The old joke goes something like this: How can you tell a politician is lying? Easy. His lips are moving.
While elected officials have contributed mightily to our perception of their honesty they are not entirely responsible for their reputation. Having been an athlete for many years on all three sides of the ball - playing, coaching, and referring - I've come to understand one very important fact: emotions influence perception. If someone has a bias towards an ideology or solution the mind is very good at justifying a choice of that particular ideology or soultion. Even to the exclusion of otherwise obvious facts to the contrary. We've all seen this and is something of which most are guilty.
But there is one point in the single-payer approach to healthcare that is a clear cut lie being pandered by the left. It goes something like this. Healthcare is too expensive so we need a "public option." This public option, it is said by many long time supporters of a single payer system, will foster competition between insurance companies and result in lower rates. That is what is being said.
The reality is much different though, and here is how. Elected officials in favor of the public option are almost unanimously in favor of single payer. Single payer, however, means the legislative elimination of all competition. So on the one hand they are saying that the public option is good because it will increase competition and thereby reduce costs, while on the other hand they are on record as favoring a plan that will eliminate all competition. And no-competition always means only one thing, higher prices. In point of fact, they are supporting opposite solutions with opposite outcomes for the healthcare problem. Since it is unlikely they are unaware of this cognitive dissonance the question becomes, for the rest of us, "Why?"
One thing that can be said about Barney Frank and his ilk is that he is a consumate politician. He wants single payer. He also knows he can't get single payer in a single step. So what does a career bureaucrat do when he wants something he can't get? He introduces step legislation. Step legislation can come in two forms. It can be written badly so that interpretation by judges can give the bill's supporters what they want. Or, it can begin the process, increase people's dependency, hamstringing the competition, so that bills introduced later will face less and less resistance. Current versions of the healthcare bill in the house and senate take both approaches.
In some cases it is difficult to know exactly what someone's motives are. If you'd asked a German citizen on the street in 1934 what Germany was going to be like in 1944, I doubt any of them would have predicted a police state with institutionalized death camps. Unless they'd read Mein Kampf. Hitler wrote Mein Kampf while he was imprisoned for having attempted to stage a coup. It spelled out his intentions in detail. But his party was swept into power anyway and he was ultimated appointed Chancellor. The part about the Third Reich being utterly defeated and Germany destroyed and split in the process wasn't in Mein Kampf, however. No doubt an oversight by the Fuhrer.
Do I think Obama is Hitler and the US Germany? Of couse he isn't and no we're not (though Hitler was actually Austrian and the Nazis swept into power amid the tumult of a Global economic meltdown.) But history tells us only too well what happens when mere men are granted power over their brothers. Hitler lost control of the machine he built. While he is responsible for the Holocaust through his association with passing laws that allowed it to take place, he is neither solely responsible nor directly or indirectly guilty of each and every atrocity. In fact, once certain legislative doors had been opened, the fate of Nazi Germany was inevitable. The first laws against Jews didn't order them to death camps, they merely curtailed their economic rights. When that weakened them, and strengthened others, more laws followed. The door only needed to be cracked.
So, how do you tell when a politician is lying? Well, it is when he's lying.
Futbol Guru, http://mises.org/community/blogs/not-a-lemming
Dinosaurs were big. They were the largest land creatures to ever walk the Earth. The largest were nearly a hundred feet long. But as large as they were there is a good reason they didn't get any bigger. In fact, there is an absolute limit to the size an Earth-bound creature can grow without collapsing under its own weight.
Complex organisms like humans, bears, and dinosaurs are muscles hung on a skeleton. The skeleton supports the structure and the muscles make it move. As you'd expect, as the animal becomes larger the skeleton and muscles must become larger as well. While creatures can become large and strong, much larger than humans, the proportions at which they scale are not linear.
For example, if an animal evolves into a similar creature that is twice as tall, you might think that the bones would have to be twice as large. In fact, this doesn't hold. The strength of a bone is related to the cross-sectional area of the bone. However, weight of the bone is related to volume, and volume increases much faster than cross-sectional area. A bone twice as large will weigh four times as much. This means the bones get heavier faster than they get larger and stronger. Eventually, the bone will simply break. Bridges, skyscrapers, and other structures have similar limitations.
Economics is much like this. England has a population 51 million. A healthcare system large enough to service 51 million people won't necessarily scale to a country like the United States which has a population of 330 million; six times larger. This is true because the system won't necessarily have to be just six times larger, it may well have to be 36 times larger. Consider this example as you recall the previous example of the bone.
I build cabinets. I don't do this for a living but it is something I enjoy and we occasionally need cabinets at my house. And the scientist inside me likes holding tolerances to 1/64 of an inch. Regardless, I have a 12' x 20' shop in my backyard that is large enough to build one cabinet at a time. I can store the wood and the tools in the shop. Move the partially completed structure around in the shop at various stages of construction. Then, when I don't building it I can clean the shop thoroughly and move on to the finishing phase - which must be as dust free as possible. While I also use my shop to fix my trials motorcycles, clean guns, and do other odd jobs, I can pretty much only do one thing at a time in there.
Suppose I wanted to start a business building cabinets, something I've thought about from time to time. What would it take? At a minimum I'd have to build another building for the finishing because I can't finish and build at the same time. And finishing takes time as the paint, stain, and varnish cure. Time that I could use to start other projects.
As business picked up I'd have to build another building to store more wood or I'd be wasting all my time at Lowe's. And then increases the size of my small shop so I could work on multiple projects at one time. At some point I'd have to invest in larger tools that I wouldn't have to wheel around. Eventually I'd have to hire more people. While some of them would build cabinets, others would have to maintain the machinery and keep the shop clean or we'd be knee deep in sawdust. Others would go out and buy wood, sandpaper, glue, nails, stain, and deliver and install the completed units. Which means I'd also have to buy some trucks. Which would need more people for maintenance.
At this point I have enough employees that I need specialized employees to manage the employees and computers to streamline the workflow. Now I need IT guys to keep the computers working. And someone to keep track of the books. And people to keep tabs on them. My stain supply has gone from a gallon a year to a hundred gallons a month and Lowe's doesn't support that so I have to get someone to go out and find a supplier, then lawyers to draw up the contracts. And now I'm also sponsoring golf tournaments to keep the lawyers and executives happy - yes, people are part of this equation. Never forget that personal appetites are a part of EVERY equation.
Taking this example to the absurd, suppose I get so big that I become the supplier for every cabinet built in the country. I would now have to have a huge distribution system requiring thousands of people to maintain equipment, buy wood, transport raw materials and completed products, manage the people, manage the managers, and schmooze government officials who are breathing down my neck about where I'm going to dispose of the thousands of tons of sawdust and scrap wood. And just the buildings to house all the equipment and cabinet makers will cover hundreds of acres. I've got labor managers, facility managers, machinery managers, utility managers, benefits managers, administrative managers, environmental managers, manager managers, and an entire executive structure that now wants golf tournaments in Dubai. My business is a thousand times larger but the structure has grown much, much more than that, and is now full of corporate climbers, greedy executives, and self-serving lawyers who have multiplied the bureaucracy for their own ends. And everybody wonders why my cabinets suck now.
