Simmering Beneath the Surface
Thursday, April 29, 2004
If you don't know what you are talking about, don't write the article
BIG pet peeve of mine is when editors of a paper share with the rest of us their opinions about topics in which they know nothing about. Its like being in public, in a place you want to be, and its ruined because some jack ass is spewing rubbish out his mouth about thinks he knows nothing about. And to make matters worse, he tries to get all smart-alecky about it!!
Case in point, the local daily rag printed a commentary from the Associate Editor of the Baltimore Sun, Jay Bookman. Now this knucklehead tips his hand immediately that he has no clue in what he is writing about, that being deficit spending. 1) He meanders through a narrative that doesn't tie into his topic. 2) He compares deficit spending to that of a personal checking account (just plain stupid) 3) He acts like deficit spending is a relatively recent phenomenon, and thus we are driving future generations to the poor house. 4) He makes no comparison of the size of the deficit against real GDP. If you don't make this simple comparison, changes due to inflation are lost, and thus the numbers are meaningless.
So, Mr Bookman, 1) don't be so silly as to meander, and then slam your readers for being stupid. Yes, we don't like taxes, yet what we don't like even more is wasteful spending. 2) You and I have a limited way about how we can obtain wealth, and in the end want to keep a portion of that wealth. We also have to chance to create wealth. The government is not in the business of keeping money, or creating wealth. It does have the ability to create cash, whether through the treasury, through bond offerings, license sales, or a myriad of other ways. The government doesn't have a checkbook to balance. 3) Alexander Hamilton, first Secretary of Treasury, proposed and used deficit spending, and its been going on for a hundred years.
Maybe Mr Bookman should stick to writing about what he knows, and that is his love of John Kerry. Clearly Mr Bookman was trying to take a swipe at the President.
If space is at a premium, why does the Statesman insist on printing commentary from people who don't know what they are talking about? Jay Bookman's commentary that deficit spending is "ripping off" the future generations of this country was awful. Why not have economists write about spending instead of uninformed editorialists?
Mr. Bookman's elitist condescension went nowhere. He concluded that we who drive SUVs must be stupid because we whine too much about our taxes. How his theory of alternative transportation and tax spending is related was lost in the commentary, but if his ultimate point was to show that deficit spending hurts future generations, he should review our history. Alexander Hamilton, first Secretary of the Treasury started deficit spending over 200 years ago.
Finally, put the $7.4 trillion figure into context. As a percentage of real GDP, this is still smaller than the deficit spending of the 1990's.
No UNSCAM reporting in the local paper
Another letter to the editor of the Austin American Statesman, asking them why they are giving no coverage to the UN Oil for Food scandal. Especially when you consider that they couldn't resist printing every story possible about CORPORATE GREED!!!!
The Statesman hasn't been in touch yet, so I doubt they are interested in printing this in the daily rag.
Why isn’t the Statesman reporting more about the UN’s Oil for Food fiasco? A recent GAO investigation into the UN supervised program reports that Saddam received at least $4.4B in graft and another $5.7B from smuggled oil. These figures are so large that it makes the kids at Enron blush!
Are we not hearing more about this investigation because some of the phony companies trading oil in this program have terrorist connections? For the “Saddam didn’t fund terrorists” crowd, I guess it would take the wind out their sails if they found out that a Bahamian bank, with connections to Al Queda’s financial network, was involved in this scam. Or that another dummy company had close ties to the Taliban. While still another was part of BCCI, the defunct bank with ties to global crime.
Its a little snarky, but I find that I get a little snarky when I have a limit of 150 words.
Personal Stuff
My kiddo is about to turn a year old!!!! Very exciting!
I sometimes sit back and reflect on the differences/similarities on how I'm raising my son, and how my parents raised me. I think greatest difference, and I hope its a positive difference, is the age difference between my folks raising children, and me raising children. My folks were young when I was born, 23 and 19. They were learning about their place in the world as young adults, while also learning about being parents. I'm in my late thirties, and when my Dad was this age, I was in high school. With my Mom, I was in college. I have a one year old. Big difference in perspectives.
My folks gave me a lot. We didn't have a lot of money when I was young, yet they built a foundation of love, discipline, and a strong work ethic. How this fits in the world, they had to figure out on their own, and there were plenty of bumps along the road. Being a parent who is older, hopefully I can help my youngster see the bumps that my parents didn't, and thus makes aspects of his growing up that was rough on me, smoother.
Cheney slamming Kerry's war record?
Did I miss something? I'm thinking that I did because the excerpts that I read from Cheney's recent speech didn't anything about Kerry not being a war hero, he said that Kerry's voting record on military spending makes him questionable as a choice to be President. Kerry's service in Viet Nam and his voting record are two VERY different things, and its the voting record that every one should be paying attention to.
