With all the hype lately about the botched 2001 attack that could have secured Osama bin Laden for the US before he escaped to the tribal regions of Pakistan, I have to admit that my first instinct is to immediately blame Rummy, and to do so with extra vigor because of the rabid nature that most conservative pundits used the same situation against the Clinton White House when he was allowed to leave the Sudan.
I think Donald Rumsfeld is the single biggest negative to the Bush legacy... in other words, if we were ever to finish the "Bund Report Card" for the two-terms of the Bush Administrations, I'd score the Cabinet and Legacy areas of the grade terribly low, mostly because of Rummy (but there are other considerations, as well).
I've never liked the argument against Clinton that he "let bin Laden get away" during his watch. No one could have known the actual threat that Osama presented to the US at the time of his near-capture in Sudan, and we would have been making political and economic concessions to one of the most tyrannical and brutal regimes in all of Africa to get him secured. Any such accusations always seemed ad hominem to me... "Well, if he was a good President, he'd have gotten bin Laden BEFORE the 9-11 attacks!" I'm not saying he was a good President, but his failure to capture bin Laden probably shouldn't be the primary evidence of his failures as President, but it was typically a top-five argument for the likes of Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter, and Levin. Certainly, no more so than it should be used against the Bush Administration of 2001.
I'm curious as to how the Bush "apologists" will play this, however. I know Ryan is a big fan, and I look forward to his response, but even more interesting will be the responses of Hannity and Limbaugh et al. Rummy's admitted excuse of "not wanting to cause a back-lash in Afghanistan and Pakistan" by committing thousands of troops rather than the 80+ commandos that WERE used seems to fly in the face of what our stated (stated by Rummy, no less) intentions and goals were in Afghanistan in 2001.
I wanted to add one thing, too... I'm thinking that much of the "explanation" for this event that will come from the apologists will have to do with the agenda behind the Senate's report in the first place. Yes, I know that Sen. John Kerry is the man who pushed so hard to get this report out, and that his agenda is purely and completely based on an anti-Bush agenda... but if we scroll back through the Bund pages here, you will see that I never doubted that, once the GOP influence was out of the White House, the "facts" surrounding failures and mistakes made during the Bush years would get front-page coverage each and every time. We ALL knew that the facts would come out, and they would be used for personal reasons by the liberal, anti-Bush crowd FIRST and to detail actual historical facts second. This is part and parcel of the "Legacy" aspect of a former President... they all go through it, and Bush is no exception.
Thoughts?
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Not an an either/or question ...
It is not simply a question of government regulation of oil speculation / prices. That's addressing the symptom rather than the problem. No amount of US regulation of domestic supplies or imports will reign in the whims of OPEC. In other words in terms of oil in specific, you're asking the wrong question. If you want to discuss the Constitutionality of price regulation, or simply whether it "works"/is justifiable, we can, but with oil its' a false choice. If the United States government wants to reign in prices to a "stable" level, with protected supplies - the latter being just as vital as price to national security, then the answer would be making domestic energy production paramount.
And no one need give me this nonsensical "it'll take 10 years to get ANWR online", we've moved way past that. Offshore and mainland domestic oil recovery, both crude and shale, combined with natural gas recovery efforts, nuclear plant construction, oil refinery construction, clean coal advancement, ALL OF THIS government can spur on with radical deregulation. Hell, just the president announcing such a bold plan is likely to knock $40 off per barrel of crude within 24 hours. And not only will this do more for national security than price regulation/fixing, it protects the beloved environment much more efficiently as we will be better stewards in recovery than say, Iran.
Price fixing as a concept rarely works. Are there war time or emergency situations where government has taken the liberty? Obviously. Americans have always been willing to grant extraordinary powers to their government during times of war and crisis, but as a policy it should no more be a common place strategy then any other temporary, emergency, war time measure (rationing, various security measures such as internment, etc).
Oh, and my recommendations above, for energy security ... as President Obama flies to Copenhagen for a global warming summit I'd say we are headed in the opposite direction, which seems to be the only direction this president knows. This even with the recent revelation that one of the primary, "founding" institutions which successfully pushed global warming to the UN and NASA had scientists flat out faking results and data as was demonstrated when a hacker released thousands of private emails showing such deception. Of course you'd have to be watching FOX, get your news online, or listen to talk radio to have even heard this story reported (the networks haven't touched it, yet); but once you examine it you'll be employing the same adjectives as I - "snake oil salesman", "con artists" etc, etc. More on "climate gate" after some research.
Oh, and Happy Thanksgiving!
And no one need give me this nonsensical "it'll take 10 years to get ANWR online", we've moved way past that. Offshore and mainland domestic oil recovery, both crude and shale, combined with natural gas recovery efforts, nuclear plant construction, oil refinery construction, clean coal advancement, ALL OF THIS government can spur on with radical deregulation. Hell, just the president announcing such a bold plan is likely to knock $40 off per barrel of crude within 24 hours. And not only will this do more for national security than price regulation/fixing, it protects the beloved environment much more efficiently as we will be better stewards in recovery than say, Iran.
Price fixing as a concept rarely works. Are there war time or emergency situations where government has taken the liberty? Obviously. Americans have always been willing to grant extraordinary powers to their government during times of war and crisis, but as a policy it should no more be a common place strategy then any other temporary, emergency, war time measure (rationing, various security measures such as internment, etc).
Oh, and my recommendations above, for energy security ... as President Obama flies to Copenhagen for a global warming summit I'd say we are headed in the opposite direction, which seems to be the only direction this president knows. This even with the recent revelation that one of the primary, "founding" institutions which successfully pushed global warming to the UN and NASA had scientists flat out faking results and data as was demonstrated when a hacker released thousands of private emails showing such deception. Of course you'd have to be watching FOX, get your news online, or listen to talk radio to have even heard this story reported (the networks haven't touched it, yet); but once you examine it you'll be employing the same adjectives as I - "snake oil salesman", "con artists" etc, etc. More on "climate gate" after some research.
Oh, and Happy Thanksgiving!
An old question...
We have discussed the question of government price regulation and commodity contracts for defense and national security in the past, but I found another fantastic example that I thought I'd present for consideration.
During WWII, the US recognized quickly that what we fed our troops in the field had a huge impact on morale. The two most popular items (edible, anyway... I know cigs were up there too) in the ration packs were chocolate and raisins. We have discussed the voluntary freeze on the price of chocolate by such manufacturers as Hershey and Nestle in the interest of winning the war effort... but just as good an example is raisins.
In 1939, raisins were seeing a market price of $.49 per ton. By 1945, the market price was as high as $390.00 per ton. That is a 6000% increase in revenue for raisin makers... based purely on the needs of the US Government to get raisins to our troops afield.
Now, understand that the government wasn't paying $390 a ton in 1945... their contract price was "fixed" at $17 a ton by an act of Congress in 1942 that restricted how much prices could fluctuated within the government's contract-bid system. Only the non-government/military buyers were paying the high prices for raisins... which means our grandmothers and great-grandmothers.
This is not a defense of FDR or the New Deal... I'm simply making the case that commodities that have been determined to be vital to national security and our nation's economic well-being have been regulated in the past, from gold and uranium to corn, silk and rubber.
So, my question: Is this okay? Was the US right in regulating the price that the government paid for raisins at so much lower of a rate than the public was paying? Was this justified in the greater effort to win the war?
If someone answers yes, is it also "ok" for the government to regulate the manner in which market prices of such a vital and important commodity as crude oil are allowed to adjust to global effects? Should the price we pay for oil be at the whims of commodity speculators and market analysts, or should their be checks and curbs in place that regulate the ups and downs that the market price can see over the course of a trading day, or week, or month?
Just wondering...
During WWII, the US recognized quickly that what we fed our troops in the field had a huge impact on morale. The two most popular items (edible, anyway... I know cigs were up there too) in the ration packs were chocolate and raisins. We have discussed the voluntary freeze on the price of chocolate by such manufacturers as Hershey and Nestle in the interest of winning the war effort... but just as good an example is raisins.
In 1939, raisins were seeing a market price of $.49 per ton. By 1945, the market price was as high as $390.00 per ton. That is a 6000% increase in revenue for raisin makers... based purely on the needs of the US Government to get raisins to our troops afield.
Now, understand that the government wasn't paying $390 a ton in 1945... their contract price was "fixed" at $17 a ton by an act of Congress in 1942 that restricted how much prices could fluctuated within the government's contract-bid system. Only the non-government/military buyers were paying the high prices for raisins... which means our grandmothers and great-grandmothers.
This is not a defense of FDR or the New Deal... I'm simply making the case that commodities that have been determined to be vital to national security and our nation's economic well-being have been regulated in the past, from gold and uranium to corn, silk and rubber.
So, my question: Is this okay? Was the US right in regulating the price that the government paid for raisins at so much lower of a rate than the public was paying? Was this justified in the greater effort to win the war?
If someone answers yes, is it also "ok" for the government to regulate the manner in which market prices of such a vital and important commodity as crude oil are allowed to adjust to global effects? Should the price we pay for oil be at the whims of commodity speculators and market analysts, or should their be checks and curbs in place that regulate the ups and downs that the market price can see over the course of a trading day, or week, or month?
Just wondering...
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Barbie: From Burbank to Burka
Yes ... it's true. Mattell has issued the much celebrated girls doll, "Barbie", in a traditional Muslim Burka. Now I have no qualms with Mattell going after roughly 1 billion potential customers, that I get. Nor am I here to bash the traditions of a major faith (being a Christian of the Mormon religion I know the ignorance of such foolishness first hand). However, it does occur to me that Barbie established both its' name ID and casche as the "liberated" woman of the 60's. THIS was the emphasis behind its' original market pitch - no longer "kept", no longer bare foot and pregnant in the kitchen, but rather owner of her own destiny (not to mention a flashy sports car). And most of all - a woman whom sets her own "liberated" fashion trend by accentuating rather then covering her bosom (man, one just don't find enough opportunities to use the word "bosom" in today's vernacular ... but I digress). And low these many years later do we arrive at perhaps the most flagrant fashion example of a repressed woman in modern (or lack there of) society, the Burka. Again, Mattell is free to pursue whatever legal revenue stream they wish, as is any person within the borders of various democracies (presumably the only lands where this toy would be on sale) free to practice their religion in a manner they see fit (so long as it stops at the end of his or her neighbor's nose); but I find this a perfect, near irresistible illustration of just where the 1960's "liberal" ideology has journeyed: freeing us from the social repression, bigotry and "want" they once protested by nestling us all firmly in the dual arms of state induced bondage and social pc.
****
A good series of posts Titus, as it strikes at the heart of my own concerns as of late. I find your frustration in the conservative movements' inability to articulate a clear, persuasive message reminiscent of the shouting going on within my own head, car and living room each and every time I expose myself to the news in the age of Obama. The elected government of my country is so upside down, living in this fantastical wonderland of an alternate reality that be it fiscal policy, personal liberty, war making, or foreign affairs in general I feel as if at any moment the Mad Hatter is set to poor me a piping hot cup of Earl Gray ... and I'm left simply deciding whether I'll take one lump or two.
What we both know is that basic, commonly held, traditional values such as a Jude-Christian value system; heterosexual marriage; low taxes; limited government / personal liberty; the sanctity of life; defeating our sworn & deadly enemies - these, though long a part of the American experience and identity, are enough to get you labeled an intolerant, rabid, right winger in today's media (from "news" agencies to Hollywood). And what makes this scenario particularly maddening is those whom would call us such things are in the minority. Put quite simply our traditional views are the norm within this nation by and large in my opinion, meaning if a traditional/conservative leader with a coherent, succinct message would simply point this out and deliver such a message, he or she would quickly find a ground swell of support (just look at the enormous crowds at Sarah Palin's book signings - its a book signing for crying out loud ... the people are hungry). In other words the left is a hyper organized minority, and this will always beat the PR of an unorganized majority.
The heartening thing though is in the absence of a single, or group of organized leaders on the national stage, the common sense, traditional individual American citizen has turned up at town hall meetings, tea parties, and book signings, and they will undoubtedly turn up at the ballot box in November of 2010. And in a way that is stronger and more sustaining then a single, prominent voice. Because before our Founders were the stuff of legend they were simply a bunch of regular citizens, pissed off to beat hell over taxation and a cumbersome, distant government ... and they didn't fare too bad.
****
A good series of posts Titus, as it strikes at the heart of my own concerns as of late. I find your frustration in the conservative movements' inability to articulate a clear, persuasive message reminiscent of the shouting going on within my own head, car and living room each and every time I expose myself to the news in the age of Obama. The elected government of my country is so upside down, living in this fantastical wonderland of an alternate reality that be it fiscal policy, personal liberty, war making, or foreign affairs in general I feel as if at any moment the Mad Hatter is set to poor me a piping hot cup of Earl Gray ... and I'm left simply deciding whether I'll take one lump or two.
What we both know is that basic, commonly held, traditional values such as a Jude-Christian value system; heterosexual marriage; low taxes; limited government / personal liberty; the sanctity of life; defeating our sworn & deadly enemies - these, though long a part of the American experience and identity, are enough to get you labeled an intolerant, rabid, right winger in today's media (from "news" agencies to Hollywood). And what makes this scenario particularly maddening is those whom would call us such things are in the minority. Put quite simply our traditional views are the norm within this nation by and large in my opinion, meaning if a traditional/conservative leader with a coherent, succinct message would simply point this out and deliver such a message, he or she would quickly find a ground swell of support (just look at the enormous crowds at Sarah Palin's book signings - its a book signing for crying out loud ... the people are hungry). In other words the left is a hyper organized minority, and this will always beat the PR of an unorganized majority.
The heartening thing though is in the absence of a single, or group of organized leaders on the national stage, the common sense, traditional individual American citizen has turned up at town hall meetings, tea parties, and book signings, and they will undoubtedly turn up at the ballot box in November of 2010. And in a way that is stronger and more sustaining then a single, prominent voice. Because before our Founders were the stuff of legend they were simply a bunch of regular citizens, pissed off to beat hell over taxation and a cumbersome, distant government ... and they didn't fare too bad.
Additional irony...
Ever sadder that this story breaks on the anniversary of the assassination of JFK, too...
{sigh}
{sigh}
Another Kennedy butts heads with the Church...
I found an NPR article online that reported a feud going on between the Rep. from Rhode Island, Mr. Patrick Kennedy, and the Bishop of Providence, the Most Reverend Thomas Tobin.
Tobin and Kennedy have publicly argued over the abortion issue, and Tobin has instructed the priests of his dioceses to stop giving him Communion. This is his prerogative as a Catholic Bishop, of course, and he has stopped short of "ordering" Kennedy to refrain from taking Communion outside of the diocese (something else he could have done... sort of a "light" version of excommunication, I guess), but the fight doesn't seem to end there.
Kennedy has used the opportunity this situation presented (taking the message of Rohm Emanuel to heart, it seems) to make himself seem the victim in the eyes of many people. His public statements voice a desire to participate in the Sacraments of the Church, his "belief" in the truth of the Faith, and only a slight disagreement with the Church hierarchy over such important social issues as a public-option in health care and his "pro-choice" position in the abortion debate. He has done a masterful job of making the Bishop and the Church look tyrannical and repressive.
I can't blame the Bishop for taking a hard-line on abortion... I'm very pro-life myself, as you know... but it would seem that the Democratic machine has a far more effective "spin-corps" than the diocese does, and Tobin is suffering because of it. Kennedy's supporters include NPR, as well, it seems... the article was "biased" to say the least, referring to Tobin as "ultra-orthodox" and "shockingly conservative" in his interpretation of canon law (neither of which are true at all... he is ardently pro-life... but that is the extent of his "conservative" leanings, I feel. More on this later...).
It is so disappointing that ANY traditional position, be it in faith or in politics, held by nearly ANYONE in a high-profile office is incapable of making an argument for a conservative belief with any kind of acceptable recognition in the Age of Obama. It seems that, because I am a pro-life Christian with many conservative political views, I am seen by the majority of my represented Government as intolerant, bigoted, racist, and supportive of a theocratic quasi-religious state where only MY beliefs are allowed to be expressed openly.
The truly sad truth is that it is exactly the opposite. MY views and beliefs are being marginalized more and more every day by this society and by this Government.
Sad.
Tobin and Kennedy have publicly argued over the abortion issue, and Tobin has instructed the priests of his dioceses to stop giving him Communion. This is his prerogative as a Catholic Bishop, of course, and he has stopped short of "ordering" Kennedy to refrain from taking Communion outside of the diocese (something else he could have done... sort of a "light" version of excommunication, I guess), but the fight doesn't seem to end there.
