About Me

Name: mgraves
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Afghanistan choices

Posted by mgraves on Wednesday, November 04, 2009 10:30:12 PM
Afghanistan continues to heat up--the weather and terrain conspiring with the Taliban and AQ terrorists to kill coalition soldiers and demoralize civilian populations back home.  As this happens, the Obama administration considers Gen McCrystal's request for 40,000 additional troops, without which, the war will be lost, according to the General.
 
At this point in the time, the administration has three basic options--whatever he chooses will be a type of one of these options.
 
Firstly, he can give up.  He can pull back U.S. forces and request NATO and Australia do the same.  This option will limit U.S. and coalition military casualties.  It will, however, encourage a bloodbath as the Taliban re-asserts control over the country and cities and brings to heal anyone foolish to count on Western resolve.  This option will also result in the migration of insurgents from Afghanistan to Iraq, which would severely inhibit any gains made there in the last two years.  This option will also allow for the explosion of poppy growth and heroin funded extremism.  Further, U.S. and allied nations will witness increased civilian deaths as AQ is able to go from defense of Afghanistan/Stone Age fundamentalism to Oplan Bojinka type plots against the U.S. and her allies.
 
Secondly, President Obama can choose to continue to muddle through on the current course.  Additions of troops less than what General McCrystal is asking for fall into this category also.  Under such a course, the Taliban would continue to consolidate gains and intimidate the population into believing that the West is the weak horse in the fight.  The population will make accomodations to the Taliban--after all, they just want to get on with their lives.  U.S. and coalition forces would continue to face increasing casualties and increased pressure from politicians and civilians back home to revert to Option One.
 
Lastly, President Obama can go all in and trust the man he picked to lead U.S. strategy in Afghanistan.  President Obama does not have a good track record on matters of war--ranging from no track record to opposing the surge in Iraq--and he might be advised to take advice from the SME (Subject Matter Expert) he chose.  In such a case, what will happen is less clear.  The surge of troops may enable the colonels to pursue a "clear and hold" strategy, thereby pushing back the Taliban and stabilizing the country.  Then, perhaps, (in reference to my previous post) the security necessary to build a civil society can be imposed.
 
As a post-script, I would like to address the flawed analogy of the Sons of Iraq (SOI) and the Taliban, which I have heard, on ocassion.  This fantasy involves the delusion that the Sunni rejectionists who became the Anbar Awakening and the SOI are sufficiently similar to the Taliban.  The Sunni rejectionists allied themselves with the foreign fighters and the terrorists as a means to get back to power.  The Taliban have accepted AQ, foreign fighters, and terrorists into their bosom, but the Taliban is the major enemy. 
 
Rather than adjunct to, or alongside of, the Taliban is the insurgency.  Peeling off disaffected Taliban is only possibly when the West has shown the will and capability to win.  Any dingleberries that fall into line will be of a negligible amount until the West has demonstrated this.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Security Forces and security

Posted by mgraves on Wednesday, October 21, 2009 11:00:57 PM
Creating a civil society in Iraq is still a long ways off.  Much of the work left to be done, however, can, and must be done by the Iraqis themselves.  Iraqi Security Forces and civilians are far and away the targets of the "insurgents".  What remains to the coalition is to enable the conditions that will enable an educated, though historically "unfree", society to create a society that values the rule of law over the rule of force.

One of the major handicaps faced by the Iraqis is the creation of her security forces.  In much of the world, security forces (police and military) are of a different type than we find the United States.

When Sir Robert Peel organized the London Metropolitan Police in 1829 (London Metropolitan Police Act 1829)he was creating the model for policing that would take hold in the English-speaking world--and much of the western world.  While policing has been evolving--pockets of corruption have hampered the establishment of a professional image (1980's Miami PD, 1970's NYPD, and et cetera, to say nothing of Western Sheriffs and Marshalls)--for decades, much of the Western World enjoys professional police forces who are accountable to the laws that they enforce.  Internal Affairs departments prosecute investigations against police officers who offend against Police duties and responsibilities. 

In Iraq--and in much of the world--police have not been there to "serve and protect" the citizens, but rather to: (a) ensure the continuation of the regime; (b) line their own pockets and set themselves up for retirement; and (c) exercise power in their petty neighborhood dictatorships (which helps both "a" and "b").  In such circumstances, the citizens cannot trust the police because the police will either shake them down, or turn them in for alleged offenses.  The police are feared by all citizens, rather than by law-breakers. 

What follows from this is a "thin blue line" which is insulated from the concerns of citizens and citizens who prefer it that way.