Healthcare is barking up the same tree. The bureaucracy that will be necessary to support this government acquisition will produce the same waste, inefficiency, complacency, and largesse that would obviously come from World Cabinet Makers International. That is why European-style healthcare can't work on a US scale. Sure it is great, I guess, that everybody gets to go to the doctor for free. But the best parts about these systems will scale far less quickly than the worst parts about these systems simply because of the law of Entropy. Everything in life is like this and you learn it in your gut by the time you're twelve years old. Don't ignore this simple fact of life now or we'll wind up with a huge, ravenous dinosaur that that will roar for more, and more, and more food but never be full. It won't be able to move because its bones are too large, nor can we let it die because it'd take a hundred years to rot, so we just have to keep bringing it more, and more, and more of our resources until the basic service it was born to serve will be so deeply buried in bureaucracy that you won't even be able to find it. There is no European healthcare system. There are separate, much smaller completelyt separate systems, in each of the various contries in Europe.
Obama knows this. So do the Capitol Hill morons who are pushing it. But they're not really interested in what the dinosaur will do for us. They're interested in what the dinosaur will do for them. For they are the dinosaur and it is their appetite for power and control that we'll be feeding. And once we've taken that step towards creating the paradise of Vol, there is no turning back.
Below is a brief list of Western European nations whose healthcare people like Obama and Barney Frank want to emulate, followed by their populations. Some of these countries actually have decent systems. The only free healthcare country I know of with a population close to the size of the United States was the former Soviet Union and NOBODY went there for healthcare unless they wanted to be dead.
Germany - 82 million
France - 65 million
Italy - 60 million
England - 51 million
Spain - 46 million
Canada - 33 million
Netherlands - 16 million
Belgium - 10 million
Portugal - 10 million
Sweden - 9 million
Austria - 8 million
Switzerland - 7 million
Denmark - 5 million
Norway - 4 million
Iceland - 319 thousand
United States - 330 million
Soviet Union - 293 million
Futbol Guru, http://mises.org/community/blogs/not-a-lemming
I suppose that in a perfect world everyone would have access to healthcare. Well, then I guess the United States is as close to perfect as anywhere because everyone here has access to healthcare. Just like anyone can buy a car, buy a home, or buy clothes and food, anyone can buy healthcare. Healthcare is a service and money is the medium we use to exchange our time for goods and services.
Linking the concept of Universal Healthcare to the word free is a lie. We have universal healthcare. What we don't have is free healthcare. Nor do we have free cars, free houses, or free clothes and food. There was a time, not that long ago, when it was understood that hard work and good choices led to more options in lifestyle. Long before I graduated from high school my parents were telling me that I'd need to get a good education so I could get a good job with good benifits. And lest you think that I was raised with a silver spoon in my mouth, think again. Economically we were lower middle class and neither of my parents went to college. My father worked very hard and understood that hard work and good choices could take you places. Hard work and good choices led to higher paying jobs with access to health insurance. It was one of the benefits of hard work and one of the things that motivated you to stay on track. My brothers didn't listen to his advice, didn't work hard, made poor choices, and have paid the price. But to their credit, they don't expect anything for free.
As a result of hard work and good choices, and years of delayed gratification and personal sacrifice, I now have a good job and work in a nice place surrounded by other hardworking people. No, I'm not rich and my family finances are tight. It doesn't look like I'll ever retire. My cars aren't new and my house needs work. And it galls me to this day that I can't take the vacations I see other people take. As a result I sometimes think my life sucks. Especially since I'm rarely around people who's lives do suck. But I had that chance recently and it opened my eyes.
We had some work done on our house this summer. No, I didn't have a windfall, I borrowed money that I now must pay back. The owner of the contracting company who did the work was a pretty sharp guy. He was reasonably punctual (for a contractor) and accurate (for a contractor) and seemed to have his affairs in order (for a contractor). His hired help was another matter entirely. Their finances were in complete disarray. None of them had cars - well, one of them actually had a vehicle reposessed on the job. None of them had health insurance. They were walking disasters. On the surface it seemed kind of sad. But as days turned into months (no it isn't quite done even now!) their stories began to come out. To a man they had made horrible choices pissed away their public education, and taken every short cut conceivable. Some had been in jail. Others had multiple children outside of wedlock. Some had past drug problems. Others simply failed to show up for work and couldn't be reached. (Naturally of course they all had cell phones.) The owner tried to find better help but good workers seem to be quite a rarity these days.
As I took all this in it began to dawn on me that a) I really had a wonderful life and b) these people were entirely responsible for their own misery. From this I came to c) why should I pay for their free healthcare?
The question Obama is asking, and the question our nation is debating, should not be, "How are we going to pay for free healthcare?" The question should be, "Why should we pay for free healthcare?" Why should my hard work, good choices, years of personal sacrifice and delayed gratification, countless long nights studying when others were out playing, saying no to sex when it sounded good, staying healthy by refraining from bad behavior, be used to pay for people who will screw anything with two legs, come to work drunk - or high, fail to pay their bills (because they pay their texting bill first), and called anyone with a decent GPA a geek? And the president is out there preaching that it is partly my fault, and at the very least my problem, that they don't have healthcare? Is it just me or is something very wrong here?
The short of it is, these people don't deserve free health care. Sure, they may be nice. And these guys I worked with were very nice and even polite. But it was to their advantage to be so when they were on the job. You'd see a far different story Saturday night when they bust some dude over the head with a bottle because they're both to drunk to notice that the guy that just called their girlfriend a "Ho," had already left the bar! Why, how, and when did that kind of behavior become worthy of my time and effort?
I actually lied at the beginning of this piece. I said there were no free cars, free houses, or free clothes and food. In fact, there are. Free housing is called the projects. Free cars is called the public transportation. Free clothes and food are called welfare. And it was government mandates that made mortgage credit available to people who had no business buying a house and led directly to worst recession since the depression. I wonder how long it'll be until "cash for clunkers" morphs into the auto-loan meltdown, because $4,500 isn't a lot of money when you have a $500/month car payment for 72 months.
Yeah, free healthcare. That sounds just great. Only don't ask me to pay for it because I sure ain't gonna be using it.
-Futbol Guru, www.not-a-lemming.com
Don't be a lemming. When some flashy guy in a funny hat starts waving his arms and yelling, "Danger! Danger! Run, run, run! As fast as you can!" take a moment to look around and see where you're going. You might just find there's a cliff there behind the bedsheet painted to look like a rosy sunset. Lemmings don't commit mass suicide, they are guilty only of mass hysteria when in the presense of clever film makers who stand to gain from the carnage.
The health care debate goes something like this: Health care costs are rising. Many people are uninsured. We need a government insurance plan to make health care affordable. Obama has promised that this option is not intended to put private insurers out of business but only to provide an option for the poor. Is the Futbol Guru the only person who sees that this argument makes no sense whatsoever?
As far as I can tell, providing government insurance doesn't address rising medical costs at all, it just makes people with jobs pay for those without jobs. Hospitals are expensive and must be amortized over time. Drugs are expensive and must be included in the cost of care. Medical equipment is expensive because it does amazing things. Makers of hospitals, drugs, and equipment need good lawyers because people are always trying to sue them for killing grandma. And of course doctors and nurses aren't cheap either. These are the costs of health care and are completely unaddresed by the subject of government insurance, which promises only to pay the bills.
Access to health care is literally, access to your life. What better way to control people than to control access to your life? You'll do just about anything to get the chemo that could save your child's life, wouldn't you. Or your own. And people might hold that over you to get what they want. There are people who think this way. They want to control your life for their own ends. Sometimes they just want to get rich. Sometimes they just want to be in charge, or have some personal agenda like environmentalism. We all know people like this. Sometimes they are the little-league parent who demands their child be placed in a position of honor. And sometimes they are the President of the United States.
