When the gang of Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, and their supporters (let's call them the walking dead) attacked us in the 1990s, we basically let them get away with it. Then came 9/11, and now all bets are off.
Sure, we have stumbled in Iraq and Afghanistan, but at least the tiger is now awake. 9/11 will not be forgotten, and it will be avenged.
We need to stop fighting AQ like we are following Marquess of Queensberry boxing rules. We need to start acting like the tiger we are. It is in our bloodlines.
The time has come to kill the enemy. Kill them until they surrender. There is nothing to negotiate.
Saturday, November 3, 2007
Congress and Taxes
Re Senate Democrats Facing a 'Pay as You Go' Problem by Edmund L. Andrews in today's NY Times:
It is both amusing and infuriating to watch the weasels in Congress. It seems that one of the requirements of office there is to have no backbone.
The other thing that catches my eye is how the private equity and hedge fund managers give big bucks to both political parties (obviously their way of buying access) yet the millions they give amount to only a few hours of their collective earnings. So, they spend about two cents to buy a dollar's worth of extra after-tax earnings. Amazing.
Of course, the solution to our fiscal travesty is simple: start with a basic flat income tax with no deductions, and then make it progressive; the income points where the tax rate changes should be indexed for inflation.
Then the "pay as you go" rule would require either a direct reduction in funding of other programs or an increase in the base income tax rate, or some combination, which results in no increase in the national debt.
It is both amusing and infuriating to watch the weasels in Congress. It seems that one of the requirements of office there is to have no backbone.
The other thing that catches my eye is how the private equity and hedge fund managers give big bucks to both political parties (obviously their way of buying access) yet the millions they give amount to only a few hours of their collective earnings. So, they spend about two cents to buy a dollar's worth of extra after-tax earnings. Amazing.
Of course, the solution to our fiscal travesty is simple: start with a basic flat income tax with no deductions, and then make it progressive; the income points where the tax rate changes should be indexed for inflation.
Then the "pay as you go" rule would require either a direct reduction in funding of other programs or an increase in the base income tax rate, or some combination, which results in no increase in the national debt.
The Danger of Complacency in the War on Terror
It is frustrating to see America become complacent in the war on terror. I am certain that al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden are determined to detonate a WMD in either Manhattan or Washington, DC, or in both places at once. Yet America is not fighting the enemy the way it ought to.
After Pearl Harbor, we did not rest until after we had crushed Nazi Germany and Japan, and they each surrendered unconditionally. Yet today we are paralyzed with political correctness and have forgotten that war requires we do horrible things in order to win it.
It is always a matter of degree. Reasonable people can argue about when the war began. I strongly believe it began in 1993 when the enemy first attacked our World Trade Center in New York. (Sometimes, I think it began in 1979 when our embassy in Tehran was invaded.) But one thing is for sure: ever since 9/11, we have been in a state of war.
I don't know what Al Gore would have done had he been president. But George W. Bush has done worse than doing nothing, since his weak actions have only served to do the following:
1. Weaken us economically. We are down about a trillion dollars due to his incompetence. To make matters worse, he cuts taxes, making us even weaker.
2. Prolong the war. His nation-building in Afghanistan and Iraq have prolonged the war and served as a recruiting tool for our enemy. There are now more terrorists gunning for us, and planning that WMD attack, than on September 10, 2001.
3. Fight from weakness. We have not fought from our strength, but instead, we fight according to the script OBL has written.
So, what should we do? I already outlined two different strategies, one using soft power, the other hard power. But our problem is caused by weak and inept leadership both in the White House and in the military.
Bush has received, deservedly, much criticism. But not enough has been said about the weak, inept military leadership. To be clear, I am not talking about the rank and file in our officer corps, but the highest echelons. The ones who are supposed to advise the civilians in the Pentagon and White House.
Apparently, they failed to explain to Bush et al what it means to be at war. What we are supposed to do to our enemy. The dangers of protracted, ineffective wars.
I realize I have little credibility on military issues. But it is my understanding that at places like West Point, our cadets are taught about the histories of war, and lessons learned. Some of this focuses on the classics from Greek and Roman Empire eras. A large part of it is based on our own history regarding, in particular, the Revolutionary War (in which my ancestors fought), our Civil War, and World Wars I and II.