Look, if Cheney has anything negative to say about Kerry's service in Viet Nam, then Cheney should be publicly slapped around. Kerry have the Silver Star for crying out loud, and that isn't given to folks who show up to lunch on time! KERRY IS A LEGITIMATE WAR HERO. 'Nuff said on that topic. It really shouldn't be up for discussion.
On a different page, Kerry's voting record on military spending is fair game, and should be up for question. There are sacred cows when it comes to spending bills, and voting records give the electorate a view into how a person will act as a President. Being a war hero doesn't mean that you'll be a great President. If you believe that, would you consider Eisenhower one of the greatest Presidents of our time? Hardly. If a war hero makes for a good president, would Audie Murphy been a better president than Truman or LBJ? Hardly. War hero = good President just doesn't translate.
I'm way behind in posting....
Too much work, too little time. I have a bunch of things I want to post, and I'll be trying to catch up soon. I've been pinging the guys at that Austin American Stateman, so I'll be posting those little ditties soon.
Sunday, April 18, 2004
Israel Strikes Hamas Again
Sure, its easy to argue that the Israeli strike on the latest Hamas leader, Rantisi (sp?), will stir violence (read: hysteria). My question is, Hamas has already said that they won't back down until Israel is destroyed, and so by killing its leader, can Hamas take Israel's threat of death to a higher level? Critics will argue that this attack will make it easier for Hamas to draw in more recruits. From what we've seen from the Middle East, terrorist respond to weakness (read: negotiations and speeches) and will back down from a strong hand. I just don't see this killing being successfully used as a recruiting. Here is in the US, the death of a leader would be a rally cry. I'm not so sure this is universal in all cultures.
Sunday, April 11, 2004
Time to change the military's structure?
I mentioned a few weeks back that I had an idea for the military on how we can prepare for future wars. Keep in mind that I'm not a military strategist, and don't claim to be one. I'm taking the view of an outsider, looking in, asking questions, and wondering if there is a better way. I'm also approaching this from a 40,000 foot level, so this idea is at best, half backed.
The premise is that any military that successfully defends its country, must evolve over time to prepare and match the threats it faces. Threats change as the aggressor is always looking for new ways to find a weakness. What I do believe to be true, and has held true as a constant in history, is that overwhelming force will ultimately prevail when properly applied. A second truth is that a military fills with warriors who believe in what they are fighting for, will win the war they fight. They may lose battles, but strong values, especially those tied to democracy (freedom of man, liberty, etc) are compelling enough to stiffen the resilience of most soldiers. I have a book around here making that point, yet I can't find it right now.
The military of the United States is still set up to defeat an adversary in the form of the Soviet Union. With the collapse of the USSR, we no longer need to have troops on alert for Soviets tanks to roll across the German plain. We have troops committed to parts of Western Europe, ostensibly because of real or perceived threats, though the reality is that the US has made a substantial investment in overseas bases, and the surrounding communities has made a substantial investment the bases. If a US base was to pullout of German, it would cause an economic mess for the surrounding area. If you need an idea what it would be like, take a look at the Subic Bay in the Phillipines. Okay, its an extreme example because of a volcano eruption, yet the point is that no one came in and filled the void left by the base. If the US Navy had remained, the volcanic fall out would have still been a disaster, but the Navy would have cleaned up the area, keeping jobs in the area, and mitigating some of the economic fall out.
I'm getting to the point here, and that is that the US should consider creating another branch of the military. This one would be smaller in size, and its purpose is to act as a quick-strike force, a team that can be nearly anywhere, anytime, almost instantly. Light infantry, yet with skill sets for air, sea, land, and covert intelligence. Think in terms of the best features of Green Berets, SEALS, and Rangers, yet with connections into the same intelligence as the CIA. Small teams of men ( six to twelve) would work together as "units", a small self contained military, each member with a specific skill, yet all members are interchangeable. The mission is to quickly strike, possibility pre-emptive, at threats, causing disruption and slowing down the threat in time for the regular military to step in an mop up the job.
How I came to this conclusion is that one of the criticisms of today's military is that it is not designed to combat terrorism, it cannot strike quickly should it need to, and thus target opportunities can be missed. I don't believe that we should dismantle the current military, as we still need that structure, especially if we are to continue to take part in missions like Iraq. And I don't believe it is possible to successfully create an "army within an army" where a branch of the military would take on what I'm suggesting. I belive this would be best accomplished by having a separate branch, with new independent thought and reporting, to take this on. The new branch would have unprecedented levels of authority as they would not recruit from those off the street, but would recruit from the best of the other branches. Yes, there will be some huge pissing matches on that subject, but it could be wokred out.
