In the mere span of a week, we've witnessed the airing of the CIA's Enhanced Interrogation Techniques, corporate hacking by foreign adversaries, horror in Pakistan and a diplomatic opening towards Havana. Where to start?
On the CIA issue, can we just cut to the quick? In order to save many more lives, is 'torturing' a bad guy (really bad guy) justifiable...say in order to prevent a nuclear bomb from going off? We can talk about Democratic Senate outrage, but those critics knew what was going on. On the other hand, we can say that the sleep deprivation, rectal feeding, and 'near drownings' via waterboardiing isn't torture because our own military goes through it in survival training. True--but they volunteer. The best analogy is an old Gene Hackman movie line, "If you could cure cancer by killing just one man, wouldn't you have to do it?" Suffice it to say I'm all for curing cancer as long as I'm not the man who has to be sacrificed.
The Sony hacking fiasco, beyond exposing the usual Hollywood social hypocrisy, is yet one more reason we should turn Japan loose in the region. It's no coincidence Sony was the target--a company headquartered in a nation loathed by the likely Chinese/North Korean backed hackers. Yes, poking your adversary in the eye by making fun of assassinating him might provoke things, but this sort of chaos cannot be allowed to stand. And the best way to stop it to once and for all is to end the post WWII fantasy that has the United States 'keeping the peace' in Asia. Japan will handle a lot of this--if we let them.
Which brings us to the massacre in Peshawar where 141 people, mostly children, were gunned down by Pakistani terrorists. This, in the wake of a rash of beheadings, tends to focus the mind as to just how maniacal these thugs are. And yet, Pakistan is exhibit A in how taking sides in the region is a fool's errand. That is, the moment we support those who are willing to go after the terrorists, we find that they too have committed atrocities. For example, we back the Shiites in Iraq, but opposed them in Syria and Iran. We support Sunni extremists in Syria, but oppose them in Iraq? The fact is, our so-called allies in the region--from Pakistan to Saudi Arabia to Afghanistan--have often looked the other way on these monsters while taking billions in American foreign aid. Enough.
Finally, Cuba. A policy started in the Kennedy administration at the height of the Cold War has apparently come to an end. And unlike other executive actions this administration has taken, this one actually looks legal insofar as it is an incomplete loosening of the economic embargo. Nevertheless, it charts new territory and both Democrats and Republicans don't like it. Yet the only reason to economically punish a foreign country is if they pose a military threat to the U.S. Simply wanting to change the way other countries treat their people is not reason enough to spend American blood or treasure. Besides, if that were true, we wouldn't be trading with China, Vietnam, or Venezuela.
America's foreign policy should not be determined by domestic political interests or by what powerful lobbies would like to see happen--whether in the Middle East or our own hemisphere.
Wednesday, December 17, 2014
Monday, December 8, 2014
The Conformist Agenda
I've been having a bit of a family squabble with a nephew of mine and thought the back and forth would be enlightening. Now don't get me wrong, he's a good young man and I'm very fond of him. But like most these days, he's just never been exposed to the rigors of opposing thought. Put another way, he's spent a lifetime in higher education--today's foremost bastion of indoctrination. How do I know? Well, a) I've been there, but b) all of the talking points coming from these kids properly tutored to 'rage against the machine' sound exactly alike. Good little conformists, all.
We started out on the minimum wage (my opposition is proof I 'hate the middle class') and the conversation morphed into the following response (brace yourselves, bet you've never heard this before):
"Yes, big government conservatism. Look at record corporate profits, political privilege and the stagnation of the American middle class. There is an obvious redistribution of wealth happening. Sometimes I want to become a complete pessimist about our country. I only wish that Americans would go to the voting polls as enthusiastically as they go to Walmart on Black Friday."
Now, there are so many false premises here (only govt.force redistributes, not market choice) one hardly knows where to begin, but I thought for sure I was talking with Ward Churchill or George Soros or..well, you get the point. Let's take 'em one by one, shall we?