What has the Obama administration tried to take control of since taking office? The health care debate is front and center right now. If the government wins they control your health.
What else? The auto industry? They already own two of the three American automakers and are passing ever more stringent regulations. Are these regulations all environmental? Maybe they are and maybe they're not. Either way, they now control 2/3 of the US auto industry which means they are in the process of taking over transportation. And what is transportation if not your ability to move from place to place? They will control movement in the country.
How about energy? Cap and trade will place a tax on the use of fossil fuels. How do you get around? Fossil fuels. Cap and trade will further limit your movements. And if you want to leave the country you'll need energy to do it. How will that affect the cost of an airline ticket? Will you be able to afford it? Will you have enough carbon credits left to buy an airline ticket even if you have the money? They will control your ability to leave the country? Liberty itself is at stake.
Anything else? How much money has gone to banks? What do these banks now 'owe' the government. How much does the Federal Reserve, always a private, quasi-governmental institution, now owe to the government? The Federal Reserve controls cash flow. Does the government now control where the money goes? It sure has done some radical redistribution in the last six months.
A recap of what the government stands to gain if they get their way with all this? They could ultimately control your health, your movement within the country, your ability to leave the country, and your access to money. Sounds a bit like another country that is no longer with us. The largest empire in the history of planet Earth. Lot of people cried when that wall came down. Reckon they might just be smiling again.
Futbol Guru, http://mises.org/community/blogs/not-a-lemming
Oh for the days of liberals like John F. Kennedy!
I recently watched Kennedy's 1961 inaugural address on YouTube. (See it --> here.) It was filled not with grandiose, government, give-away programs, but with rhetoric about how we as citizens of the finest country on Earth have control over our own destiny. He went on to say again and again that both sides (US and Soviet) needed to work together in a new spirit of cooperation and peace, using science not for destruction, but for exploration and the betterment of man against our common enemies, tyranny, poverty, sickness, hunger, and the other ills of the ages. Encourage discovery and commerce. Commerce! He then said that this battle wouldn't be won during the first hundred or even the first thousand days of his administration, and maybe not even in our lifetimes, but that it was important to begin. And that, "In your hands, more than mine, rests success or failure." He actually said that. This was followed by a call to service to bear the burden of the long struggle. A call to service! The long struggle. You see, Kennedy understood that government couldn't fix these problems, and indeed that they couldn't be 'fixed.' They could only be battled, and that it was going to take people serving and getting involved. He followed this with one of the greatest phrases from any inaugural speech:
Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.
JFK has been the liberal posterchild ever since, but curiously, you don't hear much about him these days. Perhaps that's because no liberal in his left mind would say, or even support, the principles President Kennedy was espousing. Service. Sacrifice. Struggle. Involvement. Persistence. Compare these principles with Mr. Obama's. He literally promised to fix things and he promised that government was going to do it and do it quick. People needed only to get out of the way and let him get the job done. In his hands, not ours, lies success or failure. And once he has stared the problem down it will be finished. No protracted struggle. No sacrifice. No service. Just a blank check -- if only those pesky conservatives would get out of his way. "Let me show you what your can country do for you!" has been his mantra since the beginning of the campaign. (Or is it "Show me the money!") And now the government is helping you buy a car!!! That's what your government can do for you, baby. Kennedy is rolling over in his grave!
But even with his push for publicly-funded healthcare, nationalization of the auto industry, and socialized car purchasing I guess there's still one line from Kennedy's speech Mr. Obama might be able to use. He'd give it a little polish to make is shine just right, though. His own special spin to make it truly his, for he does turn a phrase like no other. It'd probably go something like this:
"Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you!"
Futbol Guru, http://mises.org/community/blogs/not-a-lemming
All we have to do is get him to see that this is exactly what he's already doing.
It goes like this. The average Joe, of which I am one, can't afford a new car. So, because the average Joe makes up the bulk of the population, Mr. Obama has created his Klunkers-for-Cash program. The idea? Give the average Joe (that's me and you) $4,500 bucks to buy a new car! With this extra "cash in hand" Americans will go out and buy cars like they haven't in years, stimulating the auto industry and through trickle down economics, jump-starting the economy in general. Neat. So how does this get back to my initial claim?
Like many Americans, even after tens of thousands of dollars in income withheld from my paycheck every month so Mr. Obama can give it back to people to buy new cars, I still wind up owing taxes at the end of the year. In this last year it came out to just about exactly the amount offered in the Klunkers-for-Cash program. Or, a couple of hundred dollars less than the amount of money I was able to save over all of last year. Result, I didn't spend that money on economic stimulation. And with all this talk of increased taxes to pay for record deficits for things like programs to give people money to buy new cars, I'm saving like hell so I can pay my tax bill next year. So that money isn't going to economic stimulation either.
The answer? Reduce taxes so I will have an incentive to spend that money! Then, I might just take that $4,500 and buy myself a new car and I won't even need a government middleman to launder the money for me. I will even have the liberty to spend it on other parts of the economy since, last I checked, the auto industry wasn't the only part of our GDP reeling from gross mismanagement.
Car sales are up because people are being given money to buy new cars. In other words, they are buying carse because they have more money. Which is exactly what cutting taxes does! And we won't have to run a record deficit to do it. It is so obvious I almost think there must be some other reason Mr. Obama is doing this. Could it be because the government now owns 2/3 of the US auto industry? Could it be because the United Auto Workers represent an enormous voting block? Naaaaa. He wouldn't do that...
Futbol Guru, http://mises.org/community/blogs/not-a-lemming
That's what the President called his meeting between Officer Crowley and Professor Gates. "A teachable moment."
I can only interpret this, having come from his lips, as an opportunity for him to teach us. So what did he teach? From everything I've seen, the only thing he has concentrated on is that, in his mind at least, racism is still alive and well in the United States. The white man is still oppressing the black man. Quite a statement since he hosted these two people at his picinc table in the White House lawn. Yes Mr. Obama, this is a teachable moment, but not the kind that you think. In the end, though, I did learn something.
But before what I actually learned, what might have been learned if a wise man had been in charge? Well, a number of things. First and foremost what he might have used this opportunity to 'teach' is that racism in the United States, as a systemic, institutionalized problem is in fact dead. If Mr. Obama's election isn't proof enough, this event proves it yet again because in fact, nothing happened. No one was hurt. No one was lynched. While Mr. Gates may have made an ass of himself, and Mr. Crowley might have popped off emotionally, the system recognized that an error had been made and dismissed the charges. What a wonderful process! Police work is a dangerous, anxiety filled job. Mr. Gates spends his days studying racism. Drop sodium into water and it will explode.
Another thing he might have used this moment to teach is that even leaders screw up. Injecting himself into the middle of this was the height, the summit, the very pinnacle of unprofessionalism. Especially after admitting that he didn't have all the facts. This is a Joe Biden-level, foot-in-the-mouth screw up. If Mr. Obama had any sense of accountability he'd have accepted the blame for the entire scenario being blown out of proportion and met these two men to apologize for criticizing an event he didn't know a damn thing about, which he admitted up front.
