked against children being raised properly. Not only is there a lack of healthy discipline, but there are few role models for young black males.
The book also offers sound nutritional advice. In fact, in almost all areas, the theme is, stop being a victim, and take responsibility for your own life.
Good advice for all Americans, regardless of race.
For more information about this book, go to BillCosby.com.
Monday, October 29, 2007
Should We Fear Al Qaeda?
Re Op-Ed Columnist: Fearing Fear Itself by Paul Krugman in today's NY Times:
I mostly agree with Mr. Krugman on his assessment of the leading Republican candidates. But where I disagree with him is in his assessment of Al Qaeda.
The consensus in the American Intelligence Community is that Al Qaeda (AQ) intends to detonate a WMD somewhere in the United States (probably Manhattan or the District of Columbia), just as soon as it is capable of carrying out such an attack.
I agree with Michael Scheuer (author of "Imperial Hubris") that about 90% of AQ are insurgents, and only about 10% are the terrorists who would execute such an attack on us.
Nevertheless, even if the probability were "low", the fact that AQ is determined to use WMDs against the US is something to worry about, especially considering the precarious state of nuclear-armed Pakistan.
It is easy to imagine one or more nukes falling into the hands of Osama bin Laden (OBL). After all, it is very likely that Islamist elements within the government or military or intelligence services of Pakistan are AQ sympathizers who are involved in hiding and/or protecting OBL inside Pakistan itself. Why else would OBL still be on the loose 6 long years after 9/11?
Therefore, with all due respect to Krugman, he is wrong about the threat of terror. But the GOP candidates are wrong about how we should deal with it.
I mostly agree with Mr. Krugman on his assessment of the leading Republican candidates. But where I disagree with him is in his assessment of Al Qaeda.
The consensus in the American Intelligence Community is that Al Qaeda (AQ) intends to detonate a WMD somewhere in the United States (probably Manhattan or the District of Columbia), just as soon as it is capable of carrying out such an attack.
I agree with Michael Scheuer (author of "Imperial Hubris") that about 90% of AQ are insurgents, and only about 10% are the terrorists who would execute such an attack on us.
Nevertheless, even if the probability were "low", the fact that AQ is determined to use WMDs against the US is something to worry about, especially considering the precarious state of nuclear-armed Pakistan.
It is easy to imagine one or more nukes falling into the hands of Osama bin Laden (OBL). After all, it is very likely that Islamist elements within the government or military or intelligence services of Pakistan are AQ sympathizers who are involved in hiding and/or protecting OBL inside Pakistan itself. Why else would OBL still be on the loose 6 long years after 9/11?
Therefore, with all due respect to Krugman, he is wrong about the threat of terror. But the GOP candidates are wrong about how we should deal with it.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
No More Bushes Or Clintons - Right Now!
After the carnage brought on America by two Bushes and one Clinton, we can only hope that Hillary Clinton's luck runs out and somehow she either loses the Democratic nomination or drops out of the race.
I wish we could turn back the clock to 1988, but that is pure fantasy.
My fear is that Hillary becomes President, with Bill Clinton advising her on foreign policy. That could only lead us into a prolonged "War on Terror", since she would not have the balls to pull us out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and like her husband, would be afraid to kill Osama bin Laden even if he were in our sights, since she and Bill would greatly fear collateral damage.
I firmly believe that the Bushes and Clintons have already damaged America enough. Hillary should not be elected President on that basis alone.
If I may indulge in another fantasy, I would like to see Dick Cheney resign and be replaced by any intelligent, non-ideological adult American. Once that switch is secure, George W. Bush would do the smartest, most patriotic thing of his life, and also resign.
When a corporate CEO screws up big-time, he is forced to resign (even though, sadly, he usually gets a gigantic severance package). Since Bush is our first MBA President, and likes to think of himself as a businessman (his fantasy) he ought to do the only honorable thing after so many painful years of incomprehensible incompetence: resign.
I have written many posts (and will continue to write more in the same vein) criticizing the worst president in the history of the United States, so there is no reason for me to list here all of Bush's mistakes. However, I am compelled to reiterate one mistake which by itself is sufficient to call for his resignation: his failure to kill or capture Osama bin Laden (OBL).
Not even Nazi Germany or its ally, militaristic Japan, was able to attack the mainland of the US, never mind get away with it. That OBL is still breathing is a grievous insult to our forefathers and to every man or woman who ever fought for our great nation.
The blood of every American who ever died or was wounded in any battle pre-9/11 or on 9/11 demands that we defeat Al Qaeda and get OBL. Bush failed at this, and failed miserably. He should resign ASAP.
I wish we could turn back the clock to 1988, but that is pure fantasy.
My fear is that Hillary becomes President, with Bill Clinton advising her on foreign policy. That could only lead us into a prolonged "War on Terror", since she would not have the balls to pull us out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and like her husband, would be afraid to kill Osama bin Laden even if he were in our sights, since she and Bill would greatly fear collateral damage.
I firmly believe that the Bushes and Clintons have already damaged America enough. Hillary should not be elected President on that basis alone.
If I may indulge in another fantasy, I would like to see Dick Cheney resign and be replaced by any intelligent, non-ideological adult American. Once that switch is secure, George W. Bush would do the smartest, most patriotic thing of his life, and also resign.
When a corporate CEO screws up big-time, he is forced to resign (even though, sadly, he usually gets a gigantic severance package). Since Bush is our first MBA President, and likes to think of himself as a businessman (his fantasy) he ought to do the only honorable thing after so many painful years of incomprehensible incompetence: resign.
I have written many posts (and will continue to write more in the same vein) criticizing the worst president in the history of the United States, so there is no reason for me to list here all of Bush's mistakes. However, I am compelled to reiterate one mistake which by itself is sufficient to call for his resignation: his failure to kill or capture Osama bin Laden (OBL).
Not even Nazi Germany or its ally, militaristic Japan, was able to attack the mainland of the US, never mind get away with it. That OBL is still breathing is a grievous insult to our forefathers and to every man or woman who ever fought for our great nation.
The blood of every American who ever died or was wounded in any battle pre-9/11 or on 9/11 demands that we defeat Al Qaeda and get OBL. Bush failed at this, and failed miserably. He should resign ASAP.
Minimum Wage
It would strengthen America to increase the minimum wage from $5.85 to $12 per hour (less if in euros). Of course, the minimum wage should increase each year based on the CPI. For example, if inflation as measured by the CPI goes up 2.3% in 2007, then the minimum wage in 2008 should be $12.28 per hour.
If we also deported illegal aliens and tightened our border with Mexico, there would be plenty of jobs available to disadvantaged Americans. As most people know, a job is the best welfare program. The higher minimum wage combined with a lower unemployment rate would go far toward correcting our lopsided income distribution, leading to more economic justice and less social unrest (fewer crimes).
If we also deported illegal aliens and tightened our border with Mexico, there would be plenty of jobs available to disadvantaged Americans. As most people know, a job is the best welfare program. The higher minimum wage combined with a lower unemployment rate would go far toward correcting our lopsided income distribution, leading to more economic justice and less social unrest (fewer crimes).
Global Warming in Greenland
Re Warming Revives Flora and Fauna in Greenland by Sarah Lyall in today's NY Times:
Quote from article:
Greenland, a self-governing province of Denmark, was settled by the pugilistic Viking Erik the Red in the 10th century, after his murderous ways got him ejected from Iceland. Legend has it that he called it Greenland as a way to entice others to join him, and, in fact, it was.
It was relatively green then, with forests and fertile soil, and the Vikings grew crops and raised sheep for hundreds of years. But temperatures dropped precipitously in the so-called Little Ice Age, which began in the 16th century, the Norse settlers died out and agriculture was no longer possible.
End quote.
So, the earth has cooled a lot since the 16th century. Amazing! Also, the article points out many benefits of the current warming trend.
Quote from article:
Greenland, a self-governing province of Denmark, was settled by the pugilistic Viking Erik the Red in the 10th century, after his murderous ways got him ejected from Iceland. Legend has it that he called it Greenland as a way to entice others to join him, and, in fact, it was.
It was relatively green then, with forests and fertile soil, and the Vikings grew crops and raised sheep for hundreds of years. But temperatures dropped precipitously in the so-called Little Ice Age, which began in the 16th century, the Norse settlers died out and agriculture was no longer possible.
End quote.
So, the earth has cooled a lot since the 16th century. Amazing! Also, the article points out many benefits of the current warming trend.
Social and Economic Justice
This post will just be one of many on this subject.
For starters, I completely agree with "Come on, people : on the path from victims to victors" by Bill Cosby and Alvin F. Poussaint. A lot of our current problems are caused by young people making babies outside the institution of marriage.
On education, I strongly favor vouchers and private schools. The state should set the voucher payment to about 80% of the per capita cost of educating a child in that state. (Less than 100% because the kids refusing to attend private schools, or expelled from private schools, will likely be harder to educate.)
The federal government should give large block grants to every state, based only on the population size of each state. The funding should be higher, more progressive, federal income taxes. This way, the penalty for high taxes does not pit state against state, yet each state should have ample funding for education and law enforcement.
For starters, I completely agree with "Come on, people : on the path from victims to victors" by Bill Cosby and Alvin F. Poussaint. A lot of our current problems are caused by young people making babies outside the institution of marriage.
On education, I strongly favor vouchers and private schools. The state should set the voucher payment to about 80% of the per capita cost of educating a child in that state. (Less than 100% because the kids refusing to attend private schools, or expelled from private schools, will likely be harder to educate.)
The federal government should give large block grants to every state, based only on the population size of each state. The funding should be higher, more progressive, federal income taxes. This way, the penalty for high taxes does not pit state against state, yet each state should have ample funding for education and law enforcement.
Law and Order
Re Scared Silent: Few Choices in Shielding of Witnesses by David Kocieniewski in today's NY Times:
New Jersey is my home state, but the problems associated with street gangs are in just about every state.
The solution to this crisis is to step up funding for law and order, even if that means raising taxes, and to roll back many of the laws and practices which were advocated by the ACLU and similar liberal organizations, which, in effect, coddle the bad guys.
We need to stop freeing the bad guys based on real evidence which is excluded from trials for "technical" reasons. We need to give the police a lot more leeway in shooting and arresting the bad guys. We need to round up known gang members, incarcerate them, and "throw away the keys". We should stop paying legal fees for gang members; we should stop providing them public defenders. (Maybe some of the money now allocated for public defenders could be directed to law enforcement.)
I call on our media to stop crucifying over-zealous cops, and start crucifying the bad guys.
We need the complete turn-around advocated here, until our streets become safe again. Then and only then should we return to the more progressive criminal justice practices now advocated by the ACLU.
By the way, I also favor "social and economic justice", but that is a different topic.
New Jersey is my home state, but the problems associated with street gangs are in just about every state.
The solution to this crisis is to step up funding for law and order, even if that means raising taxes, and to roll back many of the laws and practices which were advocated by the ACLU and similar liberal organizations, which, in effect, coddle the bad guys.
We need to stop freeing the bad guys based on real evidence which is excluded from trials for "technical" reasons. We need to give the police a lot more leeway in shooting and arresting the bad guys. We need to round up known gang members, incarcerate them, and "throw away the keys". We should stop paying legal fees for gang members; we should stop providing them public defenders. (Maybe some of the money now allocated for public defenders could be directed to law enforcement.)
I call on our media to stop crucifying over-zealous cops, and start crucifying the bad guys.
We need the complete turn-around advocated here, until our streets become safe again. Then and only then should we return to the more progressive criminal justice practices now advocated by the ACLU.
By the way, I also favor "social and economic justice", but that is a different topic.
Wars, Global Warming, and Tom Friedman
Re Op-Ed Columnist: Did We Do That? by Thomas L. Friedman in today's NY Times:
There he goes again, trying to hype a problem that he may be more responsible for than the average American.
Let me stipulate (just for the sake of argument) that there is a global warming phenomenon, that it is bad, and that it is caused mainly by human behavior. That is really what Tom's column is about.
Well, I wish someone could tell us what percent of human-produced greenhouse gases, notably CO2, are produced by wars, and then break that down to show the contribution of our War on Iraq. After all, militaries burn a lot of fossil fuels during wartime, besides the gases released during explosions.
What does this have to do with Friedman? Well, he was an early and ardent advocate for invading Iraq. As his colleague Maureen Dowd would say, Q.E.D.
There he goes again, trying to hype a problem that he may be more responsible for than the average American.
Let me stipulate (just for the sake of argument) that there is a global warming phenomenon, that it is bad, and that it is caused mainly by human behavior. That is really what Tom's column is about.