Kennedy has used the opportunity this situation presented (taking the message of Rohm Emanuel to heart, it seems) to make himself seem the victim in the eyes of many people. His public statements voice a desire to participate in the Sacraments of the Church, his "belief" in the truth of the Faith, and only a slight disagreement with the Church hierarchy over such important social issues as a public-option in health care and his "pro-choice" position in the abortion debate. He has done a masterful job of making the Bishop and the Church look tyrannical and repressive.
I can't blame the Bishop for taking a hard-line on abortion... I'm very pro-life myself, as you know... but it would seem that the Democratic machine has a far more effective "spin-corps" than the diocese does, and Tobin is suffering because of it. Kennedy's supporters include NPR, as well, it seems... the article was "biased" to say the least, referring to Tobin as "ultra-orthodox" and "shockingly conservative" in his interpretation of canon law (neither of which are true at all... he is ardently pro-life... but that is the extent of his "conservative" leanings, I feel. More on this later...).
It is so disappointing that ANY traditional position, be it in faith or in politics, held by nearly ANYONE in a high-profile office is incapable of making an argument for a conservative belief with any kind of acceptable recognition in the Age of Obama. It seems that, because I am a pro-life Christian with many conservative political views, I am seen by the majority of my represented Government as intolerant, bigoted, racist, and supportive of a theocratic quasi-religious state where only MY beliefs are allowed to be expressed openly.
The truly sad truth is that it is exactly the opposite. MY views and beliefs are being marginalized more and more every day by this society and by this Government.
Sad.
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Hmmm...
I found the actual bill online, and it is a whopping 2,074 pages of crap... absolute crap... that is designed for one purpose only, to give the illusion that the 111th Congress is actually addressing an issue that is important to the Democratic agenda as defined in 2008.
As Ryan pointed out, the benefits won't go into effect until 2014, but we are expected to pay for them starting next year (2010) and all the add-on stuff included in the bill to make it more palatable for moderates and swing votes will continue to suck treasure and resources from an already heavily taxed economy UNTIL such time as the benefits kick in.
This is shaping up to be the most expensive "still-born" legislation in US history. I say this because I simply do not believe that the Dems can continue on the road they are following now and hope with any reasonable degree of certainty to hold their majority in Congress more than 4 more years. That being the case, the FIRST thing a Republican-led Congress will do is repeal the entire thing, meaning that the whole focus and effort of the 111th Congress will be seen by history as a complete waste of time and tax-payer money.
I'm not saying this isn't something to be worried about... the trend is being reinforced and that is a bad precedent. We need this nation to remember that the freedoms of the individual are what guaranty the success of the society, and not the other way around. This Congress and this President are trying to prove a negative, and they will, by definition, fail at the effort. The question is how much will the "butcher's bill" be at the end of the day?
Why is it so impossible for the DNC to see that our government was instituted to "promote, preserve and protect" the general welfare of our society... not to provide for it. No greater fallacy can be perpetuated than to continue to imagine that "government" knows best what the "people" need in regards to general welfare. When will the "conservative" side of American politics find the voice that will state this as many times as is needed to get it to sink into the thick-heads of our fellow voters?
As Ryan pointed out, the benefits won't go into effect until 2014, but we are expected to pay for them starting next year (2010) and all the add-on stuff included in the bill to make it more palatable for moderates and swing votes will continue to suck treasure and resources from an already heavily taxed economy UNTIL such time as the benefits kick in.
This is shaping up to be the most expensive "still-born" legislation in US history. I say this because I simply do not believe that the Dems can continue on the road they are following now and hope with any reasonable degree of certainty to hold their majority in Congress more than 4 more years. That being the case, the FIRST thing a Republican-led Congress will do is repeal the entire thing, meaning that the whole focus and effort of the 111th Congress will be seen by history as a complete waste of time and tax-payer money.
I'm not saying this isn't something to be worried about... the trend is being reinforced and that is a bad precedent. We need this nation to remember that the freedoms of the individual are what guaranty the success of the society, and not the other way around. This Congress and this President are trying to prove a negative, and they will, by definition, fail at the effort. The question is how much will the "butcher's bill" be at the end of the day?
Why is it so impossible for the DNC to see that our government was instituted to "promote, preserve and protect" the general welfare of our society... not to provide for it. No greater fallacy can be perpetuated than to continue to imagine that "government" knows best what the "people" need in regards to general welfare. When will the "conservative" side of American politics find the voice that will state this as many times as is needed to get it to sink into the thick-heads of our fellow voters?
Thursday, November 19, 2009
183 times
That's the number of times the word "TAX" is written in the 2000+ page bill. I just wanted to emphasise something with this addendum: the benefits, the actual government health insurance option, initiates in 2014. The taxes are collected starting in 09' of course, but think about what that means - the sponsors of this bill have gone out of their way to note that the 10 year (2009-2019) cost for the bill is $824 billion dollars (+ a $126 billion for the Medicaid/Medicare so called "doctor fix", which is the gap between what a doctor charges on the open market versus what the government will pay for a procedure, so the real number is nearly a trillion dollars ). But even with their lower number, the $824 billion, that projection starts the moment the bill passes, in 2009! This means the 824 is, in actuality, the cost projection for 5 YEARS worth of service, given those services start in 2014! In fact the CBO scores the following decade at a cost nearly triple the $824 billion, at over $2 trillion dollars.
That's quite a scam.
That's quite a scam.
Rare praise for Senator Lyndsey Grahm ...
... rare being that it comes from me that is. I have oft chided this "big tent" Republican, not because a big tent Party is an unworthy or unnecessary goal (quite the opposite), but because the means with which he thinks the GOP ought to achieve this has far too often resulted in a watering down of core conservative principles. However, he took AG Erick Holder apart at the joints on the KSM issue (trying him in civilian court, in NY) yesterday and I want to give him his just praise.
View it HERE, its 9 minutes, 5 seconds. Well done Lyndsey, you succinctly struck at the heart of what is truly at stake here.
View it HERE, its 9 minutes, 5 seconds. Well done Lyndsey, you succinctly struck at the heart of what is truly at stake here.
Spreading the wealth around ...
Here are just the bullet point references to taxes in the 2000 page, trillion dollar health care bill that Harry Reid will introduce for cloture (a vote to and debate & get to a floor vote - the last chance for the GOP to stop it) THIS Saturday. On a Saturday! If the American people "want" this, why on earth a weekend session?
The individual mandate tax starting in 2014 anyone not buying qualifying health insurance (government approved health insurance) must pay an income surtax according to the following schedule: If you are single in 2014 you pay an extra $95, in 2015 you will pay an extra $350 and in 2015 an extra $750.
If you are single plus one, 2015 you pay $700, and 2016 you will pay $1500. In an additional health care surtax.
In 2014 you are going to pay $285, 2015 you will pay $1,050 and 2016 - this is just the surcharge.
If you decide not to buy "qualifying" health insurance you will pay an extra $2,250. If you are a single person with two kids by 2016 you will only have to pay a maximum of 8% of your income, it's capped at 8%. So it will only be an extra 8 percent income tax.
There are some exemptions if you have religious objections, if you are an undocumented immigrant, if you are a prison or if you earn less than the poverty line, if you are a member of the Indian tribes or if you have a hardship case as determined by HHS.
The employer mandate tax (this one is on page 348 and this is also like the other one awaiting the CPO score). If an employer does not offer health care coverage and at least one employee, at least one employee qualifies for a health tax credit the employer must pay an additional nondeductible tax of $750 for all full-time employees.
Only for big businesses? With more than 50 employees? No, for everybody, only one employee has to qualify.
If the employee requires a waiting period to enroll there is a $400 tax per employee, $600 if the period is 60 days.
The excise tax on comprehensive health insurance plans starting in 2013, a new 40 percent excise tax on "Cadillac" health insurance plans which if your health insurance plan is worth $8,500 a year as a single, or $2,3,000 as a family, -- $23,000 as a family, okay, then your company will get a 40 percent excise tax on that.
The problem is they set the "Cadillac" bar so low that it is projected that from 2013 to 2015 the 17 highest cost states are going to be at 120 percent of this level! 17 states have insurance regulations in such a way that the only private plans offered will exceed the "Cadillac" threshold & their employer will be taxed 40% for the plan. You think the employers in those 17 states will be able to maintain their private insurance programs?
On page 12,997, section 9003 there is the medicine cabinet tax. You are no longer allowed to use health savings accounts, you are no longer allowed to use flexible spending accounts or health reimbursement on pretax dollars to purchase nonprescription over-the-counter medicines except for insulin.
Also in the Senate health care bill the HSA (Health Savings Accounts) withdraw tax hike increases additional taxes on nonmedical early withdrawals from a HSA from 10 to 20 percent. Disadvantaging them relative to the IRA's and other tax advantage accounts which will remain at 10 percent. Then the FSA (Flexible Spending Account) cap imposes a cap on FSA's of $2,500. Now it is unlimited. Corporate 1099 miscellaneous information reporting this is going to require businesses to send a 1099 MISC information tax forms to corporations currently limited to individuals, a huge compliance burden for small employers. Oh, and there is the excise tax on charitable hospitals ...
Excise tax on charitable hospitals - $50,000 per hospital if they fail to meet the new community health assessment needs, financial assistance & bill/collection rules - children's hospitals, TAXED.
Then there is the tax on drug companies - a $2.3 billion annual tax on the industry imposed relative to the share of sales made that year.
Then there is a tax on medical device manufacturing - a $2 billion annual tax on the industry imposed relative to shares of sales made that year. Exempts items are those retailing for less than $100.
Then there is on the third page of just the quick summary there is the tax on health insurance - $6.7 billion annual tax on industry imposed relative to health insurance premiums collected that year, and then they are going to eliminate the tax deduction for employer provided retirement prescription drug coverage in coordination with Medicare part D. It is going to raise the haircut for medical itemized deductions from 7.5 percent to 10 percent of AGI (Adjusted Gross Income).
That's waived now for taxpayers who are 65 plus but that is only between the years of 2013 and 2016. And then $500,000 annual executive compensation limit for health insurance executives.
There is the hike in Medicare payroll tax - the new rate takes ithe tax up for those earning over $200,000 per year - so much for the $250k campaign promise. The self-employment net income is a 2.9 percent tax as of now - the new rate is 1.45 percent for you but 1.95 for the employer which equals 3.4 percent to the self employed! The .5 percent new rate addition is not deductible by the way for the self-employment.
Then there is the blue cross blue shield tax hike. Special tax deduction in current law for blue cross blue shield companies would only be allowed if 85 percent or more of premium revenues are sent on clinical services.
Then there is the tax on cosmetic medical procedures, a new 5 percent excise tax on elective cosmetic surgery to be paid by the surgery payment.
Anyone want to guess what this will do to health care in this country? To our economy? Does this sound like it is set up to cover only the 31 million people?
Time to call your senator ... NOW.
Source: whitehouse.gov
The individual mandate tax starting in 2014 anyone not buying qualifying health insurance (government approved health insurance) must pay an income surtax according to the following schedule: If you are single in 2014 you pay an extra $95, in 2015 you will pay an extra $350 and in 2015 an extra $750.
If you are single plus one, 2015 you pay $700, and 2016 you will pay $1500. In an additional health care surtax.
In 2014 you are going to pay $285, 2015 you will pay $1,050 and 2016 - this is just the surcharge.
If you decide not to buy "qualifying" health insurance you will pay an extra $2,250. If you are a single person with two kids by 2016 you will only have to pay a maximum of 8% of your income, it's capped at 8%. So it will only be an extra 8 percent income tax.
There are some exemptions if you have religious objections, if you are an undocumented immigrant, if you are a prison or if you earn less than the poverty line, if you are a member of the Indian tribes or if you have a hardship case as determined by HHS.
The employer mandate tax (this one is on page 348 and this is also like the other one awaiting the CPO score). If an employer does not offer health care coverage and at least one employee, at least one employee qualifies for a health tax credit the employer must pay an additional nondeductible tax of $750 for all full-time employees.
Only for big businesses? With more than 50 employees? No, for everybody, only one employee has to qualify.
If the employee requires a waiting period to enroll there is a $400 tax per employee, $600 if the period is 60 days.
The excise tax on comprehensive health insurance plans starting in 2013, a new 40 percent excise tax on "Cadillac" health insurance plans which if your health insurance plan is worth $8,500 a year as a single, or $2,3,000 as a family, -- $23,000 as a family, okay, then your company will get a 40 percent excise tax on that.
The problem is they set the "Cadillac" bar so low that it is projected that from 2013 to 2015 the 17 highest cost states are going to be at 120 percent of this level! 17 states have insurance regulations in such a way that the only private plans offered will exceed the "Cadillac" threshold & their employer will be taxed 40% for the plan. You think the employers in those 17 states will be able to maintain their private insurance programs?
On page 12,997, section 9003 there is the medicine cabinet tax. You are no longer allowed to use health savings accounts, you are no longer allowed to use flexible spending accounts or health reimbursement on pretax dollars to purchase nonprescription over-the-counter medicines except for insulin.
Also in the Senate health care bill the HSA (Health Savings Accounts) withdraw tax hike increases additional taxes on nonmedical early withdrawals from a HSA from 10 to 20 percent. Disadvantaging them relative to the IRA's and other tax advantage accounts which will remain at 10 percent. Then the FSA (Flexible Spending Account) cap imposes a cap on FSA's of $2,500. Now it is unlimited. Corporate 1099 miscellaneous information reporting this is going to require businesses to send a 1099 MISC information tax forms to corporations currently limited to individuals, a huge compliance burden for small employers. Oh, and there is the excise tax on charitable hospitals ...
Excise tax on charitable hospitals - $50,000 per hospital if they fail to meet the new community health assessment needs, financial assistance & bill/collection rules - children's hospitals, TAXED.
Then there is the tax on drug companies - a $2.3 billion annual tax on the industry imposed relative to the share of sales made that year.
Then there is a tax on medical device manufacturing - a $2 billion annual tax on the industry imposed relative to shares of sales made that year. Exempts items are those retailing for less than $100.
Then there is on the third page of just the quick summary there is the tax on health insurance - $6.7 billion annual tax on industry imposed relative to health insurance premiums collected that year, and then they are going to eliminate the tax deduction for employer provided retirement prescription drug coverage in coordination with Medicare part D. It is going to raise the haircut for medical itemized deductions from 7.5 percent to 10 percent of AGI (Adjusted Gross Income).
That's waived now for taxpayers who are 65 plus but that is only between the years of 2013 and 2016. And then $500,000 annual executive compensation limit for health insurance executives.
There is the hike in Medicare payroll tax - the new rate takes ithe tax up for those earning over $200,000 per year - so much for the $250k campaign promise. The self-employment net income is a 2.9 percent tax as of now - the new rate is 1.45 percent for you but 1.95 for the employer which equals 3.4 percent to the self employed! The .5 percent new rate addition is not deductible by the way for the self-employment.
Then there is the blue cross blue shield tax hike. Special tax deduction in current law for blue cross blue shield companies would only be allowed if 85 percent or more of premium revenues are sent on clinical services.
Then there is the tax on cosmetic medical procedures, a new 5 percent excise tax on elective cosmetic surgery to be paid by the surgery payment.
Anyone want to guess what this will do to health care in this country? To our economy? Does this sound like it is set up to cover only the 31 million people?
Time to call your senator ... NOW.
Source: whitehouse.gov
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Influenza
The "flu" has struck us here in NEPA... just in time for my benefits to run out at my former job. Nice.
Our youngest, who is almost 7, was up nearly all night with a fever of no less than 100.9 and as high as 103.3. He is terribly congested, has a tight, quiet cough, and cries constantly due to a bed headache. The poor baby is miserable, and it is unavoidable that the rest of us are as a result, too.
Between calls for more tissues and dry pajamas (he sweats rivers as his fever spikes and wanes), I was looking at possible treatments and ideas online, and you can't search FLU and not find the 1918 pandemic articles. It truly is staggering to look at those numbers of infection and mortality for the three years that the disease raged... but what is truly frightening is when you transpose those numbers into today's populations. THAT is scary.
The Spanish Flu pandemic killed 3% of the global population... more than 50 million people. Scary all by itself. What is really unbelievable, though, is that 500 million where infected. That is very nearly 1 out of every 3 of the 1.6 billion people on the planet at the time infected with the Flu... from Pole to Pole, and from Europe's largest cities to the smallest inhabited islands in the Pacific Ocean. Amazing.
Given today's populations, were the same disease to rage with the same rate of mortality (roughly 10% of those infected died), the death toll in the modern world would exceed 180 million souls. That would mean that more than 9 million Americans would be dead within one year of the pandemic... staggering.
Now, I'm not the "Chicken Little" type, and I'm not worried that what our little 7 has brought home from school is H1N1... but if it is Influenza A, which is the modern strain of Spanish Flu and the most common strain in the world, then it is an H1N1 virus and shares many features and risks as Swine Flu. It would seem, however, that if you or your ancestors survived the Spanish Flu pandemic, you have a built-in genetic weapon against ALL H1N1 strains... the body knows the virus and has the natural antiviral defenses ready to combat it. The healthier you are, the more likely you are to ride out the infection.
