Just three days after expressing support for BHO for his refusal to involve America in Libya's civil war, U.S. naval forces launched between 50 and 100 Tomahawk cruise missiles at Libyan anti-aircraft installations.
Clearly having read my blog, Obama realized he must be on the wrong side of history if an arch conservative was applauding his foreign policy and so reversed course.
And just in case you were wondering, Tomahawk cruise missiles cost $569,000 a copy in 1999 dollars according to the U.S. Navy. Assuming 10% inflation in the ensuing 12 years, that's $625,900 each. If we split the difference between the numbers reported launched today and say 75, that's $46.9 million we just "invested"...in Libya's future (Democrats never spend money, they only invest money).
If Qaddafi is ultimately overthrown, it'll likely be years before we know if our investment in the Libyan people was a good one. I'm not optimistic.
Oh, one other thing. Hell is still hot...and the world makes sense again.
Saturday, March 19, 2011
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
The Deuce Supports Obama...WTF?
I think Genghis Khan was a pussy. That's how far to the right I am. But I don't live in his world and so my conservatism expresses itself in ways different than his. First, I see no reason to become involved in world events if doing so does not create a distinct strategic or economic advantage for America. Genghis created the Mongol empire largely to establish his own greatness as a leader and keep his domestic enemies busy fighting other peoples and not him. Secondly, I see no good reason to provide financial or humanitarian aid to to countries that are; our economic competitors; or our strategic enemies; or that simply don't need our assistance. This is especially true when America's economy is as disastrously dysfunctional as it is now. Genghis didn't provide humanitarian aid to anyone but his own people, and largely left them to loot their own humanitarian aid from the people they conquered. He certainly never gave any kind of aid to his enemies.
Hence, shocking as it may seem, I find myself in agreement with The Glorious Leader's reaction to the revolution in Libya and the earthquake/tsunami/nuclear disaster in Japan. Hell freezes over later.
Why involve ourselves in Libya? Since Qaddafi's tent compound was bombed by President Reagan in the '80s, missing Qaddafi's but killing one of his daughters, the Colonel has been very quiet and Libya has been largely a non-player in middle east or world affairs. Qaddafi gives a fiery anti-western speech now and again, but does nothing. He does not materially support the rise of Islamic radicalism; he does not materially support Palestinian terrorism against Israel; he does not nor can he sway OPEC to use oil as a weapon against the west. The only exception to this is the Lockerbie bombing, which Qaddafi was almost certainly involved in. In short, Qaddafi and Libya have for the most part not caused problems for America in years. They are far from allies but are weak and ineffective enemies.
That being the case, why jump into the Libyan revolution on either side? If Qaddafi survives the revolt, America continues to enjoy Libya's passiveness. If Qaddafi is removed from power, what replaces him? Western style democracy? Not a prayer that will happen! At best, another dictator seizes tenuous power and Libya remains largely as it is. At worst, the Muslim Brotherhood and the Mullah's take power and yet another radical Islamic state is created to join the Ayatollahs of Iran, the Taliban and Al-Queda in doing everything they can to subvert and injure America. Being purely pragmatic, having Qaddafi remain in power is probably the best outcome. He is a known, and tamed, enemy. Doing anything to assist the rebels would only create a power vacuum to be filled by God knows what...but odds are it would not be good for us. Staying out of Libya was the right call.
Japan does not need our assistance. One of the richest countries in the world, technologically advanced and utterly stable politically, the Japanese are perfectly capable of dealing with the disaster that has befallen them. Their economy will take a huge hit with the expense of cleaning up the wreckage and rebuilding, and especially because of the long-term management of the destruction of the Fukishimi nuclear reactors and resulting radiation fallout.
The Japanese people have a long, tough road ahead of them, but if any nation can overcome this disaster it's them. The world has already seen them standing in long, orderly lines for aid. There's been no looting or price gouging or increase in crime. The little aid America has already given, U.S. naval forces delivering small amounts of humanitarian aid by helicopter directly to the most severely stricken areas, is sufficient aid from the American taxpayer. Private charitable giving is of course up to the individual.