Well, I wish someone could tell us what percent of human-produced greenhouse gases, notably CO2, are produced by wars, and then break that down to show the contribution of our War on Iraq. After all, militaries burn a lot of fossil fuels during wartime, besides the gases released during explosions.
What does this have to do with Friedman? Well, he was an early and ardent advocate for invading Iraq. As his colleague Maureen Dowd would say, Q.E.D.
NY Times Newspeak
Re Editorial Observer: What Part of 'Illegal' Don't You Understand? by Lawrence Downes in today's NY Times:
There they go again. The NY Times uses newspeak (see Wikipedia) and ad hominem attacks on its opponents when discussing illegal immigrants because facts and logic are not on their side.
Mr. Downes likens the crime of illegally sneaking into our country with his own jaywalking. And if you want all illegal aliens deported, you are a bigot. He also sees the word illegal "as a code word for racial and ethnic hatred".
I do not doubt that there are bigoted and racist Americans who want to end illegal immigration. There are also murderers and rapists who favor the "immigration reform" views of Mr. Downes and the NY Times.
But my interest is, what is best for America. In this matter, deportation of illegal aliens and doing a better job of preventing them from crossing into our country, would be better for America than the current situation.
I see the world as vastly overpopulated with humans. It is easy to identify the regions which are overpopulated: they have a lot more emigrants than immigrants. So, I would offer the following as a partial list of overpopulated places: Mexico, China, India, Pakistan, and most of Africa.
The only humane way to deal with this problem is sterilization and birth control. Otherwise, the source countries stay overpopulated and the destination countries become overpopulated.
I imagine many people believe that our planet is not overpopulated. What they should do is look at all the suffering caused by hunger, disease, wars, and human pollution.
In matters such as this, "absolutes" do not apply; there is no ideal population size. It is a matter of degrees, not absolutes. But clearly, our planet is overpopulated, and illegal immigration just makes the problem worse.
There they go again. The NY Times uses newspeak (see Wikipedia) and ad hominem attacks on its opponents when discussing illegal immigrants because facts and logic are not on their side.
Mr. Downes likens the crime of illegally sneaking into our country with his own jaywalking. And if you want all illegal aliens deported, you are a bigot. He also sees the word illegal "as a code word for racial and ethnic hatred".
I do not doubt that there are bigoted and racist Americans who want to end illegal immigration. There are also murderers and rapists who favor the "immigration reform" views of Mr. Downes and the NY Times.
But my interest is, what is best for America. In this matter, deportation of illegal aliens and doing a better job of preventing them from crossing into our country, would be better for America than the current situation.
I see the world as vastly overpopulated with humans. It is easy to identify the regions which are overpopulated: they have a lot more emigrants than immigrants. So, I would offer the following as a partial list of overpopulated places: Mexico, China, India, Pakistan, and most of Africa.
The only humane way to deal with this problem is sterilization and birth control. Otherwise, the source countries stay overpopulated and the destination countries become overpopulated.
I imagine many people believe that our planet is not overpopulated. What they should do is look at all the suffering caused by hunger, disease, wars, and human pollution.
In matters such as this, "absolutes" do not apply; there is no ideal population size. It is a matter of degrees, not absolutes. But clearly, our planet is overpopulated, and illegal immigration just makes the problem worse.
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Turkey Invades Iraq
This is an easy prediction, coming after the Turkish parliament approved in advance the use of Turkish troops to cross into Iraq.
Of course, the United States has no dog in the fight between Iraqi Kurds and Turkey, but the expansion of the war in Iraq will only complicate our involvement there.
So, we have yet another reason to get out of Iraq ASAP.
A typical article about this growing crisis can be found in Iraq Plan to Add U.S. Troops at Kurdish Border Is Rejected by Turkey by Sebnem Arsu and Andrew E. Kramer in today's NY Times.
Of course, the United States has no dog in the fight between Iraqi Kurds and Turkey, but the expansion of the war in Iraq will only complicate our involvement there.
So, we have yet another reason to get out of Iraq ASAP.
A typical article about this growing crisis can be found in Iraq Plan to Add U.S. Troops at Kurdish Border Is Rejected by Turkey by Sebnem Arsu and Andrew E. Kramer in today's NY Times.
The Rich Getting Richer
Re The Price of Any Departure Will Be at Least $159 Million by Eric Dash in today's NY Times:
When you or I screw up big-time on the job, we are fired unceremoniously. So be it. But when the filthy rich screw up, they are rewarded big-time.
Quote from the article:
"Merrill Lynch's directors may be weighing E. Stanley O'Neal's future, but one thing is already guaranteed: a payday of at least $159 million if he steps down."
Just a regular day in our "tournament" capitalist system.
When you or I screw up big-time on the job, we are fired unceremoniously. So be it. But when the filthy rich screw up, they are rewarded big-time.
Quote from the article:
"Merrill Lynch's directors may be weighing E. Stanley O'Neal's future, but one thing is already guaranteed: a payday of at least $159 million if he steps down."
Just a regular day in our "tournament" capitalist system.
Rich People Stealing From The Rest of Us
Re Disabilities Fight Grows as Taxes Pay for Tuition by Diana Jean Schemo and Jennifer Medina in today's NY Times:
It's bad enough that filthy rich people get that way by playing our lopsided "tournament" capitalist system. And it is no secret that they use their money to buy political favors from their representatives, such as lower tax rates for them or their businesses.
But this new scheme takes the cake. They use their loot to pay for attorneys who sue local school districts (see below); guess who pays the attorneys hired by school boards? That would be us, the ever-squeezed property taxpayers.
Worse, these filthy rich bloodsuckers are forcing schools to pay exorbitant private-school tuitions for their offspring! Now, I am not referring to legitimate situations where the child is truly disabled and the school district cannot or will not give such a child a decent public school education. What I am referring to are the far more numerous situations where the parent chooses to live in a particular town or city but wants the child to get a better education at the expense of the "little people" who pay taxes.
Quote from the article:
New York City officials say the battle over private schooling is keenly felt here. The city willingly pays private tuition for 7,000 severely handicapped children.
But after administrative or court rulings, it also spent $57 million last year to educate 3,675 disabled students whose parents rejected the public schools. Such requests for reimbursement have more than doubled in the last five years, officials say, adding that autism is involved in only a small fraction of the cases. At the private Robert Louis Stevenson School on the Upper West Side, for example, about three-quarters of its 75 students get tuition reimbursement from the city.
“When people realize that they can get something for free at the government’s expense, you see more and more people take advantage,” said Michael Best, the chief lawyer for the city’s Education Department, predicting the number would rise.
City officials say most requests come from wealthy families who can front the money for private tuition and legal fees. “I have cases with very famous and very wealthy singers and actors, where it is patently obvious that they can send their child to private school,” Mr. Best said.
“These are people who never have any interest in going to public schools in the first place,” he added.
(End quote.)
OK, greed knows no bounds. But this is nothing less than grand larceny.
It's bad enough that filthy rich people get that way by playing our lopsided "tournament" capitalist system. And it is no secret that they use their money to buy political favors from their representatives, such as lower tax rates for them or their businesses.
But this new scheme takes the cake. They use their loot to pay for attorneys who sue local school districts (see below); guess who pays the attorneys hired by school boards? That would be us, the ever-squeezed property taxpayers.
Worse, these filthy rich bloodsuckers are forcing schools to pay exorbitant private-school tuitions for their offspring! Now, I am not referring to legitimate situations where the child is truly disabled and the school district cannot or will not give such a child a decent public school education. What I am referring to are the far more numerous situations where the parent chooses to live in a particular town or city but wants the child to get a better education at the expense of the "little people" who pay taxes.
Quote from the article:
New York City officials say the battle over private schooling is keenly felt here. The city willingly pays private tuition for 7,000 severely handicapped children.
But after administrative or court rulings, it also spent $57 million last year to educate 3,675 disabled students whose parents rejected the public schools. Such requests for reimbursement have more than doubled in the last five years, officials say, adding that autism is involved in only a small fraction of the cases. At the private Robert Louis Stevenson School on the Upper West Side, for example, about three-quarters of its 75 students get tuition reimbursement from the city.
“When people realize that they can get something for free at the government’s expense, you see more and more people take advantage,” said Michael Best, the chief lawyer for the city’s Education Department, predicting the number would rise.
City officials say most requests come from wealthy families who can front the money for private tuition and legal fees. “I have cases with very famous and very wealthy singers and actors, where it is patently obvious that they can send their child to private school,” Mr. Best said.
“These are people who never have any interest in going to public schools in the first place,” he added.
(End quote.)
OK, greed knows no bounds. But this is nothing less than grand larceny.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Sub-Prime Crisis
Don't be fooled by the sub-prime mortgage crisis. It is real, but it is also hyped by the media and special interests on Wall Street.
There are Wall Street fatcats who made bushels of money on sub-prime mortgages, but now that the party is over, they want a government bail-out. That would be bad policy.
As part of the hype, we are told that money market funds (where middle-America keeps a lot of its savings) could be in jeopardy. Don't believe this. The money market funds hardly reaped the rewards (fat fees) of Wall Street and money-center banks like Citigroup, so there is no reason why the money market funds ought to be hurt. But they could be hurt if Wall Street wanted this outcome. That is because money market funds invest in "commercial paper", and Wall Street could probably "manage" the crisis by acting in ways that result in defaults for these short-term loans.
The reason Wall Street won't do that is because if they did, there would be a class-action lawsuit against Wall Street that would make the tobacco litigation look like small potatoes.
There are Wall Street fatcats who made bushels of money on sub-prime mortgages, but now that the party is over, they want a government bail-out. That would be bad policy.
As part of the hype, we are told that money market funds (where middle-America keeps a lot of its savings) could be in jeopardy. Don't believe this. The money market funds hardly reaped the rewards (fat fees) of Wall Street and money-center banks like Citigroup, so there is no reason why the money market funds ought to be hurt. But they could be hurt if Wall Street wanted this outcome. That is because money market funds invest in "commercial paper", and Wall Street could probably "manage" the crisis by acting in ways that result in defaults for these short-term loans.
The reason Wall Street won't do that is because if they did, there would be a class-action lawsuit against Wall Street that would make the tobacco litigation look like small potatoes.
Giuliani's Ideas On Foreign Policy
Re Mideast Hawks Help to Develop Giuliani Policy by Michael Cooper and Marc Santora in today's NY Times:
Rudolph W. Giuliani is only half-right in his ideas on foreign policy. He is correct in recognizing the scope of the problem, but wrong in his prescriptions.
(William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard, makes a logic error when he says that none of the leading Republican candidates "buy any of these fundamental criticisms that Bush took us on a radically wrong path, and we have to go to a pre-9/11 foreign policy." It was never either/or. Bush did take us on a radically wrong path, but so did Clinton "pre-9/11".)
Giuliani is correct when he speaks about the "Islamic terrorists’ war against the United States". But his prescription for an endless hot war is wrong.
We ought not play by the terrorists' rules. ("Never get into a pissing contest with a pig.") We should play where and how we are dominant. We have strategic bombers and ballistic missiles; the terrorists don't. We have overwhelming "soft" power; the terrorists don't.
We can hurt the terrorists badly wherever and whenever they build training camps, by carpet bombing them from X0,000 feet in the air.
The rest of the time, we can out-publish them on the Internet, on TV, in the movies, music, worlds of art and media. We can out-propagandize them. We can play tricks on them.
There is absolutely no need to do any nation-building.
Rudolph W. Giuliani is only half-right in his ideas on foreign policy. He is correct in recognizing the scope of the problem, but wrong in his prescriptions.
(William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard, makes a logic error when he says that none of the leading Republican candidates "buy any of these fundamental criticisms that Bush took us on a radically wrong path, and we have to go to a pre-9/11 foreign policy." It was never either/or. Bush did take us on a radically wrong path, but so did Clinton "pre-9/11".)
Giuliani is correct when he speaks about the "Islamic terrorists’ war against the United States". But his prescription for an endless hot war is wrong.
We ought not play by the terrorists' rules. ("Never get into a pissing contest with a pig.") We should play where and how we are dominant. We have strategic bombers and ballistic missiles; the terrorists don't. We have overwhelming "soft" power; the terrorists don't.
We can hurt the terrorists badly wherever and whenever they build training camps, by carpet bombing them from X0,000 feet in the air.
The rest of the time, we can out-publish them on the Internet, on TV, in the movies, music, worlds of art and media. We can out-propagandize them. We can play tricks on them.
There is absolutely no need to do any nation-building.
China's Future
The subtitle is "NY Times Reporter Should Take Econ 101".
Re China Says Economy Grew 11.5% by Keith Bradsher in today's NY Times:
Quotes from the article:
"The temptation to buy stocks or property or spend on consumer goods — retail sales were up 17 percent in September from a year earlier — has increased as bank depositors have found themselves earning regulated interest rates as low as half the inflation rate."