Iraq, under Saddam Hussayn, had police who fit into this model.  Post-Saddam, Iraqi citizens could not trust the police because they had no reason to.  As Coalition Forces attempt to train Iraqi Security Forces, they must also train Iraqi citizens.  ISF must be trained to behave in a professional manner--to uphold the law, including enforcing it against themselves; to interact with citizens in a "serve and protect" manner; and to maintain high levels of training and competence.  Likewise, Iraqi citizens must be trained to trust ISF.  This can only be accomplished by ISF serving and protecting Iraqi citizens. 

ISF must be able to both learn to trust themselves and to serve and protect.  There must be internal controls to weed out bad ISF.  There must be a non-commissioned officer corps to both train the next generation of ISF, but also to guide the officer corps (NCOs being the backbone of security forces).

This--from what I have seen--is happening.  It is not, however, a fast process.  Habits learned by years of practice must be unlearned and new practices must be implemented.  A new ethos must be developed--it cannot be arbitrarily imposed from above or without--and creeds and oaths must be created and upheld.

If we are to abandon Iraq midstream, then we set up the Iraqi people for failure.  If we set them up for failure, then we create the environment necessary for a takeover by those who would re-implement the old order security forces model.  Such a model--witness the number of educated Saudis or Egyptians seeking to kill Americans--is detrimental to the security of the American people.

Could we, perhaps, absorb an attack here and an attack there, as we did during the 1990s?  We could, but those who die and those who are left behind must not be asked to absorb such things.  America has a Constitutional obligation to defend her borders and her citizens.  President Jefferson understood this when he sent American warships to the Barbary Coast.  President Monroe understood this when he promulgated the Monroe Doctrine (and President Roosevelt when he issued the Roosevelt corollary).  We can do no less.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Nobel questions

Posted by mgraves on Wednesday, October 14, 2009 6:28:37 AM
Is it considered to be an honor to receive the same award as Yassir Arafat (thief, murderer, etc) and Kofi Annan (stood idly by while Tutsis, Bosnians, Kosovars, etc were murdered; allowed his son to be a thief; oil-for-food scandal)?

If one can be nominated for an award for a do-nothing partial senate career and twelve days in the WH, who does not qualify for the award?

Could not someone who stood up to tyranny better represent Alfred Nobel's vision (any number of Iranians, or Chinese or Cuban political prisoners, or perhaps Aung San Suu Kyi)?

Shouldn't someone with a sense of proportion be ashamed of receiving an award that one obviously has not earned?

The answers to all these questions can be found in the supreme narcissism of our commander in chief and his pathological need to be "loved".

One day it may become clear that kowtowing to such "luminaries" as Chavez, Ghadaffi, and Ahmadinejad is neither in the best interests of U.S. national security, nor the oppressed peoples of the world.  It is unlikely to become clear to our President, however, who can apparently only see the imaginary "progressive" world that he hopes to one day create by sheer force of his personality.

How about a song?

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (4) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Iraq a diversion?

Posted by mgraves on Friday, October 09, 2009 5:00:15 AM
I read a letter to the editor in the Wall Street Journal (subscription required) the other day.  In said letter, the author drops several logical fallacies which tend to indicate that the leftist "framing" of Iraq has become the dominant "reality".

Firstly, by removing Saddam and his Sunni dictatorship, the U.S. strengthened Shi'a Iran.  There are several problems with this, the first of which is the characterization of Saddam's dictatorship as "Sunni".  Saddam was a Ba'athist--a local variant of the political malignancy known as national socialism--not a Sunni.  Further, Saddam's antipathy to Iran was not based upon religious--or ideological--differences, but upon two historic rivals competing for regional dominance. 

Iranians are Persians and Iraqis are, predominantly, Arabs: different languages, different cultures, and very different histories.  The caliphs and local Islamic leaders competed against one another for regional dominance.  Before that, Persians, Chaldeans, and Assyrians succeeded each other as dominant empires.  After the First World War, the Arab world came under the control of European powers, while Persia remained aloof. 

Secondly, the author implies Saddam's Iraq was a useful bulwark against Iran's regional ambitions.  This completely ignores the 10 years of sanctions and military coercion put in place to keep Saddam from slaughtering his own citizens after Saddam invaded Kuwait, which placed America's energy supply in jeopardy.  Is this a fair trade?  An uncertain bulwark--which is just as likely to harm those it is intended to protect--in exchange for the time, treasure, blood, and toil necessary to keep that bulwark from exploding into an orgy of bloodletting (which would leave Iraq at the mercy of an ambitious Iran).

Thirdly, the author implies that the PRC would have been willing to back sanctions on Iran if only the U.S. had not invaded Iraq based upon erroneous intelligence.  This ignores the obvious fact that WMD were a minor (three to four paragraphs of a 23 paragraph case for war) part of the authorization of use of force.  It also assumes that the PRC would be willing to act in a way it has shown no indication of being willing to act in.  The PRC opposed sanctions against North Korea--before the invasion of Iraq.  What possible reason would the PRC have to agree to sanctions against Iran, when the PRC would not agree to meaningful sanctions against North Korea?