What I know is this: you must crush your enemy, or else he will come back to try to kill you another day. We are not doing this, so we grow weaker, and the enemy gathers his strength.
I wish I could wave a magic wand and stir up our country the way it was stirred up on December 7, 1941. Or somehow resurrect FDR and replace Bush with him. Or replace our generals with men like Sherman, Lee, Grant, Eisenhower, and Patton. But that won't happen. Still, I believe Americans like that are out there somewhere. Maybe they are junior officers who learned their history lessons well. But the great men I cited also had moral courage. The courage to do what is both right and necessary, and don't give a damn what the media says about them, or whether their actions are politically correct.
We must accept both that war is hell, and that we are at war. We must kill many innocent women and children, because our bombs cannot distinguish between them and our enemies. We must inflict so much pain and agony on our enemy that it will surrender unconditionally. We must be so ferocious that they will believe that "God" is on our side, not theirs.
After Pearl Harbor, we did not rest until after we had crushed Nazi Germany and Japan, and they each surrendered unconditionally. Yet today we are paralyzed with political correctness and have forgotten that war requires we do horrible things in order to win it.
It is always a matter of degree. Reasonable people can argue about when the war began. I strongly believe it began in 1993 when the enemy first attacked our World Trade Center in New York. (Sometimes, I think it began in 1979 when our embassy in Tehran was invaded.) But one thing is for sure: ever since 9/11, we have been in a state of war.
I don't know what Al Gore would have done had he been president. But George W. Bush has done worse than doing nothing, since his weak actions have only served to do the following:
1. Weaken us economically. We are down about a trillion dollars due to his incompetence. To make matters worse, he cuts taxes, making us even weaker.
2. Prolong the war. His nation-building in Afghanistan and Iraq have prolonged the war and served as a recruiting tool for our enemy. There are now more terrorists gunning for us, and planning that WMD attack, than on September 10, 2001.
3. Fight from weakness. We have not fought from our strength, but instead, we fight according to the script OBL has written.
So, what should we do? I already outlined two different strategies, one using soft power, the other hard power. But our problem is caused by weak and inept leadership both in the White House and in the military.
Bush has received, deservedly, much criticism. But not enough has been said about the weak, inept military leadership. To be clear, I am not talking about the rank and file in our officer corps, but the highest echelons. The ones who are supposed to advise the civilians in the Pentagon and White House.
Apparently, they failed to explain to Bush et al what it means to be at war. What we are supposed to do to our enemy. The dangers of protracted, ineffective wars.
I realize I have little credibility on military issues. But it is my understanding that at places like West Point, our cadets are taught about the histories of war, and lessons learned. Some of this focuses on the classics from Greek and Roman Empire eras. A large part of it is based on our own history regarding, in particular, the Revolutionary War (in which my ancestors fought), our Civil War, and World Wars I and II.
What I know is this: you must crush your enemy, or else he will come back to try to kill you another day. We are not doing this, so we grow weaker, and the enemy gathers his strength.
I wish I could wave a magic wand and stir up our country the way it was stirred up on December 7, 1941. Or somehow resurrect FDR and replace Bush with him. Or replace our generals with men like Sherman, Lee, Grant, Eisenhower, and Patton. But that won't happen. Still, I believe Americans like that are out there somewhere. Maybe they are junior officers who learned their history lessons well. But the great men I cited also had moral courage. The courage to do what is both right and necessary, and don't give a damn what the media says about them, or whether their actions are politically correct.
We must accept both that war is hell, and that we are at war. We must kill many innocent women and children, because our bombs cannot distinguish between them and our enemies. We must inflict so much pain and agony on our enemy that it will surrender unconditionally. We must be so ferocious that they will believe that "God" is on our side, not theirs.
Gun Control Revisited
There have been many intelligent comments posted in response to my post and comments on this subject, so I will respond here to the last set of comments by Linoge, Sebastian, and R.J.
I think I have an open mind on this issue. While there are times I wish I could make all the guns in civilian hands vanish instantaneously, I know that is never going to happen.
