55-14 over West Virginia in West Virginia
What about them Kitties? Are they romping and stomping or what.
Sunday, October 21, 2012
Friday, October 19, 2012
When did we all become so cynical?
I have an online acquaintance who asked me if I believe President Barack Obama when he says something.
I told him I did unless there was something in the facts on the ground that led me to think that I was going to have be willing to suspend my disbelief … or in other words, until the facts on the ground seemed to contradict the words coming from the mouth.
This came up in an online conversation where he contended that GOP candidate Mitt Romney was lying about how he got the infamous binders alluded to the second debate with President Obama. Apparently, the bulk of the “binders” came from an advocacy group called MassGAP that had prepared possible lists of appointment candidates for both candidates for Massachusetts governor in 2002. The non-partisan or bi-partisan group says it was the group that supplied Gov.-elect Romney with the binders.
The disagreement here, apparently, is over whether the group marched down, dropped the binders on Romney’s desk and said, “Take your pick.” Meaning that Romney made no effort to include women in the cabinet and was forced to do it by MassGAP and therefore he is lying about what happened. (My friend’s version)
Or did Romney look at the list of candidates given to him by his staff and say “is this the best you can do?” Then tell his staff to try again, and this time for political cover, include more women. Then the staff took advantage of the offer from MassGAP and accepted the binders they offered. (My view)
Now, I must point out that before this point, he basically accused me of blithely posting my view as just so much misinformation.
Here is the video clip: CBS News – Romney: I had binders full of women
You watch it and you decide which better fits the available facts.
My point being is that what we often see is colored by the prisms of our preconceptions and what we want to believe. This is natural and to be expected.
Now, I must admit: I have lots of problems with President Obama and his policies. I think his vision of the way the world is and the way America should be are wrong. However, having said that, I do not accuse him of lying or misleading people without some evidence to give me reason. I may disagree with what he says, but I am not going to say he is a liar.
Most of the time, as I see it, he or his staff are “spinning” the facts to have us accept a certain interpretation of the facts. Some of the times, one has to do a certain amount of suspension of disbelief to accept the party line, and other times it is much easier to swallow. The same holds true for the Republican candidates. They always are spinning the facts to fit the narrative that they want voters and constituents to believe.
As usual, the truth is somewhere in between.
For example, do I believe that the tax cut plans as reportedly put out by the Romney Campaign are all they are cracked up to be – pro or con? Not on your life. I sometimes think that Romney takes a more realistic view of what he might accomplish. (There being an old saying about Washington: The President proposes; Congress disposes) Basically, what I have heard him say at the first two debates is that “yes, I would like to cut certain tax deductions, close some loopholes and lower tax rates across the board, but until I can negotiate the particulars with Congress, I really don’t know how that will work out.” That sounds to me like an honest assessment of the situation.
On the other hand, what I hear President Obama saying is that we will raise the tax rates on the “wealthy” (leaving open exactly what being “wealthy” means) and that is going to solve our deficit as well as pay for all the new things coming under Obamacare. That absolutely is impossible. There ain’t enough money in the “wealthy’s” piggy banks to pull that off. Besides, that smacks of killing the golden goose before she lays her eggs.
Now, the question is: Is Obama lying or is Romney lying.
I don’t know. But as an article of faith, I am going to say that I think for the most part both men are honest and decent people. They are neither vicious, nor cruel nor evil. Their world views are just different. They see the world through different prisms and therefore see what needs to be done in different lights.
There is a good question: Are things better today than they were four years ago? Do you think the policies of the last four years, extended and broadened over the next four years are going to improve the situation or not? Do you think what plans Romney and Ryan have articulated, if implemented and however sketchy they are, will make a difference? Will that difference be better or worse?
Honestly, my jury is STILL out, but I know it is leaning heavily more in one direction that another.
And, just for the record, I didn’t vote for Ronald Reagan or Jimmy Carter in 1980. I voted for John Anderson and that is saying more about who I have voted for in 40 years because I really do believe in the sanctity of the secret ballot.
As for the binders’ discussion: It is a tempest in a teapot, as Pappy used to say.
I told him I did unless there was something in the facts on the ground that led me to think that I was going to have be willing to suspend my disbelief … or in other words, until the facts on the ground seemed to contradict the words coming from the mouth.
This came up in an online conversation where he contended that GOP candidate Mitt Romney was lying about how he got the infamous binders alluded to the second debate with President Obama. Apparently, the bulk of the “binders” came from an advocacy group called MassGAP that had prepared possible lists of appointment candidates for both candidates for Massachusetts governor in 2002. The non-partisan or bi-partisan group says it was the group that supplied Gov.-elect Romney with the binders.
