Chopping Off Heads

Has the fact that ISIS is chopping the heads off of Christian children turned you into a terrorist?  Does it make you want to do the same thing to their children?

The answer is no, for sure, because people in the civilized world do not chop the heads off of children for any reason--religious or otherwise.  No matter how ugly it gets over there, chopping off heads simply will never be in our repertoire here.

Yet the argument constantly is made that we should not get involved in that part of the world because doing so only “breeds more terrorism”.   If their savagery in Iraq doesn’t breed savagery here, why is it that our involvement there is supposed to breed terrorism?  

The argument that American involvement “breeds more terrorism” is asininity pure and simple.  Nothing that the West did, nothing that the civilized world did, nothing that Bush did or that Obama did, makes these thugs chop the heads off children.  Atrocities are caused by the people who commit them.

The vast, vast majority of people around the world just want to live in peace, raise their kids, and generally be left alone.  This is true for Muslims and Christians; for Africans, Indonesians, and Iowans; true in the First World, true in the Third World.

The fact is that these ISIS folks are something other than civilized.  We didn’t make them that way and we can’t change them.  The only hope, short of killing them, is to scare them into inaction.  At some point they will have to be dealt with.  The savagery will spread until it meets resistance.

Just stop it with the “American involvement breeds more terrorism” argument.  Outside involvement certainly didn’t breed this horror.  And neither did we.

I Guess She Was Right

This gal proclaimed on election day that Obama was going to pay for her gas and cover her mortgage payments. I've said from the beginning that the Powers-That-Be believe that housing is a human right and that before it's all over the Govt.--probably through Fannie and Freddie--will end up letting those who default stay in their homes. Free housing, owned by the Govt. (Who's going to pay to fix the roof or buy a new water heater when you're squatting in a Fannie-owned house?)

The banks are all halting foreclosure proceedings due to legal technicalities but I wonder if there's not some other reason. After all, if you're not making your mortgage payments, eventually someone will be knocking on the door no matter what's in the fine print.

I guess those continuing to make their mortgage payments--especially those who are under water--are just suckers.

They Just Want the Bacon

In honor of International Bacon Day, which is today. A couple years old but still relevant.

45 days in jail? They oughta put the pony-tailed do-gooder in the clink for 45 days for abuse of power.

Putin Speaks Out

In the greatest bit of political hypocrisy since Barry "I-inherited-this-Great-Recession-from-Bush" O'Bama told graduates they should "take responsibility . . .for [their] . . . failures", Vlad Putin treats the world to this little humdinger re. the Gaza blockade incident:

"The loss of peaceful civilians has caused a new exacerbation of the situation [in the Middle East]. . . . We are deeply worried by such a crude violation of the universally recognized norms of international law."

How 'bout this, Vlad? --We'll investigate the Israelis concurrently with an investigation of the Russian invasion of Georgia and annexation of South Ossetia. How many peacful civilians were killed in that little excursion?

Picture found here.

No More Greased Pole

The powers that be at the Naval Academy wouldn't let the upper class people grease the obelisk this year. They were afraid the poor wuddle boys-n-girls might get hurt. Awww, isn't that sweet. Read a great comment here and an article in the Post.

Still Paying

No wonder beer costs so much here: I'm still paying for the Johnstown Flood of 1936.

Johnstown Flood Emergency Tax
One such temporary tax that ended up becoming permanent was the 1936 Johnstown flood tax. Although this tax was set to expire in 1937, it was extended various times until the tax became permanent in 1951. Currently, the tax rate is set at 18%.

The Johnstown flood tax was a 10% temporary emergency tax imposed on alcohol sold throughout Pennsylvania. The tax was meant to cover the costs of cleanup and repairs needed after the 1936 flood in Johnstown, PA that year. Although the tax was meant to expire after all the costs were covered, it was instead raised in 1963 to 15% and in 1968 to 18%. Since the money collected covered the costs of the flood many years ago, now the money goes to the states' general fund for discretionary spending. . . .