Still... look at the numbers and play the game. We are the descendants of the survivors of a pandemic that killed more people (although a smaller percentage of population overall) than the Black Death... and only by less than 100 years. We all are old enough to have KNOWN survivors of the Spanish Flu first-hand. That should tell you it wasn't that long ago... it wasn't that far away.
Our youngest, who is almost 7, was up nearly all night with a fever of no less than 100.9 and as high as 103.3. He is terribly congested, has a tight, quiet cough, and cries constantly due to a bed headache. The poor baby is miserable, and it is unavoidable that the rest of us are as a result, too.
Between calls for more tissues and dry pajamas (he sweats rivers as his fever spikes and wanes), I was looking at possible treatments and ideas online, and you can't search FLU and not find the 1918 pandemic articles. It truly is staggering to look at those numbers of infection and mortality for the three years that the disease raged... but what is truly frightening is when you transpose those numbers into today's populations. THAT is scary.
The Spanish Flu pandemic killed 3% of the global population... more than 50 million people. Scary all by itself. What is really unbelievable, though, is that 500 million where infected. That is very nearly 1 out of every 3 of the 1.6 billion people on the planet at the time infected with the Flu... from Pole to Pole, and from Europe's largest cities to the smallest inhabited islands in the Pacific Ocean. Amazing.
Given today's populations, were the same disease to rage with the same rate of mortality (roughly 10% of those infected died), the death toll in the modern world would exceed 180 million souls. That would mean that more than 9 million Americans would be dead within one year of the pandemic... staggering.
Now, I'm not the "Chicken Little" type, and I'm not worried that what our little 7 has brought home from school is H1N1... but if it is Influenza A, which is the modern strain of Spanish Flu and the most common strain in the world, then it is an H1N1 virus and shares many features and risks as Swine Flu. It would seem, however, that if you or your ancestors survived the Spanish Flu pandemic, you have a built-in genetic weapon against ALL H1N1 strains... the body knows the virus and has the natural antiviral defenses ready to combat it. The healthier you are, the more likely you are to ride out the infection.
Still... look at the numbers and play the game. We are the descendants of the survivors of a pandemic that killed more people (although a smaller percentage of population overall) than the Black Death... and only by less than 100 years. We all are old enough to have KNOWN survivors of the Spanish Flu first-hand. That should tell you it wasn't that long ago... it wasn't that far away.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
A clearer picture ...
When I wrote in my first paragraph of their motives, that they're doing what equals "not Bush", and that a successful trial would be tantamount to discrediting Bush, what I meant was this is their desire, their goal. Putting on this trial is a vehicle for vindicating their Bush (et al) = evil template, and as you wrote, "convicting" them for that evil. However, you put it much more succinctly in your last.
So I agree - there is no conceivable legitimate upside, the reasons here are political/ideological. And your noting that KSM has already utterly confessed makes this point all the more clear.
So I agree - there is no conceivable legitimate upside, the reasons here are political/ideological. And your noting that KSM has already utterly confessed makes this point all the more clear.
On KSM's trial...
I can't argue with anything you've written, but I wonder if you missed a small point... one that has been bugging me all night.
I went back and read up on KSM by looking through old articles and essays online, and I found it amazing that this entire trial need never happen under US laws at all. KSM was indicted quite some time ago, you see... and he has openly, in the presence of legal representation, and understanding fully what it meant, confessed to his role in planning and carrying out the 9-11 attacks! For reasons only he can understand fully, he has confessed and wants to be executed for the crimes he has been charged with.
So, knowing that no trial need take place with that kind of confession on the books, what is the reasoning for the trial in the first place?
My opinion is that Obama/Holder want this trial in a civilian court in order to convict George W. Bush, Richard Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld... not a confessed mass murderer like KSM. They want the world to know KSM wasn't read his rights, that he was waterboarded, that he was "aggressively interrogated" by his keepers at GITMO. They don't need to present evidence of crimes when the man WANTS to be found guilty... he's proud of what he's done and is convinced his salvation awaits once he's executed.
Honestly, Ryan can ask me for proof or evidence of my suspicions, and I would have to say that I have none... but this is one of those times where I am utterly convinced that what I suspect is the facts. I'd love to be able to chalk this up to one more bad decision by the Administration, but there are no "up sides" to this sort of circus if I trust that Obama/Holder aren't simply playing one more "I hate Bush" card.
Sorry, I'm convinced that this entire "trial" is a way for the liberals in power to indict and convict the ENTIRE War on Terror as just another piece of bad policy from Bush and Co.
I went back and read up on KSM by looking through old articles and essays online, and I found it amazing that this entire trial need never happen under US laws at all. KSM was indicted quite some time ago, you see... and he has openly, in the presence of legal representation, and understanding fully what it meant, confessed to his role in planning and carrying out the 9-11 attacks! For reasons only he can understand fully, he has confessed and wants to be executed for the crimes he has been charged with.
So, knowing that no trial need take place with that kind of confession on the books, what is the reasoning for the trial in the first place?
My opinion is that Obama/Holder want this trial in a civilian court in order to convict George W. Bush, Richard Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld... not a confessed mass murderer like KSM. They want the world to know KSM wasn't read his rights, that he was waterboarded, that he was "aggressively interrogated" by his keepers at GITMO. They don't need to present evidence of crimes when the man WANTS to be found guilty... he's proud of what he's done and is convinced his salvation awaits once he's executed.
Honestly, Ryan can ask me for proof or evidence of my suspicions, and I would have to say that I have none... but this is one of those times where I am utterly convinced that what I suspect is the facts. I'd love to be able to chalk this up to one more bad decision by the Administration, but there are no "up sides" to this sort of circus if I trust that Obama/Holder aren't simply playing one more "I hate Bush" card.
Sorry, I'm convinced that this entire "trial" is a way for the liberals in power to indict and convict the ENTIRE War on Terror as just another piece of bad policy from Bush and Co.
Friday, November 13, 2009
The Big Apple ...
Yes I, like you & the rest of the nation, woke up this morning to the news that KSM and company are to be tried only blocks from Ground Zero.
A couple of things here ... one, I have no doubt that the primary motive behind this move of the PoTUS & AG Eric Holder is to do what equals "not Bush." But I hope they understand that they're playing with fire. IF, and unfortunately it is an IF, this entire deal goes off without a hitch, read: convictions; death penalty (my personal preference); no "sources & methods" are revealed; the cost to New York (in a nearly bankrupt state, quite literally) is not outrageously high; and most importantly no attack on NY occurs - a distinct possibility with someone as high profile as KSM, then and only THEN will Obama be vindicated for this move. He will have forever discredited the Bush system (we're talking politically speaking, not real world) of military tribunals and to a lesser extent the need for GITMO.
However, the reason any reasonable AG & CIC should not go through is because you DO NOT take the above risks when a more secure system is available to you. The entire premise, a justifiable one in my opinion, of GITMO & the military tribunals is precisely the security. A military base on the island nation of Cuba is ideal for both offering a protected detention and preventing any one town or community from being targeted as a result of whom the local federal prison is housing. Also, the military tribunals afford prosecutors the latitude of introducing sensitive Intel in a manner they will never be able to in open civilian court. KSM in particular was subject to water boarding - is this to be admissible as evidence of a "coerced confession?" They were held by the CIA for a long period of time - is there to be a discovery submission for the events surrounding that detainment? And the Attorney General of the United States then goes on television today to sate: "I wouldn't have allowed this if I weren't sure we would get a conviction." When pressed with a "but sir, what if they do end up walking" question from the press, he added: "Well I have seen evidence that the public hasn't, and I'm sure they will be convicted." Well that's one HELL of way to start the process - taint the entire American jury pool, and guarantee a conviction! And if the conclusion is foregone then THIS TRIAL is the true show trial, not any military tribunal! The entire premise is madness - if for some reason they were acquitted are they to walk free out of the front door? If not, if they are summarily scooped up in the event of an acquittal (which they most certainly would be), wouldn't that do MUCH more to undermine our criminal justice system and our over all values then trying them in a tribunal? It will be a circus! Add to this that the vast majority, if not all now that I think about it, of these detainees were captured on the field of battle! While I agree with Titus that an indefinite detainment is unsustainable, it is a deplorable precedent to set that every day civilian courts are equipped to deal with such unlawful combatants at a time of war. Insert here a return to "terror is a criminal matter" mentality EVEN ABROAD, even in theaters of combat. This was the 9/10 mindset. It is a short trip from there to mirandizing enemies on the battlefield, or not "picking up" high value targets in Afghanistan because we don't have a warrant! Afghan commanders and CIA officials have already been instructed that the FBI will be handling all interrogations for those captured on the battlefield - think about that, the FBI is a domestic POLICE force.
Even if they are convicted and there is no attack during the trial (I pray there is NOT), the sight of firefighters, policemen, port authority and family members surviving 9/11 victims protesting outside of that court house may be political poison for the administration.
No, no, the military tribunal system with those awaiting trial being housed at GITMO is the most sensible approach from every conceivable stand point. But of course, that's what Bush would advocate, so it's off the table. This is going to get much worse before it gets better I fear.
****
Security vs liberty ...
First let me address something. You wrote:
"Otherwise, we are denying the validity and value of our First Amendment rights as defined by the Constitution, and validating every negative thing people like bin Laden are saying about the USA."
A couple of things here ... one, I have no doubt that the primary motive behind this move of the PoTUS & AG Eric Holder is to do what equals "not Bush." But I hope they understand that they're playing with fire. IF, and unfortunately it is an IF, this entire deal goes off without a hitch, read: convictions; death penalty (my personal preference); no "sources & methods" are revealed; the cost to New York (in a nearly bankrupt state, quite literally) is not outrageously high; and most importantly no attack on NY occurs - a distinct possibility with someone as high profile as KSM, then and only THEN will Obama be vindicated for this move. He will have forever discredited the Bush system (we're talking politically speaking, not real world) of military tribunals and to a lesser extent the need for GITMO.
However, the reason any reasonable AG & CIC should not go through is because you DO NOT take the above risks when a more secure system is available to you. The entire premise, a justifiable one in my opinion, of GITMO & the military tribunals is precisely the security. A military base on the island nation of Cuba is ideal for both offering a protected detention and preventing any one town or community from being targeted as a result of whom the local federal prison is housing. Also, the military tribunals afford prosecutors the latitude of introducing sensitive Intel in a manner they will never be able to in open civilian court. KSM in particular was subject to water boarding - is this to be admissible as evidence of a "coerced confession?" They were held by the CIA for a long period of time - is there to be a discovery submission for the events surrounding that detainment? And the Attorney General of the United States then goes on television today to sate: "I wouldn't have allowed this if I weren't sure we would get a conviction." When pressed with a "but sir, what if they do end up walking" question from the press, he added: "Well I have seen evidence that the public hasn't, and I'm sure they will be convicted." Well that's one HELL of way to start the process - taint the entire American jury pool, and guarantee a conviction! And if the conclusion is foregone then THIS TRIAL is the true show trial, not any military tribunal! The entire premise is madness - if for some reason they were acquitted are they to walk free out of the front door? If not, if they are summarily scooped up in the event of an acquittal (which they most certainly would be), wouldn't that do MUCH more to undermine our criminal justice system and our over all values then trying them in a tribunal? It will be a circus! Add to this that the vast majority, if not all now that I think about it, of these detainees were captured on the field of battle! While I agree with Titus that an indefinite detainment is unsustainable, it is a deplorable precedent to set that every day civilian courts are equipped to deal with such unlawful combatants at a time of war. Insert here a return to "terror is a criminal matter" mentality EVEN ABROAD, even in theaters of combat. This was the 9/10 mindset. It is a short trip from there to mirandizing enemies on the battlefield, or not "picking up" high value targets in Afghanistan because we don't have a warrant! Afghan commanders and CIA officials have already been instructed that the FBI will be handling all interrogations for those captured on the battlefield - think about that, the FBI is a domestic POLICE force.
Even if they are convicted and there is no attack during the trial (I pray there is NOT), the sight of firefighters, policemen, port authority and family members surviving 9/11 victims protesting outside of that court house may be political poison for the administration.
No, no, the military tribunal system with those awaiting trial being housed at GITMO is the most sensible approach from every conceivable stand point. But of course, that's what Bush would advocate, so it's off the table. This is going to get much worse before it gets better I fear.
****
Security vs liberty ...
First let me address something. You wrote:
"Otherwise, we are denying the validity and value of our First Amendment rights as defined by the Constitution, and validating every negative thing people like bin Laden are saying about the USA."
I know you, so I realize this was simply a poorly constructed sentence. No denial, in theory or actualized in the scenario we are discussing, would EVER validate how Bin Laden "sees" the USA. None. He feels we are unworthy of life. From our support to Israel to our unapologetic embrace of liberty (versus the mandate a Caliphate would bring), our very existence is an offense. And look, I know you know this but given the way it was written I wanted to afford you the opportunity to clarify.
Now ... I have witnessed many a left winger assert Franklin's famous quote: "Those who would sacrifice Liberty for security deserve neither." It's a clever approach to arguing against the Patriot Act, etc. It occurs to me that liberal minded Americans seem only willing to quote the Founding Fathers when it comes to the specific instance of national security. Similarly it reminds me of Obama's, "We must be our brothers keeper" comment - he seems willing to quote the Bible only when it comes to spreading my money around, forget the pesky fire and brimstone, moral codes, homosexuality, abortion, etc.
Were those leftists more than an inch deep on the subject they would pull the full Franklin quote: "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
So the question becomes, how do we define "essential liberty" and "temporary safety?" I submit that each generation of Americans has been forced to test this question, as each has faced national security hardships on a level unimaginable by their fathers. Lincoln suspends Habeus Corpus. Wilson rounded up dissidents during WWI. FDR detained Japanese Americans. Cold War presidents (via the executive controlled FBI) targeted left wing organizations. And before all of those Adams signed the Alien and Sedition Acts in preperation for a war with France. And now we have have the war on terror, the Patriot Act and GITMO.
My two cents about it ... one of the defining truly special, unique aspects of this nation is its' ability to rescind measures that bend personal liberty once the crisis has passed. The problem here is that this struggle is multi decade, if not multi generational. So where do we draw the line? I feel the Patriot Act and the Terrorist Surveillance Act struck a fine balance. The Senate approved the former 99-1. And it would be political suicide for Obama to suggest we repeal it - the common sense of the American people just won't allow that. It doesn't take a PhD in strategic relations to realize that we haven't been attacked since 9/11 and that the Patriot Act must be part of that considerable achievement. So, for all the things Bush got wrong (border, spending, etc), I feel that the Patriot Act was what he got right. Will it be repealed years from now? Will our children's children look back on it and GITMO in the way we do Japanese internment camps of the 40's? Perhaps. But we are the ones here now, WE face the threat, WE must act, not they, and I for one am willing to be judged by history in that context. We can only hope our future generations show a level of reasoned hindsight and nuanced understanding of the times in which we lived, in the same manner we look on those whom were responsible for safeguarding America during WWII.
Sheik Mohammed on trial in NYC
I read this morning that Federal prosecutors will announce soon that Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the admitted mastermind of the 9-11 attacks, will be tried in New York with other high-profile detainees from GITMO.
This has been a tough question facing the American people since Nov of 08. What to do with those deemed most dangerous that are still in custody by the US. To the best of my knowledge, only about 30 of the 215 are ever going to be tried, either in a Federal court or by a military tribunal. Less than 100 will be sent away either to their native countries or a third-party nation due to lack of material evidence or legal issues making a trial too uncertain.
I honestly don't have an answer as to what to do with these men. I was never comfortable with the prospect of leaving them in the legal "limbo" of GITMO detention indefinately, as it is a clear contradiction to everything we hold dear as a society, even if those held are not Americans. It is for this reason more than any other that I was always convinced that, whatever the circumstances of Osama bin Laden's eventual capture (alive or dead when taken), he'd be DEAD by the time the news broke to the world. No amount of percieved justice could outweigh the cost to the US of keeping bin Laden alive and placing him on trial, because every nut-job with a turban and access to weapons or explosives would then target the US across the globe.
This seems harsh, I know... but I am simply being pragmatic and realistic. The capture of bin Laden alive, while a good thing overall, costs the US and the West MORE than bringing back his body as proof that he is, indeed, good and finally dead. Placing him on trial does nothing but make the Saddam Hussien trial in Baghdad look like a text-book case... it would be used as a propaganda tool across the Muslim world to promote violence and hatred of everything American (that isn't already hated now, I mean). It would give bin Laden one more opportunity to speak to the world, and it would forever cement the idea that there is no justice to be found for Muslims in American (or Western) courts.