The disagreement here, apparently, is over whether the group marched down, dropped the binders on Romney’s desk and said, “Take your pick.” Meaning that Romney made no effort to include women in the cabinet and was forced to do it by MassGAP and therefore he is lying about what happened. (My friend’s version)
Or did Romney look at the list of candidates given to him by his staff and say “is this the best you can do?” Then tell his staff to try again, and this time for political cover, include more women. Then the staff took advantage of the offer from MassGAP and accepted the binders they offered. (My view)
Now, I must point out that before this point, he basically accused me of blithely posting my view as just so much misinformation.
Here is the video clip: CBS News – Romney: I had binders full of women
You watch it and you decide which better fits the available facts.
My point being is that what we often see is colored by the prisms of our preconceptions and what we want to believe. This is natural and to be expected.
Now, I must admit: I have lots of problems with President Obama and his policies. I think his vision of the way the world is and the way America should be are wrong. However, having said that, I do not accuse him of lying or misleading people without some evidence to give me reason. I may disagree with what he says, but I am not going to say he is a liar.
Most of the time, as I see it, he or his staff are “spinning” the facts to have us accept a certain interpretation of the facts. Some of the times, one has to do a certain amount of suspension of disbelief to accept the party line, and other times it is much easier to swallow. The same holds true for the Republican candidates. They always are spinning the facts to fit the narrative that they want voters and constituents to believe.
As usual, the truth is somewhere in between.
For example, do I believe that the tax cut plans as reportedly put out by the Romney Campaign are all they are cracked up to be – pro or con? Not on your life. I sometimes think that Romney takes a more realistic view of what he might accomplish. (There being an old saying about Washington: The President proposes; Congress disposes) Basically, what I have heard him say at the first two debates is that “yes, I would like to cut certain tax deductions, close some loopholes and lower tax rates across the board, but until I can negotiate the particulars with Congress, I really don’t know how that will work out.” That sounds to me like an honest assessment of the situation.
On the other hand, what I hear President Obama saying is that we will raise the tax rates on the “wealthy” (leaving open exactly what being “wealthy” means) and that is going to solve our deficit as well as pay for all the new things coming under Obamacare. That absolutely is impossible. There ain’t enough money in the “wealthy’s” piggy banks to pull that off. Besides, that smacks of killing the golden goose before she lays her eggs.
Now, the question is: Is Obama lying or is Romney lying.
I don’t know. But as an article of faith, I am going to say that I think for the most part both men are honest and decent people. They are neither vicious, nor cruel nor evil. Their world views are just different. They see the world through different prisms and therefore see what needs to be done in different lights.
There is a good question: Are things better today than they were four years ago? Do you think the policies of the last four years, extended and broadened over the next four years are going to improve the situation or not? Do you think what plans Romney and Ryan have articulated, if implemented and however sketchy they are, will make a difference? Will that difference be better or worse?
Honestly, my jury is STILL out, but I know it is leaning heavily more in one direction that another.
And, just for the record, I didn’t vote for Ronald Reagan or Jimmy Carter in 1980. I voted for John Anderson and that is saying more about who I have voted for in 40 years because I really do believe in the sanctity of the secret ballot.
As for the binders’ discussion: It is a tempest in a teapot, as Pappy used to say.
Hot in Texas
You know something is hot in Texas besides the Tex-Mex cooking when you see news stories like this: Fire destroys Texas State Fair’s Big Tex icon.
I remember him. Right there in the middle of the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex (you never know when one stops and the other begins)
It was a huge affair overlooking the State Fairgrounds.
Good news, he will be back next year in fine form again.
Thursday, October 18, 2012
Mountain out of a molehill
As Pappy would have said: Tis a mountain out of molehill.
Jeemney Christmas. What is with all the uproar about presidential candidate Mitt Romney saying he got “binders” filled with women’s resumes when he went looking for women to fill out his cabinet when he was governor of Massachusetts?
Hey, give the guy some credit. He did do the sexist thing and tried to do affirmative action for women. What was he supposed to say: I got a pile of resumes or a stack of applications? This has got to be the most senseless news story in … well at least a couple of weeks.
I will say one thing for the businessman-turned-politician at least he had his staff trained halfway decently. The boss asks for information and a good staff will organize it for him, so he doesn’t waste time. It seems to me that his staff did just that: Organized the resumes for his review. And for this he is getting blasted and blistered?
Methinks some people have their head in the wrong place.