I am particularly impressed by the points about gun demand (it is strong) and the ability of determined persons to make their own guns, or how easy it would be to manufacture firearms in one's home or a small machine shop. So, there is no practical way to ban firearms. I agree. They will always be with us.
I understand the sensitivity to registration, but I am not familiar with the reference to California confiscating assault weapons after they had been registered. Perhaps the types of weapons which were confiscated ought to have been taken due to their lethality. I think it is a matter of degree, and not a black and white issue.
The line between a legal gun and illegal gun will always be blurry and somewhat arbitrary, but surely all of you has seen some guns which you privately must have felt ought to be illegal. Isn't there some point where the caliber of the bullet, or its speed, or the number of firings per minute, or the penetration characteristics, or explosive characteristics, ought to be regulated? What about RPGs?
I favor intelligent gun control. It should at least be national. There is no point in having a state law that can easily be defeated by crossing a state boundary.
I like the example of comparing registering guns with registering computers. I actually do think more controls and less privacy is warranted with computers. Again, it should never be "either/or", but rather, a matter of degree. Computer hackers can do a lot of damage, so we need better controls to be able to trace hacker attacks, thefts, and damage caused by "botnets". At a minimum, there ought to be efforts to make it easier for law enforcement to trace illegal activities on the internet. (I am not an expert on the internet, but I know enough about it that this is a problem which can never be solved, but only managed.) Without safeguards, we can lose the internet as an economic engine, and that would be a step backwards.
I agree that having the government install video cameras in everyone's home is going too far. That is a great example of what I mean when I say that control is a matter of degree. The trick is to find the "sweet spot", not too much control, and not too little control. "Big Brother" is too much control.
Today, the government does not have enough information about peoples' incomes. This results in tax unfairness: one person has withholding from his wages, while another pays no taxes on income from a secret source. We all benefit from government, so we should all pay for it, fairly. (Everyone also has their own list of government services which they do not want to pay for. A drug dealer does not want to pay for narcotics police; a thief does not want to pay for police; a pacifist does not want to pay for the military; I suspect many gun owners do not want to pay for the ATF; and so on. So, we can't pick and choose what programs we will pay for, but we do try to voice our opinions and vote, etc.) But I agree that government has no business in certain aspects of our lives. But I don't think that sheds any light on the issue of gun control.
I don't think our founders meant for the Second Amendment to be as sweeping as it has been interpreted. I would like to see it re-written, so that it is clearer and more in keeping with our founders' intent.
I checked the link which pointed to the humorous site which compared gun control to stuff like "We need to prevent rape by castrating all men". That is funny. I get it. But like all analogies, it is not exactly the same as gun control. If you agree we need some control of weaponry, then gun control is a matter of degree. It is certainly a more difficult issue to manage than most, which probably explains why there is so much emotion attached to it.
A police state would be a bad thing. So would total anarchy fueled by no laws constraining weapons. I think if I had to choose, I would go with the police state. No way would I prefer a place like Baghdad, with car bombs going off every day. Happily, we don't have to choose between these two extremes. We can have balance. (The differences between America and either a police state or Iraq have a lot more to do with things other than gun control: for starters, we have had over 200 years of gradually improving institutions and laws. This is a point that a lot of neo-cons missed, but I digress.)
I agree that the analogy of registering cars and guns is far from perfect. But I still think there are good lessons there: cars are not being confiscated from law-abiding citizens.
It doesn't matter much what the gun laws are in DC, since it is so easy to go from there to Virginia, which has weaker laws. That is why we need national gun control, as opposed to a bunch of conflicting and self-defeating state or local gun controls.
We should not outlaw guns. We should have gun control laws which reduce the high rate of crimes and accidents committed with firearms.
I think we need better laws and enforcement in order to reduce crime. We have not experimented enough with our laws to conclude that gun control does not work.
America is the greatest country in the world. We should not rest on our laurels, but continue to improve it.
I think I have an open mind on this issue. While there are times I wish I could make all the guns in civilian hands vanish instantaneously, I know that is never going to happen.