Fourthly, the author makes a backhanded comment that, "ironically, Israel is now at greater risk than at any time in its 61-year history", which does not make a great deal of sense.  Unless, of course, one is under the delusion that the "Israel Lobby" and (Jewish) Neoconservatives were behind the Iraq war.  This is a libel.  Neoconservatives backed the Iraq war and pitched it, and may have even been the driving force behind it, but to label all neoconservatives as Jewish, and therefore beholden to the "Israel Lobby" is childish idiocy.  The U.S. invaded Iraq for many reasons--all of which revolved around the perceived national interests of the United States.  If Israel is served by the actions of the United States, in her own interests, then that is likely because Israel is a liberal democracy with similar values and interests to the United States.

Lastly, the author makes the bald claim that the U.S. has been unable to devote sufficient resources to Afghanistan because of the diversion in Iraq.  If this is the case, why, when Iraq was drawn down, was there not a corresponding rise in resources dedicated to Afghanistan?  Or, why are the "troop savings" of Iraq currently, not immediately reinvested in Afghanistan?

This last claim by the author is a libel against the U.S. military.  The U.S. military has hundreds of thousands of troops not in Iraq or Afghanistan.  If there were a resource deficit--rather than a tactical or strategic deficit--then soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines, and their equipment could be deployed to meet the task.

In conclusion, Saddam's Iraq was not a bulwark against an aggressive Iran, in any sense.  The PRC has not and will not act contrary to its own perceived interests, which include the exploitation of dictatorial regimes to acquire natural resources.  Finally, the U.S. has not diverted resources--the light footprint in Afghanistan was a tactical choice--from Afghanistan to Iraq.  The resources could have been produced had the strategy called for them.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (8) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The end of American Exceptionalism

Posted by mgraves on Wednesday, September 23, 2009 9:43:51 AM
And American Exceptionalism ended: not with the bang of a nuclear attack, or in a hail of gunfire of a coup d'état, or under the effects of a debilitating pandemic, but, rather, with an infantile cry for more government services.
 
Mark Steyn has been known to discuss how single payer health care so skews the relationship between the citizen and the state that future elections will be about the left promising more services and the "right" promising to deliver existing services in a more efficient manner.  The problem is that we've already reached that point (i.e. Prescription Drug Benefit, No Child Left Behind, and even partial privatization of Social Security).  There was no Waterloo or turning point.
 
It can not even be placed for certain on a timeline: was it FDR's New Deal, or perhaps earlier, with TR's progressivism?  Could it have been the Warren Court, or LBJ's Great Society?  Maybe Medicare or Social Security?  Perhaps the 16th or 17th Amendments?
 
Whenever it was, American Exceptionalism, based upon the unique combination of rugged individualism and Toqueville's "associations", has surrendered to a typical combination of infantile collectivism and childish narcissism found in emotionally immature and "secure" Western nations.
 
America is about the "individual", no longer individuals.  Rather than viewing Americans as individuals, the political class views Americans as individual members of groups.  Seeing America as a nation of individuals made Americans reliant on themselves and their social networks and families.  America about the "individual" merely means that America has groups of people that must be catered to as individuals so as to be able to fully self-actualize (whatever that means).
 
America has been reduced to the point where jobs producing, protecting, and maintaining have given way before an onslaught of political catering, organizing, and "rights" agitating.  Those who produce, protect, and maintain now do so in ways that are approved by the political class.  Instead of doing so within the law, these are now expected to do so within the framework of countless regulations (read: laws created and enacted by the executive).
 
The political class in America views its duties as encompassing those traditionally held by States (in Police powers), churches (social sanctions and moral education), families (education and caring for the elderly), unions (protecting workers), and business (creating jobs and growing and distributing wealth).  The over-arching state intrudes in every aspect of our lives (for example, limitations on greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide--produced every time we breathe--which is effectively a lever to population control, which enters our bedrooms).
 
The over-arching state seeks to protect us from ourselves, our decisions, and the difficulties that come with life.  The over-arching state regulates what we can eat.  The over-arching state regulates what marriage is (a definition that has been, for most of human civilization, in the hands of religion and the family.  The over-arching state says where we may send our children for school and what they may be taught there.  The over-arching state "delivers" us from the consequences of our decisions, creating a nation of moral and psychological infants.
 