No, it seems that some of our progressive and liberal friends are trying to make an issue out of something that isn’t an issue, or at least shouldn’t be in my estimation. I wish someone would explain to me ( as Pappy used to say) in words of one syllable or less so I could understand exactly what the problem is because I don’t see the problem. Ok, I am a male in my sixties, but I don’t see what the problem is hiring women to fill positions if they are qualified, pay them the same rate as any guy you would hire for the position (note: you are paying for the job being done, not for the person to fill it).
Still, we are three days after the debate, and we still are flapping our jaws about a non-issue.
To me the unanswered question was who pulled the security teams from Libya in August? Who denied the U.S. ambassador to Libya’s request for addition security and why? Why was the White House apparently clueless when the flunkies in the State Department knew pretty much what was going on? Was it really the Secretary of State’s fault that the real-time reports of the eight-hour gun-battle (including mortar fire, rocket-propelled grenades and machine guns) by an estimated-platoon-sized contingent of terrorist drove the Americans and their staff and guards into bunkers was not transmitted to at least the National Security Advisor, if not the Secretary of Defense, as well as the President?
Sorry, that seems to bear more on the job of being president then whether or not he reviews candidates for cabinet or staff positions by having their resumes presented to him in binders.
I am a retired journalist, actually a retired newspaper editor, and the current state of journalism absolutely revolts me when it comes to campaign coverage. Of course, I come from a different era, when you didn’t have to deal with the passions of the social media.
For example, I pointed out to one of the people whom I have considerable respect as a thoughtful person that a picture that she had posted on her Facebook page was factually incorrect … and she told me I basically was being an idiot because it didn’t matter. Everybody did it. Well, I guess, I have to apologize to her, but damn, I thought accuracy and the truth was more important than just tearing down people, places, organizations and things you disagree with.
At least when I differ with someone, I do try to at least explain why I think my observations are valid. But just to say: Well, that is how it is done of Facebook and everybody does it, appalls me. I guess personal integrity is passé and personal credibility is something no one cares about.
No wonder America is going to hades in the handbasket.
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
Small showing of leadership
I have to give President Barack Obama his due: Finally, at the second presidential debate, he said the words that he was responsible for the events leading up to the terrorist attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound at Benghazi, Libya, in September.
Of course, he did dodge the question as to who was responsible for declining the requests for additional security forces or why there was the charade about it being a protest against a stupid YouTube video that turned into senseless violence. The latter took a lot longer for the administration to admit, and had various members of his cabinet trying to fall on their swords to absolve him of said responsibility.
The interesting thing to me is that the president’s whole artificial construct about who knew what, where and when came crashing down in the testimony of Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Charlene Lamb before the House Oversight Committee in Washington on Oct. 10 (almost exactly a month after the events in Libya).
Assuming Ms. Lamb was giving honest testimony before the committee, then some people in the administration either are flat out lying or they really failed their jobs to keep the president in the loop.
The Smoking Gun
My jaw dropped when I read the first paragraph on page five of her prepared opening statement. How could she be saying that when the president, the vice president, the secretary of state, the U.N. ambassador, all had been saying they didn’t know what was happening at the time.
Ms. Lamb said:
“When the attack began, a Diplomatic Security agent working in the Tactical Operations Center (at the diplomatic facility) immediately activated the Imminent Danger Notification System and made an emergency announcement over the PA. Based on our security protocols, he also alerted the annex U.S. quick reaction security team stationed nearby, the Libyan 17th February Brigade, Embassy Tripoli, and the Diplomatic Security Command Center in Washington. From that point on, I could follow what was happening in almost real-time.”
Ok, alarms are going off all over the place and no one bothers to tell the president that the facility where an ambassador is under attack and there is an ensuing eight-hour running gun battle, complete with mortars, rocket-propelled grenades and other heavy weapons.
Somehow, this seems to defy understanding. And yet, the president, his press secretary, the vice president, the secretary of state and the U.N. ambassador who is sent out to represent the face of the administration on the talking heads circuit on television, all disavow any knowledge of this being an “attack”. Even Candy Crowley, the moderator at the presidential debate had to walk back her defense of the president when Gov. Mitt Romney posed the question why it took the president so long to use the words “terrorist attack.”
It really draws into question the competence, not just of the president (who really is a captive to his advisors) but of the whole national security establishment. I mean, basically, it was like a re-run of the 1979 assault on the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, Iran.
I know a whole lot of people have no memory of that debacle, and the ensuing 444-day standoff that basically ruined Jimmy Carter’s presidency.
It left me with a bitter taste in my mouth, and I felt it again, when I read the deputy’s testimony.