I am particularly impressed by the points about gun demand (it is strong) and the ability of determined persons to make their own guns, or how easy it would be to manufacture firearms in one's home or a small machine shop. So, there is no practical way to ban firearms. I agree. They will always be with us.
I understand the sensitivity to registration, but I am not familiar with the reference to California confiscating assault weapons after they had been registered. Perhaps the types of weapons which were confiscated ought to have been taken due to their lethality. I think it is a matter of degree, and not a black and white issue.
The line between a legal gun and illegal gun will always be blurry and somewhat arbitrary, but surely all of you has seen some guns which you privately must have felt ought to be illegal. Isn't there some point where the caliber of the bullet, or its speed, or the number of firings per minute, or the penetration characteristics, or explosive characteristics, ought to be regulated? What about RPGs?
I favor intelligent gun control. It should at least be national. There is no point in having a state law that can easily be defeated by crossing a state boundary.
I like the example of comparing registering guns with registering computers. I actually do think more controls and less privacy is warranted with computers. Again, it should never be "either/or", but rather, a matter of degree. Computer hackers can do a lot of damage, so we need better controls to be able to trace hacker attacks, thefts, and damage caused by "botnets". At a minimum, there ought to be efforts to make it easier for law enforcement to trace illegal activities on the internet. (I am not an expert on the internet, but I know enough about it that this is a problem which can never be solved, but only managed.) Without safeguards, we can lose the internet as an economic engine, and that would be a step backwards.
I agree that having the government install video cameras in everyone's home is going too far. That is a great example of what I mean when I say that control is a matter of degree. The trick is to find the "sweet spot", not too much control, and not too little control. "Big Brother" is too much control.
Today, the government does not have enough information about peoples' incomes. This results in tax unfairness: one person has withholding from his wages, while another pays no taxes on income from a secret source. We all benefit from government, so we should all pay for it, fairly. (Everyone also has their own list of government services which they do not want to pay for. A drug dealer does not want to pay for narcotics police; a thief does not want to pay for police; a pacifist does not want to pay for the military; I suspect many gun owners do not want to pay for the ATF; and so on. So, we can't pick and choose what programs we will pay for, but we do try to voice our opinions and vote, etc.) But I agree that government has no business in certain aspects of our lives. But I don't think that sheds any light on the issue of gun control.
I don't think our founders meant for the Second Amendment to be as sweeping as it has been interpreted. I would like to see it re-written, so that it is clearer and more in keeping with our founders' intent.
I checked the link which pointed to the humorous site which compared gun control to stuff like "We need to prevent rape by castrating all men". That is funny. I get it. But like all analogies, it is not exactly the same as gun control. If you agree we need some control of weaponry, then gun control is a matter of degree. It is certainly a more difficult issue to manage than most, which probably explains why there is so much emotion attached to it.
A police state would be a bad thing. So would total anarchy fueled by no laws constraining weapons. I think if I had to choose, I would go with the police state. No way would I prefer a place like Baghdad, with car bombs going off every day. Happily, we don't have to choose between these two extremes. We can have balance. (The differences between America and either a police state or Iraq have a lot more to do with things other than gun control: for starters, we have had over 200 years of gradually improving institutions and laws. This is a point that a lot of neo-cons missed, but I digress.)
I agree that the analogy of registering cars and guns is far from perfect. But I still think there are good lessons there: cars are not being confiscated from law-abiding citizens.
It doesn't matter much what the gun laws are in DC, since it is so easy to go from there to Virginia, which has weaker laws. That is why we need national gun control, as opposed to a bunch of conflicting and self-defeating state or local gun controls.
We should not outlaw guns. We should have gun control laws which reduce the high rate of crimes and accidents committed with firearms.
I think we need better laws and enforcement in order to reduce crime. We have not experimented enough with our laws to conclude that gun control does not work.
America is the greatest country in the world. We should not rest on our laurels, but continue to improve it.
Friday, November 2, 2007
We Need More Gun Control
If gun ownership by civilians were banned by law, there would be fewer murders. Many murders are committed with guns. Making guns harder to acquire would reduce the number of guns in all hands, not just the hands of law-abiding citizens.
