With Malice Toward None
With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.
Monday, June 08, 2020
Opinion | Yes, America Is in a Cold War With China
The Wall Street Journal – Mike Gallagher – Jun 7, 9:51 AM
A new cold war is heating up between the U.S. and China, but America's public intellectuals are more interested in fighting about whether to call this confrontation a “new cold war.” The phrase has been in the lexicon for a while.
"I DONT WANT TO EVER FORGET WHAT INCOMPETENT COWARDS DEBLASIO AND CUOMO ARE, SO I'M PUTTING THIS UP
ALL 6 MINUTES
Can you imagine anyone allowing just 2 blocks of this?"
Monday, February 02, 2015
I'm not saying this is the best song, or even a good song necessarily. I am saying that I have listened to it thirty times since this train left New Haven
That is all.
Sunday, September 08, 2013
NYT Defames War Vets, Again
Of course the NYT isn't doing this to help our vets and their families. Their intent is, presumably, to yet again portray veterans of unpopular foreign wars as mindless killers, drug addicts and ne'er-do-wells.
According to Global Security:
Well over 1 million U.S. troops have fought in the wars since September 11, 2001, according to Pentagon data released to Salon. As of Jan. 31, 2005, the exact figure was 1,048,884, approximately one-third the number of troops ever stationed in or around Vietnam during 15 years of that conflict.Excluding demographic peculiarities which would only bolster my arguments, let's assume the numbers are correct: 121 murders from a population of at least 1,084,884 deployed troops. That's 11.15 murders per one hundred thousand vets. There are just over 124,000 men, women, children and oldsters who live in Hartford, CT, most of whom have never fired a gun yet they managed to committ 33 actual murders last year, that's a murder rate of 26.53 per one hundred thousand, more than twice as many murders as the NYT's deranged, combat hardened Myrmidons.
Why doesn't the NYT run a breathless expose on the victims of the Kennedys called "Liberal Killed". Let's just count the most infamous dead and leave out the raped, lobotomized and assaulted for the time being: Mary Jo Kopechne, Lauren Bessette, Carolyn Bessette Kennedy and Martha Moxley. That's at least 4 women killed, how many Kennedys are there? 100, 200, 500? Even if there are 500 Kennedys that would make their murder rate over 71 times that of our war veterans. When will we see an expose about a useless American political clan who has a nominal murder rate of 800 per one hundred thousand?
Saturday, August 06, 2011
Welcome to the United States of Bananastan!
The numbers speak for themselves:
Debt - Current National Debt: $14 Trillion. Google what a trillion is, try to wrap your mind around it.
Current US population: 330 Million people. Debt per capita if the $14 Trillion debt is evenly distributed: $42,424.
In 2009 the IRS received 236 Million tax returns, collecting roughly $1.9 Trillion in taxes. Of these, 47% paid NO TAXES AT ALL. Some estimates say as many as 51% pay nothing.
Dividing current national debt by the 125 million actual tax payers equates to $112,000 debt per taxpayer. Do you have an extra $112,000 lying around? Will you ever have an extra $112,000 lying around? I didn't think so, neither does S&P. That, and for the first time our national debt exceeds our GDP, which is to say that we now owe more than we produce as a nation in a given year.
Welcome to Bananastan.
Sunday, July 31, 2011
“FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE PUNK ROCK MUSIC”
Monday, September 28, 2009
Sunday, July 05, 2009
Friday, June 26, 2009
about that climate change bill the Dems are trying to ram thru today
Its not about “saving the planet.” Its about creating artificial scarcity that gives the political class a justification for running everyone else’s lives. Its about power, and the nasty, vile people who crave it.Bingo!
Monday, June 08, 2009
"Gone" Barack Obama
Barack Obama Countdown widget brought to you by
Friday, June 05, 2009
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Keith Olbermann's Gay Marriage Stimulus Plan
Saturday, May 23, 2009
David Cook - Permanent
Song property of RCA 19 Records.
Is this the moment where I look you in the eye?
Forgive my broken promise that you'll never see me cry
And everything, it will surely change even if
I tell you I won't go away today
Will you think that you're all alone
When no one's there to hold your hand?
