Timetables for withdrawal and losing a war

I could try to say it in my own words, but Rottie already hit the nail on the head and I'll just refer you to his article.

How to Lose a War

The Speech The President Should Give

John F-ing Kerry telling the president what to say in his speech.

Because he wishes he were elected, I suppose.

Let's see what ole Bean-Boy has to say....

Our mission in Iraq is harder because the administration ignored the advice of others, went in largely alone, underestimated the likelihood and power of the insurgency, sent in too few troops to secure the country, destroyed the Iraqi army through de-Baathification, failed to secure ammunition dumps, refused to recognize the urgency of training Iraqi security forces and did no postwar planning. A little humility would go a long way - coupled with a strategy to succeed.

Too few troops is at best debatable, and it's already been debated. There were problems if you sent too few, problems if you sent too many. There's no such thing as a perfect plan. We went in largely "alone" with the help of a bunch of nations -- just not from a few of the more historically promeinent and currently socialist EuroWeenie countries because going in was the right thing to do, and not going in just because others won't wouldn't have been right. Did the Administration miscalculate some things? Yup. Did its critics get some things right before the war? Sure. I also fail to see where the Administration didn't recognize the urgency of training Iraqi security forces. No, we sure didn't bring pre-fab ones in, (well not many anyway), but I think everyone up to the top recognized that right away. What I'm hearing is "well, if we were in power it would've been done faster. Because we have a Plan®. And that Plan® has a Strategy to Succeed®. Fast. Read our website, on which we re-iterate over and over repeatedly that we have a Plan®. We don't tell you what it is, but by the Great Secular anti-Deity, we have one. Really. We're going to keep saying it until you believe us."

So what should the president say tonight? The first thing he should do is tell the truth to the American people. Happy talk about the insurgency being in "the last throes" leads to frustrated expectations at home. It also encourages reluctant, sidelined nations that know better to turn their backs on their common interest in keeping Iraq from becoming a failed state.

Yes, and defeatist talk will send the insurgency... er terrorists ... running back to their homes, petrified at our fear, uncertainty, and lack of conviction. It won't embolden them at all. Any sign of fear and waning resolve on our part is a victory for them. And what makes you think it is not the truth, anyway? Probably the fact that it would be politically inconvenient for your ilk. I've been hearing reports every day on NPR about "escalating violence" and "the ever escallating insurgency" since Saddam fell. With the exponential factor, Iraq should be molten by now, and yet it is not. "Continuing" apparently means "Escallating". If you haven't been paying attention in the Middle East for the last 60 years, "continuing" is not very hard.

We're doing our part: our huge military presence stands between the Iraqi people and chaos, and our special forces protect Iraqi leaders. The Iraqis must now do theirs.

I'm sorry, I'm really getting confused now. We didn't send enough troops, but we should start planning to pull them out, even though our "huge" military presence is all that stands between the Iraqi people and chaos. No wonder you lost the election. Take a position, flip-flop boy. Pick one. Any one. Just stick with one so we know where you stand.

As my dad used to say, "patience, child." I know you all have the attention-span of the average Teletubie, but sometimes things don't cook up like instant noodles. You know, like ending poverty with government subsidies. It's worked so well for the past 60 years.

He also needs to put the training of Iraqi troops on a true six-month wartime footing and ensure that the Iraqi government has the budget needed to deploy them. The administration and the Iraqi government must stop using the requirement that troops be trained in-country as an excuse for refusing offers made by Egypt, Jordan, France and Germany to do more.

Um... what's a "True Six Month Wartime Footing"? Is there some textbook I missed? Or is this a new trademarked phrase you'd like to register? Of course, the minute we set a time limit for their training, you'll complain that we [Bush] hasn't prepared them enough. Because you're not really interested in what should be done, you're interested highlighting any problems with what Bush is doing. Have you ever considered the possibility that there might be valid reasons for training in Iraq, and that possibly that the paltry, lukewarm offers made frankly wouldn't be worth the trouble?

If Iraqis adopt a constitution and hold elections as planned, support for the insurgency should fall and Iraqi security forces should be able to take on more responsibility. It will also set the stage for American forces to begin to come home.

I thought the Administraton didn't have a plan. That sounds like a good one to me.