Guns are not all bad. We need them in both law enforcement and in the military. We do not “need” them for hunting or for target practice as a sport. Some people do need guns for their own protection, in the US, because there are so many guns in the hands of law-breakers, and because in rural areas it can take unreasonably long to wait for police protection in emergencies.
If we could find a way to eliminate guns from the bad guys, then no additional gun control measures would be needed. Until then, we need more gun control, not less.
Guns are not all bad. We need them in both law enforcement and in the military. We do not “need” them for hunting or for target practice as a sport. Some people do need guns for their own protection, in the US, because there are so many guns in the hands of law-breakers, and because in rural areas it can take unreasonably long to wait for police protection in emergencies.
If we could find a way to eliminate guns from the bad guys, then no additional gun control measures would be needed. Until then, we need more gun control, not less.
Capital Punishment Is A Mistake
Capital punishment is wrong for a set of reasons which outweigh, in my judgement, the set of reasons in favor of it. The two main reasons against it are:
1. The enormous injustice of executing an innocent man. Just look at how often today, after conviction for murder, it turns out that DNA evidence acquits people on death row.
2. The financial cost of executing people in our country is so high that it is not a sensible form of punishment. In effect, capital punishment punishes society more than it punishes the person who is executed.
Murderers do deserve to die. But we do not have the ability to detect murderers with 100% certainty. Until we do, point #1 above is germane.
The fact that other civilized nations have banned capital punishment means we should re-examine our thinking. Only a closed mind shuts itself off from others’ ideas. In other words, the fact that other civilized nations ban capital punishment should lead us to re-examine this issue; that does not mean that we will come out of this process with a different idea, but we should be open-minded.
1. The enormous injustice of executing an innocent man. Just look at how often today, after conviction for murder, it turns out that DNA evidence acquits people on death row.
2. The financial cost of executing people in our country is so high that it is not a sensible form of punishment. In effect, capital punishment punishes society more than it punishes the person who is executed.
Murderers do deserve to die. But we do not have the ability to detect murderers with 100% certainty. Until we do, point #1 above is germane.
The fact that other civilized nations have banned capital punishment means we should re-examine our thinking. Only a closed mind shuts itself off from others’ ideas. In other words, the fact that other civilized nations ban capital punishment should lead us to re-examine this issue; that does not mean that we will come out of this process with a different idea, but we should be open-minded.
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Israel
I hope Israel wins all its battles and its long war with terrorists. Long live Israel!
Even so, it was a big mistake to support Zionism pre-1948, and a big mistake to create Israel in 1948. (It would have made more sense to carve out a Jewish homeland in the middle of defeated Germany after World War II.)
Still, we do not live in an ideal world; we have to cope with the world as it actually is. And Israel is a true ally of the United States, unlike most of the other countries in the Middle East. We were not attacked by crazed Israelis on 9/11, but by crazed Arabs.
We should stop giving foreign aid to Israel, except insofar as the aid directly enhances our own security.
I do not see a comparable argument for continuing foreign aid to Egypt. In fact, it appears that most Egyptians have a very low opinion of America.
We should not sell any weapons to Arab nations while we are fighting the war on terror. We should continue to sell weapons to Israel as long as the technology of those weapons stays in Israel and does not enhance the technology of any of our adversaries, such as China.
Even so, it was a big mistake to support Zionism pre-1948, and a big mistake to create Israel in 1948. (It would have made more sense to carve out a Jewish homeland in the middle of defeated Germany after World War II.)
Still, we do not live in an ideal world; we have to cope with the world as it actually is. And Israel is a true ally of the United States, unlike most of the other countries in the Middle East. We were not attacked by crazed Israelis on 9/11, but by crazed Arabs.
We should stop giving foreign aid to Israel, except insofar as the aid directly enhances our own security.
I do not see a comparable argument for continuing foreign aid to Egypt. In fact, it appears that most Egyptians have a very low opinion of America.
We should not sell any weapons to Arab nations while we are fighting the war on terror. We should continue to sell weapons to Israel as long as the technology of those weapons stays in Israel and does not enhance the technology of any of our adversaries, such as China.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)