But I think the most important principle he might have used this unfortunate mole-hill-made-into-mountain to do, is to point out the difference between racism and a racist. Racism is a systematic process, usually supported either directly or through inaction by a government, of discrimination against a particular set of people because of their ethnicity. Like the Arabs against the Africans in Darfur, where hundreds of thousands have been killed, maimed, and raped, and millions displaced. That is racism. Or like the Nazis against the Jews, where six million were murdered. Or the Russians against the Ukranians. Or the Tutsis against the Hutus. Or the white South Africans against the black South Africans. Or the blacks in Zimbabwe against the whites in Zimbabwe. Or the Turks against the Armenians. Or the white Americans against the Native Americans. Or the white Americans against the black Americans up until the second half of the last century. That is racism, and as a systematic government policy, or even as a broad socially accepted practice is, in the United States, dead. Not a nervous cop who arrests an unrully man and the charges later dismissed.
On the other hand, there is nothing you can do about a racist. There will always be people who dislike those of a different ethnicity. Whether it is a white Mississippi redneck who hates blacks because the South lost the Civil War, or a black Detroit thug who hates whites because he blames them for his plight, or a North Korean stooge who hates Americans because he thinks we want to kill him, or an Austrian skinhead who hates Jews because he thinks they manipulate the world monetary system, or an Arab who hates Americans because he thinks we're keeping them down, or whatever, we will never get rid of these idiots. But this isn't racism, and in fact, neither of the men involved in this recently blown-out-of-proportion-event fit the profile of racists. Racists are people who want to blame others for their problems. Instead of getting off their asses and trying to better their lives, they sit and moan, and share hate-filled stories of how much better their lives would be if only so-and-so hadn't done such-and-such to their great-great-grandfathers.
Unfortunately, instead of teaching us these principles and exalting the way America has by and large eliminated systemic racism, Mr. Obama did what all politicians do. He pandered to his base. He talked about racism in vague terms but not so vague as to veil his belief that it was white on black - afterall that is the only form of racism. Then he rambled something about a teachable moment. In short he did what he always does, woo the masses with his voice of honey while providing nothing substantive.
In the end however, it was a teachable moment. He taught me alot about himself.
Futbol Guru, http://mises.org/community/blogs/not-a-lemming
I'm not a Republican. But I am a conservative.
I'm not a member of any political party. It isn't because I don't care, however. Quite the contrary, I am terribly concerned about the direction this nation is taking. I just don't have the time and energy. Like many Americans that have been called "The Silent Majority" I'm too busy working and raising a family to even get down to the courthouse and register, much less attend political rallies on weekends for people who have no more business running the country than I would have participating in a beauty pageant.
Conservatism is dying fast. Conservatism. That word's picked up a lot of baggage in the past few years as has the word liberal. Conservative simply means a conservative or limited interpretation of law. The law is what it says and there's nothing between the lines. Judges don't make law, they interpret based on what the writers of the law intended.
Liberal on the other hand is a liberal or broad interpretation of law. Liberals believe there is writing between the lines of law and a liberal judge will interpret law based on what they believe the writers would have meant had they written the law today.
Personally I think both liberals and conservatives are necessary for a healthy state. Too many conservatives and the law becomes rigid, inflexible, and merciless. A terrible burden. Too many liberals and the law becomes meaningless with little or no consistency. One balances the other. Except right now things are seriously out of balance and tipping rapidly towards the demonization of conservative thought in general.
Conservatives have been damaged through their affiliation with bad leadership. George Bush II was a Republican and was supported by conservatives. Guilt by association because, in addition to coping with an attack on our soil, he completely ignored the economy. The result is a terrible recession. We can argue all day long about who's fault it really was - an after effect of Clinton, a liberal congress, etc. In the end, a Republican was in the White House so he gets the blame. That's the mantle you don when you accept power. If you don't like that fact, don't whine when you lose elections.
At the moment conservatives are rapidly losing ground. Obama is a master politician and statesman even if he is one of the most liberal politicians in Washington. I believe that in time the people will realize this and when that happens we must have a viable alternative. The current Republican Party ain't it.
The current Republican Party is the party of greed and selfishness. They cashed in big time during the 90's and 00's. I personally know at least five people who became millionaires over the last dacade and a half. Yes, they did work hard and they deserve their reward. The potential for reward is what drove their hard work and innovation. The problem is what happened after they became wealthy. To a man they disengaged from greater society, upgraded their homes, bought vacation homes, purchased luxury automobiles, and began taking expensive international vacations. Consider the governor of South Carolina, Mark Sanford, who ran off to drive along the coast of Argentina because, "I wanted to do something exotic ... to get out of the bubble I am in." What?!? The bubble he is in? I'll tell you what bubble he is in - he's in a bubble of greed, selfishness, and self-importance. He's got no business advising anybody of anything and what wisdom he may have once had is long gone. What an irresponsible twit. He's living in fantasy land. (NOTE: So Sanford was out screwing around on his wife and children. Clearly the man has no concept of the word vow/oath. Just one more evidence that the elites feel they are not bound by rules the rest of us follow implicitely - further proof that the wrong people are there for the wrong reason. And he probably ran as a family values, Southern, Church going man.)
One of the reasons liberals succeed is because they put their money where their mouth is. The Jews have remained a powerful and viable ethnic group for thousands of years because they help one another, directly, in everything from starting businesses to publishing books. And I don't mean through charity to the local synagogue. And not through spreading their wealth thin across multitudes of low-class losers. No, they directly support the talented among themselves. Simply having talent and working hard is not enough. It has never been enough. Help is always required to break through. Help is how liberals cultivate emerging talent regardless of the initial standing of the talent because they know that in the long run strengthening their ideological base will strengthen themselves. Conservatives have forgotten this. Rush Limbaugh with his rugged individualism and pulling on his bootstraps is complete bunk. In the end, somebody who thought there was money to be made, set him up as a talk show host. It wasn't his radio license or his station, but listening to him you'd think he invented not just radio, but the concept of language itself. Rush agrees with me on many things but he's taught me nothing.
How many people do we know who possess great talent and ambition but who are stuck in life? Good, hard working men and women who have dreams and plans but who must spend their time working to earn money for their families. While this ethic is good and pure and necessary, a lifetime spent struggling prevents their values and ideals from percolating outward. Back to Limbaugh. Clearly the man hasn't spent much time cultivating family values. This is epidemic in our nation. As soon as plans are threatened, divorce follows. What wisdom is there to be gained from that? Though it does make climbing after success easier if shedding excess baggage is as easy as taking out the trash. How many wealthy elites do we know with children in rehab or worse? The wealthy among us have far more time to mingle and attend political functions while their lives of ease have robbed them of wisdom. I don't know how many times I've heard a conservative say, "I don't have time to go to a rally, I have to work!" Or, upon seeing a teeming multitude of fanatical liberals, saying, "Don't those people have jobs?"
We may laugh when we say this but it is exactly why conservatives are getting killed. Passion, wisdom, and a connection with the people don't come from wealth. Passion, wisdom, and oneness with the masses arise from struggle, perserverance, and commitments honored. Marx knew this when he wrote the Communist Manifesto with its emphasis on class struggle. He knew that the elite had no connection with the masses and was able to use basic principles of human nature to create a movement that shattered world peace for a hundred years. We can use these same tactics, but instead of using them to make everyone mediocre, we can use them to provide an avenue to greatness.
So how do we win?
First, wealthy conservatives must realize that their fortune wasn't made in a vacuum. Their hard work was a major contributing factor and should not be minimized, but a stable society full of hard working men and women was just as important. And somewhere along the way they received help.