...
"Through massive purchases of dollars and other currencies, as well as by easing restrictions on overseas investments by Chinese citizens, China has greatly slowed the appreciation of its currency and maintained a competitive advantage over other Asian nations."
...
"China has controlled the overall rise in consumer prices partly by freezing all government-set prices, notably for gasoline, water, electricity and natural gas. The freeze began Sept. 19 and is to last until at least until the end of this year. On Sept. 19 the government’s National Development and Reform Commission also banned any increases in the maximum allowed prices for medicines, air and rail trips and certain agricultural commodities like wheat, rice and cotton."
...
"Price controls, a tactic tried and discarded in the United States in the 1970s, run the risk of temporarily tamping down inflationary pressures that later burst out with even greater force."
So far, so good. But here comes the error:
"China is hoping that deflationary pressures, like the country’s massive investments in everything from highways to new factories, will soon offset higher food prices."
Sorry, but massive government spending is not deflationary, it is the opposite: inflationary.
The rapid growth of the Chinese economy is destined to end badly. No one can predict exactly how or when it will end, but it is very easy to see that it cannot be sustained.
My educated guess is that inflation in China will be the trigger, as opposed to the accumulated American trade deficits with the rest of the world. It is a lot easier for the efficient currency markets to make gradual adjustments in the value of the dollar, than it would be for the Chinese command economy to deal with exploding inflation. Also, the American economy seems to be benefiting, on net, from cheap goods and services from China, whereas it is hard to see how the building inflation in China can end peaceably.
My way-out guess is that runaway inflation in China will lead to massive social unrest in the years to come, and that unrest will outpace any movement toward a liberal democracy. Therefore, China will eventually break up into smaller, more manageable pieces (countries).
Re China Says Economy Grew 11.5% by Keith Bradsher in today's NY Times:
Quotes from the article:
"The temptation to buy stocks or property or spend on consumer goods — retail sales were up 17 percent in September from a year earlier — has increased as bank depositors have found themselves earning regulated interest rates as low as half the inflation rate."
...
"Through massive purchases of dollars and other currencies, as well as by easing restrictions on overseas investments by Chinese citizens, China has greatly slowed the appreciation of its currency and maintained a competitive advantage over other Asian nations."
...
"China has controlled the overall rise in consumer prices partly by freezing all government-set prices, notably for gasoline, water, electricity and natural gas. The freeze began Sept. 19 and is to last until at least until the end of this year. On Sept. 19 the government’s National Development and Reform Commission also banned any increases in the maximum allowed prices for medicines, air and rail trips and certain agricultural commodities like wheat, rice and cotton."
...
"Price controls, a tactic tried and discarded in the United States in the 1970s, run the risk of temporarily tamping down inflationary pressures that later burst out with even greater force."
So far, so good. But here comes the error:
"China is hoping that deflationary pressures, like the country’s massive investments in everything from highways to new factories, will soon offset higher food prices."
Sorry, but massive government spending is not deflationary, it is the opposite: inflationary.
The rapid growth of the Chinese economy is destined to end badly. No one can predict exactly how or when it will end, but it is very easy to see that it cannot be sustained.
My educated guess is that inflation in China will be the trigger, as opposed to the accumulated American trade deficits with the rest of the world. It is a lot easier for the efficient currency markets to make gradual adjustments in the value of the dollar, than it would be for the Chinese command economy to deal with exploding inflation. Also, the American economy seems to be benefiting, on net, from cheap goods and services from China, whereas it is hard to see how the building inflation in China can end peaceably.
My way-out guess is that runaway inflation in China will lead to massive social unrest in the years to come, and that unrest will outpace any movement toward a liberal democracy. Therefore, China will eventually break up into smaller, more manageable pieces (countries).
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Friedman Still Confused About Iraq
This post refers to Thomas Friedman's column Op-Ed Columnist: Remember Iraq in today's NY Times.
Tom has a strain of the "Blame America First" infection. Today's symptom is the variation known as "Credit America Last". So even though we are pouring blood and treasure into Iraq, Tom is forced to write "To the extent that the surge has worked militarily, it is largely because of what Iraqis have done by themselves for themselves".
This is outrageous. Friedman was screaming for us to invade Iraq, then, after many years of agony there, he can't even credit our troops for doing the near impossible under the worst of circumstances.
We need to get our troops out of Iraq now, not when the likes of Friedman say it is OK. Then, we will all see what the Iraqis can do "by themselves for themselves". No doubt, if the Iraqis fail, Friedman will revert to the original strain: blame America first.
Tom has a strain of the "Blame America First" infection. Today's symptom is the variation known as "Credit America Last". So even though we are pouring blood and treasure into Iraq, Tom is forced to write "To the extent that the surge has worked militarily, it is largely because of what Iraqis have done by themselves for themselves".
This is outrageous. Friedman was screaming for us to invade Iraq, then, after many years of agony there, he can't even credit our troops for doing the near impossible under the worst of circumstances.
We need to get our troops out of Iraq now, not when the likes of Friedman say it is OK. Then, we will all see what the Iraqis can do "by themselves for themselves". No doubt, if the Iraqis fail, Friedman will revert to the original strain: blame America first.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
American Musicians For Saudi Arabia
Once again, some American musicians are doing their best to keep the United States dependent on Saudi Arabia, and in effect, raising funds for terrorists.
The article '70s Echo in New 'No Nukes' Campaign By David M. Herszenhorn in today's NY Times points out that "the musicians, Bonnie Raitt, Graham Nash and Jackson Browne, aging, activist rock stars, have reunited to battle the nuclear power industry on Capitol Hill."
I suppose the word "nuclear" scares these musicians. Still, I bet they use a lot of electricity. Someone should tell them that electricity does not grow on trees, and we use far more than we could viably generate with "wind, solar and other renewable sources". 47 coal miners died in accidents in 2006. Also, it is estimated that thousands of additional Americans die every year due to the pollution associated with coal-fired power plants. Contrast this with the approximately zero deaths from nuclear power every year.
In short, these musicians should stick to their knitting, and leave energy policy to those who know a little more about the subject.
The article '70s Echo in New 'No Nukes' Campaign By David M. Herszenhorn in today's NY Times points out that "the musicians, Bonnie Raitt, Graham Nash and Jackson Browne, aging, activist rock stars, have reunited to battle the nuclear power industry on Capitol Hill."
I suppose the word "nuclear" scares these musicians. Still, I bet they use a lot of electricity. Someone should tell them that electricity does not grow on trees, and we use far more than we could viably generate with "wind, solar and other renewable sources". 47 coal miners died in accidents in 2006. Also, it is estimated that thousands of additional Americans die every year due to the pollution associated with coal-fired power plants. Contrast this with the approximately zero deaths from nuclear power every year.
In short, these musicians should stick to their knitting, and leave energy policy to those who know a little more about the subject.
A Quick Way to End the War in Iraq
The fastest road out of Iraq would be for Congress to simply not pay for the war. At some point, Bush would blink and then the troops would come home.
Not quite so fast, but still quick, would be for Congress to impose an income tax surcharge to pay for the war. For example, after all the computations to arrive at the final tax, add one more: multiply the tax amount by 1.3 (a thirty percent surcharge).
If this war is really necessary, then it ought to be worth actually paying for. After all, Congress, in effect, has been asking young people to die for the benefit of Iraqis. So Congress should ask other (generally older) Americans to pay for the war with higher taxes. Otherwise, we are asking our young to pay for the war twice: first with their blood, and later, when the money borrowed from China and Saudi Arabia has to be paid back, with higher taxes.
This means that we should pay for the war now, as opposed to borrowing the money (as the Republicans prefer to do).
OK. So what does this have to do with ending the war? The very people who got us into Iraq and don't want to "cut and run" are the ones who would mostly have to pay higher taxes. This puts them in a bind: they hate taxes, but they want us to stay in Iraq.
I am guessing that their fiscal ideology of "borrow and spend" (i.e., "no new taxes") would outweigh their neocon ideology of nation-building. In other words, when faced with the prospect of higher taxes, the Republicans would vote in favor of ending our war in Iraq.
Not quite so fast, but still quick, would be for Congress to impose an income tax surcharge to pay for the war. For example, after all the computations to arrive at the final tax, add one more: multiply the tax amount by 1.3 (a thirty percent surcharge).
If this war is really necessary, then it ought to be worth actually paying for. After all, Congress, in effect, has been asking young people to die for the benefit of Iraqis. So Congress should ask other (generally older) Americans to pay for the war with higher taxes. Otherwise, we are asking our young to pay for the war twice: first with their blood, and later, when the money borrowed from China and Saudi Arabia has to be paid back, with higher taxes.
This means that we should pay for the war now, as opposed to borrowing the money (as the Republicans prefer to do).
OK. So what does this have to do with ending the war? The very people who got us into Iraq and don't want to "cut and run" are the ones who would mostly have to pay higher taxes. This puts them in a bind: they hate taxes, but they want us to stay in Iraq.
I am guessing that their fiscal ideology of "borrow and spend" (i.e., "no new taxes") would outweigh their neocon ideology of nation-building. In other words, when faced with the prospect of higher taxes, the Republicans would vote in favor of ending our war in Iraq.
Monday, October 22, 2007
Bush Wants More Money For Wars
Here we go again. In the NY Times article Bush Requests $46 Billion for Wars by David Stout it is reported that Bush is asking for an additional $46 billion, bringing the total amount Bush wants to spend in Iraq this fiscal year to $196 billion. Keep this figure in mind when you read about bills he has vetoed that he says cost too much.
Congress should not grant him this money. Then, Bush will say that Congress is endangering our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. But that won't be true. If Bush were to bring home the troops which he sent to Iraq, and changed the mission in Afghanistan from nation-building to finding Osama bin Laden, then Congress could turn the money spigot back on. But if Bush refused to come to his senses (since our Constitution explicitly gives Congress, not the President, the authority to fund wars) then he should immediately be impeached for recklessly endangering our troops.
Congress should not grant him this money. Then, Bush will say that Congress is endangering our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. But that won't be true. If Bush were to bring home the troops which he sent to Iraq, and changed the mission in Afghanistan from nation-building to finding Osama bin Laden, then Congress could turn the money spigot back on. But if Bush refused to come to his senses (since our Constitution explicitly gives Congress, not the President, the authority to fund wars) then he should immediately be impeached for recklessly endangering our troops.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Racism
I just read Few Answers About Nooses, but Much Talk of Jim Crow By Paul Vitello in the NY Times. Apparently, some jerks have nothing better to do than to leave nooses in public places, with obvious racial motivation. As of this writing, no arrests have been made.
So, while we are fighting a War on Terror, and should be coming together as one people in one nation, some losers have nothing better to do than to stir up racial discord and in effect hurt their fellow citizens.
I don't know which laws were broken, but if nothing else, I hope the culprit(s) are found and shamed by the communities where they live. No doubt, they deserve our condemnation.
I would not be surprised if someone explains why the perps were acting like jerks. But in our imperfect world, unless a person has a real mental defect which causes such anti-social and racist behavior, then the perp must take full responsibility for his or her actions, and pay the consequences.
So, while we are fighting a War on Terror, and should be coming together as one people in one nation, some losers have nothing better to do than to stir up racial discord and in effect hurt their fellow citizens.
I don't know which laws were broken, but if nothing else, I hope the culprit(s) are found and shamed by the communities where they live. No doubt, they deserve our condemnation.
I would not be surprised if someone explains why the perps were acting like jerks. But in our imperfect world, unless a person has a real mental defect which causes such anti-social and racist behavior, then the perp must take full responsibility for his or her actions, and pay the consequences.
Iran
A major mistake (but certainly not on the order of Bush's invasion of Iraq) in foreign policy occurred in 1979 when the inept President Jimmy Carter let Iran get away with an act of war. Hours after the Iranians invaded our embassy (considered our sovereign territory under long-standing international convention and/or law), Carter should have ordered our air force and navy to inflict heavy blows on Iran. Then, he should have gone on TV with an ultimatum to Khomeini: cease and desist your invasion of our embassy, and return our personnel unharmed, or else we will flatten your entire country.
Instead, Jimmy sent the following message to the world: "You can crap on us, and we won't do anything about it, because we don't want to kill innocent civilians." Well, Iran got that message, and later, so did Al Qaeda. In fact, that message got amplified over and over, as jihadis got off scott free after numerous attacks on Americans, culminating in 9/11.
As they say, you have to break eggs to make an omelet. In war, you have to break heads.
Instead, Jimmy sent the following message to the world: "You can crap on us, and we won't do anything about it, because we don't want to kill innocent civilians." Well, Iran got that message, and later, so did Al Qaeda. In fact, that message got amplified over and over, as jihadis got off scott free after numerous attacks on Americans, culminating in 9/11.