Iraq, of course, badly needs a unified national army, but until it has one - something that our generals now say could take two more years - it should make use of its tribal, religious and ethnic militias like the Kurdish pesh merga and the Shiite Badr Brigade to provide protection and help with reconstruction. Instead of single-mindedly focusing on training a national army, the administration should prod the Iraqi government to fill the current security gap by integrating these militias into a National Guard-type force that can provide security in their own areas.

Oh, now THERE'S a good idea. Sounds like a recipe for a civil war to me. And how is "integrating militias into a National Guard-type force" different than training a national army -- besides the fact that these militias are often from different tribes or sects who hate each other and have somewhat of a sense of national dis-unity?

Hamstrung by its earlier lack of planning and overly optimistic predictions for rebuilding Iraq, the administration has failed to devote equal attention to working with the Iraqi government on the economic and political fronts. Consequently, reconstruction is lagging even in the relatively secure Shiite south and Kurdish north. If Iraqis, particularly Sunnis who fear being disenfranchised, see electricity flowing, jobs being created, roads and sewers being rebuilt and a democratic government being formed, the allure of the insurgency will decrease.

Of course, if we had been working with them more visibly (as if we haven't been working with them) you'd accuse Bush of meddling too much with Iraqi affairs. Give us a break. On top of that, a huge part of the reason for the roads, sewers, and electricity problem is precicely because the insurgency targets these things to keep them disrupted -- its only chance of succeeding. But John-boy doesn't mention that.

Iraq's Sunni neighbors, who complain they are left out, could do more to help. Even short-term improvements, like providing electricity and supplying diesel fuel - an offer that the Saudis have made but have yet to fulfill - will go a long way. But we need to give these nations a strategic plan for regional security, acknowledging their fears of an Iran-dominated crescent and their concerns about our fitful mediation between Israel and the Palestinians in return for their help in rebuilding Iraq, protecting its borders, and bringing its Sunnis into the political process.

Um.. the Sunnis opted out of the political process, remember? And still the new government and the US bends over backwards to include them to stem their Disenfranchisement®. But many Sunnis, like Kerry, cannot be convinced that America can ever do right.... except for Kerry who thinks HE could if he were in power. But the Sunnis would not be any warmer to America because Kerry was President. America is America, to them The Great Satan®.

The next months are critical to Iraq's future and our security. If Mr. Bush fails to take these steps, we will stumble along, our troops at greater risk, casualties rising, costs rising, the patience of the American people wearing thin, and the specter of quagmire staring us in the face. Our troops deserve better: they deserve leadership equal to their sacrifice.

What a two-faced punk. Our [war criminal] troops deserve better. With that trademark drumbeat language (stumble along, our troops at greater risk, costs rising, the patience of the American People wearing thin, and the specter of quagmire staring us in the face) it sounds more like a campaign speech than constructive criticism. Oh, that's right, that's what it is!!!!!

He even got Quagmire® in there to boot. Can't leave THAT one out... except, according to him and his followers, haven't we been in a Quagmire® since like the 4th day of the invasion? Sounds to me like he's saying we're not in a Quagmire® yet, just almost. Unless our Democratic War Hero® ... er... criminal... er... Hero.... er... criminal.... steps in to save the day.

What in the Unholy FUHHHH????

Damn! We're not getting conservative judges on the Supreme Court fast enough. You know, ones who, like, understand the Constitution and that it was carefully written to protect citizens from abuse of government power.

The government can now come and force you to sell your home for pretty much any reason as long as it is deemed to be "in the public interest".

So if the government wants more tax money (obviously, in the "public" interest) it can now force you to sell your house to Wal-Mart who will in turn pay higher taxes on the property. Yes, the government now actually has incentive to force you out of your home. Holy crap. It's going down the toilet even faster than I thought it was.

Um... in our "checks and balances" system -- who is supposed to "check" the Supreme Court? Because... it needs a full-body check right now.

Would I like to sign a petition to bring the troops home?

I went to a downtown free concert last night. On the way there was one guy with a "Our Troops Are Doing a Great Job" sign. Then further down the street were several people that he was counterdemonstrating with "end the war", "bring the troops home", statistics on how many have died, etc.

Later, downtown I was approached by people with clipboards asking me if I would like to sign a petition to bring the troops home.

"Um.... no, thank you."