Obama has been taking heat, largely from the right, for not "leading" during this time of crisis, in Libya or Japan. They complain he's playing golf, discussing domestic policy and making his NCAA Men's basketball tourney picks. By leading, they mean talking a lot, giving breathless press briefings and scurrying around providing photo ops, looking like he's engaged and influencing the outcome of both Libya and Japan's business, while in reality doing nothing of substance. That is what most presidents would do, and the press would laud him for being "the leader of the free world." It would be a farce.
As much as I hate it to admit it, so far Obama has handled Libya and Japan just right. I also must admit that I suspect that his reasons for doing so are different than mine, especially concerning Japan. My reasons are practical. The problems in Libya and Japan are not our problems. They may ultimately have some impact on us, but in the long run will likely be relatively minor. In Libya's case it is in our best interest not to interfere, and in Japan's case we can not afford to spend hundreds of millions if not billions in aid that we simply do not have and that Japan can survive without.
In Obama's case, I believe he chose not to involve America in Libya because he saw it as a no-win situation, largely like myself. As regards Japan, I believe he simply doesn't care what happens in Japan, as they are not an "oppressed" people, can not vote for him in 2012 and are in direct competition with some of Obama's best buds...the United Auto Workers.
So, for the first and very likely the last time, I'm in agreement with Barry. It's enough to make me reexamine my entire belief system.
Hence, shocking as it may seem, I find myself in agreement with The Glorious Leader's reaction to the revolution in Libya and the earthquake/tsunami/nuclear disaster in Japan. Hell freezes over later.
Why involve ourselves in Libya? Since Qaddafi's tent compound was bombed by President Reagan in the '80s, missing Qaddafi's but killing one of his daughters, the Colonel has been very quiet and Libya has been largely a non-player in middle east or world affairs. Qaddafi gives a fiery anti-western speech now and again, but does nothing. He does not materially support the rise of Islamic radicalism; he does not materially support Palestinian terrorism against Israel; he does not nor can he sway OPEC to use oil as a weapon against the west. The only exception to this is the Lockerbie bombing, which Qaddafi was almost certainly involved in. In short, Qaddafi and Libya have for the most part not caused problems for America in years. They are far from allies but are weak and ineffective enemies.
That being the case, why jump into the Libyan revolution on either side? If Qaddafi survives the revolt, America continues to enjoy Libya's passiveness. If Qaddafi is removed from power, what replaces him? Western style democracy? Not a prayer that will happen! At best, another dictator seizes tenuous power and Libya remains largely as it is. At worst, the Muslim Brotherhood and the Mullah's take power and yet another radical Islamic state is created to join the Ayatollahs of Iran, the Taliban and Al-Queda in doing everything they can to subvert and injure America. Being purely pragmatic, having Qaddafi remain in power is probably the best outcome. He is a known, and tamed, enemy. Doing anything to assist the rebels would only create a power vacuum to be filled by God knows what...but odds are it would not be good for us. Staying out of Libya was the right call.
Japan does not need our assistance. One of the richest countries in the world, technologically advanced and utterly stable politically, the Japanese are perfectly capable of dealing with the disaster that has befallen them. Their economy will take a huge hit with the expense of cleaning up the wreckage and rebuilding, and especially because of the long-term management of the destruction of the Fukishimi nuclear reactors and resulting radiation fallout.
The Japanese people have a long, tough road ahead of them, but if any nation can overcome this disaster it's them. The world has already seen them standing in long, orderly lines for aid. There's been no looting or price gouging or increase in crime. The little aid America has already given, U.S. naval forces delivering small amounts of humanitarian aid by helicopter directly to the most severely stricken areas, is sufficient aid from the American taxpayer. Private charitable giving is of course up to the individual.
Obama has been taking heat, largely from the right, for not "leading" during this time of crisis, in Libya or Japan. They complain he's playing golf, discussing domestic policy and making his NCAA Men's basketball tourney picks. By leading, they mean talking a lot, giving breathless press briefings and scurrying around providing photo ops, looking like he's engaged and influencing the outcome of both Libya and Japan's business, while in reality doing nothing of substance. That is what most presidents would do, and the press would laud him for being "the leader of the free world." It would be a farce.