Residents of Pennsylvania have long opposed this tax because of its high rate. The tax is 18% in addition to a sales tax of 6%, bringing the cost of alcoholic drinks up significantly. There are people on both sides of the flood tax debate. Advocacy groups who want to limit alcohol consumption are in favor of the high tax rates, but unions who want to protect liquor resellers who oppose it.

Read more about "temporary" taxes here.

My New Hero

Can you imagine an 11 million dollar deficit within a 26 million dollar budget? Unbelievable, but that's what New Jersey is looking at for fiscal 2011.

Governor Christie did an interview on CNBC this morning and said flat out that he would not raise taxes, he would only cut spending. The highest taxes in the country are the the reason people and capital are fleeing the state and it's time to turn that around. It's about time that a grownup stepped on stage.

Another astonishing tidbit--according to the governor, the great state of NJ has not made its contributions to the state employees' pension fund for ten years. And these poor folks think they're ever going to see their pensions? Good luck with that. How many other state and teacher pension funds are in such deep trouble?

The video is a little long but worth a look. Funniest part is the amazed look on the interviewers' faces when Christie refuses to consider raising taxes.

What Race Is Your Sex?

Dad sent me this one. "What Race is Your Sex" is a scholarly publication by Laurel Schneider, PhD. in a book called Disrupting White Supremacy from Within.

One has to laugh at the Mike Adams response. Tho, laughter might not be the most appropriate response. Somehow I don't think Mr. Adams is really going to attend Meadville-Lombard and become a UU minister . . . but if you read to the end of his piece, he may have hit on the head the reason that Unitarian-Universalism hasn't grown in the 50 years since the U's and the U's merged: it's their emphasis on "social justice". Much of this emphasis comes across to so many of us non-Ivy Leaguers as threatening, as condescending, and as just plain weird.

Of course, it's not meant that way. Fighters for justice are, after all, fighting for justice. They're true believers, and what could be wrong with that? The problem is that many of us take their fight for justice as an implication that we are ipso facto unjust. Lots of us probably don't think we're living unjustly. Of course we're all sinners to some degree, no one's perfect. Many of us take their struggle for justice as an attack against us and the institutions that we really don't have that much of a problem with--marriage, the military, capitalism, the United States.

It's wonderful that this great country is free enough and rich enough to be able to afford to let folks like Professor Schneider make a living writing and teaching this stuff. It's great that there's a market for this. Markets are good, they satisfy needs and create value. Jobs are being created/saved here.

I certainly wouldn't pay for any of this, tho, and I wish our taxpayer dollars were not supporting it, either.

Most importantly, I certainly would be unhappy if, when lying on my death bed, I asked my minister a critical question, she/he responded that my question made him/her feel uncomfortable, and would I mind if she/he replaced my question with a question that he/she thinks is more appropriate for death bed discussion. After all, Professor Schneider let her/him write his/her own test questions in Queer Theory class back in seminary. Shouldn't we be talking about what she/he thinks we should be talking about when I expire---instead of what might be on my mind?

Here's One Place You Can Cut, Arnold

Walking by the Boobtube and caught this image of this stray dog being rescued by a helicopter team in Los Angeles. That's California for ya!

How much do you figure that dog's worth now? You have an hour or so of time for the helicopter. Expense wages for the pilot, the co-pilot, the guy who's dropped into the raging river, the guy in the back of the helo supervising the hoist. Worker's comp to pay for the cut on the guy's hand when Fido bit him. Not in the picture--upon rescue Fido was greeted by what looked like a fire engine and at least two police cruisers whose crews, I suppose, were all being paid union wages. Why wasn't the mayor there for the photo op?

But look at the good side: finally, it's Lassie who gets to be rescued. Everyone involved gets to be on TV. People get to FEEL GOOD. Someone gets to adopt Spike. Fox News gets feel-good filler on a slow news day.

The only problem is that CALIFORNIA IS BANKRUPT. Hey Aaaarnold, if you want to balance the budget, you might start with an executive order that we don't send helicopters to rescue stray dogs. Instead, let's spend the fifty grand on libraries or schools or debt reduction. And he wants the rest of us to bail Cauli-fornia out?

That's the problem with government. No one is held accountable. And now they want to run our health care.