As they say, you have to break eggs to make an omelet. In war, you have to break heads.
Jihadi Web Sites
I just read What to Do About Pixels of Hate By Michael Moss in today's NY Times.
There appears to be disagreement among anti-jihadis about how to handle jihadi web sites. Some in the law enforcement arena believe we should leave them alone, because they are a source of intelligence about our enemy. But I side with Joseph G. Shahda, whose quest to shut down those web sites is highlighted in the article.
Since we are in a War on Terror, we should go on the offensive, in particular by using our enormous "soft power". (See "How to Defeat Al Qaeda"). The act of shutting down the enemy's web sites causes them to react, and whenever they move or hide, that response provides even better intelligence. I say "keep them on the run". Don't let them rest. Don't let them sleep. Attack! Attack! Attack!
Three cheers for Joseph G. Shahda!
There appears to be disagreement among anti-jihadis about how to handle jihadi web sites. Some in the law enforcement arena believe we should leave them alone, because they are a source of intelligence about our enemy. But I side with Joseph G. Shahda, whose quest to shut down those web sites is highlighted in the article.
Since we are in a War on Terror, we should go on the offensive, in particular by using our enormous "soft power". (See "How to Defeat Al Qaeda"). The act of shutting down the enemy's web sites causes them to react, and whenever they move or hide, that response provides even better intelligence. I say "keep them on the run". Don't let them rest. Don't let them sleep. Attack! Attack! Attack!
Three cheers for Joseph G. Shahda!
Wall Street Shenanigans
I just read Everybody's Business: The Gloomsayers Should Look Up By Ben Stein. He's a modern day Renaissance Man: actor, comedian, economist, and author. (I believe his father was an economist who worked in the Nixon Administration.)
Mr. Stein does not disappoint. He points out how Wall Street CEOs make a bundle, and when they screw up, the little guy is forced to pick up the tab. The Securities and Exchange Commission is partly to blame, since, in my view, they are basically buddies of these greedy CEOs, and that is why the S.E.C. rarely punishes lawbreaking on the Street.
Our Bush Treasury Secretary, Henry M. Paulson, the former CEO of Goldman Sachs, is one of their own, so we all know whose interests he cares about.
It appears that when the current mess regarding "subprime mortgages" is over, the CEOs, the big Investment Banks and Citigroup with come out with most of their profits secure, and the taxpayers will pay for the damages. In other words, when Wall Street makes a bet, if they win, they make money, if they lose, we pick up the tab. What a business!
Of course, this is all the more galling when you realize that the middle class pays a much higher percentage of its income in taxes than the greedy folks on Wall Street.
Shenanigans, indeed.
Mr. Stein does not disappoint. He points out how Wall Street CEOs make a bundle, and when they screw up, the little guy is forced to pick up the tab. The Securities and Exchange Commission is partly to blame, since, in my view, they are basically buddies of these greedy CEOs, and that is why the S.E.C. rarely punishes lawbreaking on the Street.
Our Bush Treasury Secretary, Henry M. Paulson, the former CEO of Goldman Sachs, is one of their own, so we all know whose interests he cares about.
It appears that when the current mess regarding "subprime mortgages" is over, the CEOs, the big Investment Banks and Citigroup with come out with most of their profits secure, and the taxpayers will pay for the damages. In other words, when Wall Street makes a bet, if they win, they make money, if they lose, we pick up the tab. What a business!
Of course, this is all the more galling when you realize that the middle class pays a much higher percentage of its income in taxes than the greedy folks on Wall Street.
Shenanigans, indeed.
Iraqi Exiles
I just read Syria Shuts Main Exit From War for Iraqis By Thanassis Cambanis in today's NY Times. It is, on net, a good idea that Syria is closing its border with Iraq, and it would be, on net, good for Iraq if Syria (along with Jordan) were to deport Iraqis back to Iraq.
Why? Because Iraq needs all the talented people who left, to fight the insurgents and to rebuild their nation. These people want Americans to do their dirty work, and then they would go back home to Iraq and largely be ungrateful for our loss of blood and treasure on their behalf.
So I hope Syria deports them, and all Iraqis finally take responsibility for their own country.
Why? Because Iraq needs all the talented people who left, to fight the insurgents and to rebuild their nation. These people want Americans to do their dirty work, and then they would go back home to Iraq and largely be ungrateful for our loss of blood and treasure on their behalf.
So I hope Syria deports them, and all Iraqis finally take responsibility for their own country.
Saturday, October 20, 2007
Op-Ed: A Global Tax Credit
This is one of those op-eds which drives me crazy. I am referring to the piece in today's NY Times Op-Ed Contributors: A Global Tax Credit by Justin Muzinich (works for a hedge fund in Connecticut)and Eric Werker (an assistant professor at Harvard Business School).
My views on this issue are summarized here:
1. We should end all foreign aid. To balance out the hard feelings, we should stop fighting undeclared wars (e.g., get out of Iraq) and bring our troops home from South Korea.
2. Foreign aid to sub-Saharan Africa only worsens the poverty and misery there. (See "A Farewell to Alms" by Gregory Clark.)
3. Use some of the saved money from foreign aid and foreign wars to help disadvantaged Americans. The recipients would include, but not be limited to, our poor and homeless citizens. The rest of the saved billions should be used in education and R&D for thermonuclear (fusion) power reactors.
The false premise of the op-ed is based on the notion that we can help sub-Saharan Africa by both direct aid and by economic development. This ignores the real problem: overpopulation in sub-Saharan Africa. Until that problem is addressed, no amount of aid will do anything but make the problem worse.
I am not an economist, but my educated guess is that this part of Africa has about 100 times too many people. The growth rate is the core of the problem. If the average number of children per adult female could be reduced to about 1, then over time the problem would go away.
To summarize, the problem in sub-Saharan Africa is overpopulation. Fix that problem, and the economic problems will disappear.
My views on this issue are summarized here:
1. We should end all foreign aid. To balance out the hard feelings, we should stop fighting undeclared wars (e.g., get out of Iraq) and bring our troops home from South Korea.
2. Foreign aid to sub-Saharan Africa only worsens the poverty and misery there. (See "A Farewell to Alms" by Gregory Clark.)
3. Use some of the saved money from foreign aid and foreign wars to help disadvantaged Americans. The recipients would include, but not be limited to, our poor and homeless citizens. The rest of the saved billions should be used in education and R&D for thermonuclear (fusion) power reactors.
The false premise of the op-ed is based on the notion that we can help sub-Saharan Africa by both direct aid and by economic development. This ignores the real problem: overpopulation in sub-Saharan Africa. Until that problem is addressed, no amount of aid will do anything but make the problem worse.
I am not an economist, but my educated guess is that this part of Africa has about 100 times too many people. The growth rate is the core of the problem. If the average number of children per adult female could be reduced to about 1, then over time the problem would go away.
To summarize, the problem in sub-Saharan Africa is overpopulation. Fix that problem, and the economic problems will disappear.
Op-Ed: Party Here, Sacrifice Over There
I just read the NY Times OP-Ed Op-Ed Contributor: Party Here, Sacrifice Over There By Will Bardenwerper (he was an Army infantry officer from 2003 to 2007, and was stationed for 13 months in Nineveh and Anbar Provinces in Iraq). I thank him and all the men and women in our military for their valor and service.
The last three paragraphs make his main point:
"A draft would have one of two consequences. The first is that it might actually relieve the strain on today’s soldiers and end the “backdoor draft” of volunteers who have already served while their civilian peers remain comfortably undisturbed. I am aware that Army leaders fear that a draft would hurt the professionalism of today’s force. However, the lowering of recruiting requirements, as well as the offering of big signing bonuses to impressionable high school students, is already diminishing standards.
The other possible consequence is that serious consideration of a draft could set off such a violent reaction from the American public that the pressure on politicians to abandon their cliché-ridden rhetoric and begin a well-considered withdrawal would be overpowering.
Either situation would accelerate movement toward a decisive point — a commitment to victory, or the realization that Americans simply do not believe the threats cited are really worthy of the sacrifices required to vanquish them. Many years and many lives later, the very least we can do for my friends fighting a world away is to try to decide."
Basically, he wants to bring back the draft. But this is putting the cart in front of the horse. You have a draft when you are fighting a declared war and need more manpower than is available in a volunteer force. But we never declared war on Iraq.
There were good reasons why our founding fathers gave this authority to the Congress. Presidents like George W. Bush have abused their executive authority by involving us in undeclared wars: Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq. Presidents are not kings. They should abide by our Constitution.
The last three paragraphs make his main point:
"A draft would have one of two consequences. The first is that it might actually relieve the strain on today’s soldiers and end the “backdoor draft” of volunteers who have already served while their civilian peers remain comfortably undisturbed. I am aware that Army leaders fear that a draft would hurt the professionalism of today’s force. However, the lowering of recruiting requirements, as well as the offering of big signing bonuses to impressionable high school students, is already diminishing standards.
The other possible consequence is that serious consideration of a draft could set off such a violent reaction from the American public that the pressure on politicians to abandon their cliché-ridden rhetoric and begin a well-considered withdrawal would be overpowering.
Either situation would accelerate movement toward a decisive point — a commitment to victory, or the realization that Americans simply do not believe the threats cited are really worthy of the sacrifices required to vanquish them. Many years and many lives later, the very least we can do for my friends fighting a world away is to try to decide."
Basically, he wants to bring back the draft. But this is putting the cart in front of the horse. You have a draft when you are fighting a declared war and need more manpower than is available in a volunteer force. But we never declared war on Iraq.
There were good reasons why our founding fathers gave this authority to the Congress. Presidents like George W. Bush have abused their executive authority by involving us in undeclared wars: Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq. Presidents are not kings. They should abide by our Constitution.
Friday, October 19, 2007
Hubris, Iraq and Afghanistan
When stuck in a hole, you should stop digging. First, do no harm.
I know there is an adage for every point of view, but these two keep coming to mind in the debate about the Iraq Wars and the War on Terror.
But first, a word about hubris. We all have it. But it is relative, that is, a matter of degree. Also, if a president does something catastrophically stupid because of his hubris, then this must be pointed out. Anything we ordinary citizens can say that might prevent future catastrophic mistakes by our leaders is a good thing.
It was hubris which led President George H. W. Bush to attack the Muslim country Iraq in 1991. Who elected him to be Policeman of the World? Answer: no one. We don't have "World Government", and that is good. Maybe it would be nice in a thousand years, but not in the foreseeable future. Even then, I bet the rest of the world would have to pay the Policeman big bucks to take on this thankless role.
But Pappa Bush suffered immensely from hubris. He just couldn't mind his own business. He forgot that when he fought bravely in WW2, it was a declared war against enemies which had attacked us. Iraq never attacked us. And since we are and were much more powerful than Iraq, then if they were crazy enough to attack us, they would have been quickly and utterly destroyed, with lots of collateral damage (as often happened in WW2).
But hubris eats at you. Why just be President when you can be a War President? We outlasted the USSR, so why not take on Iraq and show the world who is boss?
One of my favorite authors, Nassim Taleb, writes about risk. One of the really big risks is war, since you never know how it will turn out.
So, lets see what happened after Pappa Bush fed his hubris. We ended up in a second war with Iraq, the one in the 1990s when we kept them in a box. We also had an organization most Americans never heard of, Al Qaeda, and its leader, Osama bin Laden, declare war on us. Oops! Then, AQ and OBL carried out a series of attacks against us (the first WTC bombing, the embassy attacks in Africa, the barracks attack in Saudi Arabia, the attack on the USS Cole, and finally 9/11. Then we started nation-building in Afghanistan and Iraq.
I would have been quite happy if Pappa Bush had simply scolded Saddam Hussein for being a bad boy. That would not have cost us much. Instead, we have suffered thousands of casualties and spent over a trillion dollars fighting stupid wars and rebuilding after 9/11. If only Pappa Bush had remembered "first, do no harm". (My corollary for what to do after another nation or group attacks the US is: first, destroy them totally.)
Unfortunately, "W" made things worse because he forgot "When stuck in a hole, you should stop digging". He made a mistake when he invaded Iraq for developing WMDs. (Oops!) He compounded that mistake (dug deeper) when he came up with false reason after false reason for the invasion. Finally, he dug really deep when he decided to occupy and nation-build Iraq.
Now, you can't blame "W" for not knowing the inscrutable mind of a Muslim nation. After all, as he freely admits, he was a C student. But the sad truth is that the reaction of the Iraqis to our occupation has little to do with religion. It is more basic: nationalism and human nature. No one wants another country to invade your homeland and then install their kind of government. I know I would not like it if (say) Advanced Martians invaded the US and tried to install Martian-style government. For this mistake, "W" does deserve blame. All of it. Don't blame the neo-cons, don't blame the military. It is all on the shoulders of the worst president in American history.