Of course, he did dodge the question as to who was responsible for declining the requests for additional security forces or why there was the charade about it being a protest against a stupid YouTube video that turned into senseless violence. The latter took a lot longer for the administration to admit, and had various members of his cabinet trying to fall on their swords to absolve him of said responsibility.
The interesting thing to me is that the president’s whole artificial construct about who knew what, where and when came crashing down in the testimony of Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Charlene Lamb before the House Oversight Committee in Washington on Oct. 10 (almost exactly a month after the events in Libya).
Assuming Ms. Lamb was giving honest testimony before the committee, then some people in the administration either are flat out lying or they really failed their jobs to keep the president in the loop.
The Smoking Gun
My jaw dropped when I read the first paragraph on page five of her prepared opening statement. How could she be saying that when the president, the vice president, the secretary of state, the U.N. ambassador, all had been saying they didn’t know what was happening at the time.
Ms. Lamb said:
“When the attack began, a Diplomatic Security agent working in the Tactical Operations Center (at the diplomatic facility) immediately activated the Imminent Danger Notification System and made an emergency announcement over the PA. Based on our security protocols, he also alerted the annex U.S. quick reaction security team stationed nearby, the Libyan 17th February Brigade, Embassy Tripoli, and the Diplomatic Security Command Center in Washington. From that point on, I could follow what was happening in almost real-time.”
Ok, alarms are going off all over the place and no one bothers to tell the president that the facility where an ambassador is under attack and there is an ensuing eight-hour running gun battle, complete with mortars, rocket-propelled grenades and other heavy weapons.
Somehow, this seems to defy understanding. And yet, the president, his press secretary, the vice president, the secretary of state and the U.N. ambassador who is sent out to represent the face of the administration on the talking heads circuit on television, all disavow any knowledge of this being an “attack”. Even Candy Crowley, the moderator at the presidential debate had to walk back her defense of the president when Gov. Mitt Romney posed the question why it took the president so long to use the words “terrorist attack.”
It really draws into question the competence, not just of the president (who really is a captive to his advisors) but of the whole national security establishment. I mean, basically, it was like a re-run of the 1979 assault on the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, Iran.
I know a whole lot of people have no memory of that debacle, and the ensuing 444-day standoff that basically ruined Jimmy Carter’s presidency.
It left me with a bitter taste in my mouth, and I felt it again, when I read the deputy’s testimony.
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
Progressive hypocrisy is almost funny
I finding interesting, if not exceedingly hypocritical, when I read various critiques by liberal, progressives who make no pretense of their disdain for people of faith that fault those people for failing to adhere to the progressive’s image of what their faith should be.
Most liberals and progressives will admit that they basically are secular humanists who believe that religious faith is a mistake and belief in such dogma is leading individuals, if not societies, astray.
The thesis, as I understand it, is that there is good and there is bad, but only according to the definitions as provided by their secular viewpoint. To them, these values are absolutes, but everyone else’s is relative. I may be wrong in this analysis, but I don’t think I am far off.
So, it somewhat surprises me when they criticize followers a two-millennia-old Jewish rabbi, cum Christian messiah and prophet, by quoting their interpretation of that prophet’s doctrine as it has been handed down, interpreted, re-interpreted and re-re-interpreted over all those generations, which they don’t believe in, and expect to be taken seriously. That strikes me as being a stellar height of hubris.
And then, of course, if these people happen to hold what might be conflicting thoughts on what they think is right and proper, then the liberals and progressives call down all sorts of hell and damnation because these people might have a view that reconciles these differences and still cling to their faith.
It really is almost humorous, if it wasn’t so serious.
It is, almost by definition, an assault on individual liberty. You know, the kind that Americans have enshrined in the First Amendment to their Constitution.
I mean, if you don’t believe in the dogma as these progressives do, then you are condemned and chastised. You are, as it is said, “a bad person”. Some people might even go so far as to call you names like “lying bastards” who are out to subjugate women and the poor.
Now, that might be true, but I would be willing to bet that it is a false characterization. But then I remember, it is Election Time in America (Sorry, my Canadian relatives, but I had to borrow your line – It is Hockey Night in Canada) and this is what is to be expected from people on opposing sides of the political fence.
I hope everybody enjoys the next two presidential debates between President Obama and former Massachusetts Governor Romney. It will be so interesting to watch the vitriol spewing forth from each sides’ supporters … unless people shock me and actually talk civilly about the candidates.
An example of what I speak
Most liberals and progressives will admit that they basically are secular humanists who believe that religious faith is a mistake and belief in such dogma is leading individuals, if not societies, astray.