KSM presents similar problems, doesn't he? Were he tried in a military tribunal, the procedings would be as safe and secure as our military could ever hope to make them, especially if the procedings happened at GITMO itself, but that isn't going to happen. That means that KSM will be brought to NY and held there among the 8 million+ people living within the Five Burroughs and taxing the already stretched law enforcement and security elements in the most populous city in these United States. The costs for this sort of "trial" will be staggering... and the certainty of successful resolution don't seem very high, in my eyes.
Having him tried and convicted in a Federal court will not further the cause of justice one iota, and it will only deminish the credibility of the tribunals that may eventually see the trials of many of the other GITMO detainees. The increased likelyhood of violence and terrorism against the city that holds this trial is going to place undue and unknown risks and costs on a population center that probably doesn't want or need the consequences of such attention (not that any place else does, either, of course).
We all know the "one year" deadline that Obama has placed on the closing of GITMO... but what other alternatives are there for the eventual conclussion to this problem? How should these men be handled? What means of justice available to us should be employed? What reasoning do you feel supports your views?
This has been a tough question facing the American people since Nov of 08. What to do with those deemed most dangerous that are still in custody by the US. To the best of my knowledge, only about 30 of the 215 are ever going to be tried, either in a Federal court or by a military tribunal. Less than 100 will be sent away either to their native countries or a third-party nation due to lack of material evidence or legal issues making a trial too uncertain.
I honestly don't have an answer as to what to do with these men. I was never comfortable with the prospect of leaving them in the legal "limbo" of GITMO detention indefinately, as it is a clear contradiction to everything we hold dear as a society, even if those held are not Americans. It is for this reason more than any other that I was always convinced that, whatever the circumstances of Osama bin Laden's eventual capture (alive or dead when taken), he'd be DEAD by the time the news broke to the world. No amount of percieved justice could outweigh the cost to the US of keeping bin Laden alive and placing him on trial, because every nut-job with a turban and access to weapons or explosives would then target the US across the globe.
This seems harsh, I know... but I am simply being pragmatic and realistic. The capture of bin Laden alive, while a good thing overall, costs the US and the West MORE than bringing back his body as proof that he is, indeed, good and finally dead. Placing him on trial does nothing but make the Saddam Hussien trial in Baghdad look like a text-book case... it would be used as a propaganda tool across the Muslim world to promote violence and hatred of everything American (that isn't already hated now, I mean). It would give bin Laden one more opportunity to speak to the world, and it would forever cement the idea that there is no justice to be found for Muslims in American (or Western) courts.
KSM presents similar problems, doesn't he? Were he tried in a military tribunal, the procedings would be as safe and secure as our military could ever hope to make them, especially if the procedings happened at GITMO itself, but that isn't going to happen. That means that KSM will be brought to NY and held there among the 8 million+ people living within the Five Burroughs and taxing the already stretched law enforcement and security elements in the most populous city in these United States. The costs for this sort of "trial" will be staggering... and the certainty of successful resolution don't seem very high, in my eyes.
Having him tried and convicted in a Federal court will not further the cause of justice one iota, and it will only deminish the credibility of the tribunals that may eventually see the trials of many of the other GITMO detainees. The increased likelyhood of violence and terrorism against the city that holds this trial is going to place undue and unknown risks and costs on a population center that probably doesn't want or need the consequences of such attention (not that any place else does, either, of course).
We all know the "one year" deadline that Obama has placed on the closing of GITMO... but what other alternatives are there for the eventual conclussion to this problem? How should these men be handled? What means of justice available to us should be employed? What reasoning do you feel supports your views?
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Where is the line, though?
I see your point about foregoing the "pc" in favor of security... I really am. I just want to know where the line is between prudent investigation and infringements on the rights of the citizens.
I don't feel that any NEW laws or procedures need to be instituted, though. Surely there must be enough existing laws to allow agencies such as the FBI or more local law enforcement entities to find the people who are propagating the hatred and violence that threatens our society. New laws will only further marginalize Muslims and/or hamper those conducting the investigation... so why carry it further?
My concerns with things like the Patriot Act stemmed only from the ability of such investigations to broaden beyond the scope of a known criminal act, and that such investigations were then made available to nearly every government agency in existence... not from a perceived lack of need for such a thing, I assure you. I can live with the Patriot Act, but I don't want any NEW laws that would broaden the scope of the Patriot Act.
If investigations into the conduct and conversations that go on in mosques and Muslim community centers is seen to give probable cause for investigation, then I also feel that those causes need to be made instantly available to anyone that might be questioning the reasoning for such investigations. If our law enforcement techniques are to be accepted and trusted, they must be transparent in their reasoning and intent, if not in their methods (which might compromise security). Otherwise, we are denying the validity and value of our First Amendment rights as defined by the Constitution, and validating every negative thing people like bin Laden are saying about the USA.
I don't feel that any NEW laws or procedures need to be instituted, though. Surely there must be enough existing laws to allow agencies such as the FBI or more local law enforcement entities to find the people who are propagating the hatred and violence that threatens our society. New laws will only further marginalize Muslims and/or hamper those conducting the investigation... so why carry it further?
My concerns with things like the Patriot Act stemmed only from the ability of such investigations to broaden beyond the scope of a known criminal act, and that such investigations were then made available to nearly every government agency in existence... not from a perceived lack of need for such a thing, I assure you. I can live with the Patriot Act, but I don't want any NEW laws that would broaden the scope of the Patriot Act.
If investigations into the conduct and conversations that go on in mosques and Muslim community centers is seen to give probable cause for investigation, then I also feel that those causes need to be made instantly available to anyone that might be questioning the reasoning for such investigations. If our law enforcement techniques are to be accepted and trusted, they must be transparent in their reasoning and intent, if not in their methods (which might compromise security). Otherwise, we are denying the validity and value of our First Amendment rights as defined by the Constitution, and validating every negative thing people like bin Laden are saying about the USA.
Terrorism by numbers ...
Here is my only point of disagreement with you, and its fundamental as it relates to this question:
"I don't feel the label we, as a society, place on an act to prosecute it in a court of law is all that important, as long as a mean approximation of justice is being meted out at the end of the process. The greater failing in regards to this latest example of terror/mass murder at Fort Hood is that we are failing to recognize where the mind-set for such an act is being generated ..."
Now I get what you mean, our action on this is much more important then what we call it; however, I think improperly addressing the former profoundly affects the latter. In other words the most recalled line in the 9/11 Commission Report was (& I paraphrase), "They were at war with us, but we were not at war with them." The argument and subsequent debate in this nation was (and still is unfortunately) whether to address terrorism as a criminal justice matter, or an act of war directed at our national security. It seems to me that to NOT properly identify various acts as what they are - terrorism, in specific Islamic terrorism - weakens the resolve and vigilance of the "we are at war" argument and serves not only to undermine domestic police focus on the matter, but our efforts abroad as well. And if we lose that argument/focus we condemn ourselves to a 9/10/01 mentality.
Let me put it another way. If (God forbid) a suicide bomber detonates himslef in a large American mall and it is refered to as merely a criminal act of a lone nut, even though it has all the trappings, rehtoric and affiliations of a Hasan character, I think that description is a diservice to the American people. They need to know that acts of war/terror are being perpetrated less they lose sight of the importance of victory abroad and vigilance at home. Language matters is all I'm saying, and proper justice can not be meted out unless we have properly identified the problem.
Now, as to the other ...
Your last question is really at the heart at how to wage this war, given confederates (potential and literal) exist within our own borders. In 2009+, outside an act of nuclear holocaust, we are NOT going to "round up" Muslims in a WWII fashion, nor should we. Hell, the political hierarchy can barely stomach GITMO, and those are known extremists.
First off, even though I am of the "we are at war" crowd rather then a criminal justice advocate regarding terror, I fully recognize that within our own borders it is incumbent upon the FBI et al to police potential acts of terror. From Posee Comitatus to the CIA's foreign service mandate this is just how it has to be internally. So that distinction now being said aloud, let me also say that I want zero infringement of the First Amendment. I want extremist Imams and Mosques to openly profess their beliefs so that the FBI and relevant agencies can more easily identify, monitor, infiltrate, and subvert their influence and potential schemes. One story that dove tails with this emerged about 3 years ago. There was some rumblings within Arab-American anti-defamation groups over a government policy of monitoring Mosques for radiological signatures after 9/11. While this is certainly not on the order to the WWII roundups these groups still complained. I for one certainly think it was a common sense response. At some point we must realize that an act ceases to be "racial profiling" and becomes a description of the suspect when you have the faith, regional orientation, sex, and rough age of the perpetrating group. Who were they supposed to monitor? Catholic Cathedrals? Mormon Temples? How about Jewish Temples? If there was a rabid plural marriage, gun stock piling, abortion "doctor" killing white American on the loose with a paramilitary agenda and confederates should they monitor Mosques rather then the excommunicated Reorganized Latter Day Saints Church? This is what I mean about the lethality of political correctness. While we are patting down an 85 year old Polish grandmother for appearances sake at the airport the more likely offender is just that much more prone to slip by. It's madness.
At any rate, there is no simple answer to your question as you are well aware. My best response would be that our first step in providing security versus protecting rights would be to reject political correctness as a replacement for common sense. With that example being set both in the executive and legislative branch I feel that our security professionals both at home and abroad will be able to adequately provide protections for both. Unfortunately that example in leadership will NEVER emerge from this White House or this congress, making the task of an FBI anti-terror agent or US soldier in 2009 an unenviable one to say the least ... just ask CIA interrogators.
"I don't feel the label we, as a society, place on an act to prosecute it in a court of law is all that important, as long as a mean approximation of justice is being meted out at the end of the process. The greater failing in regards to this latest example of terror/mass murder at Fort Hood is that we are failing to recognize where the mind-set for such an act is being generated ..."
Now I get what you mean, our action on this is much more important then what we call it; however, I think improperly addressing the former profoundly affects the latter. In other words the most recalled line in the 9/11 Commission Report was (& I paraphrase), "They were at war with us, but we were not at war with them." The argument and subsequent debate in this nation was (and still is unfortunately) whether to address terrorism as a criminal justice matter, or an act of war directed at our national security. It seems to me that to NOT properly identify various acts as what they are - terrorism, in specific Islamic terrorism - weakens the resolve and vigilance of the "we are at war" argument and serves not only to undermine domestic police focus on the matter, but our efforts abroad as well. And if we lose that argument/focus we condemn ourselves to a 9/10/01 mentality.
Let me put it another way. If (God forbid) a suicide bomber detonates himslef in a large American mall and it is refered to as merely a criminal act of a lone nut, even though it has all the trappings, rehtoric and affiliations of a Hasan character, I think that description is a diservice to the American people. They need to know that acts of war/terror are being perpetrated less they lose sight of the importance of victory abroad and vigilance at home. Language matters is all I'm saying, and proper justice can not be meted out unless we have properly identified the problem.
Now, as to the other ...
Your last question is really at the heart at how to wage this war, given confederates (potential and literal) exist within our own borders. In 2009+, outside an act of nuclear holocaust, we are NOT going to "round up" Muslims in a WWII fashion, nor should we. Hell, the political hierarchy can barely stomach GITMO, and those are known extremists.
First off, even though I am of the "we are at war" crowd rather then a criminal justice advocate regarding terror, I fully recognize that within our own borders it is incumbent upon the FBI et al to police potential acts of terror. From Posee Comitatus to the CIA's foreign service mandate this is just how it has to be internally. So that distinction now being said aloud, let me also say that I want zero infringement of the First Amendment. I want extremist Imams and Mosques to openly profess their beliefs so that the FBI and relevant agencies can more easily identify, monitor, infiltrate, and subvert their influence and potential schemes. One story that dove tails with this emerged about 3 years ago. There was some rumblings within Arab-American anti-defamation groups over a government policy of monitoring Mosques for radiological signatures after 9/11. While this is certainly not on the order to the WWII roundups these groups still complained. I for one certainly think it was a common sense response. At some point we must realize that an act ceases to be "racial profiling" and becomes a description of the suspect when you have the faith, regional orientation, sex, and rough age of the perpetrating group. Who were they supposed to monitor? Catholic Cathedrals? Mormon Temples? How about Jewish Temples? If there was a rabid plural marriage, gun stock piling, abortion "doctor" killing white American on the loose with a paramilitary agenda and confederates should they monitor Mosques rather then the excommunicated Reorganized Latter Day Saints Church? This is what I mean about the lethality of political correctness. While we are patting down an 85 year old Polish grandmother for appearances sake at the airport the more likely offender is just that much more prone to slip by. It's madness.
At any rate, there is no simple answer to your question as you are well aware. My best response would be that our first step in providing security versus protecting rights would be to reject political correctness as a replacement for common sense. With that example being set both in the executive and legislative branch I feel that our security professionals both at home and abroad will be able to adequately provide protections for both. Unfortunately that example in leadership will NEVER emerge from this White House or this congress, making the task of an FBI anti-terror agent or US soldier in 2009 an unenviable one to say the least ... just ask CIA interrogators.
Terrorism
Funny, but this smacks of exactly the kind of semantics-based argument that you are repeatedly beating me up over... but I see your point. In fact, it ties in rather nicely with a point I wanted to bring up.
To your point... does the fact that so many are avoiding using the term in Hasan's case mean that the "politically correct" police are subverting and marginalizing a greater threat than simply an unbalanced Army officer with a religious agenda and a gun?
There is the typical liberal hypocrisy at work, of course. No one hesitated to refer to Eric Rudolph (the Olympic Park Bomber) as a terrorist, even though no direct link to an outside organization or conspiracy could be made, based (seemingly) only on the fact that he was acting from an extremely radical Christian position (i.e. anti-abortion and a hatred of the "homosexual agenda"), while John Mohammed (the recently executed DC Sniper) was a "spree killer" and not a terrorist, even though he had specific and measurable ties to such "radical" groups as the Nation of Islam and at least twice voiced support and admiration of bin Laden and the 9-11 attacks.
In all these examples (and there are lots of them, unfortunately), murder and terror go hand-in-hand. Did Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold (the Columbine High School shooters) employ terror in their rampage? Of course. Did Charles Whitman utilize terror as part of his murderous acts in 1966 on top of the University of Texas clock tower? Without question. On the other side of the coin, did Timothy McVeigh commit murder when he utilized "terrorism" in blowing up the Murrough Federal Building? Absolutely, as did anyone involved in the 9-11 attacks, the WTC bombing, or any act of suicide-murder in a Tel Aviv market or Belfast pub.
I don't feel the label we, as a society, place on an act to prosecute it in a court of law is all that important, as long as a mean approximation of justice is being meted out at the end of the process. The greater failing in regards to this latest example of terror/mass murder at Fort Hood is that we are failing to recognize where the mind-set for such an act is being generated, and that leads me to the point I wanted to make.
I heard Dick Durbin (D-IL) damn near apologize for the acts committed (allegedly) by Hasan at Ft Hood on the floor of the Senate yesterday, and it very nearly made me want to vomit. He was so obviously "tip-toeing" around the fact that the alleged murderer was a radical Muslim that he couldn't have done more to point it out if he openly used the terms himself. As the investigation goes deeper, it is becoming more and more obvious that the alleged murderer showed sign after sign that he was nearing a breaking point in his "struggle" (the root of the word jihad in Arabic) between his Islamic faith and his sense of duty to his country... yet no one thought to do anything about it. I find it very ironic that the portion of our Government that is so strongly advocating greater federal regulation and oversight of every facet of daily life in these United States is so hesitant to admit that someone should have acted on the fact that this man was exhibiting numerous signs of violence and anti-American sentiment as the months and years of his service went by, for the SOLE reason that they don't want to offend the less than 6% of the Armed Forces that claim Muslim beliefs or Middle Eastern heritage.
Don't get me wrong, I am NOT advocating the use of a new (or even the old) Alien and Sedition Acts, which was what was used to detain and inter Japanese, German and Italian Americans without charge or trial for as long as four years after 1942. I understand and fully believe that this was a gross travesty of justice and a crime perpetrated by the American government on its citizenry that has never been fully addressed.
My question is how best do we, as a nation (and especially our Armed Forces and security and law enforcement personnel), make sure that the elements of radical Islam do not have the means to commit any future acts of violence against the US domestically without impeding or suspending the rights of Muslim Americans? How do we best address the growing number of Muslims who hold the religious belief that the US is evil and must be destroyed? How do we deal with the religious belief that murder and terror are acceptable means to reach a religious goal? Most importantly, how do we do all this without violating the First Amendment?
To your point... does the fact that so many are avoiding using the term in Hasan's case mean that the "politically correct" police are subverting and marginalizing a greater threat than simply an unbalanced Army officer with a religious agenda and a gun?