As much as I hate it to admit it, so far Obama has handled Libya and Japan just right. I also must admit that I suspect that his reasons for doing so are different than mine, especially concerning Japan. My reasons are practical. The problems in Libya and Japan are not our problems. They may ultimately have some impact on us, but in the long run will likely be relatively minor. In Libya's case it is in our best interest not to interfere, and in Japan's case we can not afford to spend hundreds of millions if not billions in aid that we simply do not have and that Japan can survive without.
In Obama's case, I believe he chose not to involve America in Libya because he saw it as a no-win situation, largely like myself. As regards Japan, I believe he simply doesn't care what happens in Japan, as they are not an "oppressed" people, can not vote for him in 2012 and are in direct competition with some of Obama's best buds...the United Auto Workers.
So, for the first and very likely the last time, I'm in agreement with Barry. It's enough to make me reexamine my entire belief system.
Don't Complain to Mr. Quarter If You Haven't Saved For Retirement
Jacob Lew is the Obama Administration's Director of the Office of Management and Budget. He was also the director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Bill Clinton. Mr. Lew recently wrote that "[L]ooking into the next two decades, Social Security does not cause our deficits . . . Social Security benefits are entirely self-financing . . . the trust fund will continue to accrue interest and grow until 2025, and will have adequate resources to pay full benefits for the next 26 years."
This is either a blatant attempt to mislead the taxpayer public or it is an outright lie.
In the OMB official commentary on President Clinton's budget for Fiscal Year 2000, Mr. Lew's office wrote on page 337 of Analytical Perspectives that:
"These [trust fund] balances are available to finance future benefit payments and other trust fund expenditures--but only in a bookkeeping sense. These funds are not set up to be pension funds, like the funds of private pension plans. They do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits. Instead, they are claims on the Treasury that, when redeemed, will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures. The existence of large trust fund balances, therefore, does not, by itself, have any impact on the Government's ability to pay benefits."
It is well known that Social Security is not currently self-financing and will not be in the future so long as the current system remains in place. The plain facts are that the Social Security shortfall for 2010 was $37 billion and the projected shortfall for the next 10 years is $547 billion. So, absent changes in the nature of the entitlement program that is Social Security, the only scenario where the Social Security trust fund will "have adequate resources to pay full benefits for the next 26 years." is if China and the rest of the world agrees to loan us the money.
This is either a blatant attempt to mislead the taxpayer public or it is an outright lie.
In the OMB official commentary on President Clinton's budget for Fiscal Year 2000, Mr. Lew's office wrote on page 337 of Analytical Perspectives that:
"These [trust fund] balances are available to finance future benefit payments and other trust fund expenditures--but only in a bookkeeping sense. These funds are not set up to be pension funds, like the funds of private pension plans. They do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits. Instead, they are claims on the Treasury that, when redeemed, will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures. The existence of large trust fund balances, therefore, does not, by itself, have any impact on the Government's ability to pay benefits."
It is well known that Social Security is not currently self-financing and will not be in the future so long as the current system remains in place. The plain facts are that the Social Security shortfall for 2010 was $37 billion and the projected shortfall for the next 10 years is $547 billion. So, absent changes in the nature of the entitlement program that is Social Security, the only scenario where the Social Security trust fund will "have adequate resources to pay full benefits for the next 26 years." is if China and the rest of the world agrees to loan us the money.
Friday, March 11, 2011
Mr. Quarter Knows Some People Like This
David Brooks of the New York Times opins that the sense of self-importantance that many in America have may be detrimental! I know people like this - especially relatives. A partial excerpt of this particlularly insightful piece is as follows:
"If Americans do, indeed, have a different and larger conception of the self than they did a few decades ago, I wonder if this is connected to some of the social and political problems we have observed over the past few years.
I wonder if the rise of consumption and debt is in part influenced by people’s desire to adorn their lives with the things they feel befit their station. I wonder if the rise in partisanship is influenced in part by a narcissistic sense that, “I know how the country should be run and anybody who disagrees with me is just in the way.”
Most pervasively, I wonder if there is a link between a possible magnification of self and a declining saliency of the virtues associated with citizenship.
Citizenship, after all, is built on an awareness that we are not all that special but are, instead, enmeshed in a common enterprise. Our lives are given meaning by the service we supply to the nation. I wonder if Americans are unwilling to support the sacrifices that will be required to avert fiscal catastrophe in part because they are less conscious of themselves as components of a national project.