The over-arching state creates a society unwilling to face difficulties.  And a society unwilling to face difficulties as challenges, but, instead viewing them as "unfair", is a society which has no self-confidence.  For all the emphasis on "self-esteem" in schools, children are not actually placed in an environment where self-esteem can be developed.  Self-esteem does not develop where it is nurtured, it develops where it is earned.
 
Such a nation cannot long survive in the face of "adult" nations.  At a time of Russian imperialism (for all the talk of American imperialism, it must be noted that America is the only "empire" in the history of the world that allows conquered nations to write their own laws, govern themselves, and expects no taxes or revenues from the conquered nations), North Korean insanity, Iranian nuclear brinkmanship, Venezuela's center of a collectivist latin power bloc, and the myriad other foreign policy concerns, America cannot afford to demonstrate childishness.  An America able to assert itself in its own interests, alas, no longer exists.
 
Some may claim that President Bush's "adventurism" soured Americans on foreign policy assertiveness, but America had soured on the sacrifice required years earlier.  The over-arching state has cushioned out of America the ability to sacrifice years ago.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (9) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

I don't...

Posted by mgraves on Monday, September 14, 2009 11:32:52 PM
Perhaps this is no longer topical, but I fear it will be.

I do not apologize for slavery.

I do not apologize for western imperialism.

I don't apologize for Jim Crow laws.

In fact, I don't apologize for anything that I am not responsible for.  It is the height of arrogance to presume to apologize for others.  It is even worse when those for whom you apologize are dead and gone, and you cannot even bother to put into context what it is you are apologizing for.

Yes, Europeans engaged in the heinous practice of slavery.  Slaves they purchased from other Africans.  Europeans were kidnapped and sold into slavery amongst the Turks.  Arab Africans continue the practice of selling captives into slavery.  Slavery is not a European failing.  It is a human failing.

Stronger nations invade and conquer other nations, and have done so since the beginning of civilization.  The Egyptians, Babylonians, Persians, Mongols, Turks, Franks, Normans, Zulus, etc.  This is not a last 500 years development.  This extends back to antiquity.  Further, every colonized "nation" has had a full generation or more to recover in freedom.  Instead, far too many "nations" have fallen into bickering or despotism.  At some point, those actually making the decisions need to be held responsible for their actions, instead of shifting the responsibility to dead white men.

Jim Crow is indeed a black eye on our nation's history. Jim Crow ended decades ago.  Now, the only political racism is that of gerry-mandering Congressional districts to guarantee a black or hispanic Congressman.  Economic racism?  Free enterprise; if someone wants to alienate potential customers, let him be stupid, as he won't be in business long.

In sum, our President does himself, the country, and his office a disservice when he wanders the globe apologizing for this, that, and the other.  He demonstrates both arrogance and ignorance (a dangerous combination) when he does so.

Perhaps he is under the delusion that the reason people don't "like" us, is that we haven't apologized.  If so, I recommend he return to kindergarten and do some growing up.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (12) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The retreating individual

Posted by mgraves on Wednesday, September 09, 2009 9:40:30 PM
If it is true, as I was taught growing up, that rugged individualism is what made this country great, then what is to be made of the creeping collectivism?

We are fast reaching the point where a "nanny state" is our strong protector, a bulwark against the results of our decisions, and the guarantor of our rights and happiness.  We have the right to the pursuit of happiness, not the guarantee of happiness.  Our rights are best protected by ourselves--to make the state our protector is to surrender our rights and autonomy to the State.  Dealing with the consequences of our decisions enables us to be fully human.

Firstly, only we can know what makes us happy; the State cannot know.  The State also cannot individually guarantee each of our happiness; we are left with a collective vision of happiness, one size fits all happiness.  Common sense tells us that this is madness.  We are individuals and cannot be satisfied by what satisfies everyone else.  We all have had different experiences, DNA, and nurture, and these all shape what we would seek in the pursuit of happiness.  The attempt to achieve some mean will allow no one's happiness (or even the pursuit thereof), and likely have the opposite consequence.

Secondly, to surrender the defense of our rights to the State--the very thing which is most likely to infringe upon our rights--is to invite the wolf to act as shepherd, or fox as guardian of the hen-house.  It is to sink into some sort of contented almost-humanity wherein we trust to the benevolence of the State and the perpetual prosperity of the producing class.  It is to trust to the good will and work ethic of others.  It is perpetual childhood--as the term "nanny state" implies.  It places, not only one's health and prosperity in the hands of others, but also one's potential for happiness.  Such a circumstance directly contradicts the "pursuit of happiness".

Thirdly, as touched on previously, when we are shielded from the negative results of our decisions, we are little more than children--not knowing right or wrong, but always being protected from inevitable consequences.  We sink to the point where our world is childproofed--every electrical outlet has covers and every drawer and cupboard is latched.  We cannot achieve our full potential if we cannot learn from our mistakes.  We cannot learn from our mistakes if we are shielded from the consequences of our mistakes.