There is the typical liberal hypocrisy at work, of course. No one hesitated to refer to Eric Rudolph (the Olympic Park Bomber) as a terrorist, even though no direct link to an outside organization or conspiracy could be made, based (seemingly) only on the fact that he was acting from an extremely radical Christian position (i.e. anti-abortion and a hatred of the "homosexual agenda"), while John Mohammed (the recently executed DC Sniper) was a "spree killer" and not a terrorist, even though he had specific and measurable ties to such "radical" groups as the Nation of Islam and at least twice voiced support and admiration of bin Laden and the 9-11 attacks.
In all these examples (and there are lots of them, unfortunately), murder and terror go hand-in-hand. Did Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold (the Columbine High School shooters) employ terror in their rampage? Of course. Did Charles Whitman utilize terror as part of his murderous acts in 1966 on top of the University of Texas clock tower? Without question. On the other side of the coin, did Timothy McVeigh commit murder when he utilized "terrorism" in blowing up the Murrough Federal Building? Absolutely, as did anyone involved in the 9-11 attacks, the WTC bombing, or any act of suicide-murder in a Tel Aviv market or Belfast pub.
I don't feel the label we, as a society, place on an act to prosecute it in a court of law is all that important, as long as a mean approximation of justice is being meted out at the end of the process. The greater failing in regards to this latest example of terror/mass murder at Fort Hood is that we are failing to recognize where the mind-set for such an act is being generated, and that leads me to the point I wanted to make.
I heard Dick Durbin (D-IL) damn near apologize for the acts committed (allegedly) by Hasan at Ft Hood on the floor of the Senate yesterday, and it very nearly made me want to vomit. He was so obviously "tip-toeing" around the fact that the alleged murderer was a radical Muslim that he couldn't have done more to point it out if he openly used the terms himself. As the investigation goes deeper, it is becoming more and more obvious that the alleged murderer showed sign after sign that he was nearing a breaking point in his "struggle" (the root of the word jihad in Arabic) between his Islamic faith and his sense of duty to his country... yet no one thought to do anything about it. I find it very ironic that the portion of our Government that is so strongly advocating greater federal regulation and oversight of every facet of daily life in these United States is so hesitant to admit that someone should have acted on the fact that this man was exhibiting numerous signs of violence and anti-American sentiment as the months and years of his service went by, for the SOLE reason that they don't want to offend the less than 6% of the Armed Forces that claim Muslim beliefs or Middle Eastern heritage.
Don't get me wrong, I am NOT advocating the use of a new (or even the old) Alien and Sedition Acts, which was what was used to detain and inter Japanese, German and Italian Americans without charge or trial for as long as four years after 1942. I understand and fully believe that this was a gross travesty of justice and a crime perpetrated by the American government on its citizenry that has never been fully addressed.
My question is how best do we, as a nation (and especially our Armed Forces and security and law enforcement personnel), make sure that the elements of radical Islam do not have the means to commit any future acts of violence against the US domestically without impeding or suspending the rights of Muslim Americans? How do we best address the growing number of Muslims who hold the religious belief that the US is evil and must be destroyed? How do we deal with the religious belief that murder and terror are acceptable means to reach a religious goal? Most importantly, how do we do all this without violating the First Amendment?
What is a "terrorist?"
First, "hear, hear" on your last.
As to the subject line ... this conversation, on a personal level, began on the phone with Jambo. It has become somewhat of a national discussion now, especially after Joe Lieberman's public statements. What to "call" Major Hasan has become a story within the story.
So I ask, by murdering 13 US soldiers and wounding 30 more did Hasan commit an act of terror? Jambo immediately declared that he was simply a "nut." A nut that snapped rather than a terrorist. And his initial reasoning was "he didn't use explosives." Now that may sound odd, but I think that a lot of people probably had that initial reaction. Terrorists plot in dark rooms together with temperamental explosive ingredients and a man watching the door, awaiting instructions from their terror masters just moments before Jack Bauer bursts in and clears the room with extreme prejudice. But is that so?
In other words, can there be a terrorist of one? Can there be a "self prompted" act of terrorism? Is it terrorism if Hasan was inspired by Al Qeda rather than having direct orders or even contact with such groups?
Let me put it another way - if an Irish Catholic detonates a bomb on Downey Street, and it is concluded that he has no other conspirators, never even met an IRA member, does MI-5 refer to the perpetrator as merely a "criminal", "nut" or would they opt for "terrorist", and "act of terrorism?"
Is poisoning a water supply to a controlled group (say a university, etc) is that not an act of terrorism? No "explosives" were employed.
Everyone knows McVeigh was a domestic terrorist, but is a sniper that assassinates abortion "doctors" (my own editorializing there by flanking that word with quotation marks), is he not a terrorist? If so then wasn't the recently executed DC sniper a terrorist?
Seriously, what separates a criminal act from an act of terrorism? (by the way, how many times will this post be flagged by one government agency or another given how oft I've used that word? Hey guys - we're on your side, I'm simply making a point, and one I'm sure you'd agree with .... big smile)
For help I went to the experts - I went about looking for the Webster's & Britannica definitions of the word "terrorist" (which is usually cited as "one committing an act of terror or terrorism", ya, thanks, real helpful) or "terrorism", but I came across perhaps the most useful source of all in this scenario - the official FBI definition of terrorism: The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.
Now that last bit seems to be the necessary and common component among the various twists on the definition - violence with a political or social goal/gripe. So lets accept that portion as paramount in labeling each of the mentioned perpetrators above, shall we?
First, the Irish bomb maker - yep. The Downey Street location is a clear intent to coerce the government into changing political policy. That hits in all categories.
The abortion sniper - yep again. He is violently objecting to a social phenomena, clearly within the realm of terrorism. The same applies to the DC sniper - he had a cadre of written social and political gripes for which he was exacting "revenge", and "punishment."
The poisoned water? Only if it is accompanied by a list of political demands or grievances against the government or civilian population either before the poisoning or there after. So this could be yes or no depending on the intent behind the method.
And that brings us back to Hasan. He murdered with a hand gun, but as we've established the method is but a vehicle, be it explosives, poison or pistols it's all "unlawful use of force or violence" and is thus irrelevant. So, the real question in discerning whether this was an act of terror or not then becomes - what was his intent?
I will leave it to the capable professionals at the FBI to give a final, detailed answer, but let us go with what we know so far. He was wearing Islamic ceremonial garb during the murders. He handed out Korans the morning of the shooting. He screamed "Allah Akbar" as he fired the weapons and murdered the soldiers (all of that will become relevant in a moment). The target, the target wasn't a civilian population, nor individuals within his personal circle, but rather government employees at a government facility. Every bit a federal facility as was the Murrow Building in Oklahoma. The target is key - he attacked the government itself. We also know that he had demonstrated very openly to fellow soldiers his dislike in a military policy of not allowing a US soldier of the Muslim faith to refrain from fighting/killing other Muslims on the battlefield (you're either a conscience observer or you're not, you can't be conscience about only one group). His sentiment in that regard has been reported repeatedly, and denied by no one. He also openly expressed a desire for regional Muslims in both theaters to "rise up and throw the invaders out", as he put it. This was a clear objection to our presence there, our foreign policy. Also he had made over 10 attempts, its been reported, to contact organized Islamic extremist groups such as Al Qeda. Just a quick aside, I'm curious if during the Cold War had a Major in the US Army attempted to unofficially/privately contact the KGB, and subsequently committed an "act", say voluntarily copied secret documents and was caught on his way to offer them to the Soviets, do you think the word "traitor" and "spy" might have been employed even if he had no official contact with the Ruskies neither at the time of the incident nor after? Just a thought. In addition to Hasan's attempts at contact, his Imam in the local Mosque he attended was linked, although never charged, with conspiring amongst the Somali/Fort Dix plot in New Jersey.
So lets go over the final tally ... he targeted the government in specific - one check mark on the FBI's list. He used an unlawful act of violence as the means of assailing his target - that meets a second criteria. And finally he objected to both the government's foreign policy and internal military policy (a Muslim clause in the conscience observer standard) & desired them both changed based on his being Muslim; and given he then inserted that Muslim faith into the act of violence itself AND given he targeted troops preparing for deployment (remember the objection to our presence in Iraq & Afghanistan), that demonstrates the presence of a clear "political" agenda in my estimation.
So someone explain to me why in hell every government official and media personality within electronic ear shot, save one Independent Senator from Connecticut, is so hesitant to use the word "terrorism?" Are we all hostages to our own language? I submit that in a post 9/11 world politically correct speech is only going to get more people killed until it is abandoned. For God's sake, if we can't even properly NAME our enemies, how can we properly fight them?
I'd say if one were to make a judgment based on the evidence thus far that Hasan is a domestic Muslim terrorist that committed the most lethal act of terrorism since 9/11 itself. Not hyperbole, not reckless emotional reactionary rhetoric, just the most plausible conclusion based on the facts and circumstances surrounding the act.
What say you?
As to the subject line ... this conversation, on a personal level, began on the phone with Jambo. It has become somewhat of a national discussion now, especially after Joe Lieberman's public statements. What to "call" Major Hasan has become a story within the story.
So I ask, by murdering 13 US soldiers and wounding 30 more did Hasan commit an act of terror? Jambo immediately declared that he was simply a "nut." A nut that snapped rather than a terrorist. And his initial reasoning was "he didn't use explosives." Now that may sound odd, but I think that a lot of people probably had that initial reaction. Terrorists plot in dark rooms together with temperamental explosive ingredients and a man watching the door, awaiting instructions from their terror masters just moments before Jack Bauer bursts in and clears the room with extreme prejudice. But is that so?
In other words, can there be a terrorist of one? Can there be a "self prompted" act of terrorism? Is it terrorism if Hasan was inspired by Al Qeda rather than having direct orders or even contact with such groups?
Let me put it another way - if an Irish Catholic detonates a bomb on Downey Street, and it is concluded that he has no other conspirators, never even met an IRA member, does MI-5 refer to the perpetrator as merely a "criminal", "nut" or would they opt for "terrorist", and "act of terrorism?"
Is poisoning a water supply to a controlled group (say a university, etc) is that not an act of terrorism? No "explosives" were employed.
Everyone knows McVeigh was a domestic terrorist, but is a sniper that assassinates abortion "doctors" (my own editorializing there by flanking that word with quotation marks), is he not a terrorist? If so then wasn't the recently executed DC sniper a terrorist?
Seriously, what separates a criminal act from an act of terrorism? (by the way, how many times will this post be flagged by one government agency or another given how oft I've used that word? Hey guys - we're on your side, I'm simply making a point, and one I'm sure you'd agree with .... big smile)
For help I went to the experts - I went about looking for the Webster's & Britannica definitions of the word "terrorist" (which is usually cited as "one committing an act of terror or terrorism", ya, thanks, real helpful) or "terrorism", but I came across perhaps the most useful source of all in this scenario - the official FBI definition of terrorism: The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.
Now that last bit seems to be the necessary and common component among the various twists on the definition - violence with a political or social goal/gripe. So lets accept that portion as paramount in labeling each of the mentioned perpetrators above, shall we?
First, the Irish bomb maker - yep. The Downey Street location is a clear intent to coerce the government into changing political policy. That hits in all categories.
The abortion sniper - yep again. He is violently objecting to a social phenomena, clearly within the realm of terrorism. The same applies to the DC sniper - he had a cadre of written social and political gripes for which he was exacting "revenge", and "punishment."
The poisoned water? Only if it is accompanied by a list of political demands or grievances against the government or civilian population either before the poisoning or there after. So this could be yes or no depending on the intent behind the method.
And that brings us back to Hasan. He murdered with a hand gun, but as we've established the method is but a vehicle, be it explosives, poison or pistols it's all "unlawful use of force or violence" and is thus irrelevant. So, the real question in discerning whether this was an act of terror or not then becomes - what was his intent?
I will leave it to the capable professionals at the FBI to give a final, detailed answer, but let us go with what we know so far. He was wearing Islamic ceremonial garb during the murders. He handed out Korans the morning of the shooting. He screamed "Allah Akbar" as he fired the weapons and murdered the soldiers (all of that will become relevant in a moment). The target, the target wasn't a civilian population, nor individuals within his personal circle, but rather government employees at a government facility. Every bit a federal facility as was the Murrow Building in Oklahoma. The target is key - he attacked the government itself. We also know that he had demonstrated very openly to fellow soldiers his dislike in a military policy of not allowing a US soldier of the Muslim faith to refrain from fighting/killing other Muslims on the battlefield (you're either a conscience observer or you're not, you can't be conscience about only one group). His sentiment in that regard has been reported repeatedly, and denied by no one. He also openly expressed a desire for regional Muslims in both theaters to "rise up and throw the invaders out", as he put it. This was a clear objection to our presence there, our foreign policy. Also he had made over 10 attempts, its been reported, to contact organized Islamic extremist groups such as Al Qeda. Just a quick aside, I'm curious if during the Cold War had a Major in the US Army attempted to unofficially/privately contact the KGB, and subsequently committed an "act", say voluntarily copied secret documents and was caught on his way to offer them to the Soviets, do you think the word "traitor" and "spy" might have been employed even if he had no official contact with the Ruskies neither at the time of the incident nor after? Just a thought. In addition to Hasan's attempts at contact, his Imam in the local Mosque he attended was linked, although never charged, with conspiring amongst the Somali/Fort Dix plot in New Jersey.
So lets go over the final tally ... he targeted the government in specific - one check mark on the FBI's list. He used an unlawful act of violence as the means of assailing his target - that meets a second criteria. And finally he objected to both the government's foreign policy and internal military policy (a Muslim clause in the conscience observer standard) & desired them both changed based on his being Muslim; and given he then inserted that Muslim faith into the act of violence itself AND given he targeted troops preparing for deployment (remember the objection to our presence in Iraq & Afghanistan), that demonstrates the presence of a clear "political" agenda in my estimation.
So someone explain to me why in hell every government official and media personality within electronic ear shot, save one Independent Senator from Connecticut, is so hesitant to use the word "terrorism?" Are we all hostages to our own language? I submit that in a post 9/11 world politically correct speech is only going to get more people killed until it is abandoned. For God's sake, if we can't even properly NAME our enemies, how can we properly fight them?
I'd say if one were to make a judgment based on the evidence thus far that Hasan is a domestic Muslim terrorist that committed the most lethal act of terrorism since 9/11 itself. Not hyperbole, not reckless emotional reactionary rhetoric, just the most plausible conclusion based on the facts and circumstances surrounding the act.
What say you?
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Again, Ryan is 100% wrong...
Just kidding. He's right... and we all know it.
While I am a fan of Bill Bennett on the radio, his commentary isn't what you'd call "cutting edge" and he maintains a very moderate format for his call ins. It is a fun, entertaining program more than it is hard analysis... but it can be educational and you can often hear something worthwhile at almost any time during the show. I just don't think he is ever going to have the following that the bigger names have... he isn't "edgy" enough.
What I find most valuable about his program is his first-hand experience in the areas he discusses most. He has a Doctorate, he has two other Master-level degrees, he has years of Cabinet experience (with two different Administrations)... and while he keeps his radio topics and discussions "family-friendly", he does occasionally drop some absolute gems when it comes to his own, undiluted opinion on politics and policies.
Off the air, his efforts to reform our education system have my full and unfettered support. I don't think there is a voice out there better able to articulate the needs and failings of our system than his, and his solutions are perfectly sound and founded on basic, fundamental principles of education with an eye on both what has worked in the past and what the nation needs more of in the future.
Couple this with his open, honest and publicly visible life of faith (a proud but unassuming Roman Catholic) and his very traditional but obvious love and respect for his wife (whom he always refers to as "Mrs. Bennett"), and I am convinced that this man could find a role for himself in the conservative movement rather quickly, if he wanted to.
One more thing... Ryan seemed to say that the British education system might be better than ours, at least in regards to history or geography, but I am not at all sure that is true. Granted, a greater percentage of their students move on to college degrees, but that doesn't mean they are getting a better education. In the case of history, the failing in both systems is rooted in a national loss of objectivity.
There are courses of study that are subjective in nature... literature, music, art, poetry, dance, etc... and there are courses that are objective in nature, and in our society we have seen History 101 relegated to the former area, where history and its lessons are determined to be and presented as "subject to interpretation" rather than just as much a "science" as mathematics, or geology, or chemistry, or astronomy. That isn't to say that there aren't new things to be found, or new areas to explore... even in the fundamentally objective subjects like those mentioned above, new and exciting study is made or discovered almost every day.