Second, unbridled avarice is incredibly damaging to everyone. Indeed, the very privations that once drove innovation and ambition, once removed, contribute to rot of the soul. Down that path you once go, never enough will you have to satisfy. Better to have a bit less than enough. Better to stay lean and ready to fight than go soft. You did not create the society from which you benefitted, you are only a part. You will die and if all you leave is money for your children, your life will be a failure.
Third, stop whining about the media. It isn't their fault. Media or no media, if it was so great to be a conservative everyone would be one. Make conservatism something to be sought after. Right now, ideology for the sake of ideology doesn't pay bills. Just ask the Russians.
Fourth, wealthy conservatives must seek out talented conservatives from among the masses and aid them in their path to success. Whether young or old doesn't matter. In fact, one of the biggest mistakes conservatives make is in thinking that a man or woman must be young to contribute from their benevolence. In many cases, the best candidates are middle-aged, middle-class men and women, battle-hardened from a lifetime of raising children and working tough jobs so that they have developed deep, penetrating wisdom. You want to talk about perserverance? It is only because of their dedication to family that they have been unable to 'get ahead.' It is these people, that once turned loose, will destroy their liberal counterparts. DESTROY. Wouldn't you love to see that carnage and know you had a part in making it happen?
Fifth, and without this step, nothing will change. Directly help these talented individuals. How, you may ask? Form a non-profit and pay their salary. Hire them directly. Give them money so they will have the time and resources to succeed. Whatever it takes, because you know damn well the opposition is doing exactly that. We all know the Democrats are using our tax dollars to buy votes through an infinite number of programs. And how many liberal elites have non-profits that give grants to liberals? George Soros. Bill Gates. The list goes on. You want to win, you better get out and buy some of your own votes, and you'll have the satisfaction of knowing that you helped one more conservative to success.
Don't make the mistake of thinking this is charity. It isn't. This is war. And in the immortal words of Private Hudson, "We're getting our asses kicked right now!" Yes, you can accept your reward from society, retreat into your hilltop mansion and drive your expensive cars to and from the airport. You have the right to do that, but is it right? When you see the news and shake your head at the deplorable state of society, you have only yourselves to blame. You have the means to make a lasting change. A true legacy to leave your children and grandchildren. Will you not put aside your thirst for material goods, largesse, and a life of ease and entertainment that you have rightfully earned, and turn your resources towards saving the nation. Without you it will not last.
Well, at least it used to be.
There was once a land called Persia. The people who lived there were proud, intelligent, and strong. Their's was among the first of the truly great empires that arose on our planet. Indeed, much of the world's cultural heritage has roots in Persia.
As a nominally Christian nation, the United States has typically decried Persia as evil and uncouth. While Persia has never been from the Judeo-Christian heritage, such a characterization is nevertheless, patently false. No, Nebuchednezzar wasn't a Jew and didn't follow the Jewish god. But the land he ruled was a great empire with an advanced legal system, world class engineering, art, culture, and civic organization. It lasted far long than the United States will. Hammurabi himself - one of the earliest lawgivers of our species - was a king of Babylon and is considered the first king of the Persian Empire.
While it is beyond the scope of this blog entry to detail the history of Persia, it is one of the oldest continuous civilizations with evidence of organized habitation dating back to at least 7000 BC. Throughout the ancient world the name of Persia was respected for thousands of years. True, they were defeated by the Greeks, but this doesn't make them any less important and worthy of respect. No less evil than any nation that has ever engaged in imperialism, which includes nearly every successful nation at one time or another. I even seem to recall the United States invading a few countries and maybe not doing too well.
Through the Middle Ages the learning of the great western thinkers was preserved by Persian scholars who extended the work of Euclid, Archimedes, Socrates, Hippocratus, and others. In fact, the Renaissance would not have happened but for returning crusaders who brought with them the preserved works of the ancients.
So what happened? Because Iran is a piece of crap. The name of course means, "Land of the Aryans," in a nod to the Germans who felt the Aryans were superior to Jews. And Sharia certainly hasn't helped either. Since radical Islam entered Iran not a single good thing has happened there. They just continue to spiral down, down, and further down. Down to the point where they are gunning down women and children in the street. What a bunch of cowardly pansies. Shooting unarmed girls! It is the religious elite, of course, who use sacred texts to justify any act, no matter how heinous.
But Iran could become great again. The first thing they have to do is get rid of that name. Change the name back to Persia. Second, get rid of the mullahs. They are doing no one any good. Take them out and shoot them like the rabid dogs they are, grind them up and feed them to pigs. Then set up a true republic where all of the leaders are elected and the people who get elected actually win the election. Will it be perfect? NO. But it will be better than what they have now, with a ruling council whose members are accountable to no one. Only in this way can a once proud land and people regain a place of respect and honor among the nations of the Earth. Because as things stand, Iran makes North Korea look good.
Actually I'm not sure we would win. Not that we don't outgun them, but that place is a lot like Afghanistan. Very mountainous and overflowing with patriotic fervor. I won't call them fanatics because they have good reasons for acting the way they do based on the information they have. But winning that war isn't really what this post is about.
Information about North Korea is hard to come by but I feel qualified to write about North Korea. I'm qualified because I spent years researching a novel about a Los Alamos nuclear scientist who gets abducted by North Korean commandos and brainwashed into helping them with their weapons - for a while at any rate. It's a great book and you'll come away not only knowing how nukes work (and why they are so hard to build) but why and how North Korea is the way that it is. And why our current policy never seems to work. Unfortunately you will never get to read it because the odds for a lowly FutbolGuru to catch the attention of a NY publisher are just a few zeros better than winning the lottery.
No, this post isn't about a matchup between the US and DPRK - the real name for North Korea is Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea, BTW. Generally her citizens refer to their country as Choson. This post is about how the US and the DPRK are alike. Sometimes a comparison essay is far more illuminating than a contrast essay. And often more truthful.
Most essays about North Korea begin with pointing out how the KWP (the nominally communist Korean Workers Party) control everything. And they do. Lemmings, lemmings everywhere. If you aren't in the KWP you can forget it politically. But they are democratic as their name implies. Every leader is elected to office by the people. Of course there is ever only one candidate on the ballot, the party sanctioned KWP candidate. So when Kim Jong-il gets elected as Chairman of the Party, or head of the National Defense Commission, the ballot contains only his name.
As Americans we tend to laugh at this. But is our 'system' really much better. They get on party supplied candidate. We get two party supplied candidates. At best our electoral system is only twice as good. Especially when it produces candidates like Walter Mondale, Bob Dole, Jimmy Carter, and John McCain. The occasional independent candidate is pilloried in the press by both sides. They have one party, we have two. As far as our political system is concerned, we're only twice as good!
What about propaganda? North Korea believes it is the best country in the world. It calls itself the 'workers paradise.' That title is a laughable joke at best. Conditions for workers are abysmal. Party members get better treatment but eve that depends on the depth of the famine. There are accounts of guards during the Pueblo Incident, standing in a utterly barren field, surrounded by denuded hills, loudly decrying the agricultural perfection of the Juche system. These people have actually come to believe their own propaganda! But are we really that much better?