By the way, I really don't care if Saddam and OBL had contact, whether directly or via subordinates. OBL and SH had contacts with a lot of bad actors. We need to be a wee bit more discriminating before we go to war. Otherwise, we would soon be at war with every other nation!
We need to get out of Iraq ASAP. No one knows if there will then be a bloodbath, since no one has a crystal ball. But if a regional war erupted between the Sunni nations (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc.) and the Shiite nations (Iran and most of Iraq), that is not our business. We are not the Policeman of the world. We had nothing to do with the centuries-long (and crazy) feud between these two groups.
We should also stop nation-building in Afghanistan. They, too, didn't ask for our help. They mostly hate us. But we should carpet-bomb those parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan where OBL might be hiding, and not worry about collateral damage. You can't win a war if you worry about collateral damage. If we had perfect weapons, there wouldn't be any collateral damage, but we don't have perfect weapons, and we should minimize American casualties and maximize enemy pain.
By the way, it really angered me that Kuwaitis were cheering on 9/11. Most of the South Koreans do not like us, even though we paid dearly in blood and treasure in the Korean War. There is no point in sacrificing American lives for the sake of other countries. Alliances are too temporal. (I would make a few exceptions: Great Britain and Canada are examples.) Vietnam was a complete waste.
We should never fight wars for oil. The act of war itself wastes an incredible amount of oil.
But now we are in a War on Terror (a war with Al Qaeda). We need to use our brains, and fight wisely. Use soft power. Build up our strength. Don't worry about collateral damage when going after AQ.
I know there is an adage for every point of view, but these two keep coming to mind in the debate about the Iraq Wars and the War on Terror.
But first, a word about hubris. We all have it. But it is relative, that is, a matter of degree. Also, if a president does something catastrophically stupid because of his hubris, then this must be pointed out. Anything we ordinary citizens can say that might prevent future catastrophic mistakes by our leaders is a good thing.
It was hubris which led President George H. W. Bush to attack the Muslim country Iraq in 1991. Who elected him to be Policeman of the World? Answer: no one. We don't have "World Government", and that is good. Maybe it would be nice in a thousand years, but not in the foreseeable future. Even then, I bet the rest of the world would have to pay the Policeman big bucks to take on this thankless role.
But Pappa Bush suffered immensely from hubris. He just couldn't mind his own business. He forgot that when he fought bravely in WW2, it was a declared war against enemies which had attacked us. Iraq never attacked us. And since we are and were much more powerful than Iraq, then if they were crazy enough to attack us, they would have been quickly and utterly destroyed, with lots of collateral damage (as often happened in WW2).
But hubris eats at you. Why just be President when you can be a War President? We outlasted the USSR, so why not take on Iraq and show the world who is boss?
One of my favorite authors, Nassim Taleb, writes about risk. One of the really big risks is war, since you never know how it will turn out.
So, lets see what happened after Pappa Bush fed his hubris. We ended up in a second war with Iraq, the one in the 1990s when we kept them in a box. We also had an organization most Americans never heard of, Al Qaeda, and its leader, Osama bin Laden, declare war on us. Oops! Then, AQ and OBL carried out a series of attacks against us (the first WTC bombing, the embassy attacks in Africa, the barracks attack in Saudi Arabia, the attack on the USS Cole, and finally 9/11. Then we started nation-building in Afghanistan and Iraq.
I would have been quite happy if Pappa Bush had simply scolded Saddam Hussein for being a bad boy. That would not have cost us much. Instead, we have suffered thousands of casualties and spent over a trillion dollars fighting stupid wars and rebuilding after 9/11. If only Pappa Bush had remembered "first, do no harm". (My corollary for what to do after another nation or group attacks the US is: first, destroy them totally.)
Unfortunately, "W" made things worse because he forgot "When stuck in a hole, you should stop digging". He made a mistake when he invaded Iraq for developing WMDs. (Oops!) He compounded that mistake (dug deeper) when he came up with false reason after false reason for the invasion. Finally, he dug really deep when he decided to occupy and nation-build Iraq.
Now, you can't blame "W" for not knowing the inscrutable mind of a Muslim nation. After all, as he freely admits, he was a C student. But the sad truth is that the reaction of the Iraqis to our occupation has little to do with religion. It is more basic: nationalism and human nature. No one wants another country to invade your homeland and then install their kind of government. I know I would not like it if (say) Advanced Martians invaded the US and tried to install Martian-style government. For this mistake, "W" does deserve blame. All of it. Don't blame the neo-cons, don't blame the military. It is all on the shoulders of the worst president in American history.
By the way, I really don't care if Saddam and OBL had contact, whether directly or via subordinates. OBL and SH had contacts with a lot of bad actors. We need to be a wee bit more discriminating before we go to war. Otherwise, we would soon be at war with every other nation!
We need to get out of Iraq ASAP. No one knows if there will then be a bloodbath, since no one has a crystal ball. But if a regional war erupted between the Sunni nations (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc.) and the Shiite nations (Iran and most of Iraq), that is not our business. We are not the Policeman of the world. We had nothing to do with the centuries-long (and crazy) feud between these two groups.
We should also stop nation-building in Afghanistan. They, too, didn't ask for our help. They mostly hate us. But we should carpet-bomb those parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan where OBL might be hiding, and not worry about collateral damage. You can't win a war if you worry about collateral damage. If we had perfect weapons, there wouldn't be any collateral damage, but we don't have perfect weapons, and we should minimize American casualties and maximize enemy pain.
By the way, it really angered me that Kuwaitis were cheering on 9/11. Most of the South Koreans do not like us, even though we paid dearly in blood and treasure in the Korean War. There is no point in sacrificing American lives for the sake of other countries. Alliances are too temporal. (I would make a few exceptions: Great Britain and Canada are examples.) Vietnam was a complete waste.
We should never fight wars for oil. The act of war itself wastes an incredible amount of oil.
But now we are in a War on Terror (a war with Al Qaeda). We need to use our brains, and fight wisely. Use soft power. Build up our strength. Don't worry about collateral damage when going after AQ.
Was Getting Rid of Saddam Worth It?
I often hear from people who suggest that, in spite of the great costs involved in our invasion of Iraq, it was all worth it because ridding Iraq of Saddam Hussein, a mass murderer, was a good thing to do.
I could not disagree more with this position. First of all, even if the premise is true (that it was good for Iraq), we must consider the cost to America of this action in relation to alternatives with the same or smaller costs. For example, we could have spared many thousands of American lives and saved TRILLIONS of present and future dollars by developing fusion power.
But even that premise was wrong. Saddam was indeed a mass murderer, but he was also an enemy of the same terrorists that we are at war with. Even for the Iraqi people, he was a better alternative than the bloodbath which is ongoing and which he prevented for decades with his tyrannical system.
We should have made plans in the 1990s for responding to terrorist attacks with massive bombing of their camps in Afghanistan. But, in fact, our military was never asked to develop such plans, because the media and some liberal organizations have trained us to worry about collateral damage. But carpet bombing of terrorist camps in Afghanistan in the 1990s would have spared us of 9/11 and given us the upper hand in the war with Islamic terrorism.
The lesson is clear. We are not the Policeman of the world. We need to put American interests first, and crush any organization which is at war with us, wherever they are. Instead of worrying about collateral damage, we should be worrying about the security of our children.
I could not disagree more with this position. First of all, even if the premise is true (that it was good for Iraq), we must consider the cost to America of this action in relation to alternatives with the same or smaller costs. For example, we could have spared many thousands of American lives and saved TRILLIONS of present and future dollars by developing fusion power.
But even that premise was wrong. Saddam was indeed a mass murderer, but he was also an enemy of the same terrorists that we are at war with. Even for the Iraqi people, he was a better alternative than the bloodbath which is ongoing and which he prevented for decades with his tyrannical system.
We should have made plans in the 1990s for responding to terrorist attacks with massive bombing of their camps in Afghanistan. But, in fact, our military was never asked to develop such plans, because the media and some liberal organizations have trained us to worry about collateral damage. But carpet bombing of terrorist camps in Afghanistan in the 1990s would have spared us of 9/11 and given us the upper hand in the war with Islamic terrorism.
The lesson is clear. We are not the Policeman of the world. We need to put American interests first, and crush any organization which is at war with us, wherever they are. Instead of worrying about collateral damage, we should be worrying about the security of our children.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
How to Fix Politics
There are two things that can be done to fix politics: one really big fix, and one minor fix.
The big fix is about campaign finance reform: take money out of politics. By that I mean, outlaw the use of private funding of political campaigns, and find a fair way to provide taxpayer money to fund individuals who choose to run for office.
If this is ruled by the Supreme Court to be unconstitutional (e.g., based on the "free speech" argument), then we should amend the Constitution accordingly.
Imagine if rich people, corporations, and special interests had no more power over politicians than ordinary citizens. Imagine a system where fairness has the upper hand over special interests and the powerful. Imagine if Congress debated issues based on what was best for our nation. Imagine if our elected leaders has time to actually speak to their constituents (even if at random) instead of listening to the opinions of the powerful and rich over and over again.
Not only do politicians spend way too much time on fundraising, but the current system corrupts them and does not serve the public. This deficiency is so widespread and affects so many policies in a negative way that it is one of the most important issues of our time.
The minor fix would be to change the format of political debates so that each debate includes only two candidates and no moderator. For example, if the field includes 9 candidates, then there would be 5 debates with the candidates chosen at random so that each candidate participates in at least one debate and one (and only one) randomly selected candidate participates in two debates (because 9 is an odd number). The debates should have an open format with no set rules. The public can judge the candidates not only on their views on issues but also on their decorum, wit, and leadership attributes (or lack of same). The idea is to get away from a contest of public relations and political consultants and get back to the basics: where do the candidates stand, and how well do they defend their positions. Certainly, a good politician needs both the right position on issues and the ability to lead others to agree with him or her.
The big fix is about campaign finance reform: take money out of politics. By that I mean, outlaw the use of private funding of political campaigns, and find a fair way to provide taxpayer money to fund individuals who choose to run for office.
If this is ruled by the Supreme Court to be unconstitutional (e.g., based on the "free speech" argument), then we should amend the Constitution accordingly.
Imagine if rich people, corporations, and special interests had no more power over politicians than ordinary citizens. Imagine a system where fairness has the upper hand over special interests and the powerful. Imagine if Congress debated issues based on what was best for our nation. Imagine if our elected leaders has time to actually speak to their constituents (even if at random) instead of listening to the opinions of the powerful and rich over and over again.
Not only do politicians spend way too much time on fundraising, but the current system corrupts them and does not serve the public. This deficiency is so widespread and affects so many policies in a negative way that it is one of the most important issues of our time.
The minor fix would be to change the format of political debates so that each debate includes only two candidates and no moderator. For example, if the field includes 9 candidates, then there would be 5 debates with the candidates chosen at random so that each candidate participates in at least one debate and one (and only one) randomly selected candidate participates in two debates (because 9 is an odd number). The debates should have an open format with no set rules. The public can judge the candidates not only on their views on issues but also on their decorum, wit, and leadership attributes (or lack of same). The idea is to get away from a contest of public relations and political consultants and get back to the basics: where do the candidates stand, and how well do they defend their positions. Certainly, a good politician needs both the right position on issues and the ability to lead others to agree with him or her.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Another Stupid Friedman Idea
I know I should stop reading Thomas Friedman's column in the NY Times, but I am incorrigible and, besides, his column is often a convenient example of the muddled thinking which leads to stupid policies. That said, see The Green-Collar Solution in today's paper.
The basic premise (from activist Van Jones) is to use boatloads of taxpayer money to train and hire disadvantaged youth in "weatherizing millions of buildings, putting up solar panels, constructing wind farms". In other words, spend a lot of dough on "do nothing" jobs.
We don't need all that "green" stuff. We should design and build more efficient products, but mostly we need to design and build thermonuclear reactors. We should spend taxpayer dollars on R&D for fusion power, not on training youth to do construction work. Besides, a large part of the construction industry labor comes from illegal aliens, which implies that disadvantaged youth don't want to do that kind of work anyway.
(The best advice today for helping "disadvantaged youth" can be found in "Come on, people : on the path from victims to victors" by Bill Cosby and Alvin F. Poussaint.)
Recall that Friedman was one of the biggest cheerleaders for Bush's War on Iraq. We have already spent about $400-$600 billion on Iraq, and will probably spend double that in Iraq before we come to our senses. What a waste. Our military should have had plans to crush Al Qaida after their first series of attacks on us in the 1990's, and we should have had a president on 9/11 who was prepared to execute such plans. Instead, we invade Iraq!