And all you know seems so far away and everything is temporary rest your head
I know he's living in hell every single day
And so I ask Oh God is there some way for me to take his place
And when they say it's all touch and go I wish I could make it go away
But still you say
Will you think that you're all alone when no one's there to hold your hand?
When all you know seems so far away and everything is temporary, rest your head
Is the moment where I look you in the eye?
Forgive my promise that you'll never see me cry.
You can download this song here (via iTunes). All proceeds will benefit ABC2 to fund brain cancer research.
Monday, May 18, 2009
Ruminations, May 17, 2009
Economic actions to save an industry
The newspaper industry is in dire straits. It has given pause to the Democrats in Congress, notably Max Backus (D, MT) and John Kerry (D, MA). How can they save this important American industry?
Their thinking goes that the industry, as well as accompanying jobs, can be saved by reducing the taxes that these industries have to pay.
Hey! Just a thought but do you think that the Democrats are on to something? Maybe they're right: tax cuts can stimulate the economy and save jobs. What if they were to apply that thinking to the rest of the economy?
Just a thought.
Barack Obama, capitalist
Is it possible that Barack Obama is a capitalist? We have pointed out that some of his policies seem close to the fascist economic policies of Benito Mussolini and others seem to follow along with Fabian Socialists. Does that make him a fascist or a socialist? Although American presidents may lean one way or another, seldom, because of political, legislative and judicial pressures, can they be overly doctrinaire. Their economic policies tend to be somewhat pragmatic and borrow from many theories.
So, assuming Obama is true to presidential form and all over the lot, let's look at his capitalist side: does he have one? It appears that he does. In his 2006 book, The Audacity of Hope, Obama had this to say about the American economic system: "We should be asking ourselves what mix of policies will lead to a dynamic free market and widespread economic security, entrepreneurial innovation and upward mobility." Hmmm. That almost sounds like Milton Friedman.
Since the Republican Party is thought to be mostly pro-capitalist, we might ask: has Obama embraced any Republican principles? As we have pointed out before, one of the principles of the Republican Party since its founding in 1856 has been that of "free labor:" the idea that those who supply labor should be free to use their labor to become entrepreneurs or to sell their labor to others. In Audacity, Obama went on to comment on one of his favorite Americans, Republican Abraham Lincoln: "For Lincoln, the essence of America was opportunity, the ability of 'free labor' to advance in life. Lincoln considered capitalism the best means of creating such opportunity."
But Lincoln isn't Obama's only role model. He also admires Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Although some disagree, Obama and others believe that Roosevelt saved capitalism. Obama says that "FDR also understood that capitalism in a democracy required the consent of the people, and that by giving workers a larger share of the economic pie, his reforms would undercut the potential appeal of government-managed, command-and-control systems – whether fascist, socialist, or communist."
That's good capitalist theory but, one may ask, what specific actions has Obama taken in support of these theories? Let's try to relate some of his policies to his stated convictions on capitalism.
One thing we know that capitalism requires is open competition. But, as enterprises become more powerful, they have a tendency to try to close out the competition and establish monopolies. Republican President (1900-1908) Theodore Roosevelt countered this trend toward monopolies (trusts) by promoting antitrust legislation and then using his justice department to force the breakup of large monopolies. In today's world economy, breaking up monopolies is far more complex than it was during TR's day. And what has Obama done about antitrust? He appointed Christine Varney to head antitrust enforcement with a commitment to vigilantly enforce anti-trust laws; last week, Varney said, "I believe that greater coordination with the [Federal Trade Commission] and foreign antitrust authorities is in the best interests of America's business community and consumers." It sounds like she will push for more open competition.
Obama has placed a great deal of emphasis on revising the American healthcare system. The system, as it exists today, has rapidly evolved to one that is effective, expensive and considered by many, as a right. Healthcare became a component of jobs when, during World War II, FDR created the Office of Price Administration to control prices and wages in an effort to hold down inflationary fiscal policies of fighting a war. With workers in short supply and unable to offer higher wages, fringe benefits (such as health insurance) were offered by employers. This method of tying healthcare to employment has evolved and stimulated the healthcare industry to the point where expensive and high technology medical care is now considered to be a component of any good job. With most jobs created by the private sector by small business, healthcare has become heavy burden on small business. If a way can be found to alleviate that burden, entrepreneurs and small businesses will grow more rapidly and provide more opportunities for free labor.