In sum, the inevitable results of the creeping collectivism is a society unable to defend itself against those stronger than itself (i.e. "when the Cruels meet the Clevers, there won't be the ghost of a fight"--C.S. Lewis "The Pilgrim's Regress").  A society unable to defend itself (think French aristocracy circa 1790) will not last long.  The creeping collectivism will be the death of America and of the West, unless it can be checked. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (6) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Nature of Rights

Posted by mgraves on Tuesday, September 01, 2009 11:06:53 AM
When one depends upon the federal government to guard "rights" that properly belong to state, local, social, or individual authority, one does not protect one's rights.  One surrenders them to the federal government.  An entity powerful enough to guarantee "rights" is powerful enough to take them away.  They are, then, no longer rights, but mere privileges granted by our benevolent overlord.

Take, for example, the second amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  Now, because the right of the people to bear arms is mentioned in the Constitution, the federal government has jurisdiction over the "right".  As such, the government has passed laws restricting that right.  Laws that might even seem reasonable, such as bans on assault rifles or artillery pieces. 

One might say that the founders could not envision such weapons, otherwise they would not have written the second amendment so broadly.  If one were to say that, however, one would be wrong.  The founders were able to envision progress and they wrote that into this brilliant document: Article V of the U.S. Constitution allows the amendment process in order to update the document when it becomes out of date.

Ergo, restrictions on the second amendment demonstrate that the right to bear arms is no longer a right, but a privilege granted by the Washington politicians and bureaucrats who so broadly influence our lives.

Consider, as another example, the "right to privacy".  It appears nowhere in the U.S. Constitution because the founders did not create a government entity capable of invading the citizens' privacy.  Such intrusions were for state or local governments.  Ergo, the founders did not include such a right, and it was, therefore, a right. 

In the 1960s and 1970s, however, when the U.S. Supreme Court discovered a right to privacy (hidden amongst the emanations from penumbra), privacy became a federal concern.  Now, our right to privacy is contingent upon the good will of Washington politicians and bureaucrats.

Any affirmatively granted right is not a right, but a privilege granted by one in authority.  The U.S. Constitution is not, primarily, a listing of rights, but rather a technical document describing the functioning of a new system of government.  Certain founders who were opposed to any listing of rights understood that such a list could unnecessarily limit those rights held by the people.  Further, any listing of rights gives the federal government jurisdiction over those rights, to adjudicate them as it will.

In the current context, one can hear certain groups or politicians talking about the "right to a job" or the "right to health-care".  What does this actually mean?

If the federal government is suddenly the guarantor of a "right to a job", then the federal government has authority to determine who works where, for how long, for what pay, et cetera.  It is no longer a right that individuals guarantee themselves through hard work, determination, and perseverance, but rather, a privilege granted by an authority.

Likewise, the "right to health-care" becomes a benevolent gift granted by our overlord and may be dispensed as he wills.  Treatment can be denied out of spite, boredom, or for any reason at all, let alone when the federal government so badly runs the system that it runs out of money.

We place ourselves at the mercy of bureaucrats, interest groups, and politicians when we allow our inalienable rights to be "guaranteed" by the federal government.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (22) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Sen Kennedy

Posted by mgraves on Saturday, August 29, 2009 1:33:58 PM
The brilliant Mark Steyn has delivered the perfect obituary for Sen Edward Kennedy.

Sen Kennedy--the liberal lion of the Senate--publicly certain of his rectitude and moral superiority to the end of his life, is dead.  Good riddance to bad rubbish.

His politics--reflexive redistributionist collectivism--were heinous enough.  His contributions to public discourse, i.e. the back alley abortion speech; and his legislative contributions, i.e. No Child Left Behind, did much to advance his political agenda.  Perhaps one can respect his single minded devotion to his redistributionist collectivism, but one must condemn the politics themselves.

Mark Steyn perfectly sums up the modern Liberal credo: "If a towering giant cares so much about humanity in general, why get hung up on his carelessness with humans in particular?"  The modern Liberal seems to care more about humanity, i.e. global warming, social justice, "human rights", than he does about the individuals who must live under the laws and regulations promulgated to protect and guard a largely imaginary "humanity".

Humans have ever been singular and individual.  The collectivist impulse denies this, in order to achieve a heaven on earth.  It is unfortunate, however, that what leads to a theoretical "heaven on earth" so badly harms individuals.

Rest in peace Mary Jo Kopechne.