Perhaps the enlargement of the self has also attenuated the links between the generations. Every generation has an incentive to push costs of current spending onto future generations. But no generation has done it as freely as this one. Maybe people in the past had a visceral sense of themselves as a small piece of a larger chain across the centuries. As a result, it felt viscerally wrong to privilege the current generation over the future ones, in a way it no longer does.
It’s possible, in other words, that some of the current political problems are influenced by fundamental shifts in culture, involving things as fundamental as how we appraise ourselves. Addressing them would require a more comprehensive shift in values.
"If Americans do, indeed, have a different and larger conception of the self than they did a few decades ago, I wonder if this is connected to some of the social and political problems we have observed over the past few years.
I wonder if the rise of consumption and debt is in part influenced by people’s desire to adorn their lives with the things they feel befit their station. I wonder if the rise in partisanship is influenced in part by a narcissistic sense that, “I know how the country should be run and anybody who disagrees with me is just in the way.”
Most pervasively, I wonder if there is a link between a possible magnification of self and a declining saliency of the virtues associated with citizenship.
Citizenship, after all, is built on an awareness that we are not all that special but are, instead, enmeshed in a common enterprise. Our lives are given meaning by the service we supply to the nation. I wonder if Americans are unwilling to support the sacrifices that will be required to avert fiscal catastrophe in part because they are less conscious of themselves as components of a national project.
Perhaps the enlargement of the self has also attenuated the links between the generations. Every generation has an incentive to push costs of current spending onto future generations. But no generation has done it as freely as this one. Maybe people in the past had a visceral sense of themselves as a small piece of a larger chain across the centuries. As a result, it felt viscerally wrong to privilege the current generation over the future ones, in a way it no longer does.
It’s possible, in other words, that some of the current political problems are influenced by fundamental shifts in culture, involving things as fundamental as how we appraise ourselves. Addressing them would require a more comprehensive shift in values.
Monday, March 7, 2011
And Now, Mr. Quarter's Quote of the Week
"Anyway, while I was taking in the bizzaroland that is South Beach, I began to feel better about my life; that although it has its trials, at least I wasn’t the over-tanned guy who just passed us on a unicycle in Daisy Dukes wearing a white python around his neck and stinking worse than an anchovy’s crotch."
Doug Giles
Doug Giles
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Mr. Quarter Opines on Historical Nature of Marriage
Since before humans became sentient and walked upright, they have paired with mates. The reasons were probably self-apparent in the beginning – protection, and to conceive and raise offspring propagating the species. The basic and primary rationales haven’t changed much in thousands of years.
But, as time passed and humans became for populous, the urgency of propagating the species diminished as an individual endeavor. The primary rationale was expanded by new needs. Very early, we humans developed the concept of property and began to acquire items of individual private property that had inherent value in those respective early cultures. Consequently and concurrently the need arose to identify for the local community who should be the legitimate recipient of our accumulated property at the time of our demise. The legitimate offspring of a union with a mate needed to be recognized as one’s own blood and inheritor, and only formal recognition of the exclusivity of that union provided that indisputable recognition.
Thus did the institution of marriage arise as a means of signaling to the community and society at large that the children of our unions are the rightful inheritors of our property upon our death. In earliest times, marriage was simply recognition by the elders and leaders of the local social group that two persons were mates. It lacked the formalities that we would associate with a marriage today, but was nevertheless just as binding. This recognition by the clan, village, or tribe made taboo sexual congress outside of that union, thus ensuring that the offspring were truly of the married partner’s blood. Thus the historical emphasis in almost all cultures on the virginity of women until marriage. Of course, there came various and sundry obligations that inured to each party as a result of their union such as protection, providing food and shelter, implied consent to sexual intercourse, and the like – all of which were important to the stability and function of that society. But the single most important aspect of that union and its recognition was to recognize the property rights of the offspring.
This was the driving rationale for marriage, but it became even more important as cultures advanced. Eventually, not only real property but social status became inheritable, culminating in the titles and rank of the feudal systems that sprang up in cultures worldwide. As the importance of the exclusivity of the union and the need for certainty of familial heritage of offspring increased, so did the recognition of the union evolve into ever more formal symbols and ceremonies. Obviously, this formal recognition reached its apex with the advent of religion and the ceremonial entreaties to a deity to recognize the union. After all, if the union is divinely recognized, then what mortal man could dare deny the bond?