The thesis, as I understand it, is that there is good and there is bad, but only according to the definitions as provided by their secular viewpoint. To them, these values are absolutes, but everyone else’s is relative. I may be wrong in this analysis, but I don’t think I am far off.
So, it somewhat surprises me when they criticize followers a two-millennia-old Jewish rabbi, cum Christian messiah and prophet, by quoting their interpretation of that prophet’s doctrine as it has been handed down, interpreted, re-interpreted and re-re-interpreted over all those generations, which they don’t believe in, and expect to be taken seriously. That strikes me as being a stellar height of hubris.
And then, of course, if these people happen to hold what might be conflicting thoughts on what they think is right and proper, then the liberals and progressives call down all sorts of hell and damnation because these people might have a view that reconciles these differences and still cling to their faith.
It really is almost humorous, if it wasn’t so serious.
It is, almost by definition, an assault on individual liberty. You know, the kind that Americans have enshrined in the First Amendment to their Constitution.
I mean, if you don’t believe in the dogma as these progressives do, then you are condemned and chastised. You are, as it is said, “a bad person”. Some people might even go so far as to call you names like “lying bastards” who are out to subjugate women and the poor.
Now, that might be true, but I would be willing to bet that it is a false characterization. But then I remember, it is Election Time in America (Sorry, my Canadian relatives, but I had to borrow your line – It is Hockey Night in Canada) and this is what is to be expected from people on opposing sides of the political fence.
I hope everybody enjoys the next two presidential debates between President Obama and former Massachusetts Governor Romney. It will be so interesting to watch the vitriol spewing forth from each sides’ supporters … unless people shock me and actually talk civilly about the candidates.
An example of what I speak
Monday, October 15, 2012
Boy, the Democrats must be getting desperate
Hillary says it is all her fault in Benghazi
Clinton falls on her sword claiming responsibility for failures in Benghazi
I guess President Barack Obama’s campaign handlers are panicking. Somehow they talked Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to take the fall for the lack of security at the diplomatic facility (I won’t elevate it to the level of a real consulate) in Benghazi last month.
It took a month, but Clinton finally said, in this, the buck stops with me. Nice try, Ms. Rodham, but your credibility was shot back with Monica and the other girls.
Look, Clinton wants to run in 2116, so Bill and she can be co-presidents again. To do that, she has to smooth the waters with the wheels in smoke-filled rooms (ok, they aren’t smoke filled any more) out back so they will help her get the nomination. This is the price she pays: Get Barry re-elected. Deflect any and all criticism from him.
Fall on your sword, woman.
Well, I am sorry, Mrs. Clinton, but President Obama, and his invisible National Security Council advisor are responsible. If you didn’t coordinate your actions with them, then they screwed you over and let you take the fall. You should have coordinated those types of requests with the White House because, as you know very well, they have very large foreign policy implications. And while you are delegated the task of executing the foreign policy of the United States, if you go free-lancing it without discussing it with the boss, then you will find yourself in a very deep pile of horse manure.
You see, because that is the way things work. When you work for someone, you don’t free-lance the big stuff … and when it comes to terrorist attacks, it is all big stuff.
So, it would seem that logic would dictate the reason, the day before the second presidential debate of the season, that somebody, anybody, takes a sword for the embarrassing debacle that is Libya and the ambassador’s death. Vice President Biden tried to blame the intelligence people, and the DNI tried falling on his sword, but it seems that no one bought that. So, now it is Miss Hillary’s turn.
Please, Mister President, step up to the plate and do your mea culpa. It would make you look much more presidential and prop up your leadership image. To do anything else, merely mocks it. (And it makes Hillary look presidential and you look like a jerk)
Clinton falls on her sword claiming responsibility for failures in Benghazi
I guess President Barack Obama’s campaign handlers are panicking. Somehow they talked Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to take the fall for the lack of security at the diplomatic facility (I won’t elevate it to the level of a real consulate) in Benghazi last month.
It took a month, but Clinton finally said, in this, the buck stops with me. Nice try, Ms. Rodham, but your credibility was shot back with Monica and the other girls.
Look, Clinton wants to run in 2116, so Bill and she can be co-presidents again. To do that, she has to smooth the waters with the wheels in smoke-filled rooms (ok, they aren’t smoke filled any more) out back so they will help her get the nomination. This is the price she pays: Get Barry re-elected. Deflect any and all criticism from him.
Fall on your sword, woman.