As far as Sen Kennedy, I find myself having very unChristian thoughts imagining what Dante would have had in store for Sen Kennedy's purification in purgatory.
Tags: U.S.  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (9) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A bridge to the 12th Century

Posted by mgraves on Tuesday, August 25, 2009 12:26:49 AM
What is the political, economic, and social construct where "nobles" determine what "commoners" can do for work, when they can work and where, what they can eat, and how they can spend their money or who may inherit their money?  Where the "nobles" have the authority to assign the lands of "commoners" to whomever and for whatever purpose they desire?  Where one can be banished for the "crime" of offending a "noble"?

What if one were to consider OSHA (Occupational Health and Safety Administration) which tells private employers what conditions their employees will work under?  All the while having the force and effect of law, without having been passed and approved by the people's representatives?  OSHA also dictates work hours.

What about minimum wage laws--which dictate what private citizens may pay employees?

Or perhaps laws relating to transfats?

Or confiscatory income tax schemes?  Or inheritance taxes?

We surrender more and more of our liberty in order to achieve some sort of paternalistic government which will ensure that we may maintain some minimal level of sustenance.  Is this really a fair trade?  Is this really a trade we would enter into willingly and knowingly?  And yet we are.

President Roosevelt refused to allow a good crisis to go to waste--and blundered his way into extending and deepening a recession into a depression, while laying the groundwork for a culture of dependence. 

Such a culture of dependence necessarily grants power to him on whom people depend.  If a people depend on an entity for their food, for example, that entity will necessarily be entitled to determine what food is eaten, when it is eaten, and how much is eaten.

President Johnson deepened the culture of dependence and assorted congressmen fostered the disease to the point that an allegedly conservative president, i.e. President G.W. Bush, could deepen and expand the culture of dependence through his federal grasp at the local prerogative of education, his deepening of the federal grasp of the individual prerogative of health care, and attempt to "reform" a federal program which interferes with an individual prerogative of retirement, while still maintaining that he is conservative.

The disease is into the very marrow of our nation's bones and cannot be treated with mere band-aids or aspirin  We must build a 21st century America built upon individual liberty, individual responsibility, and individual initiative. 

Instead, the United States government has expanded to meet the demands of the growing culture of dependence.  A government large enough to give you what you need to survive (rather than provide circumstances in which you can provide what you need) is large enough to take what you need to survive.  Trust no man with such power.

Oh, and the political, social, and economic system described: feudalism.
Tags: U.S.  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Nanny Statism, failure, and innovation

Posted by mgraves on Monday, August 17, 2009 10:31:30 PM
Failure and innovation are the engines that drive the machine of capitalism (and therefore, economic growth and prosperity).  Socialism stifles innovation by failing to reward it.  Socialism makes failure impossible by "rescuing" those in danger of failure.  Ergo, no economic growth or prosperity.

This, conclusion, however, is premised on the premises being accurate. 

Premise two, socialism stifles innovation, is fairly self-evident.  If "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" is not enough to convince a person, then, perhaps the collapse of the Soviet Union and its myriad 5 year plans is enough.  If one only receives that which he needs, what motivation has he to innovate, which, as T.A. Edison had it, "was 95% perspiration and 5% inspiration".  This is argument by cliche, but cliches are cliches for a reason--they contain an element of commonplace truth.

Human nature seeks reward for its efforts; if there is no reward for the hard work required to innovate, why should one put in the effort?  Should one not rather go through the motions?

Premise three, while in need of tweaking, is also fairly self evident.  Socialism, as practiced by the Soviets and others, also punishes failure.  Failure is impossible not only because everyone is kept at the same level of poverty, but also because failure can result in the deaths of the person failing and his family.  That is a strong motivation to not put one's neck out.

It is premise one, where lay the seeds of the destruction of the argument.  Innovation drives capitalism by causing entities to get ahead by discovering a better way to provide a service, or even a service people did not know they needed.  Innovation separates the auto manufacturers from the buggy whip manufacturers.  It pushes the envelope and divides the winners from the losers.

Failure, however, is a tougher nut to crack.  Why should failure be a driving engine?

Because failure is a necessary element of innovation.  For every innovation there are countless failures.  If the innovator was frightened of failure, he would stop at the first failure, rather than push himself through to success.

Socialism is a recipe for economic stagnation.  European nations which have embraced the "nanny state" most thoroughly face 10%+ levels of unemployment as a matter of course.  Nations such as Italy have large populations of "adults" living at home decades beyond adolescence. 

The farther the U.S. proceeds down the "nanny state" road, the harder and harder it will be for the United States to maintain its ability to project force and defend her allies and defend her own national interests.  Nanny statism will hamstring the U.S. and condemn the U.S. to the status of second-rate former world power.