Besides speed and intelligence, another benefit in this plan is that our European allies could actively participate in such a plan. Our allies in NATO may not invest at the same levels on their military that we do, yet they could provide for an elite set of commandos. Let's call them Omega troops, because would be able to do everything, from Alpha to Omega.
I have some other points to make, but this is enough for now.
Wednesday, April 07, 2004
Robert Kagan's Book
I made mention in an earlier post of reading Robert Kagan's book, Of Paradise and Power, and it was a powerful read. If you have any wonder as to how we have reached the point that we have with our European allies, you need to read this book. Originally published in 2003, and now republished in January 2004 to update the book with the Iraqi War, the book concisely sums the reason why the Europeans think they can brow beat us diplomatically, why they think we are simplistic in our diplomatic responses, and how America's policy of protecting Europe in the Cold War has created this Kantian Utopia where the Europeans feel they can question us without fear of losing their protection. The book is good in that while written by an American, it doesn't take sides in the debate, it merely offers analysis on how we got here, and why we all do what we do. Essentially, we act, because we can. Europeans dither, because, what else can they do? They have purposely cut their military to the bone. So much so that we had to help them out with actions in their own back yard (Kosovo). Diplomatically, one could argue that we were bound by the NATO agreements to help out, but we could also stay away as no NATO nation was attacked. Our allies were embarrassing themselves in Kosovo, and we had to help out.
The book also draws parallels between Europe's reaction to Kosovo and Iraq. Iraq was an unjustified attack against a sovereign nation, and in violation to UN laws. Kosovo was also a violation to UN sovereignty laws, but because occurred to Europe's back yard, it was easy for the to justify the action. Oh yeah, double standards all over the place.
Kagan also argues that Europe is more afraid of American power than that of the terrorist in the world. This is because not that the Soviet Union is gone, Europe has no leverage over our negotiations. America is free to say and do as we please with out concern of Communist assaults. To me, it is a damning argument of a self inflated ego. Instead of doing something about their sinking stature in the world, Europeans would rather deny this happening and pretend that the Emperor is wearing clothes.
It's this denial, coupled with what I see as the willingness to subjugate their security needs to the US, as the very reason we should consider looking East to strengthen our ties politically, economically, and democratically. We need the European markets as they are still large and powerful, yet those markets represent today, and we need to also look at tomorrow and better appreciate what India, China, and Southeast Asia mean to America.
Kagan also warns that America must be careful not to ignore Europe as she is still very important to America's economic health. I understand his point, yet I still want to take the continent by the lapels, and give it a good shake. Well, except for the British, and with them, I'd like to buy them a beer. I don't think they have given up, though there are "continental" forces in Great Britain who are trying to force the British to be more European. DON'T DO IT!!!! STAND UP AND BE BRITISH!!!
The Boyz of Summer are here
The White Sox with Esteban Loiza won. The Astro's with Roger Clemens won. Everything is right with the world.
I expect to enjoy this baseball season as the Astros and the Cubs should really battle it out for the NL Central pennant. The White Sox don't look particularly strong, bu their division is really weak, and who knows? Stay healthy for most of the season, and anything can happen.
April, the cure for March Madness
Congratulation to the University of Connecticut men and women's basketball teams for winnign the NCAA championships. I know I didn't have the Huskies picked to win it all, and they had to beat up a pretty tough field to get there. It was a really fun tournament, though I have to say, the championship game was boring. I fell asleep! Which is weird considering how many good games had been played before the championship.
The wife and I met Coach Geno two years ago in Las Vegas, at Michael's in the Barbary Coast. Fabulous restaurant. Really FABULOUS. 10 year anniversary dinner, and after dinner, we saw Tony Bennett at the Paris. It was a good night. Funny story about Coach Geno; the wife and I walk into the restaurant, and this other fellow follows us in. We're waiting for the mater' de, and I take notice of the guy who had followed us. He looks familiar, but I can't put a finger on who he is. He notices that I'm staring, smiles, and asks, "Have you been here before?" We reply, "no", but that the restaurant was highly recommended. He tells us that its one of his favorite places. I tell if that he looks familiar, and apologize to him if he is a former customer. In my job, I meet a lot of people, and I usually very good at faces (bad with names). He smiles again, and instead of saying his name, he asks where I live, what I do, etc. When I realize that work isn't the connection, I seen the "UCONN" embroidered on his shirt, and he says "Do you watch college basketball?" Being the smooth operator that I am, I stutter, "You're dat, dat, uhm coach, dat, uhm won it all!" Oh yeah, he was impressed. End of story, he sat at the table next to our's, with his friends, and was a very nice gentleman.
Whew! Where Did the time go?
I have been buried at work, and by the time I get home, I'm just not in the mood to write.