Well, I am sorry, Mrs. Clinton, but President Obama, and his invisible National Security Council advisor are responsible. If you didn’t coordinate your actions with them, then they screwed you over and let you take the fall. You should have coordinated those types of requests with the White House because, as you know very well, they have very large foreign policy implications. And while you are delegated the task of executing the foreign policy of the United States, if you go free-lancing it without discussing it with the boss, then you will find yourself in a very deep pile of horse manure.
You see, because that is the way things work. When you work for someone, you don’t free-lance the big stuff … and when it comes to terrorist attacks, it is all big stuff.
So, it would seem that logic would dictate the reason, the day before the second presidential debate of the season, that somebody, anybody, takes a sword for the embarrassing debacle that is Libya and the ambassador’s death. Vice President Biden tried to blame the intelligence people, and the DNI tried falling on his sword, but it seems that no one bought that. So, now it is Miss Hillary’s turn.
Please, Mister President, step up to the plate and do your mea culpa. It would make you look much more presidential and prop up your leadership image. To do anything else, merely mocks it. (And it makes Hillary look presidential and you look like a jerk)
Big bad Koch boys threaten employees
Vote for Obama and face the consequences – says NBC
Round two: Big Bad Employers against employees.
Give me a break. In these various “notifications” to employees of various corporations the people who are sending the e-mails say outright they are not telling the employees whom to vote for.
No, rather, they are telling the companies’ employees what the most likely consequences will be if President Barack Obama wins re-election, and that one of those consequences will be that an undetermined number of the employees of the companies will lose their jobs.
Is this a threat? Yes, indirectly. However, it also is an economic reality. Four more years of the policies of the Obama Administration is going to bite into the receipts and profits of many a corporation and business. The Obama Administration has made no bones about its plans and that is what it intends to do. It intends to tax “wealthy” business people more. It is going to make companies provide more benefits or pay a tax. It is going to do more to advance alternative energy at the expense of the current energy providers and the consumers, through higher prices for traditional sources of energy.
These people who have far more money than I will ever dream of have earned their money, for the most part. Granted, I can’t do what they have done, but then I never tried, nor did I have the skills. But then again, I am not jealous of their wealth or begrudge them it either.
Now, at least these people are being honest. They are saying that if Obama gets re-elected, they are going to cut costs at their businesses so they can keep more of the money (or at least amounts similar to what they are getting now) in the wake of the economic changes. You blame them?
Now, regardless of how you look at it, these are the people who put the big bucks up to sustain these businesses … it is called investments. They are entitled to a return on that investment (commensurate to its contribution to the success of the company), just as a shop floor worker deserves compensation for his labor that creates or adds value to the product. So, you may disagree with how that compensation is allocated, but unless you are one of the stockholders/owners of the company, then you are just hired labor and are selling your investment at a pre-agreed upon rate.
I know there are a lot of people who think that isn’t fair … but it is part of the price we pay for individual liberty. You know, where you get to make your own choices and live with the consequences of those choices. Oh, I forgot, no one is supposed to fail or face the consequences of their choices.
Well, tough! That is life. Time to get over and get on with your life.
Sunday, October 14, 2012
Comparative militaries
Ok, I get it: The U.S. spends a whole lot more money on its military capabilities than anybody else. Doesn’t necessarily mean its military is all that much larger than anybody else’s, because it isn’t. There are any numbers of countries that field armies that are larger per capita than the U.S. counterparts or spend more money per capita or as a portion of their gross domestic product (also known as GDP) than the US does.
In fact, there even a few countries whose military establishment is even larger than that of the U.S., as shocking as that might seem.
Still, the U.S. military remains, arguably, the best trained, best equipped, most powerful force in the world.
Well, part of it is that the U.S. does put more bucks into its military might than anybody else (in aggregate). The old saying is that you get what you pay for.
However, as the world shows us time and again, you can spend big bucks on the gadgets and toys and other things (like paying the troops, their medical care, housing their families, giving them a fairly nice retirement plan), and still find yourself stretched to meet the challenges of much more frugally funded and equipped forces in the world.
What was that line by Clint Eastwood in Heartbreak Ridge: Adapt, improvise and overcome.
As an American, I sometimes am dismayed by the amounts we spend on our military forces. But then I step back and look at the reality of it. For its size, we do have the most professional corps of troops in our military services. I suppose that comes from the fact that it also is the best paid, nation-state funded military in the world, with – again arguably – the best benefits for the individual soldier that the world has to offer.
It is among the best trained forces in the world, so that is a good thing. I am a big believer it training troops. The better trained they are, the better prepared they are for the reality of conflict. The better prepared they are, the more likely they will survive in combat.