The same mindset was at play in the 1960's and 70's when we invaded Vietnam. Had we instead invested the money in R&D, we would already have had decades of cheap energy, saved a trillion dollars from going to Arab countries for buying oil and funding terrorism, and there would never have been a "Gulf War" in 1991, nor a 9/11 attack on the US, nor an invasion and occupation of Iraq in the 2000's.
But at least we were able to feed the egos of our "war presidents".
Thanks, Tom. I feel better now.
The basic premise (from activist Van Jones) is to use boatloads of taxpayer money to train and hire disadvantaged youth in "weatherizing millions of buildings, putting up solar panels, constructing wind farms". In other words, spend a lot of dough on "do nothing" jobs.
We don't need all that "green" stuff. We should design and build more efficient products, but mostly we need to design and build thermonuclear reactors. We should spend taxpayer dollars on R&D for fusion power, not on training youth to do construction work. Besides, a large part of the construction industry labor comes from illegal aliens, which implies that disadvantaged youth don't want to do that kind of work anyway.
(The best advice today for helping "disadvantaged youth" can be found in "Come on, people : on the path from victims to victors" by Bill Cosby and Alvin F. Poussaint.)
Recall that Friedman was one of the biggest cheerleaders for Bush's War on Iraq. We have already spent about $400-$600 billion on Iraq, and will probably spend double that in Iraq before we come to our senses. What a waste. Our military should have had plans to crush Al Qaida after their first series of attacks on us in the 1990's, and we should have had a president on 9/11 who was prepared to execute such plans. Instead, we invade Iraq!
The same mindset was at play in the 1960's and 70's when we invaded Vietnam. Had we instead invested the money in R&D, we would already have had decades of cheap energy, saved a trillion dollars from going to Arab countries for buying oil and funding terrorism, and there would never have been a "Gulf War" in 1991, nor a 9/11 attack on the US, nor an invasion and occupation of Iraq in the 2000's.
But at least we were able to feed the egos of our "war presidents".
Thanks, Tom. I feel better now.
Caspian Anachronisms
Birds of a feather do flock together. Presidents Vladimir V. "KGB" Putin of Russia and Mahmoud "I'm a douchebag" Ahmadinejad of Iran met in Tehran yesterday. They held hands and drank tea while castigating the "Great Satan", and they are planning to enter the Twentieth Century with hoped-for development of the oil and gas reserves of the Caspian Sea.
Meanwhile, we can only hope that the US will soon develop viable thermonuclear (fusion) power reactors, making oil and gas deposits obsolete in the Twenty-first Century.
Meanwhile, we can only hope that the US will soon develop viable thermonuclear (fusion) power reactors, making oil and gas deposits obsolete in the Twenty-first Century.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
China Tantrums
It seems that super-sensitive China is taking another tantrum. This time it is because President Bush is meeting with the Dalai Lama and because the Dalai Lama is scheduled to receive the Congressional Gold Medal on Wednesday. (See today's NY Times article China Warns U.S. on Dalai Lama Trip By JOSEPH KAHN.) Not only did Tibet’s Communist Party boss say he is furious, but four fifteen year old Tibetan boys are being tortured with electric prods "after they were accused of scribbling slogans on walls calling for the Dalai Lama’s return".
I am "furious" with China's leaders and demand that they renounce their stupid ideology and join the grown-up, civilized nations of the twenty-first century.
Perhaps China should be expelled from the World Trade Organization. If the WTO does not expel China, perhaps the US should leave the WTO and make separate, fair trade deals with nations which are more civilized than China.
I am "furious" with China's leaders and demand that they renounce their stupid ideology and join the grown-up, civilized nations of the twenty-first century.
Perhaps China should be expelled from the World Trade Organization. If the WTO does not expel China, perhaps the US should leave the WTO and make separate, fair trade deals with nations which are more civilized than China.
Update re Bussard Fusion Reactor
Dr. Robert W. Bussard passed away on October 7, 2007, but I believe one or more of his colleagues are continuing his research with funding from the US Navy. He received his PhD in physics from Princeton University. Please see a lecture he gave at Google last year: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1996321846673788606
It seems to me that this is one of the most promising approaches to viable thermonuclear (fusion) reactors. I still don't understand why more funding (beyond the limited funding from the US Navy) has not found its way to the corporation he created, EMC2 FUSION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (http://www.emc2fusion.org/). One explanation can be found at http://www.emc2fusion.org/2007-3-5%20DefenseNews.pdf.
It seems to me that this is one of the most promising approaches to viable thermonuclear (fusion) reactors. I still don't understand why more funding (beyond the limited funding from the US Navy) has not found its way to the corporation he created, EMC2 FUSION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (http://www.emc2fusion.org/). One explanation can be found at http://www.emc2fusion.org/2007-3-5%20DefenseNews.pdf.
Monday, October 15, 2007
Talking Heads
For a good part of my life, I watched the Sunday talking head shows, but stopped viewing most of them a few months ago because they seem overly concerned with process instead of substance.
Partly this must be related to the herd mentality in DC among the pundits and pols. What these folks don't get is that many more Americans are actually concerned about the issues, not the sausage-making processes in DC. I really don't care which presidential candidate is up or down in the polls; I do care about their positions, and the Washington press corps ought to spend more time probing the actual policy positions of the candidates than the "horse race" of the nomination process.
Partly this must be related to the herd mentality in DC among the pundits and pols. What these folks don't get is that many more Americans are actually concerned about the issues, not the sausage-making processes in DC. I really don't care which presidential candidate is up or down in the polls; I do care about their positions, and the Washington press corps ought to spend more time probing the actual policy positions of the candidates than the "horse race" of the nomination process.
Bussard Fusion Reactor
M. Simon left a comment about the Bussard fusion reactor. I did a tiny amount of research on this, and I am left wondering why significant funding has not come forward for this concept of thermonuclear power generation, either from the government (in particular, the Navy, which provided early funding) or from the private sector.
For example, why wouldn't Google or GE support this effort with seed capital? Apparently, there is a lot I do not know about the Bussard fusion reactor, since if what I read about it were true, then someone or some company would make many billions from it.
Perhaps Dr. Bussard should be talking to venture capitalists or private equity managers. Someone on Wall Street would be interested if this reactor concept is the real deal.
For example, why wouldn't Google or GE support this effort with seed capital? Apparently, there is a lot I do not know about the Bussard fusion reactor, since if what I read about it were true, then someone or some company would make many billions from it.
Perhaps Dr. Bussard should be talking to venture capitalists or private equity managers. Someone on Wall Street would be interested if this reactor concept is the real deal.
How to Defeat Al Qaeda
I have felt for a long time that the best way to defeat Al Qaeda (AQ) is by America using its most powerful weapon: the amalgamation of all its soft power. This means, but is not limited to, "Hollywood" movies, network TV shows, all forms of music (rock, rap, folk, etc.), art, philosophy, print journalism, books, satellite broadcasting, cable TV shows, and old-fashioned propaganda.
The messages we send should also run the gamut, and include, but not be limited to, images of Americans defeating jihadists, wholesome American life, freedom, liberty, and anti-AQ ideas and propaganda.
I am not a religious person, but I favor governments which respect the religious or atheistic beliefs of its citizens, since these are deeply personal matters. However, when someone's religious ideology threatens me or my family or my nation, then it is time to fight that ideology. We can begin by pointing out the absurdity of AQ's core beliefs, the insanity of its founder(s), the lack of morals in its adherents. Jihadists want to terrorize us, so their ideology is "fair game" in the War on Terror. After all, it is their ideology which inspires them. Defeating their ideology is analogous to cutting off the head of the snake.
The great irony today is that, whereas "soft power" is our greatest weapon, the jihadists are using it with seemingly more effect than we are. (See today's NY Times article An Internet Jihad Sells Extremism to Viewers in the U.S. By MICHAEL MOSS and SOUAD MEKHENNET.)
It is past time that we get out of Iraq and start fighting the War on Terror the smart way, using our most powerful weapons (soft power) and enlisting as many nations as we can to join us in this new quest.
The messages we send should also run the gamut, and include, but not be limited to, images of Americans defeating jihadists, wholesome American life, freedom, liberty, and anti-AQ ideas and propaganda.
I am not a religious person, but I favor governments which respect the religious or atheistic beliefs of its citizens, since these are deeply personal matters. However, when someone's religious ideology threatens me or my family or my nation, then it is time to fight that ideology. We can begin by pointing out the absurdity of AQ's core beliefs, the insanity of its founder(s), the lack of morals in its adherents. Jihadists want to terrorize us, so their ideology is "fair game" in the War on Terror. After all, it is their ideology which inspires them. Defeating their ideology is analogous to cutting off the head of the snake.
The great irony today is that, whereas "soft power" is our greatest weapon, the jihadists are using it with seemingly more effect than we are. (See today's NY Times article An Internet Jihad Sells Extremism to Viewers in the U.S. By MICHAEL MOSS and SOUAD MEKHENNET.)
It is past time that we get out of Iraq and start fighting the War on Terror the smart way, using our most powerful weapons (soft power) and enlisting as many nations as we can to join us in this new quest.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Bloodbath in Middle East
We often hear that if we leave Iraq, there will be a bloodbath there. I would like to know where this crystal ball is located, so I can make a few bucks on Wall Street.
The truth is, if we leave Iraq, fewer Americans will die there, and we will save tons of treasure. Beyond that, we cannot say with any certainty what will happen there.
One possibility is that there will be a greater regional war in the Middle East, with Saudi Arabia and Egypt plus smaller Sunni states on one side, and mostly Shiite Iraq and Iran on the other side. That would be awful, but worse things can happen to the US than having a lot of people who hate us viscerally kill each other.
One of the problems with our stupid occupation of Iraq is that a lot of nutjobs who had been killing each other are now killing Americans instead. We have united our enemies. With the US out of the Middle East, they can resume killing each other, and eventually the blood lusts will die out, and peace will return. The alternative is, we stay in Iraq for a hundred years, until we are impoverished and weakened beyond recognition, all the while creating 10 new terrorists for every terrorist we kill in Iraq.
There is an easier way to destroy our enemy. Cut off the head of the terrorist snake: kill Osama bin Laden and anyone else who tries to take his place.
The truth is, if we leave Iraq, fewer Americans will die there, and we will save tons of treasure. Beyond that, we cannot say with any certainty what will happen there.
One possibility is that there will be a greater regional war in the Middle East, with Saudi Arabia and Egypt plus smaller Sunni states on one side, and mostly Shiite Iraq and Iran on the other side. That would be awful, but worse things can happen to the US than having a lot of people who hate us viscerally kill each other.
One of the problems with our stupid occupation of Iraq is that a lot of nutjobs who had been killing each other are now killing Americans instead. We have united our enemies. With the US out of the Middle East, they can resume killing each other, and eventually the blood lusts will die out, and peace will return. The alternative is, we stay in Iraq for a hundred years, until we are impoverished and weakened beyond recognition, all the while creating 10 new terrorists for every terrorist we kill in Iraq.
There is an easier way to destroy our enemy. Cut off the head of the terrorist snake: kill Osama bin Laden and anyone else who tries to take his place.
War on Terror
We have many arrows in our quiver, but it seems we do not know how to use them.
We cannot un-do our recent history. As much as I like to imagine how different our world would be (from the perspective of an American) had we not fought three stupid wars in the past 55 years, we have to live and make decisions based on the world we now have. That said, there are several actions we should take immediately.
1. We should withdraw from Iraq immediately. Iraq is not the base of Al Qaida.
2. We should build up one or more very large military bases in Afghanistan, for future use. All the military forces we have in Afghanistan should be kept in these bases until they are called up for the real battle.
3. We should put Al Qaida and any nation which harbors its leaders on notice that we fully intend to hunt them down and kill them.
4. We work with friendly allies to gain intelligence on Al Qaida.
5. We beef up the CIA and order it to locate Osama bin Laden and the rest of the top leadership of Al Qaida.
6. Once we know bin Laden's exact location, we give the harboring nation one chance to kill and capture him. If they fail, we warn them, then we will enter that nation with all of our military forces if need be, in order to kill or capture bin Laden.
7. We should put all the nations which fund Al Qaida on notice that we will strike them at random after any possible terror attacks on our homeland.
We need to keep in mind that our military is very good at punishing, but awful at nation-building. Therefore, we should no longer attempt nation-building, and abandon the stupid notion that "if you break it, you own it".
We are at war, and have been since 9/11. How we got here will be reviewed by future historians. But since we are at war, we must win it. The first step is to leave the sideshow known as Iraq.