He said thanks and have a nice evening. At least he wasn't rude.

The place was crawling with activists.

At any rate, later I thought I should have told him....

"What, and let the rest of the world rant on about how we went in and made a mess and left before it was cleaned up and stablized?"

That's one of the biggest gripes I heard from my non-American aquaintances long before the war.

No, folks, no matter what you think about whether or not we should have gone in, it would be highly irresponsible to pull out now.

Palestinians Used Bible As Toilet Paper

Well, there you have it. An article in the Washington Times on May 15, 2002 reports that Palestinian militants holed up in a Christian Church -- not just any Christian Church, but the Church of the Holy Nativity, a very important Christian Church ..... wait for it....

used pages from the Bible as toilet paper.

Where were the rioting Christians? Where was the outrage from the Left?

(chirping crickets....)

Anyone?

(chirping crickets....)

I'd link to the story, but you have to pay for it if you want it from the source. But it's been re-published many times on the internet by other people recently as a counter-example to illustrate the point that I'm making here. Just Google it.

That's right, the Eeeeeeeeeevil United States goes out of its way to stay out of Mosques and bends over backwards to keep from doing anything that might be interpreted as anti-Islamic. An unsubstantiated report about a Koran flushing, and death, murder, and mayhem ensues, along with fresh yelps from the Left about the Bush Administration (again -- well, that's all they yelp about these days. I'm pretty sure, when pressed, they'd find that Bush caused the San Fransico Earthquake of 1906.)

And why the indignant outrage of the Leftists and the Islamists (who seem to be frighteningly too often on the same page) on the retracted and unsubstantiated alleged Koran flushing incident? Because they are both more than eager to believe stories like that.

Marijuana Wars

Feds win battle again medical marijuana

Um... Don't we have a real war to be fighting?

Guantanamo, prisoners of war

I think it's time to put some of what we're hearing about US prison abuse in a little perspective.

Do I think, first of all, that it's cool to stack prisoners up naked or desecrate Korans? No, not really.

Although ... try this experiment in a room full of Anti-American Liberals (otherwise known as Idiotarians™) (and the ™ is also ™ by Rottie, I believe, but it's good so I'm going to shamelessly borrow).

Ask how many of them would be offended by the desecration of Christian bibles. At best, you'll get relatively emotionless murmurs of "well, no, you can't do that either", but what you'll likely hear instead and expressed much more passionately is a litany of Christian "sins" throughout history that would justify such an act. Which gives an insight into the real agenda of these folks.

No mention of sins in the name of Islam, though. That would be disrespectful to The Peacful Religion™.

It would be Divisive™.

Now -- lets review once again the differences between a prison for breakers of the law and a prison for war prisoners... which starts with why and how people got there in the first place.

In a prison for law breakers, we have (1) people who we have probable cause to believe have broken a civil law awiting trial for a constitutionally brief period, or (2) people actually serving sentences after being convicted of breaking a civil law.

In a war prison, we have people who were fighting us in some arena of battle in a war. They are typically held without charge (because we're not talking about people who are there for breaking our civil laws) until the end of the conflict that battle was being fought in.

There is a bit of a difference between these prisoners, and say, German or Japanese prisoners during WWII. Most Germans and Japanese combatants wore the uniforms of their particular service and were easily identifiable as combatants. (that link to the much more eloquent Bill Whittle's essays on the subject)

How many German POWs did we give a fair trial to and send back home when they were found guilty of nothing but fighting for the other side? ????!!!

To hear the Left talk (now even through AmLeftsty International), we rounded up a bunch of innocent Afghan citizens illegally and shuttled them off to a Cuban Gulag for indefinite interment without charging them with some civil offense.

But that's not it at all. Instead of killing these folks on the battlefield in a war -- which nobody would have complained about -- we kept them alive and in what amounts to a POW camp.

By all rights, they should be dead.

Does it justify torture? No. Not in and of itself. Does anything justify torture? I'll leave that as a grey area, since I do live in the Real Real World where you might need to get information from someone to save the lives of hundreds or thousands or millions...

But, except for a few highly publicized incidents, by and large we're treating these people pretty well for folks we could have killed. 68,000 prisoners, most of whom have been set free. 325 investigations into alleged abuse. 100 confirmed cases of some sort of wrong-doing). Perfect record? No. Who has one? Gulag? Take the tinfoil off your head and join the real world.