In 1776 we shocked the world and invented something new. A free, democratic society. Over two hundred years later sees the world with many free, democratic societies. Yet we continue to loudly proclaim ourselves as the center of world freedom. In truth, our government regulates our society much more strictly than most other free nations. Only on the issue of gun control do we still have an argument, as if holding weapons are the sole determiner of freedom. In fact, among the western, industrialized nations, the only nation that comes close to North Korea in sheer number of regulations and penetration of government into all facets of citizen life, is the United States! From my automobiles to the toilets in my house, from hiring practices at the company I work at to how I can build a house, every facet of my life falls under some degree of government regulation.
Literature, it is said, is both a reflection of, and the rudder of, society. North Korea understands this only too well. In North Korea artists are held in high esteem. They are trained by the state and spend their lives working for the state. Every nuance of their work is scripted and censored. The North Koreans understand that the way to control society is to inculcate them with ideology in a way they will understand. This is the single most effective means of shaping and maintaining the ideological bent of a society and they have been very good at it. Kim Jong-il himself was trained at Kim Il-sung University as a film maker and has directed numerous motion pictures. It was his first job. He even 'invented' a new form of Korean opera.
In America, despite the proclamations of various radio talk show hosts, there is virtually no state control of the media. It isn't needed. The media has known that literature shapes society from the start. Look at what comes out of Hollywood and New York. Little of this entertainment reflects traditional American values. Rather in most cases it denegrates traditional American values in favor of promulgating liberal views. In fact, it goes one step farther by using one of the key tactics used by North Korean propagandists - it makes fun of traditional American values. The North Koreas have known for a long time that if you want to discredit something, you make fun of it. Yes, they rant and rave about Americans, but mostly they just make fun of us. They call us stupid. They dress their circus clowns as bumbling G.I.s. Very similar to the way Hollywood portrays anyone who doesn't agree with their viewpoint.
Unfortunately, especially for people such as myself, book publishing is little better than the film industry. Until you actually try to get a book published you might not realize that the entire industry is controlled by a tiny, select group of gatekeepers called literary agents. Most people who become literary agents do so because they have connections to the publishing industry and no other real talents - the same way KPW Cadres in North Korea become Party officials. Agents choose work based on whether or not it appeals to their sensibilities. Money is secondary. Just like a KWP censor. A quick Google search on 'Literary Agents" will give you an excellent indication of what is being published, and what isn't. Oh, and probably 99% of agents operate from New York City. Is there a relationship between the kind of material being censored out of publication and the fact that publishers and booksellers are getting killed? Does the industry have the ability to self-assess?
Central economic planning? They have it. Now we have it, too. Direct control of major industrues? Yes and yes. Direct control of banking? Can you say, bailout. Both nations are fixated on nuclear weapons. Both nations are fixated on missiles. Oh, and here's a few interesting questions: What two nations spend the largest percentage of their GDP on their military?* What two nations have the most men under arms?** What two nations have the fewest political parties?***
Control of political parties. Control of manufacturing, banking, and the economy. Control of literature, the press, and entertainment. Irrespective of who is doing the control, whether it be a central government or a congolomeration of unrelated entities, it is still is pretty much everything you need to maintain a society in a desired state. This is what the North Koreans do. This is what we do.
There are differences beteen the US and the DPRK of course. To imply there isn't would be ludicrous and a lie. But there are also curious similarties. And to imply the huge differences between our nations is entirely due to government would be disingenuous. Our nation was huge and filled with natural resources free for the taking (after we killed all the indigenous peoples.) North Korea only received independence after World War II, and five years after that was bombed into the Stone Age. Not that they didn't deserve it, but they are to a large degree a product of their initial conditions. And they didn't chose the best of friends. Still, it is important to recognize these differences if only to try to correct those problems that we do have here. Problems that arise, for the most part, from our similarities with a totalitarian state. Sadly, it is these similarities that will prevent a true self-assessment and, if history is any guide, only grow worse over time.
*US and DPRK.
**US and DPRK
*** US - 2; DPRK - 1
-Futbol Guru, http://mises.org/community/blogs/not-a-lemming
Fate isn't a popular subject these days. After all, the world has grown up. Industrialized. Science has eliminated mystery and explains the world around us. Changing our surroundings is as easy as pumping flammable hydrocarbons from the ground and using their chemical energy to dig enormous holes from which we extract raw materials to modify our environment.
Okay, so maybe that doesn't sound so easy. But in the industrialized nations we have come to look at the world as deterministic and malleable. To fix a problem or make a change all that is needed is the necessary application of effort. Sooner or later the world will look the way we desire. (Except perhaps for the enormous slag heap, but that is generally pushed into someone else's backyard.) I just wonder if this is actually true, or if there is but a thin veneer masking us from a reality so gray we don't want to look at it.
My oldest son plays on a high school soccer team ranked second in the state in which we live. That was until yesterday when they had their first state-level game against a team they were predicted to defeat. And they controlled the ball at least ninety percent of the time. In over thirty years of watching and playing soccer at every level from local rec to the EPL I have never seen a team so thoroughly dominate play yet fail to take away the win. There was not a player on the other side with the skill of our worst player and our teamwork was superb. But the other team, to their credit, was well coached and disciplined, and defended the net tenaciously. And the keeper had a stellar match. Full marks. But after our boys hit post or crossbar the fourth time I began to wonder if fate was on our side.
I've seen it many times in soccer. A team that gets pounded throughout the game by a far superior opponent only to dodge the bullet time and again. It is as if there is a force field surrounding the goal. Shots that would normally find the back of the net sail inches wide, strike the woodwork, or meet with acrobatic saves. Then, as happened last night, the single offensive opportunity for the opponent finds us picking the ball out of the back of our net. Game over. Season ended. Hopes dashed. Those of us watching from the sidelines - those with experience in this frustrating, beautiful game - could sense it mid-way through the second half though it didn't come until a golden goal three minutes into the first overtime. Their single offensive opportunity of the match. None of understood it, but we had all seen it before, and there is nothing those boys or the coach could have done differently to change the result. Fate had played the decisive role.
Control over our lives is an illusion. An illusion that persists through a combination of chance, probability, and the enormous number of people interacting on this Earth. At over six billion it is very truly a statistically significant set. Lives are snuffed out in traffic accidents. People strike it rich at the slots. One man is diagnosed with cancer. Another invests in a stock that skyrockets. One woman writes a book that turns into a runaway bestseller while another can't even get an agent to answer her letters. Nothing any of these people do has any real effect on their fate, it simply is, what it is, while the rest of us work ever more diligently with no result. Like that team.
This is a very frightening view of the world and it is no wonder we don't want to believe it. It respects no person, bends to no will, and is utterly and completely outside our control. It is perhaps why the ancients translated this fact of life into the supernatural. And who am I to say they weren't accurate in doing so? Certainly an all-controlling God with a precocious will is no more or no less unfathomable than, say, the equation for a normal distribution. And a normal distribution does little to explain a series of statistically improbable yet unrelated outcomes such as happened at that soccer game last night. Perhaps that is why we so love sports, because only in sport do we glimpse the nature of reality in a way that doesn't reflect so powerfully on our own lives. There is after all, a primordial comfort in truth, even when it hurts.
What is the fate of a lemming? Does it know it is being driven towards the cliff? Can it know? And even if it knows is there anything it can do about it?
Futbol Guru, http://mises.org/community/blogs/not-a-lemming
I love you, you love me, we're a happy family, with a kiss and a hug and a smile -
Woops! Wrong Barney. I was thinking of that other purple dinosaur. The one who represents Massachusets' Fourth Congressional District. Barney Frank.
