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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