A second important function of marriage was to acquire property. In cultures worldwide, marriages were acts to consolidate two families property, whether material or title. Kings wed to cement alliances or acquire new lands of dominion. Bushmen in Africa wed to gain cattle as a dowry. Families gained a worker. It was functionally about economic gain.
The factual record demonstrates that has marriage evolved to be integral to the economics of property, its acquisition and the transfer to our inheritor descendants. The origin, nature and fundamental value of marriage was unrelated to the notion of romantic love. In fact, romantic love as a basis for marriage is a relatively new phenomenon arising in the 20th century.
Today, the argument rages over gay marriage and whether it homosexuals should be granted the “right” to marry. Since homosexual couples cannot procreate between themselves, lacking the full complement of genetic material necessary to achieve that goal, in the historical context there is no logical argument to support gay marriage. The heritage of children born to a homosexual couples cannot be validated in the eyes of society as can children born to a heterosexual couples. But, you may say, what about an adopted child? Of course you may designate you adopted child as the inheritor of your property via a last will and testament. Marriage is not a prerequisite for either adoption of a child or to designate a person as your heir.
So you are now screaming that Mr. Quarter is a homophobe! No. Mr. Quarter is not a homophobe. Mr. Quarter favors civil unions between homosexual couples for all the reasons that are applied to the argument for marriage. But Mr. Quarter is on the side of 8,000 years of civilization history.
But, as time passed and humans became for populous, the urgency of propagating the species diminished as an individual endeavor. The primary rationale was expanded by new needs. Very early, we humans developed the concept of property and began to acquire items of individual private property that had inherent value in those respective early cultures. Consequently and concurrently the need arose to identify for the local community who should be the legitimate recipient of our accumulated property at the time of our demise. The legitimate offspring of a union with a mate needed to be recognized as one’s own blood and inheritor, and only formal recognition of the exclusivity of that union provided that indisputable recognition.
Thus did the institution of marriage arise as a means of signaling to the community and society at large that the children of our unions are the rightful inheritors of our property upon our death. In earliest times, marriage was simply recognition by the elders and leaders of the local social group that two persons were mates. It lacked the formalities that we would associate with a marriage today, but was nevertheless just as binding. This recognition by the clan, village, or tribe made taboo sexual congress outside of that union, thus ensuring that the offspring were truly of the married partner’s blood. Thus the historical emphasis in almost all cultures on the virginity of women until marriage. Of course, there came various and sundry obligations that inured to each party as a result of their union such as protection, providing food and shelter, implied consent to sexual intercourse, and the like – all of which were important to the stability and function of that society. But the single most important aspect of that union and its recognition was to recognize the property rights of the offspring.
This was the driving rationale for marriage, but it became even more important as cultures advanced. Eventually, not only real property but social status became inheritable, culminating in the titles and rank of the feudal systems that sprang up in cultures worldwide. As the importance of the exclusivity of the union and the need for certainty of familial heritage of offspring increased, so did the recognition of the union evolve into ever more formal symbols and ceremonies. Obviously, this formal recognition reached its apex with the advent of religion and the ceremonial entreaties to a deity to recognize the union. After all, if the union is divinely recognized, then what mortal man could dare deny the bond?
A second important function of marriage was to acquire property. In cultures worldwide, marriages were acts to consolidate two families property, whether material or title. Kings wed to cement alliances or acquire new lands of dominion. Bushmen in Africa wed to gain cattle as a dowry. Families gained a worker. It was functionally about economic gain.
The factual record demonstrates that has marriage evolved to be integral to the economics of property, its acquisition and the transfer to our inheritor descendants. The origin, nature and fundamental value of marriage was unrelated to the notion of romantic love. In fact, romantic love as a basis for marriage is a relatively new phenomenon arising in the 20th century.
Today, the argument rages over gay marriage and whether it homosexuals should be granted the “right” to marry. Since homosexual couples cannot procreate between themselves, lacking the full complement of genetic material necessary to achieve that goal, in the historical context there is no logical argument to support gay marriage. The heritage of children born to a homosexual couples cannot be validated in the eyes of society as can children born to a heterosexual couples. But, you may say, what about an adopted child? Of course you may designate you adopted child as the inheritor of your property via a last will and testament. Marriage is not a prerequisite for either adoption of a child or to designate a person as your heir.