These are not jaywalkers or speed-limit violators. These are people who joined an army that has vowed to kill YOU if at all possible, and they won't discriminate between Kerry voters and Bush voters. Hell, they'll even kill you if you're Islamic if it suits their cause.

But let's let them all go. That way, when one of them turns up as a suicide bomber on a subway in New York, all the Lefties can point at the Bush administration and say "we had him and Bush let him go". Because as we should all know by now, everything bad is Bush's fault.

The US isn't perfect. Nobody is. But this constant assault on it is painting a hugely distorted view of what's going on. How 'bout a little balance?

Know Thy Enemy

We went to see Brian off Thursday -- there was a special dinner for families of reservists who had been activated basically to let us know "hey, he's no longer a reservist, here's what you can expect now that your boy is an active Marine". Plus, how to get in touch with him, and a little about what he'd be doing.

Well, what he'll be doing is a lot more involved than training Iraqi soldiers and police, it seems. As a matter of fact, he seems to be part of the CAG, or Civilian Affairs Group. He'll be learning some of the language, and his job will be basically working with Iraqi civilians to re-build, re-construct -- in other words... just excactly the kind of target the terrorists like the best.

This speaks volumes about our enemy. What should be the safest job for us is, in fact, the most dangerous. These people want Iraq to fail and fall in to their hands so badly that they use -- as their primary tactic -- the killing of civilians -- to keep chaos and disorder in place. The hope is that people will become frustrated with the fact that the new government can't keep the peace and either vote the terrorists in or simply let the terrorists take over.

Any group of a few thousand loosely organized people in any country who are willing to stoop to this dispicable level of -- ahem, "engagement" -- can, over time, cause the same amount of chaos being caused in Iraq by these villians. People don't seem to understand that.

The gleeful Bush/America bashers like to point to each little bombing and say, "look, it has failed" -- which is all the freaking terrorists want. All they have to do is kill a few people a day in some sort of dramatic fashion (explosion, beheading....) and it will run every day as a top news story. This is easy for people who have brainwashed people to blow themselves up in the name of Islam. The daily news stories magnify their puny successes -- and over time this myopic view will cause public sentiment to shift away from getting rid of them or further marginalizing them, and in the end have us turning the reins right over to these folks. If you think Jerry Fallwell et al are bad, stop and consider this.... how many dreaded Christian-Righters have you heard about kidnapping aid workers and cutting their heads off -- filming it for the world to see? Think about that next time you want to draw some sort of moral equivalence between Al Queda and the American Religious Right. I'm not a part of it, but get real!

Do Iraqis have to do things our way? No. But get serious. There are several thousand black-hearted evil people over there that want to run Iraq THEIR way -- and given a choice, I think the other 20 million+ Iraqis would take our way over theirs. And we're not even insisting on that.

Here's some voters who really think hard....

From the Belleville News-Democrat:

Michael Collins, [is St. Clair County, Illinois] Precinct 26's longtime Democratic committeeman and a former East St. Louis City Council member.

In February 2001, a jury convicted Collins on four state felony charges of illegally registering voters nearly six years earlier. A judge later sentenced him to 18 months of probation and community service. The felony convictions, however, didn't stop Precinct 26 voters from re-electing Collins as their Democratic committeeman in 2002.

Now his first cousin Leander Brooks has been arraigned on 4 counts of voter fraud.

The Democrats are obviously the Party of the [Dead] People.

Here's a good reason to vote a certain way....

Love this post from the BBC on France voting on the EU:

I believe that if the French people vote no, that they will be disappointing all of Europe, and Europe will not benefit from a no vote. The French people need to see beyond perhaps losing all the social benefits they have gained.

Wow.

So, no matter how bad an idea it is, or how much they dislike or disagree with it, they should vote "Oui" so they won't "disapoint" Europe. As if France is some sort of insolent child dependent on the whims of others in Europe. "I'm so disapointed in you. Shame on you."

But the real kicker is the part about the French people needing to see beyond losing all the social benefits they have gained. In other words, the French have worked to get a certain standard of living, which they should now risk (even in the words of a supporter of the EU) losing all of them in the name of a United Europe.