I don't feel a good education is to be had without a very thorough mix of both the subjective and the objective areas of study. Literature is just as important as mathematics, and a study of the theater arts is just as vital as a basic understanding of chemistry. Our system has failed in its priorities, and it has spent decades objectifying the subjective and vice versa. A clear and specific example is today's trend (nation-wide) to inject the very subjective topic of global warming into a vast array of study areas, from social studies and earth sciences to student government and (even in my school district) athletics. Another fine example of the subjective nature that our educations system teaches the subject of history is in the manner in which Christian religion is studied.
Christianity is taught to my children as a repressive, backward position bent on burning books and heretics and keeping such luminaries as Galileo or Darwin marginalized as much as possible. What should be taught is that Christianity, like any other human endeavor or field of study, has made mistakes and has had bad people associated with it, but that it has also contributed vast amounts of beauty and art to the world that otherwise would never have been known. Without Christianity, we would have no Sistine Chapel. No Notre Dame Cathedral. Handel wouldn't have composed the Messiah, and Bach wouldn't have written Jesu, Joy of Man's desiring. Da Vinci wouldn't have painted the Last Supper. Our very education system itself, founded on the model of religious or monastic institutions at places like Oxford and Cambridge and Paris and Cologne, would be without Universitas. Where would the world be now without the contributions of such Christian (and, specifically Catholic) scientists as Nicholas Copernicus, Roger Bacon, Nicolas Steno, Gregor Mendel, and Georges Lemaitre (the first proponent of the Big Bang theory and a Jesuit priest!)?
Why are my children taught that there is no room for religion in education, but NOT taught that history has provided us with excellent examples of purely secular, atheistic societies that completely removed religion from education, and that each one has failed in its promise to build a better world... those examples being the USSR, Communist Cuba, the Eastern Block States, Vietnam, North Korea and Maoist China? How is that sort of selective reasoning NOT understood to be exactly the kind of subjective tripe that they accuse "Christians" of doing for the last 2,000+ years?
While I am a fan of Bill Bennett on the radio, his commentary isn't what you'd call "cutting edge" and he maintains a very moderate format for his call ins. It is a fun, entertaining program more than it is hard analysis... but it can be educational and you can often hear something worthwhile at almost any time during the show. I just don't think he is ever going to have the following that the bigger names have... he isn't "edgy" enough.
What I find most valuable about his program is his first-hand experience in the areas he discusses most. He has a Doctorate, he has two other Master-level degrees, he has years of Cabinet experience (with two different Administrations)... and while he keeps his radio topics and discussions "family-friendly", he does occasionally drop some absolute gems when it comes to his own, undiluted opinion on politics and policies.
Off the air, his efforts to reform our education system have my full and unfettered support. I don't think there is a voice out there better able to articulate the needs and failings of our system than his, and his solutions are perfectly sound and founded on basic, fundamental principles of education with an eye on both what has worked in the past and what the nation needs more of in the future.
Couple this with his open, honest and publicly visible life of faith (a proud but unassuming Roman Catholic) and his very traditional but obvious love and respect for his wife (whom he always refers to as "Mrs. Bennett"), and I am convinced that this man could find a role for himself in the conservative movement rather quickly, if he wanted to.
One more thing... Ryan seemed to say that the British education system might be better than ours, at least in regards to history or geography, but I am not at all sure that is true. Granted, a greater percentage of their students move on to college degrees, but that doesn't mean they are getting a better education. In the case of history, the failing in both systems is rooted in a national loss of objectivity.
There are courses of study that are subjective in nature... literature, music, art, poetry, dance, etc... and there are courses that are objective in nature, and in our society we have seen History 101 relegated to the former area, where history and its lessons are determined to be and presented as "subject to interpretation" rather than just as much a "science" as mathematics, or geology, or chemistry, or astronomy. That isn't to say that there aren't new things to be found, or new areas to explore... even in the fundamentally objective subjects like those mentioned above, new and exciting study is made or discovered almost every day.
I don't feel a good education is to be had without a very thorough mix of both the subjective and the objective areas of study. Literature is just as important as mathematics, and a study of the theater arts is just as vital as a basic understanding of chemistry. Our system has failed in its priorities, and it has spent decades objectifying the subjective and vice versa. A clear and specific example is today's trend (nation-wide) to inject the very subjective topic of global warming into a vast array of study areas, from social studies and earth sciences to student government and (even in my school district) athletics. Another fine example of the subjective nature that our educations system teaches the subject of history is in the manner in which Christian religion is studied.
Christianity is taught to my children as a repressive, backward position bent on burning books and heretics and keeping such luminaries as Galileo or Darwin marginalized as much as possible. What should be taught is that Christianity, like any other human endeavor or field of study, has made mistakes and has had bad people associated with it, but that it has also contributed vast amounts of beauty and art to the world that otherwise would never have been known. Without Christianity, we would have no Sistine Chapel. No Notre Dame Cathedral. Handel wouldn't have composed the Messiah, and Bach wouldn't have written Jesu, Joy of Man's desiring. Da Vinci wouldn't have painted the Last Supper. Our very education system itself, founded on the model of religious or monastic institutions at places like Oxford and Cambridge and Paris and Cologne, would be without Universitas. Where would the world be now without the contributions of such Christian (and, specifically Catholic) scientists as Nicholas Copernicus, Roger Bacon, Nicolas Steno, Gregor Mendel, and Georges Lemaitre (the first proponent of the Big Bang theory and a Jesuit priest!)?
Why are my children taught that there is no room for religion in education, but NOT taught that history has provided us with excellent examples of purely secular, atheistic societies that completely removed religion from education, and that each one has failed in its promise to build a better world... those examples being the USSR, Communist Cuba, the Eastern Block States, Vietnam, North Korea and Maoist China? How is that sort of selective reasoning NOT understood to be exactly the kind of subjective tripe that they accuse "Christians" of doing for the last 2,000+ years?
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
"Bloody Yanks."
Said a certain bicyclist in Upottery, England some years back ...
At any rate, let me ask you - do you think that 1 in 100 could name the day and month on which we celebrate Veterans Day each year? How about offer a short description of how it came to be - the 11, 11, 11 story? Maybe 1 in 1000? 1 in 10,000 perhaps?
I find the over all lack of historical knowledge that the average American has, of his own country in particular, to be disdainful in the extreme. I know we've all grumbled about that since our days at the Grand, and surely even before that. I recall hearing Jambo say to Titus once: "The Force is strong in this one", after I quipped that most Americans gleen their knowledge of classical history from episodes of Xena Warrior Princess ... and things haven't gotten better on that front since that day sitting box. Stats up and down the line paint a sad picture. A 2008 study revealed that a full third of US high school seniors couldn't point out their own state on a map. Nearly half couldn't name the nations consisting of the Axis Powers. And it gets worse from there.
As an aside I must give Bill Bennett, excuse me, Dr. Bill Bennett (he taught philosophy), credit. He is on a one man mission to make detailed US history a required course beginning at the elementary level, rather then starting at middle school as is the prevelant trend in the US education system.
Now you can argue that the Brits have a vast knowledge of their history and we are far and away a more productive nation by every measurable standard; but I find that a facile analogy. And while I'm no conspiracy theorist I do think it more than coincidence that public educators, whom vote overwhelmingly for one Party over the other, are the very people that do a piss poor job educating their pupils on US, or any, history (the idea being that a factual, detailed account of the Founders, the Constitution, etc wouldn't lend itself to a nanny state mentality). Any 5th grader that comes home and can't name the first THREE US presidents has been failed by his school - a scenario I realized was prevalent among many of my players on our public school's 5th grade football team. And yes, yes, the parent is the primary educator, I understand that and embrace it, believe me. And my children can name those presidents and much more, I've seen to that. But given the American tax payer foots the bill for public education to the tune of $9,138 per child, per year (according to the US Census Bureau) is it that outrageous for me to ask the DOE to spend a little less time encouraging district wide "Earth Days", and a little more time instructing students on just whom those elder men ARE on the dollar bills we keep forking over?
At any rate, let me ask you - do you think that 1 in 100 could name the day and month on which we celebrate Veterans Day each year? How about offer a short description of how it came to be - the 11, 11, 11 story? Maybe 1 in 1000? 1 in 10,000 perhaps?
I find the over all lack of historical knowledge that the average American has, of his own country in particular, to be disdainful in the extreme. I know we've all grumbled about that since our days at the Grand, and surely even before that. I recall hearing Jambo say to Titus once: "The Force is strong in this one", after I quipped that most Americans gleen their knowledge of classical history from episodes of Xena Warrior Princess ... and things haven't gotten better on that front since that day sitting box. Stats up and down the line paint a sad picture. A 2008 study revealed that a full third of US high school seniors couldn't point out their own state on a map. Nearly half couldn't name the nations consisting of the Axis Powers. And it gets worse from there.
As an aside I must give Bill Bennett, excuse me, Dr. Bill Bennett (he taught philosophy), credit. He is on a one man mission to make detailed US history a required course beginning at the elementary level, rather then starting at middle school as is the prevelant trend in the US education system.
Now you can argue that the Brits have a vast knowledge of their history and we are far and away a more productive nation by every measurable standard; but I find that a facile analogy. And while I'm no conspiracy theorist I do think it more than coincidence that public educators, whom vote overwhelmingly for one Party over the other, are the very people that do a piss poor job educating their pupils on US, or any, history (the idea being that a factual, detailed account of the Founders, the Constitution, etc wouldn't lend itself to a nanny state mentality). Any 5th grader that comes home and can't name the first THREE US presidents has been failed by his school - a scenario I realized was prevalent among many of my players on our public school's 5th grade football team. And yes, yes, the parent is the primary educator, I understand that and embrace it, believe me. And my children can name those presidents and much more, I've seen to that. But given the American tax payer foots the bill for public education to the tune of $9,138 per child, per year (according to the US Census Bureau) is it that outrageous for me to ask the DOE to spend a little less time encouraging district wide "Earth Days", and a little more time instructing students on just whom those elder men ARE on the dollar bills we keep forking over?
Tomorrow...
On the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month of the year 1918, the "Great War" ended with the Armistice of Compiegne. In the nearly 100 years since, we have seen the rememberance of this day change from that of honoring veterans of that war to honoring veterans of ALL wars. A good and right thing to honor, no questions there.
Ironically, just last night I was reading a biography of Pershing because I couldn't sleep (I took my 15 year old son to his robotics club meeting and had a huge cup of coffee... never good), and it was then that it occured to me that the date of the Armistice was coming up quickly... and that drove me to read a bit more carefully.
Having met the last living American veteran of WWI (Private Frank Buckles) at my former place of employment, and having been deeply effected by the conversation I had with him then, I found the biography particularly interesting. It was written in the early 80's by a Dr. Samuel Greene, and it is a very objective look at Pershing's career (not always flattering to Pershing, but not anti-Pershing, either, by any stretch). It touched rather hard, however, on Pershing's reasoning for keeping the attacks going in the last hours... indeed, the last MINUTES... of the war. At Pershing's orders, more than 3,500 American soldiers and marines died in attacks on the German lines in the last 120 minutes of the war... for no greater reason than the occupation of an additional few hundred yards of mud, blood and barbed wire.
Even more telling was the critical view made by the author about the means by which Wilson directed policy in the days before Nov 11 and in the weeks and months after. If the author wasn't painting a "rosey" picture of Pershing, he was even harder on Wilson.
Anyway, I did find it very interesting that a date now determined to honor veterans and service men and women has a history so stained by questionable leadership (at best) with questionable aims.
Ironically, just last night I was reading a biography of Pershing because I couldn't sleep (I took my 15 year old son to his robotics club meeting and had a huge cup of coffee... never good), and it was then that it occured to me that the date of the Armistice was coming up quickly... and that drove me to read a bit more carefully.
Having met the last living American veteran of WWI (Private Frank Buckles) at my former place of employment, and having been deeply effected by the conversation I had with him then, I found the biography particularly interesting. It was written in the early 80's by a Dr. Samuel Greene, and it is a very objective look at Pershing's career (not always flattering to Pershing, but not anti-Pershing, either, by any stretch). It touched rather hard, however, on Pershing's reasoning for keeping the attacks going in the last hours... indeed, the last MINUTES... of the war. At Pershing's orders, more than 3,500 American soldiers and marines died in attacks on the German lines in the last 120 minutes of the war... for no greater reason than the occupation of an additional few hundred yards of mud, blood and barbed wire.
Even more telling was the critical view made by the author about the means by which Wilson directed policy in the days before Nov 11 and in the weeks and months after. If the author wasn't painting a "rosey" picture of Pershing, he was even harder on Wilson.
Anyway, I did find it very interesting that a date now determined to honor veterans and service men and women has a history so stained by questionable leadership (at best) with questionable aims.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Simon and Garfunkel
Is it just me or do you keep hearing the opening line to "Sounds of Silence" too when you see this type of map? "Hello darkness my old friend, I've come to talk with you again."
It's a Cat 2 now. The NOAA site is at National Hurricane Center.
Talk about a post that should be titled, "Memory Lane." Stay safe brother ...
Memory lane...
As has already been stated, Liz has a "honey-do" list as long as my leg, and one of them is organizing all my crap so we can finally empty the storage unit and save ourselves the cost every month. So, yesterday, we started going through all the old bins and boxes of my stuff. Some of the treasures contained within have already been scanned and posted on Facebook (thanks to Liz's obsession with that site), but I wanted to talk about another that I found.
Amidst all the letters, photos, mementos and knick-knacks were (literally) dozens of books I haven't seen in (literally) decades. One was a series of summaries on the military-political possibilities of conflict in the various regions of the world, written by James F. Dunnigan, a military historian and analyst for the Reagan White House in 1984.
This man touched on areas of conflict and tension across the globe, and having picked up the dusty tome, I thought it would be very nearly irrelevant in the light of the last 25 years of actual history. In fact, however, he was shockingly accurate.
His comments on Afghanistan, for example, obviously weren't 100% accurate. He made the argument that the Soviet-Afghan war had the potential to last decades, and seemed to think it would. The premise he based this on wasn't in error, though. He felt that the culture of the Afghani peoples made the effort that the Soviets were trying to accomplish so "long term" in scope that he failed to take into account the fact that the USSR would fail before the effort was abandoned, and not the other way around.
His analysis of the Iraqi threat to world peace also seems, on the surface, in err... but with a little deeper reading, we see he was actually spot on. He seemed a bit dismissive of the threat the '85 Iraqi regime posed to the rest of the world, but only because he recognized how insignificant the actual socio-political/military capacity of this rogue nation posed to anyone further away from the Iraqi frontier than 200 kilometers. He knew and understood the threat to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the UAE that Iraq posed... but also saw that there was no functional ability to command the massive Iraqi military machine outside of ordering mass human-wave attacks on fortified and entrenched forces across the Iranian border. He also recognized Iraq's inability to maintain support and supply means over even moderate distances against concerted campaigns of interdiction by even the most basic means.
His analysis of the threats posed by North Korea and Iran, however, are the most telling. He lumped Lybia in with this as well, being THE most obvious example of a rogue dictator that the mid-80's could produce (ala Muammar al-Gaddafi), but couldn't be expected to know just how effective the retaliation strikes Reagan was yet to smack-down on Tripoli would be.
North Korea's habit of pushing the "West" to the point of intervention, then backing down when given some money/aid/technology/trade status as a consolation prize was detailed in these pages as far back as my high school years, and have proven true in the 25 years since. So has Iran's ability to influence violence and instability throughout the region by sending as many imams into its neighbors hands as it has sent weapons, munitions, and money into the hands of its neighbor's enemies.
Another surprising piece of this work was his analysis of the problems facing the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Aside from history's more obvious lessons (Saddam, Iran, and bin Laden), he talks at length about Yemen. In the years the book was written, there were two Yemen's, one of which waged a 7-day shooting "war" with the Saudi Army in '83 that had no discernible results other than the dead soldiers it produced. However, relations with the Yemen people (regardless of politics within Yemen) has not improved one iota. There are more than one million Yemeni men working the oil fields of the Arabian peninsula today, and all are treated worse than second-class citizens. They are forced to live in separated, isolated communities with little to no contact with Saudi nationals. Their communications with family back in Yemen are restricted and closely monitored, as is their ability to travel. Everything the Saudis accuse Israel of in regards to the "inhuman treatment of Palestinians" they are just as guilty of with the people they bring in to work their oil wells and processing plants from Yemen.
This situation has, just in the last few days, grown from a smolder to a flame in Arabia Felix. We can now read about shots exchanged across the border, insurrection and violence within the Yemeni community inside the kingdom, and a build up of forces to address the "problem" on both sides.
The most telling example of Dr. Dunnigan's insight is with the Russians, however...
He was writing about the Soviet Union, but throughout his writing, he routinely refers to them as "Russians", and explains himself as doing this because the elite ruling-class that controlled every aspect of political and diplomatic (and military) activity and goals in the USSR were exclusively RUSSIAN and maintained an exclusively RUSSIAN advantage in all their stated goals. Nothing the Politburo did was ever exclusively for the benefit of ethnic Ukranians, Latvians, Lithuanians, Georgians (even Stalin didn't trust Georgians!), Armenians, or any one of the other 180 "ethnic" peoples of the former USSR.