We cannot un-do our recent history. As much as I like to imagine how different our world would be (from the perspective of an American) had we not fought three stupid wars in the past 55 years, we have to live and make decisions based on the world we now have. That said, there are several actions we should take immediately.
1. We should withdraw from Iraq immediately. Iraq is not the base of Al Qaida.
2. We should build up one or more very large military bases in Afghanistan, for future use. All the military forces we have in Afghanistan should be kept in these bases until they are called up for the real battle.
3. We should put Al Qaida and any nation which harbors its leaders on notice that we fully intend to hunt them down and kill them.
4. We work with friendly allies to gain intelligence on Al Qaida.
5. We beef up the CIA and order it to locate Osama bin Laden and the rest of the top leadership of Al Qaida.
6. Once we know bin Laden's exact location, we give the harboring nation one chance to kill and capture him. If they fail, we warn them, then we will enter that nation with all of our military forces if need be, in order to kill or capture bin Laden.
7. We should put all the nations which fund Al Qaida on notice that we will strike them at random after any possible terror attacks on our homeland.
We need to keep in mind that our military is very good at punishing, but awful at nation-building. Therefore, we should no longer attempt nation-building, and abandon the stupid notion that "if you break it, you own it".
We are at war, and have been since 9/11. How we got here will be reviewed by future historians. But since we are at war, we must win it. The first step is to leave the sideshow known as Iraq.
Tom Friedman Again
I admire NY Times columnist Tom Friedman. He always seems to write about topics I am interested in. I just wish he were more careful about his prescriptions.
Take today's column (Who Will Succeed Al Gore?). Unlike last week, at least today he wishes Bush had done something to "reverse our coming Social Security deficit". This implies he knows that Social Security is not in deficit today. I just wish he were more humble and not assume that there will be a deficit, but at least characterize it as a likely deficit. But only God knows if there will be a SS deficit.
The unasked question is, why is Al Gore not running for president? My guess is that the Clintons promised him their combined support to run for president in 2016, as long as he did not challenge Hillary for the 2008 Democratic nomination, and he accepted that deal.
I agree with Mr. Friedman that we need "greener" technology and industry. But when he uses "distributed solar power" for the army as an example, I disagree.
The most important thing we can do to strengthen our military and ensure that it stays the most technologically advanced fighting machine on the planet is simply to keep it out of stupid wars (Korea, Vietnam, Iraq) and use the money saved to research and develop nuclear fusion power generation and/or thousands of nuclear fission power plants across the nation. Then, we will starve our enemies of today of the funds which they are using to threaten and terrorize us, and our GDP will grow so far and so fast that we could increase R&D throughout all of our industries and government. In such a setting, our military could not help but to become smarter and more powerful, since a strong economy generates more government revenue, and that revenue can in turn purchase more R&D for the military and more technology for fighting future defensive wars.
Take today's column (Who Will Succeed Al Gore?). Unlike last week, at least today he wishes Bush had done something to "reverse our coming Social Security deficit". This implies he knows that Social Security is not in deficit today. I just wish he were more humble and not assume that there will be a deficit, but at least characterize it as a likely deficit. But only God knows if there will be a SS deficit.
The unasked question is, why is Al Gore not running for president? My guess is that the Clintons promised him their combined support to run for president in 2016, as long as he did not challenge Hillary for the 2008 Democratic nomination, and he accepted that deal.
I agree with Mr. Friedman that we need "greener" technology and industry. But when he uses "distributed solar power" for the army as an example, I disagree.
The most important thing we can do to strengthen our military and ensure that it stays the most technologically advanced fighting machine on the planet is simply to keep it out of stupid wars (Korea, Vietnam, Iraq) and use the money saved to research and develop nuclear fusion power generation and/or thousands of nuclear fission power plants across the nation. Then, we will starve our enemies of today of the funds which they are using to threaten and terrorize us, and our GDP will grow so far and so fast that we could increase R&D throughout all of our industries and government. In such a setting, our military could not help but to become smarter and more powerful, since a strong economy generates more government revenue, and that revenue can in turn purchase more R&D for the military and more technology for fighting future defensive wars.
Saturday, October 13, 2007
The Iraq Mistake
There have been many mistakes concerning Iraq, starting with it being carved out of the Ottoman Empire by the French and British around 1920.
Today, we constantly read about mistakes made during the initial invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the subsequent occupation. Colin Powell does not get enough blame for his famous statement about Iraq to George W. Bush before the invasion: "If you break it, you own it".
The latest blame game is centered on whether the military gave its civilian masters (Bush and Rumsfeld in particular) good advice regarding how many troops would be needed.
This is nonsense. There was and is only one primary mistake, and that was made by President Bush: the decision to invade Iraq, a nation which was no threat to the United States.
While Bush was partying and avoiding service in Vietnam, others saw the folly of the War in Vietnam (which followed the folly of the Korean Conflict). In all three cases, we were never attacked by the other nation, and the other nation was not an historical enemy of the United States. We should never have fought these wars.
Imagine if we had not fought those wars. Imagine the happy and productive lives of the men and women who might not have been casualties of those stupid wars. Imagine what we could have done with the trillions of dollars (direct and indirect costs) we spent on those wars. Imagine other peoples loving Americans today instead of hating us.
No one can say for sure what might have happened had we not fought those stupid wars. But it is easy to imagine what America might have spent that treasure on.
Just two examples: nuclear fusion power development and thousands of nuclear fission power plants. This could have been achieved at least 30 years ago, and instead of importing oil (and thereby funding terrorism) we would have been exporting our own oil, since it would no longer be needed to fuel cars (which would all be electric) or heat homes.
Of course, the politicians and media pundits will argue for years who "lost" Iraq, but history will be quite clear who made the biggest mistake in foreign policy in modern time: George W. Bush. It was his idea to invade Iraq, and his hubris has kept us in that godforsaken country, because Bush will never admit he was wrong. His ideology will not permit it.
Today, we constantly read about mistakes made during the initial invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the subsequent occupation. Colin Powell does not get enough blame for his famous statement about Iraq to George W. Bush before the invasion: "If you break it, you own it".
The latest blame game is centered on whether the military gave its civilian masters (Bush and Rumsfeld in particular) good advice regarding how many troops would be needed.
This is nonsense. There was and is only one primary mistake, and that was made by President Bush: the decision to invade Iraq, a nation which was no threat to the United States.
While Bush was partying and avoiding service in Vietnam, others saw the folly of the War in Vietnam (which followed the folly of the Korean Conflict). In all three cases, we were never attacked by the other nation, and the other nation was not an historical enemy of the United States. We should never have fought these wars.
Imagine if we had not fought those wars. Imagine the happy and productive lives of the men and women who might not have been casualties of those stupid wars. Imagine what we could have done with the trillions of dollars (direct and indirect costs) we spent on those wars. Imagine other peoples loving Americans today instead of hating us.
No one can say for sure what might have happened had we not fought those stupid wars. But it is easy to imagine what America might have spent that treasure on.
Just two examples: nuclear fusion power development and thousands of nuclear fission power plants. This could have been achieved at least 30 years ago, and instead of importing oil (and thereby funding terrorism) we would have been exporting our own oil, since it would no longer be needed to fuel cars (which would all be electric) or heat homes.
Of course, the politicians and media pundits will argue for years who "lost" Iraq, but history will be quite clear who made the biggest mistake in foreign policy in modern time: George W. Bush. It was his idea to invade Iraq, and his hubris has kept us in that godforsaken country, because Bush will never admit he was wrong. His ideology will not permit it.
Global Warming
Few items are more hyped by politicians and the news media than so-called global warming.
I doubt if most of the "hypers" know even the scientific basics about climate change.
I laugh when I see tables and charts purporting to show average temperatures over millions of years. While it is within the scope of modern science to estimate average temperatures going back that far, I question the precision of the temperatures in those data bases (unless the cavemen had very accurate thermometers around the world, and recorded those temperatures).
I am in favor of cleaning up the environment. I also favor switching from fossil fuels to nuclear power.
I just wish "global warming" was not hyped as a crisis, since our scientific understanding of climate is in its infancy. Scientists should not put forward as science ideas which are mainly political.
I doubt if most of the "hypers" know even the scientific basics about climate change.
I laugh when I see tables and charts purporting to show average temperatures over millions of years. While it is within the scope of modern science to estimate average temperatures going back that far, I question the precision of the temperatures in those data bases (unless the cavemen had very accurate thermometers around the world, and recorded those temperatures).
I am in favor of cleaning up the environment. I also favor switching from fossil fuels to nuclear power.
I just wish "global warming" was not hyped as a crisis, since our scientific understanding of climate is in its infancy. Scientists should not put forward as science ideas which are mainly political.
Medicare for all citizens
Medicare should be changed to make it available to all American citizens, as opposed to only those aged 65 and older.
Medicare is far more efficient (less costly per medical service) than private health insurance. Also, making it available to all ages will eliminate the problem of uninsured citizens.
This would also make our domestic industries more competitive, since it would result in lower labor costs. (Most of our global competitors are based in countries which already have universal health care.)
Don't listen to the fear mongering ideologues who would scare you by calling this "socialism". We already have "socialism" in that sense, except it goes by other names: public education, the military, and Social Security are just three examples.
As a nation, we would probably save hundreds of billions of dollars in the first ten years of this program, because Medicare is so efficient compared with the wasteful private health system and its greedy CEOs.
Medicare is far more efficient (less costly per medical service) than private health insurance. Also, making it available to all ages will eliminate the problem of uninsured citizens.
This would also make our domestic industries more competitive, since it would result in lower labor costs. (Most of our global competitors are based in countries which already have universal health care.)
Don't listen to the fear mongering ideologues who would scare you by calling this "socialism". We already have "socialism" in that sense, except it goes by other names: public education, the military, and Social Security are just three examples.
As a nation, we would probably save hundreds of billions of dollars in the first ten years of this program, because Medicare is so efficient compared with the wasteful private health system and its greedy CEOs.
Friday, October 12, 2007
Welfare
Re Death Reveals Harsh Side of a 'Model' in Japan By NORIMITSU ONISHI in today's NY Times:
A quote from the article: "As a widening income gap has pushed up welfare rolls in recent years, struggling cities like Kitakyushu have been under intense pressure to tighten eligibility."
War is not the only example of man's inhumanity to man. The way modern, industrialized nations like the U.S. and Japan handle income inequality is another.
As the article depicts, some indigent persons have starved to death in Japan, because their welfare programs are, in a word, stingy. But at least the income tax system in Japan is very progressive.
Whereas in the U.S., our welfare programs are generous, but our income tax system is not progressive. (Just witness the low 15% tax rate on billionaire private equity and hedge fund managers.)
The fallacy which undelies the ideologies in both the U.S. and Japan is that the rich are entitled to their wealth and the poor deserve their poverty.
The missing idea in all this is that technology is the real underpinning of all modern wealth creation, and the fruits of technology should be shared because without government-sponsored education and research, technology would not be as advanced as it is today.
Just one small example proves this point. How much lower would aggregate world GDP be were it not for the American government's role in creating the internet?
Therefore, a large portion of the fruits of technology belong to the governments which paid for the research and development of the technologies, and which subsidized (directly and/or indirectly) the educations of many of today's billionaires.
That being said, modern governments should get a return on their investments by taxing the "winners" at a high rate.
One of the outcomes of technology is producing more goods and services with less labor. Therefore, governments (which helped create modern technology, directly and/or indirectly) have an obligation to help the "losers" in today's advanced economies.
A quote from the article: "As a widening income gap has pushed up welfare rolls in recent years, struggling cities like Kitakyushu have been under intense pressure to tighten eligibility."
War is not the only example of man's inhumanity to man. The way modern, industrialized nations like the U.S. and Japan handle income inequality is another.
As the article depicts, some indigent persons have starved to death in Japan, because their welfare programs are, in a word, stingy. But at least the income tax system in Japan is very progressive.
Whereas in the U.S., our welfare programs are generous, but our income tax system is not progressive. (Just witness the low 15% tax rate on billionaire private equity and hedge fund managers.)
The fallacy which undelies the ideologies in both the U.S. and Japan is that the rich are entitled to their wealth and the poor deserve their poverty.
The missing idea in all this is that technology is the real underpinning of all modern wealth creation, and the fruits of technology should be shared because without government-sponsored education and research, technology would not be as advanced as it is today.
Just one small example proves this point. How much lower would aggregate world GDP be were it not for the American government's role in creating the internet?
Therefore, a large portion of the fruits of technology belong to the governments which paid for the research and development of the technologies, and which subsidized (directly and/or indirectly) the educations of many of today's billionaires.
That being said, modern governments should get a return on their investments by taxing the "winners" at a high rate.