Um... then why, again, should they vote "oui" again? Oh, that's right, socialism. The have mores are supposed to give to the have lesses until nobody has anything.

On top of that, "all of Europe" is a pretty sweeping and arrogant statement. The Dutch are expected to vote no. People in Greece wish they had voted "no", and there are apparently plenty in England who oppose the EU idea, at least in its current form....

What I am afraid of

For those of you who aren't sure what at least THIS part of the conservative voting majority is really afraid of, let me refer you to this:

EU Definition of "Rights"

Never mind the colorful interjections of "EUroweenie", etc. He's a colorful guy, but he doesn't just, oh, say scream out

"Halliburton! Blood for Oil! Facist! Imperialist! Hitler!"

or something correspondingly inane name calling like when the Left gets argued into a corner. There is substance to his arguments. I condone a more even-headed tone -- but still, as frustrated as I am about seeing almost half the country being led off like sheep by the mindset that produced something like the 53 EU articles --

I have to say indulging in his rants makes me feel better.

Temporarily.

Back to Social Security Privatization

There's a lot of anti-x going around.

I'm still seeing bumper stickers that tell me that war is not the answer. Mind you, I don't see bumper stickers telling me what the answer is - except of course for the self-nuking of the United States of America since we're obviously the root of all evil.

But back to social security... reflecting on what the use of the government to coerce to your advantage really means (I know, don't sugar-coat it, Phil)...

Basically, all I'm hearing from the left is "Privatization is not the answer". Now everyone agrees that eventually -- and it won't be long until this happens -- there won't be enough money to pay out what has been promised. Which means one of two things: 1) we will have to charge more money (tax) OR 2) pay out less than has been promised. Or 3) -- both.

Nobody ever mentions 3).

Let's assume that the people who want to "do nothing" are really advocating 1) since they are probably loath to advocate 2).

If they are not advocating one or the other, then clearly they are in severe denial.

Everyone knows what we have here is a huge pyramid scheme. But the pyramid is getting flatter & flatter. In the beginning, when population was expanding and the economy was expanding with it (the combination being somewhat of an exponential factor) we had, I think, 25 people paying in for every 1 taking out. So it was easy to get more than you put in. Over time, as people have voted themselves more money from the treasury (entirely predicitable -- read previous posts) and had less incentive to work hard, compounded by having fewer kids and an economy approaching some sort of limit -- we have something on the order of 1.5 people paying in for every person taking out.

Not hard to see that we're approaching 1:1 -- which means you get out what you put in. (there's no guarantee of that, either, because Congress gets to decide how much, if ANY of it, you get).

At this point you might as well be investing. Long-term investments in diversified funds ALWAYS make money. And they make it faster than what you'd put in to a conservative government fund especially after subtracting out typical government waste overhead. Plus, if enough people vote tomorrow that they should get the money you're paying in NOW and you'll just have to come up with your own solution in the future when you retire or become disabled.... basically, you have NO control over your investment.

Granted, this privatization would only allow limited control over your money, but it would allow way more than you have right now.

So what it really boils down to is proponents of the Status Quo are counting on the Government to live up to its promises to pay, and "somehow" it will do this. That "somehow" is that it has the power to force someone else, at some future date, pay for it.

And they don't want any real people to make any real money off of it (you know, by contributing to the economy or anything). No, faith in the Government (what religion are you again?) is sacrosanct.

In other words -- they want something for nothing. Government is the easiest way to get it ... er... rob future Peters to pay today's Pauls.

Pope (Ratzinger) Benedict XVI

Funny how everyone thinks everything is subject to public opinion. Reading the comments on the BBC website you'd think that Pope Selection should have something to do with "what the people want" -- regardless of whether they're Catholic or not, even.

When you're trying to teach right from wrong, you don't take a poll to see what people want to be right and what they want to be wrong. One guy got it right, at least. The church is not a democracy. All these people seem to be upset that the new Pope is (*gasp!*) -- Catholic!

If you get to vote on what you (and, by concensus "dogma" -- others) believe, why have a church?

Frankly, I believe the entire planet has shifted too far to the Left and a good, solid right-anchor or two is called for if only to slow that down. Even if it is to the right of ME. (I KNOW, because 51% of those polled said that's what I should believe so that's what I believe!)

[update] Rottie has a good post on it.