The goals he outlines in his work as being the goals of "Russia" can still be seen today as the goals of modern, post-Soviet Moscow. They are STILL working to build a greater influence in economics, politics, and military ventures across the globe. They are firming up their claims on regional, even extra-territorial, resources (ala the planting of Russian "flags" under the polar ice caps) while at the same time building on their ability to provide those resources to hungry (even starving!) markets across Euroasia. They also have the largest stockpile of fissionable material (whether in bombs or not) on the face of the earth... much of which is not satisfactorily accounted for, either.
More importantly, the PROBLEMS that the USSR faced in 1985 in regards to increasing unrest and growing populations within the "Soviet" Muslim demographic are no longer "theirs"... they are the world's. The instability inherent in such regimes as Khazikstan, Azherbijan, Turkmenistan, Armenia, and (the most glaring example) the Chechnyan region of Russia are no longer the SOLE responsibility of Moscow, but are now the SHARED threat of the entire globe.
An eye-opening read, I can tell you.
Amidst all the letters, photos, mementos and knick-knacks were (literally) dozens of books I haven't seen in (literally) decades. One was a series of summaries on the military-political possibilities of conflict in the various regions of the world, written by James F. Dunnigan, a military historian and analyst for the Reagan White House in 1984.
This man touched on areas of conflict and tension across the globe, and having picked up the dusty tome, I thought it would be very nearly irrelevant in the light of the last 25 years of actual history. In fact, however, he was shockingly accurate.
His comments on Afghanistan, for example, obviously weren't 100% accurate. He made the argument that the Soviet-Afghan war had the potential to last decades, and seemed to think it would. The premise he based this on wasn't in error, though. He felt that the culture of the Afghani peoples made the effort that the Soviets were trying to accomplish so "long term" in scope that he failed to take into account the fact that the USSR would fail before the effort was abandoned, and not the other way around.
His analysis of the Iraqi threat to world peace also seems, on the surface, in err... but with a little deeper reading, we see he was actually spot on. He seemed a bit dismissive of the threat the '85 Iraqi regime posed to the rest of the world, but only because he recognized how insignificant the actual socio-political/military capacity of this rogue nation posed to anyone further away from the Iraqi frontier than 200 kilometers. He knew and understood the threat to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the UAE that Iraq posed... but also saw that there was no functional ability to command the massive Iraqi military machine outside of ordering mass human-wave attacks on fortified and entrenched forces across the Iranian border. He also recognized Iraq's inability to maintain support and supply means over even moderate distances against concerted campaigns of interdiction by even the most basic means.
His analysis of the threats posed by North Korea and Iran, however, are the most telling. He lumped Lybia in with this as well, being THE most obvious example of a rogue dictator that the mid-80's could produce (ala Muammar al-Gaddafi), but couldn't be expected to know just how effective the retaliation strikes Reagan was yet to smack-down on Tripoli would be.
North Korea's habit of pushing the "West" to the point of intervention, then backing down when given some money/aid/technology/trade status as a consolation prize was detailed in these pages as far back as my high school years, and have proven true in the 25 years since. So has Iran's ability to influence violence and instability throughout the region by sending as many imams into its neighbors hands as it has sent weapons, munitions, and money into the hands of its neighbor's enemies.
Another surprising piece of this work was his analysis of the problems facing the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Aside from history's more obvious lessons (Saddam, Iran, and bin Laden), he talks at length about Yemen. In the years the book was written, there were two Yemen's, one of which waged a 7-day shooting "war" with the Saudi Army in '83 that had no discernible results other than the dead soldiers it produced. However, relations with the Yemen people (regardless of politics within Yemen) has not improved one iota. There are more than one million Yemeni men working the oil fields of the Arabian peninsula today, and all are treated worse than second-class citizens. They are forced to live in separated, isolated communities with little to no contact with Saudi nationals. Their communications with family back in Yemen are restricted and closely monitored, as is their ability to travel. Everything the Saudis accuse Israel of in regards to the "inhuman treatment of Palestinians" they are just as guilty of with the people they bring in to work their oil wells and processing plants from Yemen.
This situation has, just in the last few days, grown from a smolder to a flame in Arabia Felix. We can now read about shots exchanged across the border, insurrection and violence within the Yemeni community inside the kingdom, and a build up of forces to address the "problem" on both sides.
The most telling example of Dr. Dunnigan's insight is with the Russians, however...
He was writing about the Soviet Union, but throughout his writing, he routinely refers to them as "Russians", and explains himself as doing this because the elite ruling-class that controlled every aspect of political and diplomatic (and military) activity and goals in the USSR were exclusively RUSSIAN and maintained an exclusively RUSSIAN advantage in all their stated goals. Nothing the Politburo did was ever exclusively for the benefit of ethnic Ukranians, Latvians, Lithuanians, Georgians (even Stalin didn't trust Georgians!), Armenians, or any one of the other 180 "ethnic" peoples of the former USSR.
The goals he outlines in his work as being the goals of "Russia" can still be seen today as the goals of modern, post-Soviet Moscow. They are STILL working to build a greater influence in economics, politics, and military ventures across the globe. They are firming up their claims on regional, even extra-territorial, resources (ala the planting of Russian "flags" under the polar ice caps) while at the same time building on their ability to provide those resources to hungry (even starving!) markets across Euroasia. They also have the largest stockpile of fissionable material (whether in bombs or not) on the face of the earth... much of which is not satisfactorily accounted for, either.
More importantly, the PROBLEMS that the USSR faced in 1985 in regards to increasing unrest and growing populations within the "Soviet" Muslim demographic are no longer "theirs"... they are the world's. The instability inherent in such regimes as Khazikstan, Azherbijan, Turkmenistan, Armenia, and (the most glaring example) the Chechnyan region of Russia are no longer the SOLE responsibility of Moscow, but are now the SHARED threat of the entire globe.
An eye-opening read, I can tell you.
Friday, November 6, 2009
Thank God...
Great to hear that your brother is safe... that kind of anxiety can make minutes seem like years, as we all know.
Your point is a solid one, and as unfortunate as it is to think that this kind of "p.c." activity is at the root of such a tragedy, I don't see how it can be ignored. While I probably haven't been following the news from Hood the way you have, what I have heard is commentary on how "disturbing" it is for Muslim Americans serving in the armed forces to know they may have to work towards the killing of fellow Muslims... something forbidden by the Koran and by the hadith.
Now, having never served myself, I won't pretend to understand what goes through a man or woman's mind when contemplating what might happen during a deployment to Afghanistan or Iraq, but the possibility that one might have to defend one's self or one's comrades with deadly forces must be prominent, to say the least. I wonder why it is easier to reconcile the murder (there is no other word for it) of innocent Muslims in Afghanistan or Iraq by the Taliban or al Qaeda than it is the murder of innocent Americans who are trying to stop the Taliban or al Qaeda? Obviously, someone capable of turning his weapon against his fellow soldiers because he doesn't want to be deployed is one unbalanced soldier himself (to say the least)... but many people commenting on this tragedy do feel that the greater crime is that perpetrated by the US Government than the one perpetrated by the soldier that killed those people and caused Ryan so much worry at Fort Hood.
How sad is that? Honestly... how sad is that?
Your point is a solid one, and as unfortunate as it is to think that this kind of "p.c." activity is at the root of such a tragedy, I don't see how it can be ignored. While I probably haven't been following the news from Hood the way you have, what I have heard is commentary on how "disturbing" it is for Muslim Americans serving in the armed forces to know they may have to work towards the killing of fellow Muslims... something forbidden by the Koran and by the hadith.
Now, having never served myself, I won't pretend to understand what goes through a man or woman's mind when contemplating what might happen during a deployment to Afghanistan or Iraq, but the possibility that one might have to defend one's self or one's comrades with deadly forces must be prominent, to say the least. I wonder why it is easier to reconcile the murder (there is no other word for it) of innocent Muslims in Afghanistan or Iraq by the Taliban or al Qaeda than it is the murder of innocent Americans who are trying to stop the Taliban or al Qaeda? Obviously, someone capable of turning his weapon against his fellow soldiers because he doesn't want to be deployed is one unbalanced soldier himself (to say the least)... but many people commenting on this tragedy do feel that the greater crime is that perpetrated by the US Government than the one perpetrated by the soldier that killed those people and caused Ryan so much worry at Fort Hood.
How sad is that? Honestly... how sad is that?
Positing the absurd ...
In the days and weeks to come many a commentator, politician and average citizen will posit their own interpretation as to what happened at Fort Hood.
Yesterday afternoon as I said a few prayers I became very cognizant that my little brother was stationed at Fort Hood, as a proud member of the US Army. And as the flurry of text messages poured in from my other siblings, asking if anyone had gotten ahold of him, the obvious phone call to the folks was one none of us wanted to make. We simply kept trying to find out if anyone of us, the kids, had gotten ahold of him. Thankfully one of my brothers called to say that his wife had spoken to the family and she confirmed he was fine, and was simply still on lock down, on base.
Now once that subsided I started to notice a disturbing pattern, which I discovered only increased overnight into this morning's news coverage. A quick surf around the Internet or your television dial (although we scarcely have dials anymore do we) and you'll see a cohesive message emerging. "A military stretched to the brink"; "the stress of combat"; "fear of deployment", etc, etc. Now while I'm certainly ready to accept via a thorough investigation that Hasan had no official affiliation with a terrorist organization, I think it is ridiculous for the media to claim to have found the FIRST identifiable case of PRE-post traumatic stress syndrome. Let me posit another, more plausible theory ...
... not even the military is immune to political correctness. After decades of such an onslaught, what Western organization could be? From what I gather Hasan made Major in 6 years, a rank typically earned in today's military in 9 to 10. Also, an officer (let alone a Major) must go out of his way to get a poor performance review, as was the case with Hasan's last CO's official assessment. Yet he was afforded a prestigious posting at Fort Hood, and it is exactly that - the larger, nice bases are considered desirable by physicians within the military (he is a psychiatrist). He had been handing out Korans the morning of the shooting. Months back he expressed pleasure in the Little Rock, Arkansas assassination (two soldiers were gunned down outside of a recruitment center) to fellow soldiers to the point of his comments becoming a matter of record; and during the slaughter of our brave men & women he was screaming, "Allah Ak-bar", God is great. So my question is was this man promoted, unsettling behavior ignored, and perhaps transferred around in order to not seem "racist" given the chief enemy of America and her armed forces in 2009? Were kid gloves employed in order to dress up politically sensitive appearances? Was his ever growing dedication to radicalism, combined with poor, disturbing behavior not properly addressed due to his race? I can not assert this as fact, but it is at least AS (in my mind more) plausible then the stress of an impending deployment causing one to "snap." Especially when he had never faced combat before, there was no "post" stress about it, and because as a psychiatrist the likely hood of his going on combat missions would be near zero.
In addition the media seems bent on divorcing his religion from his behavior. A perversion of his religion to be sure, but clearly a plausible (if not OBVIOUS) influence nonetheless.
I just think these are questions that we owe the fallen to ask, and have answered. In terms of an investigation once the bodies of US Soldiers hit the ground, political correctness be damned, real questions must be asked because real people are dead.
Yesterday afternoon as I said a few prayers I became very cognizant that my little brother was stationed at Fort Hood, as a proud member of the US Army. And as the flurry of text messages poured in from my other siblings, asking if anyone had gotten ahold of him, the obvious phone call to the folks was one none of us wanted to make. We simply kept trying to find out if anyone of us, the kids, had gotten ahold of him. Thankfully one of my brothers called to say that his wife had spoken to the family and she confirmed he was fine, and was simply still on lock down, on base.
Now once that subsided I started to notice a disturbing pattern, which I discovered only increased overnight into this morning's news coverage. A quick surf around the Internet or your television dial (although we scarcely have dials anymore do we) and you'll see a cohesive message emerging. "A military stretched to the brink"; "the stress of combat"; "fear of deployment", etc, etc. Now while I'm certainly ready to accept via a thorough investigation that Hasan had no official affiliation with a terrorist organization, I think it is ridiculous for the media to claim to have found the FIRST identifiable case of PRE-post traumatic stress syndrome. Let me posit another, more plausible theory ...
... not even the military is immune to political correctness. After decades of such an onslaught, what Western organization could be? From what I gather Hasan made Major in 6 years, a rank typically earned in today's military in 9 to 10. Also, an officer (let alone a Major) must go out of his way to get a poor performance review, as was the case with Hasan's last CO's official assessment. Yet he was afforded a prestigious posting at Fort Hood, and it is exactly that - the larger, nice bases are considered desirable by physicians within the military (he is a psychiatrist). He had been handing out Korans the morning of the shooting. Months back he expressed pleasure in the Little Rock, Arkansas assassination (two soldiers were gunned down outside of a recruitment center) to fellow soldiers to the point of his comments becoming a matter of record; and during the slaughter of our brave men & women he was screaming, "Allah Ak-bar", God is great. So my question is was this man promoted, unsettling behavior ignored, and perhaps transferred around in order to not seem "racist" given the chief enemy of America and her armed forces in 2009? Were kid gloves employed in order to dress up politically sensitive appearances? Was his ever growing dedication to radicalism, combined with poor, disturbing behavior not properly addressed due to his race? I can not assert this as fact, but it is at least AS (in my mind more) plausible then the stress of an impending deployment causing one to "snap." Especially when he had never faced combat before, there was no "post" stress about it, and because as a psychiatrist the likely hood of his going on combat missions would be near zero.
In addition the media seems bent on divorcing his religion from his behavior. A perversion of his religion to be sure, but clearly a plausible (if not OBVIOUS) influence nonetheless.
I just think these are questions that we owe the fallen to ask, and have answered. In terms of an investigation once the bodies of US Soldiers hit the ground, political correctness be damned, real questions must be asked because real people are dead.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
The problem with "Union"...
The United States has shown the world that the formation of a Union from individual states can be a painful and prolonged process... but it would seem Europe has ignored this lesson.
A civil court in Strasbourg, France, has determined that the display of a crucifix within a public classroom is a violation of religious and educational freedom. This would seem to be a strictly local affair, symptomatic of the French trend towards secularism at all levels of society... but as of Dec 1st, when the final ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon goes into effect across the EU, that ruling will then have precedence across Europe.
Now, Europeans complaining about Christian faith and symbols is nothing new, I know... but what surprised me about this story was that the loudest voices raised against it are coming from the political leadership in Italy... and from both sides of the aisle! It seems that the former Communist and now left-center leaning opposition leader in the Italian Parliament has joined his voice to the more right-center PM of Italy (a divorcee and avowed atheist) in calling for a reversal of that decision based on the "traditional value" to European society that such symbols hold to millions across Europe.
Why?
Because they (seemingly) fear that the decision of a judge (or judges) in one portion of the Union can suddenly decide the fate of such traditional and fundamental aspects of daily life as a crucifix on a classroom wall across the entire continent.
It would seem that, in the day or so since the decision was handed down in Strasbourg, it first caught the attention of the Italian political machine, but quickly moved up the attention ladder in places like Poland, Ireland, Denmark and Spain, as well. In a region where the public display of faith is as natural to many as breathing, the possibility of government intrusion suddenly rears it's ugly head... and the EU hasn't even picked its President yet! Imagine cities like Armagh, Cologne, Krakow, Salzburg, Milan, Rheims, or Prague DENIED the ability to hold the centuries-old traditional celebrations where the images of beloved saints (and sometimes, even the saints themselves!) are taken from churches and paraded through the city streets to be followed by throngs of the faithful. Honestly, imagine what cities like Santiago de Compostela, Spain, will suffer if "public displays of religion" become a violation of individual rights across Europe, when at any one time, one quarter of that city's "population" is someone visiting the cathedral and shrine from other parts of the world!
With nearly a month to go until the final ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon as law throughout the European Union, it would seem the place is already feeling the liberal pinch as the anti-traditional, secular world begins to take the reigns of control.
Welcome to my nightmare.
A civil court in Strasbourg, France, has determined that the display of a crucifix within a public classroom is a violation of religious and educational freedom. This would seem to be a strictly local affair, symptomatic of the French trend towards secularism at all levels of society... but as of Dec 1st, when the final ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon goes into effect across the EU, that ruling will then have precedence across Europe.
Now, Europeans complaining about Christian faith and symbols is nothing new, I know... but what surprised me about this story was that the loudest voices raised against it are coming from the political leadership in Italy... and from both sides of the aisle! It seems that the former Communist and now left-center leaning opposition leader in the Italian Parliament has joined his voice to the more right-center PM of Italy (a divorcee and avowed atheist) in calling for a reversal of that decision based on the "traditional value" to European society that such symbols hold to millions across Europe.