I also realize that like it or not America is called upon to be the “global cop”. You may not like it. I might not like it. Unfortunately, it is the way that things are. When bad things go down, everyone starts asking: Where is the nearest U.S. carrier task force or amphibious ready group? Why aren’t the Americans doing something about this?
Not that the Americans should be doing something about these things, but it seems that a large number of people look to the Americans to lead and do something about them. Good, bad, indifferent, it still is the case.
For example, Syria: Our “friends” in the area are looking to the U.S. to at least support, if not provide leadership, to them. Hence, there is a military planning task force of 150 Americans in Jordan today … just to help the Jordanians prepare for any untoward consequences of the civil war in Syria.
And don’t be surprised if there aren’t a bunch of NATO planners (with a substantial contingent of Americans) talking with their brethren in Turkey about potential needs the Turks may have if the rumbles on its border with Syria continue to worsen.
The problem with the American military is that it is well-paid and very well equipped. Those things don’t come cheap. Oh, we could have a much larger military establishment, with lot cheaper weapons, but then that would come with a much higher human cost, which Americans are much more averse to seeing.
For example: Iraq, over eight years, cost the Americans about 6,000 dead. The British, in the 1920s, lost 1,200 in one battle. If that had happened in the latest Iraq war, it would have been over, right there.
Still, does the U.S. need such a powerful military? That is a good question and one I know Americans are quite divided about. Actually, one will find that Americans are quite happy holding contrary thoughts.
Americans always have looked askance upon a large standing military force. It smacks too much of opportunities for military coups and tyrannies. For that reason, there is such a strong tradition in the U.S. for civilian control of the military and for its members, particularly its officer corps, to remain as much as possible non-political and non-partisan.
On the other hand, particularly since World War II and the Cold War, Americans have been – and rightly so, to my estimation – almost terrified of a surprise attack catching the U.S. unawares and unprepared … sort of like 9-11 did.
In addition, Americans have this intense desire – not all that different than anyone else - to be respected (despite what you think, Americans still have somewhat of an inferiority complex toward the older and more established nations and cultures in the world … we are a bit like the nouveau riche), but not only respected, but also loved. We can’t seem to understand why everybody just doesn’t love us and respect us. I mean we have pretty much the most affluent society and our political system pays so much homage to the individual and individual rights, what is not to like and love? And we have this wonderful, almost Star Wars-like, military that is the envy of just about every military commander in the world (If we had just had half the weapons and gadgets at our command, they think)
For most Americans, we just don’t understand that being respected and being loved are two entirely different things and what makes you respected often does not lead to you being loved, and vice versa.
Americans don’t like to think of themselves as imperialists, and in the traditional sense, we are not (we don’t usually take over land; we merely try to get the people there to act like we do). We do not make good imperials. We are not ruthless enough or willing to pay the price to be imperials.
Ironically, I suspect, there is a reason that none of the First World powers have used their military forces to settle their disputes in recent memory and that is directly related to the power of the United States, and to a lesser extent to the power of the former Soviet Union. It was not in the interest of the US or USSR to fight a large scale conflict (even in conventional terms) involving First World technologies. It would have been a bloody mess, literally. That “peace” is the result of each playing “cop” in their respective spheres of influence and basically helping each other in the other areas. (You may not agree with this analysis, but I think if you examine it from a historical perspective, you will find it has a certain modicum of support) This not to say that there were not any “proxy” wars, because there were, but the two big guys kept a leash on the participants to keep them from going global.
So, when you look at the military “might” of America, you need to keep it in perspective: What is it there for?
Answer that question, and you have a better understanding of why the U.S. spends so much on its military and why, probably, it should continue to spend big bucks on it.
Friday, October 12, 2012
Another civics lesson
Sometimes I think I missed my calling and should have been a high school civics teacher or a professor of history at some Podunk college. Still, I find within me this insatiable need to speak to my readers – whether here on my blog with its terribly few followers or at the small newspapers that I used to work for – about the American system was to be, historically, and how it really is.
For example: Taxes.
Why do we have taxes? To pay for those activities that we as the people who make up the governed – no matter what level, township, village, city, county, state or federal – have indicated to those elected to represent us that we would like to see government to provide for us.
Now, one of the two predicates for the American Revolution was that the American people wanted to have a voice (which parliament in London denied them) in the taxes that were levied on them. The second predicate was that that as citizens of Britain they thought it wrong that they would have to pay taxes that were not levied on other British citizens. They saw this as being patently unfair … I agree, and it still is.