Remember, popular vote isn't a test of right or wrong, either. There were times and places where the popular vote would have been FOR slavery, or FOR stoning adulterers, even human sacrifice.

Not that the church has always been on the right side of things throughout history (authority is so tempting to abuse), but putting such faith in determining right and wrong by popular vote ... that's mob rule. Not very kind to minorities, historically speaking.

A few words on taxes....

“When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.”
--Benjamin Franklin

“The whole idea of government is this: if enough people get together and act in concert, they can take something and not pay for it.”
--P.J. O’Rourke

“Lord, the money we do spend on government, and it’s not a bit better than the government that we got for one-third the money twenty years ago,”
--Will Rogers

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage.”
--Alexander Tyler (about the fall of the Athenian Republic)

Just a little food for thought.

Thanks to Rottie for pointing me to thse these (and a lot more collected by one James Hudnall- but these are my favorites).

Social Security, Socialism, and Capitalism

In a recent conversation, a young man brought up the fact that he paid $N in social security this year that he will never see. Then he went on to lament the fact that some people wanted to privatize social security.

"Have we learned nothing from the stock market crash of the 1920's?", his equally liberal girlfriend asked.

It was not a gathering I wanted to turn into a political arena, so I didn't persue it. But it did reveal a bit of a paradox and a lack of insight in their world view that I got to thinking about over the next 24 hours.

Have we learned nothing? Have we learned nothing from the collosal failures of socialist systems all over the world -- even while we witness our own limited socialist structures careening down the road to the same fate?

Why, indeed, would someone lament pumping money into a system that he will never benefit from, yet support keeping that very system on life support for, in the long run, a few more short years before the same problem catches up to it again? Why would one want to continue to throw money at that, but be leery of a system where at least you have control and ownership of your investments? (whether they do well or not is another matter -- but if you weren't counting on seeing any fruit from it anyway wouldn't you rather have more control over what happens to your hard earned money?)

The answer has to be -- religion.

One telltale hallmark of a religious belief is the sticking of one's head in the sand when presented with evidence that contradicts that belief. I mention this because most liberals I know are religion averse, or so they think. What they are is "officially labeled religion" averse. They have their religious beliefs, alright. They just don't have formal churches. Their clergy are teachers, members of the press, prominent politicians and pundits -- even movie stars and directors. So there's no physical or rigid social church structure to point to and say "that religion" (although one could arguably call it the MoveOn.Org religion). This works out well for them, because to them anything can be discounted if it can be labeled a religious belief. And I am turning that around right now and challenging the idea that their beliefs are any different from religious beliefs.

Sometime between the time when I went to school and the time this young man went to school, it became politically incorrect to teach that there was anything wrong with socialism. It also became quite fashionable to stress the evils of capitalism.

I was, in fact, taught that there was something wrong with socialism from a very early age, but I really wasn't taught what it was that was wrong with it. Basically, it was that these dictator meanies held all the power and opressed people. This often comes with socialism, but in the end, it isn't socialism and that's not what's wrong with it.

I did figure out, on my own, what was wrong with it sometime around the time I graduated from high school. I had this huge revelation, and basically, it was this:

First, let me say this: Socialism is a fabulous, very attractive ideal on the surface. In the end, it is the way we should all volutnteer to be. This is why a lot of dictators use it to get themselves into power. But, as has been shown again and again in the last 100 years, it doesn't work. The problem is, precious few people will volunteer to do this for long unless they're on the receiving end of the stick -- so they must be coerced into it.

Even then, socialism discourages production and encourages sloth.

[ production =
goods or services that contribute to society in some way ]

How?

Socialism basically says that we will guarantee you a certain standard of living (a noble thought, for many are unable to produce anything of marketable value to make a living wage). In order to guarantee this, those who do produce enough of marketable value give money to the government (quite happily, and with smiles on their faces, just ask anyone ;-) ) to re-distribute to those who aren't making a living wage. And everything is dandy. Supposedly.

But there are two problems with that. Even the best of us, in the end, is somewhat self-serving -- which gives rise to the second problem which is that we are inherently lazy. People are greedy and lazy. It's not just human nature, it's nature in general. Organisms that can get the most by expending the least amount of effort (strain, energy) are the most successful, so it's just in us, and rats, and chimpanzees, and probably ameobas.