Military Tribunal Footage Released

Here's some rare, recently declassified footage of a Gitmo military tribunal hearing.



At least a dozen Gitmo prisoners who were released have reappeared, as free as so many jailbirds, in Yemen. One hundred percent of terrorists "convicted" for bombing the USS Cole have either been been released or have busted out of Yemeni prisons.

"Okay then."

Say What?

Barry O'B needs to take a step back and listen to himself.

Freeze or Get Down?

"Well, which is it, young feller? You want I should freeze or get down on the ground?" A great line from Raising Arizona. The confused bank customer asks this of an inept bank robber who has ordered everyone both to freeze and to get down on the ground.

The same scene will be replayed today at the White House when Barry O'B reportedly will sit down with a couple of too-big-to-fail bank CEOs. On the one hand, they've been told they screwed things up. They were greedy and preditory for making the loans that created the real estate bubble and the resulting meltdown of the financial system. They took too many risks and had to be bailed out at tax payer expense.

Now that they have become more cautious (the only thing in banking worse than not making a loan is making a bad loan), they're being told they're greedy for hoarding cash. They're not loaning money to small businesses to create jobs. This, of course, leads to higher unemployment which leads to such inconvenient outcomes as tea party protests and plummeting presidential popularity polls.

Well, which is it going to be, young feller? You want we should make good, safe loans that have a chance of being repaid or you want we should make risky small business loans that may in the short run create jobs and take the pressure off of you, Mr. President, but will surely add to the risk?

Loaning money to small business loans is tremendously risky. That's why Congress created the Small Business Administration--to make the loans that were too risky for bankers to make. You see, bankers have to make a profit or they go out of business. The SBA has never been profitable because even with government regulation, too many small businesses fail and default on their loans. Without the government backstop, many of those loans would never be made because they're too risky. (Kind of like the subprime loans that never would have been made had not the banks been pressured to do so by government regulators.)

In the end, tho, it just doesn't matter, Mr. Banker CEOs. You're too big to fail. Just make the loans, take the risk. The Government will just bail you out: it's Fannie and Freddie all over again.

"disingenuity"

I made that word up. It's being disingenuous with ingenuity. The White House and our Congress are superstars of disingenuity. Two examples.

"The President will not sign a health care bill that is not budget neutral."

Ingenious. Fool people into thinking that insuring 20 to 30 million people will be "budget neutral" so the bill can be rammed through Congress. We'll all feel better bc. so many more people will be covered and it won't cost a thing.

Disingenuous. Take a government class,voters. The President doesn't get to make that decision! Congress does. What has Congress's record been on limiting the cost of entitlement programs? The bill that's out there now requires 500 billion dollars in Medicare cuts in order to achieve budget neutrality. When was the last time Congress cut Medicare? Let's try maybe, never. Do you trust Congress, Pelosi, & Co. to make those cuts in order to keep the President's budget neutrality promise? It will never happen. Barry O'B can sign all the "budget neutral" bills he wants but the resulting behemoth itself will never be budget neutral.

Second example: "I promise, those who want to keep their health insurance will get to keep it."

Ingenious. Fool people into thinking that they can keep their health insurance no matter what the government does. We'll all feel better bc. so many more people will be covered and our insurance won't change.

Disingenuous. The President and Congress don't get to decide what insurance most people get. For most working American families, the employer provides the health insurance options. For most people, the individual doesn't "decide" and certainly the government doesn't decide. (And you know why? Bc. during World War II the government stuck its nose into the private sector by setting controls on salaries. Companies then began providing pension and health care benefits bc. it was illegal to raise salaries.) The point is, despite what Barry O'B and his Congressional cohorts say, no one in the government can guarantee that you will get to keep your insurance because it's your employer who decides what kind of insurance you get. His promise is hollow, conniving, rhetoric.

The question that needs to be asked is, when faced with a government option that is cheaper (and, therefore, will provide a lower quality of care), do you trust your employer to continue offering you what you have now? Or, do you think your employer--in this climate, in this competitive world economy--will say, "tough tootie, take the government option." Either way, it's your employer--that "evil corporation"--and its shareholders who will decide whether you get to keep what you have. Not Barry O'B. What will be better for the shareholders' bottom line--continuing Cadillac plans or shuffling employees off to the government option?