One of the outcomes of technology is producing more goods and services with less labor. Therefore, governments (which helped create modern technology, directly and/or indirectly) have an obligation to help the "losers" in today's advanced economies.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Armenian Genocide
"Turkey reacted angrily today to a House committee vote in Washington on Wednesday to condemn the mass killings of Armenians in Turkey in World War I as an act of genocide, calling the decision “unacceptable.”" So begins "Turkey Angry Over House Armenian Genocide Vote" in today's NY Times.
I congratulate the House committee for its vote, but we should have had that vote more than 80 years ago.
No one knows exactly how many (Christian) Armenians were massacred by the (Muslim) Turks, but the number is approximately 600,000.
We do know today that Adolf Hitler made reference to this slaughter on a number of occasions, but he used it as inspiration for the genocides he was planning.
There should be no question that the slaughter of Armenians between 1914 and 1918 was a genocide. The admission of Turkey into the European Union should be denied based on Turkey's denial of their historic culpability in the Armenian Genocide.
I congratulate the House committee for its vote, but we should have had that vote more than 80 years ago.
No one knows exactly how many (Christian) Armenians were massacred by the (Muslim) Turks, but the number is approximately 600,000.
We do know today that Adolf Hitler made reference to this slaughter on a number of occasions, but he used it as inspiration for the genocides he was planning.
There should be no question that the slaughter of Armenians between 1914 and 1918 was a genocide. The admission of Turkey into the European Union should be denied based on Turkey's denial of their historic culpability in the Armenian Genocide.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Where I Disagree With Thomas L. Friedman
Actually, I usually disagree with most of what Thomas L. Friedman writes in his New York Times op-ed columns. Today was no exception.
In "Generation Q" Mr. Friedman begins by noting how safe it is for our children to travel around the world. I guess he thinks it is safe because there have been no major terrorist attacks on American students abroad, but that is a weak argument. Every legitimate poll about world opinion indicates that a large part of the world hates us, based on our policies and, no doubt, a fair amount of envy. I have also received anecdotal evidence about overseas students being harassed because they are American. Clearly, it is not safe for our children to venture outside our country today. I say this mindful that safety is a matter of degrees and relativity, not in the absolute sense.
I take strong offense from Mr. Friedman using the pronoun "we" in reference to baby-boomers being the "greediest generation". He can speak for himself, but should not categorize all boomers as greedy. Every generation includes greedy people. Not all hedge fund managers are boomers.
Also, note that many of us boomers did not think, like Friedman and George W. Bush, that we should invade and occupy Iraq. And while I strongly oppose that policy, I believe taxes should be raised to pay for it. (I suspect that even fewer Americans would support the war if they had to pay for it today with higher taxes, regardless of their generation.)
Mr. Friedman refers to a "Social Security deficit". Well, there is no Social Security deficit. In fact, it has generated quite a huge surplus over the years. What has happened, though, is Congress has borrowed heavily from the SS Trust Fund to pay for wars and other items not related to Social Security.
In general, Mr. Friedman plays fast and loose by attributing all the major problems to one generation, and conveniently overlooking the fact that budget dificits and the "ecological deficit" preceded this generation, and that not everyone in any generation is equally responsible.
Finally, it seems that Mr. Friedman's daughter was frightened by a NY Times story about the melting of the Arctic Ice Cap. He should have told her that this happens every year to varying degrees, and that we humans have a lot to learn about climate change before we can jump to doomsday conclusions about "global warming".
In "Generation Q" Mr. Friedman begins by noting how safe it is for our children to travel around the world. I guess he thinks it is safe because there have been no major terrorist attacks on American students abroad, but that is a weak argument. Every legitimate poll about world opinion indicates that a large part of the world hates us, based on our policies and, no doubt, a fair amount of envy. I have also received anecdotal evidence about overseas students being harassed because they are American. Clearly, it is not safe for our children to venture outside our country today. I say this mindful that safety is a matter of degrees and relativity, not in the absolute sense.
I take strong offense from Mr. Friedman using the pronoun "we" in reference to baby-boomers being the "greediest generation". He can speak for himself, but should not categorize all boomers as greedy. Every generation includes greedy people. Not all hedge fund managers are boomers.
Also, note that many of us boomers did not think, like Friedman and George W. Bush, that we should invade and occupy Iraq. And while I strongly oppose that policy, I believe taxes should be raised to pay for it. (I suspect that even fewer Americans would support the war if they had to pay for it today with higher taxes, regardless of their generation.)
Mr. Friedman refers to a "Social Security deficit". Well, there is no Social Security deficit. In fact, it has generated quite a huge surplus over the years. What has happened, though, is Congress has borrowed heavily from the SS Trust Fund to pay for wars and other items not related to Social Security.
In general, Mr. Friedman plays fast and loose by attributing all the major problems to one generation, and conveniently overlooking the fact that budget dificits and the "ecological deficit" preceded this generation, and that not everyone in any generation is equally responsible.
Finally, it seems that Mr. Friedman's daughter was frightened by a NY Times story about the melting of the Arctic Ice Cap. He should have told her that this happens every year to varying degrees, and that we humans have a lot to learn about climate change before we can jump to doomsday conclusions about "global warming".
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
Watch Out For Ideologues
Ideologues are dangerous. George W. Bush is an ideologue. Evidence means nothing to him. All that matters are his beliefs. Normally, I don't care what anyone believes. But when an ideologue sits in the Oval Office, we are in trouble.
Bush believed that invading Iraq was the right thing to do, even though Iraq was never a threat to us. Why? Neocons convinced him that Saddam Hussein had to go. After Bush bought into this idea, no amount of contrary evidence (e.g., there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq) could change his mind. Also, the mindset of an ideologue is closed. It cannot adapt to new information, such as "the occupation of Iraq is, on net, bad for the United States".
Another example of Bush's ideology concerns taxes. He "believes" in tax cuts. He thinks it is better to borrow and spend than to tax and spend. Consequently, we have to borrow hundreds of billions of dollars from countries like China and Saudi Arabia, and our grandchildren will be taxed very high just to pay the interest on these debts. Moreover, it cannot be wise to owe so much money to adversarial countries. Bush also believes in "supply side economics": that cutting taxes raises revenues. (His father George H. W. Bush at least called that idea "voodoo economics".)
But enough about our worst president ever, for now. While Bush at least has his heart in the right place, Osama bin Laden is a different kind of ideologue: a purely evil man. His religious beliefs are his ideology. While I agree with Michael Scheuer (the author of "Imperial hubris : why the West is losing the war on terror") that bin Laden hates us for what we have done (as opposed to who we are) bin Laden is guided in his hatred by his ideology. The same was true of Adolf Hitler.
Bush believed that invading Iraq was the right thing to do, even though Iraq was never a threat to us. Why? Neocons convinced him that Saddam Hussein had to go. After Bush bought into this idea, no amount of contrary evidence (e.g., there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq) could change his mind. Also, the mindset of an ideologue is closed. It cannot adapt to new information, such as "the occupation of Iraq is, on net, bad for the United States".
Another example of Bush's ideology concerns taxes. He "believes" in tax cuts. He thinks it is better to borrow and spend than to tax and spend. Consequently, we have to borrow hundreds of billions of dollars from countries like China and Saudi Arabia, and our grandchildren will be taxed very high just to pay the interest on these debts. Moreover, it cannot be wise to owe so much money to adversarial countries. Bush also believes in "supply side economics": that cutting taxes raises revenues. (His father George H. W. Bush at least called that idea "voodoo economics".)
But enough about our worst president ever, for now. While Bush at least has his heart in the right place, Osama bin Laden is a different kind of ideologue: a purely evil man. His religious beliefs are his ideology. While I agree with Michael Scheuer (the author of "Imperial hubris : why the West is losing the war on terror") that bin Laden hates us for what we have done (as opposed to who we are) bin Laden is guided in his hatred by his ideology. The same was true of Adolf Hitler.
New York Driver's Licenses
New York Governor Eliot Spitzer wants to make it easier for illegal aliens to get driver's licenses in his state. See Licenses for Immigrants Finds Support By NICHOLAS CONFESSORE and DANNY HAKIM in today's New York Times. There are two problems with his position. First, it makes New York an "enabler" of illegal immigration. Second, it makes it easier for would-be terrorists to harm us.
The article states "The most important thing for investigators and intelligence officials ... was to be able to track suspects, legal or not". I strongly disagree. Much more important is preventing terrorist attacks in the first place. But Spitzer's policy would make it slightly easier for our enemies to commit acts of terror. Therefore, it is a stupid policy.
The article states "The most important thing for investigators and intelligence officials ... was to be able to track suspects, legal or not". I strongly disagree. Much more important is preventing terrorist attacks in the first place. But Spitzer's policy would make it slightly easier for our enemies to commit acts of terror. Therefore, it is a stupid policy.
Monday, October 8, 2007
Post #1
I believe that American policies should be guided by what is best in the national (American) interest. All too often, we are told by the "experts" that America should do this or that because it is our obligation to the world, because poor people in Africa need our aid, because as the "leader of the free world" we ought to do nation building, and so on. I strongly disagree with these experts.
I believe in the merits of substance over form, so while I may often not state my ideas in the most elegant fashion, I will certainly try my best to state what our policies should be.
I believe America needs higher taxes on the wealthy, lower taxes on the middle class, more nuclear power plants, more friends (allies), fewer enemies, and fewer wars. We also need more separation of church and state, better parenting, and fewer immigrants.
President George W. Bush's ill-conceived war on Iraq, and occupation of Iraq, was a major mistake. Iraq was never a threat to the United States. (I also believe we should never have had the Korean War, the War in Vietnam, the first Gulf War by George H. W. Bush, or the Clinton military campaign in Kosovo.) Since the Iraq war was a mistake, we should withdraw from Iraq immediately.
The "experts" say that if we withdraw from Iraq immediately, then all hell will break loose in the Middle East . Well, no one knows what will happen there if we withdraw immediately. But we can be certain that fewer Americans will die for a nation which hates us, and we will save a lot of money that can be better spent strengthening America and making us independent of Middle East oil. (We need less hubris in "knowing" what the future holds. Let's face it: no one has a crystal ball which tells them what will happen tomorrow or on any day in the future.)
I am always astounded how the "experts" can repeat the same myth over and over, and before you know it, all the media repeat the same mantra, namely, if we "cut and run" from Iraq then X, Y and Z will happen there. These are the same experts and media hawks who told us that Iraq would be a cakewalk.
We cannot try to undo all of Bush's mistakes overnight. And like it or not, most of the world will hate us for a long time. However, with the right policies, time is on our side, and eventually America will be liked and respected again.
In future posts I plan to expand on all of these thoughts and introduce new ones. For today, I want to close by imagining how America could have been immeasureably stronger (and less hated) had Bush spent all those Iraq dollars on building nuclear power plants around the country. By now, we would have had millions of electric-powered automobiles and we would have been exporting our own oil, not importing hundreds of billions of dollars of oil from the Middle East.
I believe in the merits of substance over form, so while I may often not state my ideas in the most elegant fashion, I will certainly try my best to state what our policies should be.
I believe America needs higher taxes on the wealthy, lower taxes on the middle class, more nuclear power plants, more friends (allies), fewer enemies, and fewer wars. We also need more separation of church and state, better parenting, and fewer immigrants.
President George W. Bush's ill-conceived war on Iraq, and occupation of Iraq, was a major mistake. Iraq was never a threat to the United States. (I also believe we should never have had the Korean War, the War in Vietnam, the first Gulf War by George H. W. Bush, or the Clinton military campaign in Kosovo.) Since the Iraq war was a mistake, we should withdraw from Iraq immediately.
The "experts" say that if we withdraw from Iraq immediately, then all hell will break loose in the Middle East . Well, no one knows what will happen there if we withdraw immediately. But we can be certain that fewer Americans will die for a nation which hates us, and we will save a lot of money that can be better spent strengthening America and making us independent of Middle East oil. (We need less hubris in "knowing" what the future holds. Let's face it: no one has a crystal ball which tells them what will happen tomorrow or on any day in the future.)
I am always astounded how the "experts" can repeat the same myth over and over, and before you know it, all the media repeat the same mantra, namely, if we "cut and run" from Iraq then X, Y and Z will happen there. These are the same experts and media hawks who told us that Iraq would be a cakewalk.
We cannot try to undo all of Bush's mistakes overnight. And like it or not, most of the world will hate us for a long time. However, with the right policies, time is on our side, and eventually America will be liked and respected again.
In future posts I plan to expand on all of these thoughts and introduce new ones. For today, I want to close by imagining how America could have been immeasureably stronger (and less hated) had Bush spent all those Iraq dollars on building nuclear power plants around the country. By now, we would have had millions of electric-powered automobiles and we would have been exporting our own oil, not importing hundreds of billions of dollars of oil from the Middle East.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)