What happens when you guarantee someone a decent standard of living? You take away incentive to expend the energy to produce anything to give to society. "Take away" might be too strong (might not be, either) -- but you certainly diminish it.

But certain demands must be met by others in society for those who aren't producing to benefit, so to make up for that, more must be taken away from those who do work hard and produce. But if you work hard and produce and the government just takes away the fruits of your extra labor to re-distribute to those who produce less.... you diminish the incentive for those who have the energy and will to work to work harder.

In short, you encourage sloth, and discourage production. Not a very good system to base an economy on.

The big rap against capitalism is that it rewards the greedy at the expense of (presumably) the less fortunate. This comes from a world view assumption that there is a limited amount of wealth and if one gets more, it must have come from someone else's share. This is demonstrably, in general, untrue (in fact, it's downright ludicrous, but that is a topic for another article). What it really does is reward those who expend the energy to produce more more than it rewards those who do not. Is it perfect? Absolutely not. Is it subject to corruption? You bet. Is socialism perfect or not subject to corruption?

What religion are you again?

What capitalism does is take people's desire to have more (greed) and do better and use it to counteract sloth. It takes those two opposing forces in human nature and pits them against each other. In the end, we all do better when we pitch in and cooperate, so it encourages this pitching in and cooperation and more benefit is derived in general. Some people get obscenely wealthy, some people remain dirt poor. And that, my friends, is the way of nature, which, contrary to popular belief, we are in fact a part of.

The problem with Leftist Grails

I stumbled across a blog that makes no apologies for what it is, and I appreciate it. I can't say I agree with everything he says... but 99%'s pretty good, don't you think?

It's the Anti-Idiotarian Rotweiler. I can already hear the cries of meanie-ness and insensitivity. Anger. Negativity [shudder].

All I can say is, is the guy basically right? Yes he is. Is he angry? Yes he is. Does he have things to be angry about? Yes he does. Are they important? Yes they are.

I think I may have to make a list of favorite quotes from him, but here's my favorite so far:

... an illegal immigrant is not a "undocumented immigrant" any more than a rapist is an "undocumented boyfriend"

At any rate, following links from his blog I got to all kinds of things concerning the much vaunted lefty grail of public health care -- and more specifically how great Cuba's and Canada's are. Not.

Here's a link to a very recent story on it from CBS (no, not FOX) news... You know, Dan Rather and his buddies.

Here's the crux of it, though:

The system is going broke, says the [Canadian Taxpayers] federation, which campaigns for tax reform and private enterprise in health care.

It calculates that at present rates, Ontario will be spending 85 percent of its budget on health care by 2035. "We can't afford a state monopoly on health care anymore," says Tasha Kheiriddin, Ontario director of the federation. "We have to examine private alternatives as well."

It's a little microcosim of what is wrong with Lefty politics. It all starts out like this

"Wouldn't it be great if...."

(and it would!) but when it comes to

"Who's going to pay for it?"

there's either a lot of mumbling, or some spirited rant involving "rich, evil Corporate America". Or, "I don't mind paying taxes." Uh-huh. Sure you don't. Well, I do, after a certain point. We're past that point.

I just sent off my tax underpayment check yesterday. Fully 1/3 of my income goes to Federal, State, and Local government. And you want public health care? You know, where you might have to wait three years to have a torn knee ligament repaired?

The average Canadian family pays about 48 percent of its income in taxes each year, partly to fund the health care system.

That's from the same CBS News article in case you haven't read it. It also says that about 40% of those taxes go to public health care. So let's see, that would basically mean a tax increase (added to the rate, not "of" the rate) of 19%. As in 40% of 48% is about 19%. Let's be generous and say the US could have this stellar example of public healthcare for only T (the current tax rate) + 15%. This would mean 33% + 15% = 48%.

Want 48% of what you make to go to the government in the name of fairness? Remember, history shows that when tax rates hit about 50%, there's generally a revolution close on its heels. Want the Bolshevieks or ... how about some Wahhabis? Revolutions are usually won by those who are most willing and able to apply force.

On top of paying all this tax so everyone can have "free" health care (assuming they survive long enough to actually GET that health care) -- if you actually WANT the health care before its too late (the lefties who have actually thought this out past the ends of their noses will tell you) nobody's going to stop you from paying a private doctor to do it.