I'd like to say that nothing surprises me anymore, but everytime I reach that point something even more amazing or outlandish happens. As with this afternoon while listening to the radio. I heard, with my own ears, clips from a recent Barney Frank speech in which he actually said the mortgage crisis was caused by conservatives pushing people into houses they couldn't afford. Then he went on to say they were doing this while he, the purple dinosaur, was out campaigning for affordable RENTAL PROPERTY! It isn't really worth a blog post other than the utter contempt in which he must hold us, the fawning masses.
Under the Clinton Administration it was Barney Frank in particular who threatened mortgage companies with federal investigations under racial discrimination laws if they didn't start approving more mortgages to low income families. It was Barney Frank who championed Freddi Mae and Fanny Mac up to the day they collapsed. Since FDR at least the mantra of the liberals has been putting every family into a home that they own. And now he's lauding the merits of affordable rental housing? If it weren't so sick it would be hilarious. And that is the exact phrase he used: "AFFORDABLE RENTAL HOUSING." And, "...conservatives pushing people into houses they couldn't afford..." is a direct quote as well, though in the interests of readability I edited out the snake-like slurring and hissing so prevalent in the dinosaur's voice. For completeness and journalistic accuracy I include the actual quote now: "... conshuvativesh pusshing people inchoo houshesh zhey couldn't affowrd."
Of course the only way mortgage companies could get the payments low enough for low income people to afford the expensive houses they were buying was to invoke things like sub-prime, variable interest rate loans. It trundled along for a while because the economy was red-hot and energy prices were low. Throw in a bad war and a spike in fuel prices and the whole thing blew up like a helicopter in a Hollywood action flick. It isn't a stretch to say that Barney Frank, more than any other single person, is responsible for the current financial crises which began as a ripple from the sub-prime mortgage disaster - which he is now trying to push off on the conservatives (aka Republicans.)
Is this FutbolGuru-worthy? Not really. It's just politics as usual. But what is FutbolGuru worthy is the generalization of this incident. Barney Frank will get away with his latest lie. There are literally millions who will seeth at the Republicans for precipitating this disaster. And while I'm no fan of the Republicans either, they didn't cause this particular mess. They were too busy invading Iraq to think this one up. Yes, Barney Frank will succeed. He'll get re-elected. He'll continue to craft legislation that reflects his mendacity and contempt for us. And why shouldn't he? He sure as hell knows he's lying. But he also knows we're a bunch of lemmings and 99% of us won't stop long enough to see where we're headed. And those of us who do will get run over. And all the while he just smiles and watches the furry little bodies hurtle themselves into the void. Because he just thinks it's damn funny. That's just the way the purple dinosaur rolls.
Futbol Guru, http://mises.org/community/blogs/not-a-lemming
I loved HALO. The original game. Even with XBox Live, neither HALO 2 nor HALO 3 captured the essence of the original game feel.
Not only was it a great game, but it had a great soundtrack. I still listen to the album when driving from time to time. One of the best songs on the HALO soundtrack is The Gun Pointed at the Head of the Universe. And it played during one of the best levels - when Master Chief was tasked with destroying the generators to keep HALO from firing and destroying the known universe.
Just when we thought the economy was about to bottom out there is a new threat to the economy. Indeed, a gun pointed at its very head. For even as President Obama is striving to revive our faltering economic engine, his other hand may well be seeking to destroy it.
The EPA is considering listing six 'heat-trapping' gases as health hazards. If they do that, they will have the legal authority to regulate those gases. An article on CNN summarizes today's events but the details can no doubt be found elsewhere. These gasses are: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. Now I'm not going to delve into the details of what constitutes a 'health hazard' as defined by the EPA. It really doesn't really matter because the reason they are doing this is perfectly clear. Once it is a health hazard they will then be able to regulate it as they see fit.
Before I get into the implications of what that means, lets look at the gas they're most interested in regulating, carbon dioxide. They want to say it is a health hazard. So does this mean I won't be able to drink it anymore? After all, there is significant CO2 dissolved in every Coke I drink. It comes out of solution in my stomach and when I burp it up it makes my nose sting. If this is a health hazard Coke drinkers should be dropping like flies. (BTW, CO2 is inert, which means it doesn't readily react with anything.) Will they prevent dentists from using nitrous oxides to calm patients or, God forbid, fill cans of Redi-Whip? Please say it isn't so! And to regulate methane I suppose they'll have to start ticketing cows, which means somebody will have to monitor the cows with some kind of sniffer. Ah, no thanks on that job.
But what am I talking about? These gases aren't dangerous in levels they are found in nature. It makes as much sense to regulate water since, if improperly used, water can result in drowning and death. It must be a health hazard. Thousands die every year worldwide in floods. And air - it kills people in the form of tornadoes. I suppose we should regulate that.There are people out there convinced the sky is falling and they will do anything to save us. They are 100% convinced that rising carbon dioxide levels are going to kill us, every one. And soon. Whether they are right or wrong can't even be proven. Climate simulations are less reliable than the weather forecast, and from personal experience that puts them somewhere between 0% and 25%. Are we really going to turn this power over to someone with 12.5% accuracy at best? We did it with the mortgage industry and look where that got us. We go with this one it is going to make the current recession look like a Golden Age.
Lets have some fun and play Einstein. He used to run what he called a Gedankenversuch, or, thought experiment. He used them for testing things that can't be tested, like astronauts moving at the speed of light. Suppose the EPA decides to save us from ourselves and places some kind of cap on carbon emissions. How they would even do that is so full of technical problems as to make the entire law meaningless, but that never stopped the government. But I digress. If they do that then car sales will go from a 25% drop to more like a 50% drop. Perhaps more. Manufacturing is already on the skids. This would cut it in half again. Talk about the first time jobless claims the month after that nuke goes off. And anyone who thinks Obama's high speed rail system is going to replace those jobs probably works with that heavy, man-chick at the EPA.
This is a gun pointed at the head of our economy. Maybe we do need to cap CO2. I'm not the person to ask that question. I've only spent my adult life running high fidelity, multiple-degree-of-freedom, digital simulations of physical systems and hold a masters degree in atmospheric science. Lisa Jackson, administrator of the EPA does have a masters degree in Chemical Engineering but after graduation she went directly to work for the EPA and has been there ever since. Something tells me her analysis of the situation might suffer from biases picked up during her government years. And you know the problem with biases? You don't know you have them.
CO2, a health hazard? Is that because it is dangerous to the health of humans? Or is it because they fear it will cause the extinction of humanity from interpretation of their climatological simulations? Do we really want to trust our teetering economy to those odds? Master Chief... where are you when we need you?
Futbol Guru, http://mises.org/community/blogs/not-a-lemming
There was a time, not that long ago, when forces of the West were arrayed against forces from the East along what was called an 'Iron Curtain.' Communist nations trapped in or controlled by the Soviet Union had cut themselves off from interaction with the 'freedom-loving' nations of the West. Their ideology, as espoused quite clearly by Kruschev, was to, bury us.
While the West, led by the capitalist industrialists of the United States eager to open markets for their goods, was by no means innocent of inflammatory speech, it would be difficult to defend the position that we initiated the problem. Indeed, communist movements in various countries across the globe were responsible for a half-century of terror whose ravages live on across Africa, Asia, the Middle East, and Latin America. To defend our mutual selves from imminent invasion, troops, tanks, aircraft, and everything to respond to a surge of the red hoard were garrisoned along this curtain which stretched from the Baltic to the Mediterranean in Europe, and ran in a broken line across various nations of the east including Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, and others.