So you are now screaming that Mr. Quarter is a homophobe! No. Mr. Quarter is not a homophobe. Mr. Quarter favors civil unions between homosexual couples for all the reasons that are applied to the argument for marriage. But Mr. Quarter is on the side of 8,000 years of civilization history.
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
The Deuce Doesn't Do Egypt
I'm having a hard time taking the turmoil in Egypt too seriously. Why not? Well, I can't do anything about it, and neither can the U.S. Seriously, if the U.S. wants to somehow influence the political scene in Cairo how the hell are we going to do it? We'd need real tough guys who know how to talk to third world dictators and the Muslim Brotherhood. Instead of tough guys who understand the real world, we've got Obama and Hillary Clinton. The Kumbaya twins. Ewwwwww! Scary! So, it seems to me this is a 'let the chips fall where they may' moment in history. That being the case, let's look at the humorous side of it all.
Prince said it best. "Riot like it's 799." The Bangles are a close second with their hit, "Riot Like An E-gyp-tian."
This has got to be a first. Camels in a riot. In the 21st century. Don't tell me you didn't bust out laughing when you first saw the video. I mean the U.S. military and law enforcement agencies have spent tens of millions of dollars trying to develop better non-lethal means of breaking up riots, when all the time the Egyptians had the perfect technology. "Allah save us! It's S.W.A.C! (special whips and camels).
Certainly the preferred methods of rioting vary around the world. In the U.S. the permanently deprived like trashing store fronts, looting, arson, overturning cars, taking shots at cops and beating innocent bystanders. In France, burning cars is all the rage. In India you can always count on an elephant to make a grand entrance or a Buddhist monk to immolate himself because the world is such a terrible place burning yourself to death seems the perfect answer and will turn the whole wide world into Shangra-La.
But in Egypt they like to relive the glory of the pharaohs and whip out some camel action. It must be hard on a people to know they're culture has been going down hill for four thousand years. I mean, what do they tell their kids to give them hope of a better tomorrow? "Don't worry son, it's just an isolated incident. The infidels can't last forever. Come on. Let's go see King Tut."
Don't get me wrong. I always wanted to visit Egypt; see the pyramids and King Tut and maybe even ride a camel. I hope they find a way to work out their problems and become stable and prosperous...just as long as they don't turn into a haven for every whack-job radical Islamist trying to give birth to the Twelfth Imam when they're not too busy hating Jews and America.
That would not be humorous.
Prince said it best. "Riot like it's 799." The Bangles are a close second with their hit, "Riot Like An E-gyp-tian."
This has got to be a first. Camels in a riot. In the 21st century. Don't tell me you didn't bust out laughing when you first saw the video. I mean the U.S. military and law enforcement agencies have spent tens of millions of dollars trying to develop better non-lethal means of breaking up riots, when all the time the Egyptians had the perfect technology. "Allah save us! It's S.W.A.C! (special whips and camels).
Certainly the preferred methods of rioting vary around the world. In the U.S. the permanently deprived like trashing store fronts, looting, arson, overturning cars, taking shots at cops and beating innocent bystanders. In France, burning cars is all the rage. In India you can always count on an elephant to make a grand entrance or a Buddhist monk to immolate himself because the world is such a terrible place burning yourself to death seems the perfect answer and will turn the whole wide world into Shangra-La.
But in Egypt they like to relive the glory of the pharaohs and whip out some camel action. It must be hard on a people to know they're culture has been going down hill for four thousand years. I mean, what do they tell their kids to give them hope of a better tomorrow? "Don't worry son, it's just an isolated incident. The infidels can't last forever. Come on. Let's go see King Tut."
Don't get me wrong. I always wanted to visit Egypt; see the pyramids and King Tut and maybe even ride a camel. I hope they find a way to work out their problems and become stable and prosperous...just as long as they don't turn into a haven for every whack-job radical Islamist trying to give birth to the Twelfth Imam when they're not too busy hating Jews and America.
That would not be humorous.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