That's right, if you really want the healthcare, you can pay for it twice.

Yeah, sign me up for that.


PS: Look at this blog entry exposing Cuba's wonderful free health care. If I am not mistaken, this appears to be a Cuban ... or an ex-Cuban ... activist for a free and democratic Cuba.

Bush's IPOD

Get a real MP3 player, Mr. Pres! (just kidding -- Ipods are OK)

According to a story on the BBC website, the Bush girls gave their dad an IPOD for his birthday last summer.

The same story solicited what the world thinks George should listen to on his IPOD.

Apparently the Lefties are still pretty hot under the collar, as most of them were war protest songs, or songs about stupidity or arrogance -- presumably directed at George himself.

Here's a good example:

"He should definitely listen to the people of America and the rest of the world on his iPod, because he sure is not doing that the rest of the time."

Which I think is kinda funny considering that over half of the voters in the country voted for him after he made the big blunder they're all so hot about. But of course, those Americans don't count. They're all stupid poopie heads. And stuff. The only real Americans are those who are anti-American.

Talk about arrogance.

Anyway, he has Van Morrison, Stevie Ray Vaughn, John Fogerty, & Eric Clapton -- pretty hip, Mr. Pres. And not surprisingly a lot of country. But what's this? My Sharona? Kind of a nasty song, there, Mr. President. I don't even like that one. I know, you just like the beat.

Well, it was nice of the girls to get him one.

Protesting the Protesters...

...who protested the protesters.

There was a big (thousands) demonstration by Lebanese a week or so ago demanding that the Syrians get out. Then there was an even bigger (tens of thousands) demonstration of Lebanese who wanted the Syrians to stay (mostly fans of the terrorist groups Syria shelters).

Well, now over a million Lebanese of the first persuasion have shown up to protest the prostesters who were protesting their protesters.

In other words, I think the majority of Lebanese want the Syrians out.

Bully for them who won't be bullied by the bullies!

These Colors Don't Run...

I saw a bumper sticker the other day. It was similar to the somewhat trite "These Colors Don't Run" bumper stickers.

Now I'm not a "My Country, Right or Wrong" kind of person. But there is a group of people out there that thinks that "My Country" is wrong no matter what it does, and they label anyone who disagrees with their position as a "My Country, Right or Wrong Flag Waver" in that, "You can't possibly have a good point if you don't agree with me" sort of way.

Still, I'm not a proud guy or a braggart. So the "These Colors Don't Run" sticker isn't my gig.

However, this new bumper sticker said ...

These colors don't run
... the world.

And I got to thinking about that. I was thinking about where that catchy, simplistic lollipop-liberal phrase came from (not that I have an opinion or anything) -- and a question emerged from the swirling mists of my thoughts...

Whose colors do you want to run the world?

I'm pretty sure the answer would either be "nobody's" or "a mutal agreement of all the countries in the world".... which in the end boils down to the United Nations -- or No One.

Here's the bottom line of this train of thought... it is a fantasy to think that "No One" can "run the world" (which basically means "use force to make things as they think they ought to be")

This amounts to a law. Who will enforce the law? When somebody goes to break it (and break it someone will) -- who stops and/or punishes the lawbreaker, and how?

So we're back to the question... whose colors do you want to run... the world?

We're far from perfect, but name one country that would be more fair, more open to criticism from the inside.

Hello, darkness, my old friend....

If the world agrees that force is always bad, the world will be run by those who are willing to ignore that agreement... it could be governments, but it could also be, amd more likely be in this day and age - terrorist.

Oh, I know, if we didn't use force there wouldn't be any terrorists. Bull puckey! As long as there are haves and have-nots (and there always have been, there always will be) and as long as there are people on the planet who feel it is their job to enforce God's/Allah's/Yahweh's will to their standards, there will be people willing to wage war. If the rest of us are not willing to wage it back, we might as well hold our hands out for the shackles right now.

What's Shakin' in the Middle East?

Syrians getting out of Lebanon. Elections in Iraq. Elections in Afghanistan. Softening of totalitarianism in Saudi Arabia. Israel & Palestinans moving towards each others with outstretched hands....

If all you heard over the past few years was "WMD" and "No Blood for Oil", go back and look at what the Bush Administration has been saying since the beginning of all this.