Now, if you accept that definition and the precepts that the people have a right to voice in their taxes AND that those taxes apply to all citizens equally, then we in the United States have a major problem. Why? Because our taxes are not being applied equally to all taxpayers but rather there are giant differences, depending on a whole host of variables and factors that discriminate against individual taxpayers.
In other words, the government does not, will not and cannot treat all taxpayers equally. Now, you can say this is hunky-dory. You know, those who can pay more (a higher rate) should pay a higher rate. And those who do things that we as a society approve of or want to encourage get to pay less taxes than those who don’t do things we (generally as a group, with the majority ruling and sometimes only a plurality) like paying more.
Now, we have a whole variety of taxes and fees (which legally are different critters, as was pointed out by the Supreme Court this last summer in the ruling on the Affordable Care Act – known colloquially as Obamacare) that we Americans pay at each level of government. Local governments get to levy taxes on property, states and some cities get to levy taxes on sales, the federal government and states get to levy taxes on some products and activities (known as excise taxes) and the feds, states and some cities get to levy taxes on income and what is known as capital gains and interest income.
Pretty confusing isn’t it? I sometimes think it is all malice aforethought so those running the show can get away with what they want to do and line the pockets of their buddies, but I know that is being awfully cynical of me (who said being cynical is bad).
What complicates things even further is that these levels of governments can grant abatements, credits and deductions to encourage various things, like having a company or corporation open a new plant in your neighborhood to boost the tax base and bring in new jobs. Unfortunately, this is where things begin to go south, as the saying goes.
What happens is that those people who we elect to represent us … well, they are human, and most of the time they mean well … but business is business and anything to lower costs and maximize returns. Now, you can’t fault businesses, which are run by individuals who are trying to get the most from their investments of time, labor and capital – from the shop floor to the executive suite.
So, what do they do? They talk to the level of government that they want to curry favor with to grant them these indulgences. Something like what was going on in the Catholic Church back in the Middle Ages. Know you are going to sin? Well, go to the church and make a contribution and they will grant you an indulgence to absolve you of that sin and you won’t have to spend as much, or any, time in purgatory and go straight to heaven. This got to be a really big thing in the Middle Ages, especially with the wealthy who found they could just about do anything their little hearts desired and buy off the bishop to save their souls from damnation.
Well, that lasted until a priest by the name of Martin Luther came along and posted 95 reasons why the church was screwing up, screwing people and generally theologically wrong with this business of selling indulgences (and a host of other practices).
We need a Martin Luther for the tax codes in this nation. You see, as it stands now, everybody is out to game the system and get their own tax credits or deductions.
Look, nobody but nobody likes to pay taxes. That is a given. We pay taxes as part of our contract with our neighbors and fellow citizens. You know, we all chip in and then our government does something for the greater good, or something for each of us that individually we couldn’t afford.
For example, how many of us could afford to buy a fire truck, man it and operate it for that outside chance that we might have a fire on our property? So, we agree to pool our resources to fund the fire department. Now, here comes the hard part: Which is fairer? Everybody paying the same amount (flat fee) or how about we pro-rate it on the value of the property a person owns (a property tax), or on how much cash they have available on hand to pay (income tax) or maybe on how much value there is on the things they purchase (sales tax)?
I don’t have a magic wand and I don’t know what is best, but that same concept applies all the way through government and everything it does. With the federal government, which gets its income through customs duties, excise taxes and income taxes, this revenue applies to everything from Social Security to Medicaid to the Defense Department to the simple job of paying the people who clean the buildings on federal property and process all that paperwork we seem to want to generate.
Now, I do have some views:
Sometimes, a flat fee is appropriate.
Sometimes, an excise tax is appropriate … which is like a flat fee, only it varies by the product, such as the tax per gallon on gasoline or liquor.
Sometimes, it seems that an income tax seems appropriate. Only what seems inappropriate to me is the plethora of adjustments that can be made to the rate being paid. I am sorry, while I understand the rationale for all these deductions and credits and such, but they are the reason our representatives seem to be up for the highest bidder and that is wrong.
And then there is the argument about tax cuts and tax increases. Well, it all depends on whose baseline you want to take. To me, whatever the current rate is the baseline, but I know I am in a minority there.
I also am doubtful about raising the rate just because someone has the cash available to pay more. How would you like that at the store? You know, you get the same product at the check-out stand, but the cashier charges you more because you are dressed more nicely than the slug in front of you. No, I don’t think that is right.
So, as you muddle through your thoughts this election season, stop and think about those promises those candidates are making. You know what they really are doing is to buy your vote. Are you willing to sell it, just so you benefit or do you really want us all to chip in as we can to buy that fire truck, tank or whatever.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)