1) The minimum wage. We're 'the richest country on earth' so naturally, if someone else HAS the money, it's perfectly fine to take it from them by force (didn't Mom teach you that?) via taxation or regulation. Ethics aside, those Mom & Pop restaurant owners can hardly afford to pay their teenage help $15/hr. plus benefits. In fact, here's a closer look at the the profit margins for such enterprises:
2) Record corporate profits. Well, right...record corporate bankruptcies would be much better. By all means, take away the government favors, especially the ones going to those companies whose CEOs supported President Obama (see GE, Google, Costco, etc.) But the truth is there is no such thing as 'profits,' only costs. The cost of labor (wages) and the cost of capital (dividends from profits). You might as well take Grandma's pension because without profits it's gone.
3) Stagnating Middle Class. To be sure, median income is still down, according to the Census Bureau, 4% from 2008--you know, the year Barack Obama was elected by Occupy Wall Street. Apparently, a redistributive welfare state blowout in the trillions did little to alleviate income inequality. Then again, $15 trillion on public assistance programs spent since LBJ's War on Poverty hasn't changed the unemployment rate either. How ironic then that the biggest burden on households these days comes from the rising cost of government controlled enterprises, i.e., health care and education.
The idiots hiding behind the Guy Fawkes masks like to deride the 'politically privileged.' What the minions fail to comprehend is that the beneficiaries of today's corporate state are the enterprises of the left. Billions in subsidies for green energy firms & union dominated (Detroit) industries; government cartels for utilities and now health insurance cos; a Fed policy of easy money designed for Wall Street,; and of course, billions for 'higher education' so upper middle class professors with lifetime employment can indoctrinate the unsuspecting.
We started out on the minimum wage (my opposition is proof I 'hate the middle class') and the conversation morphed into the following response (brace yourselves, bet you've never heard this before):
"Yes, big government conservatism. Look at record corporate profits, political privilege and the stagnation of the American middle class. There is an obvious redistribution of wealth happening. Sometimes I want to become a complete pessimist about our country. I only wish that Americans would go to the voting polls as enthusiastically as they go to Walmart on Black Friday."
Now, there are so many false premises here (only govt.force redistributes, not market choice) one hardly knows where to begin, but I thought for sure I was talking with Ward Churchill or George Soros or..well, you get the point. Let's take 'em one by one, shall we?
1) The minimum wage. We're 'the richest country on earth' so naturally, if someone else HAS the money, it's perfectly fine to take it from them by force (didn't Mom teach you that?) via taxation or regulation. Ethics aside, those Mom & Pop restaurant owners can hardly afford to pay their teenage help $15/hr. plus benefits. In fact, here's a closer look at the the profit margins for such enterprises:
2) Record corporate profits. Well, right...record corporate bankruptcies would be much better. By all means, take away the government favors, especially the ones going to those companies whose CEOs supported President Obama (see GE, Google, Costco, etc.) But the truth is there is no such thing as 'profits,' only costs. The cost of labor (wages) and the cost of capital (dividends from profits). You might as well take Grandma's pension because without profits it's gone.
3) Stagnating Middle Class. To be sure, median income is still down, according to the Census Bureau, 4% from 2008--you know, the year Barack Obama was elected by Occupy Wall Street. Apparently, a redistributive welfare state blowout in the trillions did little to alleviate income inequality. Then again, $15 trillion on public assistance programs spent since LBJ's War on Poverty hasn't changed the unemployment rate either. How ironic then that the biggest burden on households these days comes from the rising cost of government controlled enterprises, i.e., health care and education.
The idiots hiding behind the Guy Fawkes masks like to deride the 'politically privileged.' What the minions fail to comprehend is that the beneficiaries of today's corporate state are the enterprises of the left. Billions in subsidies for green energy firms & union dominated (Detroit) industries; government cartels for utilities and now health insurance cos; a Fed policy of easy money designed for Wall Street,; and of course, billions for 'higher education' so upper middle class professors with lifetime employment can indoctrinate the unsuspecting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)