This was the world in which I grew up. A world prepared for war. The Cold War we called it, though there are plenty for whom it was sufficiently hot. Thankfully it is mostly gone now. The people behind the Iron Curtain can now at least see across the borders and in many places, it's removal has been a boon and a blessing. I can even buy clothing sewn by garment workers in Vietnam and camera lenses made in Russia. Prior to 1990 I'd have never believed goods made in those countries would ever be sold here. And the fact that they are has probably been good for everybody. Yes, American jobs are, and remain, an issue. But for the Vietnamese there is little doubt that it has improved their economy. And not being at war is always nice. From all indications, there are even people in former Warsaw Pact nations reading this blog.
But there are two places where that old Cold War border remains, though the reason it remains is different in each. North Korea and Cuba. One is far from the US. The other is the second closest nation to the United States after Canada and Mexico which share our physical borders. In one, the United States fought a war to prevent Soviet expansion. In the other, the Soviet's based nuclear missiles which almost led to a war that might have seen them used. In one, the United States built a virtual wall to keep them contained. In the other, they built their own wall to keep themselves contained. Both are impoverished. One is still a threat. The other is not. One keeps it's wall defended for fear of a U.S. attack that will never come. We maintain the wall on the other because we still have egg on our face.
It is interesting to consider why the Soviet Union 'fell'. Thankfully it didn't require a war. But what was it? Certainly economic pressure had a lot to do with it. The centrally controlled Soviet economy simply couldn't compete with the west. There are, however, too many reasons to go into in this short post, and books will continue to be written about it for many years to come. One of the primary factors, however, was the infusion of goods and information from the West, a result of Gorbachev's perestroika and glasnost. To a large degree the people trapped behind the Iron Curtain just got sick of it. And as it became impossible to keep the reality of a much better life on the other side of the wall from reaching the people on the inside, maintaining that wall became impossible as well. Pandora's Box had been opened and could not be once again shut.
So what is the deal in Cuba? The Soviet Union fell because good and services flowed in and exposed the government for the sham it was. Even China's hard line government is slowly changing to accommodate capitalism so they can avoid what happened to their Russian counterparts. It would seem then, that the best way to eliminate the Cuban 'threat' would be to flood their nation with goods and services. Threat? There is no threat! What is the purpose of an ongoing travel and trade embargo other than to assuage the bruised egos of those who fled when Castro came to power? (Now living comfortably in their Miami mansions plotting their return.) Okay, so Castro made us, the US, look like idiots. What a coup d'etat! But that was before I was even born. With the exception of Robert Byrd, how many people in power today were in power then? The nation that sponsored them doesn't even exist anymore. An entire island held hostage by the greed and anger of the wealthy elite who bugged-out the instant things got dicey. I seriously doubt some poor bastard trying to keep his grandfather's 1958 Ford Fury running still remembers his Marx.
The hot border in North Korea is still necessary. While not crazy, North Koreas have a world view that doesn't really mesh too well with... okay, they're crazy. But in Cuba? It would make more sense to fence off New Orleans. The Big Easy, as the uncontested crime capital of the United States, or even Mexico as the home of ruthless cartels that export billions in drugs every year, present far more danger to our security than an impoverished Caribbean Island with an inefficient government. And the beaches are great. Or so I'm told.
Futbol Guru, http://mises.org/community/blogs/not-a-lemming
Perhaps the most surprising thing about these pirate attacks in the Arabian Sea is that no one in the media has used the phrase, 'Pirates of the Ar-a-bian.' I guess I'll be the first. Afterall, journalists the world over are already borrowing from my insightful, common sense analysis. Guys, a little credit please.
Anyway, I came across an article this morning on the FoxNews website, Ten High-Tech Weapons to Repel Pirates. It listed ten toys that might be used by shipping companies to keep their vessels from being hijacked by pirates and their crews interned for what might be extended periods of time. All of these toys were non-lethal of course because we don't want to hurt anyone. After all, according to Capt. George Quick, vice president of the International Organization of Masters, Mates and Pilots, based in Linthicum, Md, "The [Somali] pirates are really just after the ransom money, so it's best to keep things as calm as possible." Ransom, apparently, is okay, even if the crew is captured and dragged off to be held in a dungeon in Mogadishu until someone comes up with the money. And, as I recall, some of the captives have never been released.
Well, to my way of thinking, WTF?! Maybe it was that one good movie and its two horrible sequels that warped everybody's perception, but pirates aren't flamboyant, romantic characters who are really just big teddy bears and want to be left alone to sail the sea in freedom. These are cold-blooded killers who prey upon the weak and defenseless and would just as soon rape your girlfriend as play Grand Theft Auto. The only way to deal with these lawless thugs is to kill them, and we don't need any expensive research projects to figure out how to do that.
Now, I'm against arming the crew. The result of that would be dead crew members. Probably accidental, but dead none the less. Merchant marine sailors aren't trained to repel boarders and they actually have a job to do while they are on ship. But I would wager that these maritime shipping companies could probably find some out of work Blackwater security men with itchy trigger fingers. Those guys know how to shoot. And out in the middle of the Arabian Sea they probably wouldn't get many opportunities to spray crowds of civilians with their bullet hoses.
Alternatively, set up Hellfire missile launchers on the stern of these vessles. Fire and forget. And dead pirates can't exact revenge or meet you the next time you pass along the coast. No return from "the Locker" for those bastards. A Phalanx-style chaingun would probably work well too. Let the crew fire the weapon remotely from a protected area in the ship. Not only would they be doing the world a favor by eliminating this troublesom pest, but it would probably be fun as well, reducing or even eliminating long hours of boredom at sea. They'd probably even fight over the chance to use they system.
Treaties prevent you from docking in an international port with an armed ship? No problem. If you're bringing free food for their starving masses, just don't set sail until they decide your protection is at least as important as the food you are giving them to feed the people they are probably intentionally starving to death. If it is actually a cruise for profit, helo your Blackwater guys out before you make berth. It would probably be a lot cheaper than paying two million in ransom.
With all due respect to Mr. Wagenseil, and in the interests of actually making sense, here are ten weapons that might actually do some good against these unprincipled, barbaric, raiding parties. Incidentally, it is the only anti-piracy method that has ever worked.
1) Mk 15 Phalanx Close-In Weapons System. Pirates don't come back.
2) AGM 115 Hellfire missile 
Fire and forget.
3) Gould Mk 48 anti-ship torpedo. Overkill? NOT! Have you ever been held in a Somali dungeon?
4) Mines. 
They'll never see it coming.
5) Blackwater security forces. 
Love 'em or hate 'em, my guess is, the pirates would hate 'em.
6) Twin-40mm cannon. 
Get the whole crew involved!
7) Attack dogs. 
Cheap, effective, and they make great pets for the crew.
8) Skinheads. 
They don't need weapons, love their work, and can be disposed of at the end of a journey.
8) Flame throwers. 
Can be used by the cook so technically not a weapon.
9) Boiling oil. 
Also, not a weapon.
10) Blunderbuss. 
Beats doing what they are doing now...
11) Added 4/16. Here's how they used to handle it
. 
Futbol Guru, http://mises.org/community/blogs/not-a-lemming
More Posts
« Previous page -
Next page »