Tags: U.S.  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (4) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Medicare "controlling" costs

Posted by mgraves on Friday, August 14, 2009 7:57:23 AM
Medicare is able to control costs by setting pricing standards and forcing hospitals to pass charges onto private insurance companies.  What do you think will happen when there are no private insurance companies to pass the charges to?

Health care rationing and a decrease in the quality of care provided.  People who fail to grasp this are, quite possibly, too stupid to be considered human.

Government cannot control costs by running the health care system more efficiently because government can do nothing efficiently.  To hope otherwise is to wish for what never was and never will be. 

I heard a gentleman the other day respond to such a charge by claiming that the government runs the military efficiently, so why could they not run health care efficiently.  Such a claim can only be made by someone who has never served in the military, nor knows anyone who has served in the military.

On the micro level, there is the "hurry up and wait" pathology, which infects everything done in the military, from briefings to chow to discipline. 

On the macro level, research and development of weapon systems, equipment, and rolling stock is arbitrary and subject to funding cuts, or shifts in attitude which require the scrapping of years of development in favor of something more relevant to the wars fought by the U.S. military.  Testing of such equipment, and  the decision of what equipment to field is beholden to special interest lobbies (dragon skin vs kevlar and ballistic plates; m-4s vs anything else; the m-9 vs any effective handgun; et cetera).  Fielding of equipment is also inefficient.  Consider anything from the MRAP to new NVGs or radio systems: such systems are only fielded after they are required, i.e. in 2003, while prepping deployment, my unit had to borrow modern radio systems and we rolled out to our mobilization station and shipped out our Korean War era rolling stock.  Admittedly, National Guard units receive equipment more slowly, but we still sent our Korean War era equipment over (we ended up not following because Saddam's vaunted Revolutionary Guard crumbled like feta cheese).

The government does nothing efficiently.  If I heard correctly, the President concurs, having given the examples of FedEx and UPS vs the USPS: the private companies make money, while the government agency loses money.  Likewise, a government insurance will be run inefficiently, and only be able to control costs by dictating costs (and passing charges onto the private companies).

A recipe for disaster.

Real health care reform would consist of removing the tax bias toward employer funded plans (through tax credits, or the like), allowing actual competition in the insurance business by allowing people to purchase insurance plans across state lines (which would create an actual market, with real options), and tort reform (would control costs by driving down malpractice insurance rates and eliminating unnecessary testing).  Private insurance companies could assist in this effort, in concert with doctors and hospitals, by not shielding consumers from knowing the actual price of the health care received.  Perhaps then, consumers would more wisely spend their health care dollars.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

An alternative explanation

Posted by mgraves on Saturday, August 08, 2009 11:43:09 AM
Perhaps the Administration is merely trying to pull a "draw" in the Cold War, so as to keep communism/socialism/Marxist-Leninism from being totally discredited.

Granted, they're going about it in an ex post facto sort of way.  If we'd had presidents of Presidents Carter and Obama's ilk, instead of President Reagan, perhaps the Cold War might have ended in a draw.

How?  The Soviet Union spent itself into a death spiral, which laid the groundwork for the putsch that brought down communism.  The Administration seems intent on spending the U.S. into a death spiral--and that is just the outlays already made, or passed through Congress and the WH.

The U.S. bond rating has been reduced from AAA to AA, which indicates that the world financial community is losing a bit of faith in the U.S.'s ability to repay it debts.  In a time of a world credit crunch, the U.S. cannot continue to expect its debt to be purchased--European nations have already been unable to issue debt. 

Government Motors--premised on the idea of bureaucrats not only know what cars people want, but also how to build and sell those vehicles--seems certain to fail because it rests on fantastic premises.

Unemployment is expected to reach 10%--after the "stimulus" package was sold as a means to stop unemployment from rising above 8.5% before starting to diminish.

The list, of course, goes on and on--carbon taxes and new "stimulus" packages--and others have trod that ground before.  The point is that the U.S. appears to be going the way of the Soviet Union, as a way to discredit "capitalism" (why capitalism is being discredited, instead of hyper-regulation and central management of the economy, I am uncertain, but that is the way that politicians and the media seem to portray it).

A discredited capitalism would mean that capitalism is just as likely to fail as communism, thereby "saving" communism from the Soviets.  Communism just has not been tried properly; it "would" work if only the "right" people (10%*; more equal than others...**) ran it.

Of course, the reverse would also be true, but is unlikely to be acknowledged by the left.

Or maybe the Administration has as firm a grasp of economics as does a three toed tree sloth (fascinating animal, but I wouldn't want one running the Fed).