The mystery remains. . . does Barry O'B really believe what he's saying? Someone that bright has got to know that he's making promises he can't keep. In which case he's both disingenuous and politically ingenious.

Or maybe he's just not that bright.

get out

It’s time to get out of Afghanistan.

Back in my UU days I wrote a piece on the reasons for going into Iraq for round two. Try as I might, I can’t find that bit in my computer files, but from what I remember there were six or eight reasons for invading Iraq. This is what I can remember:

1. Saddam was a tyrant and a threat to Middle East stability. No one on any moral level could possibly defend the system he had created.

2. The American public was behind it.

3. The terrain in Iran was flat—good for us. We would be able to fight on our terms. We were going to win, militarily, without a doubt.

4. Arabs historically have been pathetic warriors. They quit rather that fight.

5. Iraqis were a relatively well-educated population with a history that had included visions of democratic rule.

6. Iraq had oil. Yes, stability in the oil markets was worth fighting for.

7. Fight them over there and we wouldn’t have to fight them here. Or, at least, it would be less likely that we would fight them here.

I can’t remember if those were exactly the same things I listed in those days before Facebook but it’s pretty close. At any rate, let’s apply this list to Afghanistan today.

1. The government in Afghanistan is not a tyranny. Surely it’s corrupt when measured by Western standards, but the Taliban has been overthrown.
2. The American public has turned against involvement in Afghanistan. O’Reilly says 60% are against it but I’m too lazy to fact check that.
3. The terrain in Afghanistan is anything but flat. We can’t roll in the tanks. The mountainous topography favors those who walk it, who grew up in it--not those (Americans) who are interlopers.
4. Afghanis are historically tenacious fighters. Ask the British, ask the Soviets. Does no one read a history book? These guys have been at war for decades if not centuries. It’s what they know. They will never quit.
5. There is little history in Afghanistan of any sort of respect for, desire for, or vision of democratic institutions. It’s a tribal society that rejects central authority. Good citizens put tribal interests above the rule of law. They’re not buying what we’re trying to sell them.
6. They don’t have oil. They have opium and pistachios. We need neither. Grandma will not freeze in the winter when the opium and pistachio supplies are cut off. Afghanistan is missing the key ingredient of democratic governance—a stable, prosperous, educated middle class. And they won't have that ingredient in this lifetime.
   
7. They are not a threat to us. Sure, when we leave, the Taliban will take back over and Al Qaeda will re-establish training camps. That’s what cruise missiles are for. (Do we still have neutron bombs?) And, sure, it will be seen internationally as a defeat for America. That’s why we have aircraft carriers and B-2 bombers. If things get too bad, we can turn Venezuela into a modern-day Granada to re-establish our standing as a superpower.

My Pa spent a Christmas or two of my childhood away from home on a submarine dropping frogmen off on the shores of North Vietnam when he could have been home with his wife and kids. To this day I judge the sacrifice he and his family made with one simple question: for what? It’s clearer to me why it was that Pa missed Christmases in my youth than it is clear to me why we are sending soldiers to die in the mountains of Afghanistan. For what, I ask.

What makes this worse? The Obama government is quite simply incapable of dealing with Afghanistan. They lack the will to succeed. On the stump, O’B called this the just war so that he could be elected. But he was elected by folks who don’t want war. He can’t back down without the demagogues on the right crushing him and he can’t crack down without alienating his base. In the meantime, our soldiers are dying every day as they, their families, and Americans everywhere ask, for what?

We can’t fight this war half-way and expect to succeed. I don't think we even have a vision of success. A request for more troops is not the same as the request by some Ivy League professor for tenure. A tenure request requires months of meetings and “input”. Deliberation. Contemplation. White House politicos sit around holding meetings and deliberating and studying whether or not they think the Karzai government deserves our support—as if war strategy were some sort of trifling academic exercise. All this as American kids are dying. That reality ought not be taken so lightly. What a waste. And for what?

The will is not there to do what it takes to win.

So get out.