Why?
Because they (seemingly) fear that the decision of a judge (or judges) in one portion of the Union can suddenly decide the fate of such traditional and fundamental aspects of daily life as a crucifix on a classroom wall across the entire continent.
It would seem that, in the day or so since the decision was handed down in Strasbourg, it first caught the attention of the Italian political machine, but quickly moved up the attention ladder in places like Poland, Ireland, Denmark and Spain, as well. In a region where the public display of faith is as natural to many as breathing, the possibility of government intrusion suddenly rears it's ugly head... and the EU hasn't even picked its President yet! Imagine cities like Armagh, Cologne, Krakow, Salzburg, Milan, Rheims, or Prague DENIED the ability to hold the centuries-old traditional celebrations where the images of beloved saints (and sometimes, even the saints themselves!) are taken from churches and paraded through the city streets to be followed by throngs of the faithful. Honestly, imagine what cities like Santiago de Compostela, Spain, will suffer if "public displays of religion" become a violation of individual rights across Europe, when at any one time, one quarter of that city's "population" is someone visiting the cathedral and shrine from other parts of the world!
With nearly a month to go until the final ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon as law throughout the European Union, it would seem the place is already feeling the liberal pinch as the anti-traditional, secular world begins to take the reigns of control.
Welcome to my nightmare.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Breaking news...
The Bund's unofficial "pub-partner" Mick Cronin has won his seat on the school board!
While at the polls yesterday, I noticed that I had the option to elect two school board members, but only two were listed as my choices (both Dems), so it seemed a foregone conclusion right from the start... but I hope Mick takes heart from the fact that he won the majority of votes ANYWAY! Not sure who would vote for only ONE when you could vote for both... but Mick took the lion's share.
Speaking of Mick... he took me out to ease the pain of my jobless state the other night to a little local watering hole by the lake (where we could drink AND smoke!). The last time we were there, he was talking with me about arranging a trip to Ireland so that his brother could meet me. He seems to think that his younger brother would enjoy the discussions and debates we seem to bring with us where ever we go. Well, knowing that my ability to travel had been seriously curtailed by my newly impoverished state of being, he and his brother decided that it would work best if the brother came to the US... and that is what was arranged on the phone while I sat nursing my pint.
So, if there is going to be a Bund-style reunion in 2009, it needs to be HERE in NEPA and it needs to happen as close to Christmas as possible, so that we can deliver all the fun and entertainment that Mick has promised his brother. Let's face it... you guys work, I'm jobless... you are coming here.
While at the polls yesterday, I noticed that I had the option to elect two school board members, but only two were listed as my choices (both Dems), so it seemed a foregone conclusion right from the start... but I hope Mick takes heart from the fact that he won the majority of votes ANYWAY! Not sure who would vote for only ONE when you could vote for both... but Mick took the lion's share.
Speaking of Mick... he took me out to ease the pain of my jobless state the other night to a little local watering hole by the lake (where we could drink AND smoke!). The last time we were there, he was talking with me about arranging a trip to Ireland so that his brother could meet me. He seems to think that his younger brother would enjoy the discussions and debates we seem to bring with us where ever we go. Well, knowing that my ability to travel had been seriously curtailed by my newly impoverished state of being, he and his brother decided that it would work best if the brother came to the US... and that is what was arranged on the phone while I sat nursing my pint.
So, if there is going to be a Bund-style reunion in 2009, it needs to be HERE in NEPA and it needs to happen as close to Christmas as possible, so that we can deliver all the fun and entertainment that Mick has promised his brother. Let's face it... you guys work, I'm jobless... you are coming here.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
I don't know who said that ...
but they're an idiot.
And I say that in full knowledge that you may then reveal the name of someone I've endorsed in the past. I would add that I have heard conservative commentators advocate that the conservative movement of 2009+ is one that embraces and advocates the traditional principles of America dating back to its' founding. I can only hope the commentator you heard "meant" this and botched the delivery, otherwise he is ridiculously uninformed. I will take one glaring example ...
Perhaps the most famous Republican after Lincoln and Reagan is Teddy Roosevelt. And up until Bull Moose he was every bit a member of the Republican party ... and perhaps the BIGGEST progressive of his era. No one was seen as "anti-free market" by the business community more than ol' TR. Now there is some debate over whether he had a true strain of populism within his DNA or whether he was acting in his own political expediency by adopting a sort of William Jennings Bryant tongue towards "the rich", but either way the affect was the same. On the other hand, the founding Fathers can be considered WILDLY liberal for their day in suggesting equality among men regardless of birth status; voting in and out leaders; challenging Divine Right, etc. But "liberal" in the classical sense, not the modern political sense. And just that kind of differential must be clearly articulated at the onset of any intelligent conversation of the evolution of political labels.
As an nice addendum there is an ideological civil war being waged at current. At stake is the soul of the GOP. Modern conservatives have recognized a self defeating organism within their Party, manifested in what I call a "them light" syndrome. Lyndsey Graham & John McCain are good examples but a fantastic scenario illustrating just what is going on has unfolded in upstate New York in recent days. Today is election day in 3 notable states - gubernatorial races in VA and NJ, and a congressional race in New York. The seat in question has been held by the GOP for over 100 years, literally. The most recent longtime occupant was tapped by Obama to be the new Army Chief of Staff, thus a special off year election was arranged (which as I said just happens to be taking place today). Just days ago a new poll emerged showing for the first time that Democrat Bill Owens and Conservative Party nominee Doug Hoffman were both leading Republican Dede Scozzafava.
Why? Given the century old hold, why?
Answer: Scozzafava is a pro abortion, pro gay rights, pro card check Republican. In light of the poll and the growing grass roots demand for "true" conservatives to retake the GOP (my voice being among them) she withdrew - and promptly endorsed the Democrat candidate, validating every fear and criticism being expressed by conservatives! And just as interesting famous names such as Sarah Palin and Fred Thompson openly endorsed the Conservative Party nominee rather than their own Party's nominee, and long before she dropped out.
It is my opinion that a 2009+ conservative is properly defined as: 1.)strong national security; 2.) limited government (this captures everything from low taxes to rejecting public health care) and; 3.)traditional social values. And that this definition includes the largest swath of the American electorate ... meaning if an articulate representative of that "conservatism" would simply emerge he or she would quickly find great popularity and electoral success. So while Gingrich et al may argue a GOP "purge" wont help enlarge our coalition, I submit that it is precisely by demanding our GOP nominees be of such a stripe that we will construct the largest possible tent.
And I say that in full knowledge that you may then reveal the name of someone I've endorsed in the past. I would add that I have heard conservative commentators advocate that the conservative movement of 2009+ is one that embraces and advocates the traditional principles of America dating back to its' founding. I can only hope the commentator you heard "meant" this and botched the delivery, otherwise he is ridiculously uninformed. I will take one glaring example ...
Perhaps the most famous Republican after Lincoln and Reagan is Teddy Roosevelt. And up until Bull Moose he was every bit a member of the Republican party ... and perhaps the BIGGEST progressive of his era. No one was seen as "anti-free market" by the business community more than ol' TR. Now there is some debate over whether he had a true strain of populism within his DNA or whether he was acting in his own political expediency by adopting a sort of William Jennings Bryant tongue towards "the rich", but either way the affect was the same. On the other hand, the founding Fathers can be considered WILDLY liberal for their day in suggesting equality among men regardless of birth status; voting in and out leaders; challenging Divine Right, etc. But "liberal" in the classical sense, not the modern political sense. And just that kind of differential must be clearly articulated at the onset of any intelligent conversation of the evolution of political labels.
As an nice addendum there is an ideological civil war being waged at current. At stake is the soul of the GOP. Modern conservatives have recognized a self defeating organism within their Party, manifested in what I call a "them light" syndrome. Lyndsey Graham & John McCain are good examples but a fantastic scenario illustrating just what is going on has unfolded in upstate New York in recent days. Today is election day in 3 notable states - gubernatorial races in VA and NJ, and a congressional race in New York. The seat in question has been held by the GOP for over 100 years, literally. The most recent longtime occupant was tapped by Obama to be the new Army Chief of Staff, thus a special off year election was arranged (which as I said just happens to be taking place today). Just days ago a new poll emerged showing for the first time that Democrat Bill Owens and Conservative Party nominee Doug Hoffman were both leading Republican Dede Scozzafava.
Why? Given the century old hold, why?
Answer: Scozzafava is a pro abortion, pro gay rights, pro card check Republican. In light of the poll and the growing grass roots demand for "true" conservatives to retake the GOP (my voice being among them) she withdrew - and promptly endorsed the Democrat candidate, validating every fear and criticism being expressed by conservatives! And just as interesting famous names such as Sarah Palin and Fred Thompson openly endorsed the Conservative Party nominee rather than their own Party's nominee, and long before she dropped out.
It is my opinion that a 2009+ conservative is properly defined as: 1.)strong national security; 2.) limited government (this captures everything from low taxes to rejecting public health care) and; 3.)traditional social values. And that this definition includes the largest swath of the American electorate ... meaning if an articulate representative of that "conservatism" would simply emerge he or she would quickly find great popularity and electoral success. So while Gingrich et al may argue a GOP "purge" wont help enlarge our coalition, I submit that it is precisely by demanding our GOP nominees be of such a stripe that we will construct the largest possible tent.
How far have we come?
I have said this before, and I am saying it again... revisionist history is bad.
Since losing my job at the casino, I haven't had the opportunity to listen to the battery of talk radio programs that I used to hear on a daily basis, but I did hear a blurb about how "conservatism" today is the same as it was in 1980, 1900, and even 1776. The insinuation is that the GOP maintains the core principles of conservative politics now just as it has since the inception of the nation. I do not feel this is true at all.
Now, before I go any further, I'm NOT suggesting the same isn't true of the DNC. No greater degree of ideological change can be shown than that of the DNC over the last 100+ years... but those changes are ones we have discussed at length here at the Bund, and I want to focus for a minute on the GOP's changes over the same period.
In 1912, the GOP split its allegiances between Taft (the RNC candidate) and the "Bull Moose" Progressive Teddy Roosevelt. Most people attribute the scope of the Democratic candidate's (Wilson) overwhelming victory to the split in the GOP vote... but I'd say the numbers and results from the national election results don't entirely back that up. Wilson won by a margin of very nearly 5 to 1 in the electoral college, and carried the popular vote by more than 2 to 1 over both his rivals. The standing Democratic majority in the House was increased by 21 seats, and the Senate saw the first Democratic majority (51/96) in nearly 20 years.
If one takes the time to read the platforms of each of the three parties involved in the 1912 election, one sees a surprising association with today's political platforms.
Here are those platforms:
The 1912 Progressive Party
The 1912 Democratic Party
The 1912 Republican Party
The most glaring difference between the GOP of '12 and the modern incarnation is in "protectionist economics". Since 1868, the GOP had maintained a stated goal of protecting American production (industrial and agricultural) by means of tariffs, and the 1912 convention re-asserted that goal. In point of fact, protectionism was a mainstream fact of GOP policy right up until the Reagan Administrations, and then came back in vogue with the elections of George H. W. Bush and G. W. Bush (whose 2002 import steel tariff still stands as a model of repressive protectionist economic policy).
Other planks that stand out today as "counter-conservative" are the Party's support of large national (meaning Federal) works projects aimed at building interstate commerce and business opportunities through the developed control of the Mississippi River Flood Control projects. Removing that responsibility from the States and placing it in the hands of the (even then) overly-large and tangled Federal system sounds an awful lot like what we hear today in regards to health care. The GOP (and Progressive) plans thoroughly regulate such interstate commerce fields as the railroads, inter-coastal waterways, and "post road" systems (we didn't have interstate highways then) also smacks of rather "liberal" planning.
The DNC platform focused a lot on the "general welfare" of the working class and poor in America (as it does now), and some of the phrases raises even my eyebrows as sounding remarkably "socialist" in nature... but the main planks of the DNC were a re-affirmation of States rights over the Federal authority (as is the modern 10the Amendment movement), lower taxes for the majority of wage earners (granted, they favored the graduated income tax as the primary means of government funding... but it was the GOP-majority that passed the legislation enacting the Federal Income Tax in 1908), the removal of tariffs and limits on free trade, and the popular election of Senators over the House elections. They looked to increase the amount of natural resource development in places like Alaska, Arizona and New Mexico (the latter two the latest additions to the star field on "Old Glory") over the "protection and preservation" of such lands and resources by the GOP and Progressives... meaning the "tree hugger" crowd were originally Republicans, not Dems.
I am the last person here to say that the Democratic Party hasn't seen a shift in focus over the last 10, 25, or even 100 years... they have, and dramatically so. But I refuse to listen to anyone that says that the GOP hasn't seen the same changes in attitude over the same periods of time. To argue to the contrary is pure revisionism, in my opinion.
Since losing my job at the casino, I haven't had the opportunity to listen to the battery of talk radio programs that I used to hear on a daily basis, but I did hear a blurb about how "conservatism" today is the same as it was in 1980, 1900, and even 1776. The insinuation is that the GOP maintains the core principles of conservative politics now just as it has since the inception of the nation. I do not feel this is true at all.
Now, before I go any further, I'm NOT suggesting the same isn't true of the DNC. No greater degree of ideological change can be shown than that of the DNC over the last 100+ years... but those changes are ones we have discussed at length here at the Bund, and I want to focus for a minute on the GOP's changes over the same period.
In 1912, the GOP split its allegiances between Taft (the RNC candidate) and the "Bull Moose" Progressive Teddy Roosevelt. Most people attribute the scope of the Democratic candidate's (Wilson) overwhelming victory to the split in the GOP vote... but I'd say the numbers and results from the national election results don't entirely back that up. Wilson won by a margin of very nearly 5 to 1 in the electoral college, and carried the popular vote by more than 2 to 1 over both his rivals. The standing Democratic majority in the House was increased by 21 seats, and the Senate saw the first Democratic majority (51/96) in nearly 20 years.
If one takes the time to read the platforms of each of the three parties involved in the 1912 election, one sees a surprising association with today's political platforms.
Here are those platforms:
The 1912 Progressive Party
The 1912 Democratic Party
The 1912 Republican Party
The most glaring difference between the GOP of '12 and the modern incarnation is in "protectionist economics". Since 1868, the GOP had maintained a stated goal of protecting American production (industrial and agricultural) by means of tariffs, and the 1912 convention re-asserted that goal. In point of fact, protectionism was a mainstream fact of GOP policy right up until the Reagan Administrations, and then came back in vogue with the elections of George H. W. Bush and G. W. Bush (whose 2002 import steel tariff still stands as a model of repressive protectionist economic policy).
Other planks that stand out today as "counter-conservative" are the Party's support of large national (meaning Federal) works projects aimed at building interstate commerce and business opportunities through the developed control of the Mississippi River Flood Control projects. Removing that responsibility from the States and placing it in the hands of the (even then) overly-large and tangled Federal system sounds an awful lot like what we hear today in regards to health care. The GOP (and Progressive) plans thoroughly regulate such interstate commerce fields as the railroads, inter-coastal waterways, and "post road" systems (we didn't have interstate highways then) also smacks of rather "liberal" planning.
The DNC platform focused a lot on the "general welfare" of the working class and poor in America (as it does now), and some of the phrases raises even my eyebrows as sounding remarkably "socialist" in nature... but the main planks of the DNC were a re-affirmation of States rights over the Federal authority (as is the modern 10the Amendment movement), lower taxes for the majority of wage earners (granted, they favored the graduated income tax as the primary means of government funding... but it was the GOP-majority that passed the legislation enacting the Federal Income Tax in 1908), the removal of tariffs and limits on free trade, and the popular election of Senators over the House elections. They looked to increase the amount of natural resource development in places like Alaska, Arizona and New Mexico (the latter two the latest additions to the star field on "Old Glory") over the "protection and preservation" of such lands and resources by the GOP and Progressives... meaning the "tree hugger" crowd were originally Republicans, not Dems.
I am the last person here to say that the Democratic Party hasn't seen a shift in focus over the last 10, 25, or even 100 years... they have, and dramatically so. But I refuse to listen to anyone that says that the GOP hasn't seen the same changes in attitude over the same periods of time. To argue to the contrary is pure revisionism, in my opinion.
Monday, November 2, 2009
Cooperation and ultimatums
I find it ironic that I wake up this morning and read that North Korea is giving the US ultimatums and Britain and Russia are promising renewed cooperation and demanding that Iran concede on their JOINT demands... something Russia refused to do with the US.
An auspicious beginning to the promised diplomacy and statesmanship of the Obama Administration that we all heard so much about...
An auspicious beginning to the promised diplomacy and statesmanship of the Obama Administration that we all heard so much about...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