*In reference to "Demons" (also published/translated as "The Possessed".  Fyodor Dostoyevsky).
**In reference, of course, to "Animal Farm".
Tags: U.S.  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (4) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Acting Stupidly

Posted by mgraves on Monday, July 27, 2009 7:06:20 AM
Perhaps is the Cambridge, MA police had arrested Gates for burglary they may have been behaving "stupidly", as America's Chief Executive claimed.  They, however, did not arrest Gates for burglary.  They arrested him for disorderly conduct.

The police responded to a neighbor's report of someone breaking into a home on the block.  Anonymous tips are weighted according to specificity and whether or not other evidence supports the tip.  The call reported people breaking into a specific home.  With burglary calls, it typically does not get more specific than that.

Upon arriving at the scene, the police found Gates in the home (as may well occur in a burglary, i.e. someone in the allegedly burglarized home).  The police officer, investigating the burglary report, asked Gates to identify himself.  Gates eventually did, after discoursing on his own importance and verbally assaulting the responding officers.

Gates was then arrested for disorderly conduct, which according to the Model Penal Code includes "mak[ing] unreasonable noise or offensively coarse utterance, gesture or display, or address[ed] abusive language to any person present".  The "public is the presumed victim, in this offense.  Gates had to be loud enough that it was reasonable to suggest that members of the general public could hear Gates, as Law Enforcement Officers cannot (legally speaking) be offended.

While this was likely a case of P.O.P.O. (p!ssing off a police officer), Gates brought it on his own head with his behavior and language.

Where this gets into the "macro-" level is when President Obama felt compelled to address the issue during his pitch for universal health care.  This is a local issue that ought to be decided at the local level, but President Obama inserted himself into a local situation because Gates is a friend of his.  This is third world cronyism, by any definition, but further, it is a demonstration of the childishness of the Administration.

Where the Nanny State rules supreme, the State must insert itself into every aspect of our lives, especially in those areas where the State has traditionally held no sway.  That is why President Obama picks fights with radio commentators, or whines about the press coverage he receives from one of the many news agencies covering his Administration.
Tags: U.S.  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (4) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Tortuous Arguments

Posted by mgraves on Sunday, July 19, 2009 2:05:03 PM
Title 18, 2340, Definitions (torture).
(1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
(2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and
(3) “United States” means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.

I've been having an off and on discussion with one of Townhall's "moderates" about torture.  This individual seems to believe that by claiming the U.S. purposely engages in torture, then it is so (he has the same issue with claiming the war in Iraq is illegal, with no supporting argument).  Above, you can see the legal definition of torture, and here you can see the relevant law, under the United States Code.

One of the gentleman's claims is that "waterboarding" is torture--no questions asked.  There is no question as to whether or not "waterboarding" falls under the "severe physical ... pain or suffering..."  It is simulated drowning--not being able to breathe is mental pain, not physical--and as such, does not qualify as "severe physical ... pain..."

Is it then "severe...mental pain or suffering"?  This is, obviously, a question for lawyers.  And lawyers, by their temperament and training, are able to argue and see multiple sides of an issue.  As it is in this case.  Attorneys for the Bush Administration reached the legal conclusion that "waterboarding" did not qualify as torture.  Recently, other attorneys have reached different conclusions.

That, however, is not the end of it.  Merely because it is a legal issue, it is not beyond discussion.  Does "waterboarding", or any of the other enhanced interrogation techniques, qualify as torture, as per one's own experience or logic?

It would seem that most of the discomfort that comes from "waterboarding", like drowning, is not being able to breathe.  Speaking from personal experience, that is neither pleasant, nor anything to laugh about.  However, considering AQ's view of America is that she is a weak horse, not capable of defending itself against a determined enemy, it is difficult to believe that AQ operatives subjected to "waterboarding" can be in real fear for their lives.  It is temporary discomfort that they know will pass--eventually.  And it seems to me that it is that "eventually" that removes item (C) from the table (fear of imminent death), and as the other options for "severe ... mental pain or suffering" do not apply, then "waterboarding" cannot be torture under the US Code.

What makes this so is intent, and perceived intent.  American interrogators will not willingly, knowingly, or recklessly cause death--consider the efforts made to shield prisoners from pain in other "enhanced interrogation" techniques, i.e. "walling", slaps, et cetera.  Likewise, AQ operatives are inculcated with the belief that America is too feeble to possess the ruthlessness necessary to intentionally inflict death on captured enemy combatants.  And, as those about whom there is doubt are not likely to subjected to "enhanced interrogation", as they are unlikely to know anything of use, then only those who have been inculcated with the belief about America's qualms are likely to face "waterboarding".

In sum, those most likely to face "waterboarding" are those most likely to belive that America would not do anything to hurt them.  Therefore, they enter the session with the belief that they will not be harmed, thereby depriving themselves of the belief of imminent death.
Tags: Gitmo   U.S.   gwot  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (4) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous12345678910…2829Next »