One of the more controversial ideas that the Obama Administration has floated has been trying to restrict pay of executives in automotive and financial industries. Typically, we look at government interference in setting salaries as a fascist economic idea. But to put it in context, when the gap between those near the top of the economic pyramid grows wider, those near the bottom feel slighted and demand a closing of that gap. There is no doubt that the economic policies of the United States since the 1980s have increased everyone's wealth but those near the top have seen their wealth increase faster than those at the bottom. While there will always be gaps, there is no economic model I know of that prescribes the optimum gap; so is the gap too big, too small or just right? To Obama's way of thinking, shrinking the gap and "giving workers a larger share of the economic pie" is an important tool for saving capitalism.
So, Obama apparently thinks that he is a capitalist and he wants to save capitalism. Does this mean that all his policies and proposals are right and should be supported? Hardly. What it means is that labeling him a socialist or Marxist is counterproductive and will be thought to be the hysterical rantings of the right wing. We need instead to be pragmatic. Where his policies will work, they should be supported. Where his policies will cause more harm than good, they should be resisted and opposed. As he said in Audacity: "we should be guided by what works."
According to Jay Leno on the Tonight Show, a recent poll, showed that half of Los Angeles thinks that marijuana should be legalized. The other half thought that it was legalized.
Quote without comment
The Washington Post in a May 17 editorial entitled, Mr. Obama's War?: "What's discouraging is how quickly many Americans seem to forget the peril of half-finishing wars... too many politicians lapse into the wishful-thinking school of making policy. We worry that there remains a touch of that in Mr. Obama's Iraq timetables and lean defense budget. But for the most part, having accepted the responsibility of keeping America safe, he has recognized that America can't always choose its enemies or its battlefields. His realism deserves support."
Robert J. Kulak
West Hartford, Connecticut
Friday, May 15, 2009
Ruminations, May 10, 2009
To vilify or not to vilify
Carrie Prejean, Miss California in the Miss USA contest, was asked about the expansion of gay marriage. Here is her response:
"Well I think it's great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. And you know what, in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised and that's how I think it should be between a man and a woman."
The responses to Prejean's comments have been almost hysterical. She has been called a "homophobe" (one of the nicer names she has been called) and people have gone into her background (a la Joe the Plumber) all because she said that she "in [her] family ... believe[s] a marriage should be between a man and a woman." (My emphasis). The reaction is really rather puzzling. Beauty contestants do not speak with authority nor are their utterances very influential.
On the other hand, President Barack Obama does speak with authority and is influential. Nine months ago, in a campaign interview in Arizona, candidate Obama was asked his opinion on gay marriage. Here is his response:
"I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian – for me – for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God's in the mix."
The same people who have taken offense at Prejean's assertion that "We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage," have been pretty quiet on Obama's statement that "marriage is the union between a man and a woman." (My emphasis).
Why does this group of people support Obama and vilify Prejean? My guess is that they believe that Obama is dissembling and Prejean is forthright; Obama really believes the opposite of what he says and Prejean believes exactly what she says. If my guess is correct, it puts us in a kind of Orwellian world, doesn't it? If two people say the same thing, one is criticized for honesty and the other is supported for dishonesty.
Fascists are offensive
CNN's Susan Roesgen covered the "Tea Party" demonstration in Chicago on April 15th. Actually, "covered" is not the right word; she confronted and challenged those who disagreed with President Obama's fiscal policies. At one point she confronted a demonstrator who held a sign that called Obama a fascist. Roesgen asked if the demonstrator was aware that his sign was "deeply offensive" to many people.
Roesgen may not have realized it but one of the points of political demonstrations is to be offensive. But a better question might be: what is a fascist? And, is Obama a fascist?
Fascism, created by former Italian dictator Benito Mussolini (1883-1945), has evolved to mean many things to many people. It characteristically favors nationalism, censorship, militarism, opposes democracy and promotes statism as opposed to individualism. While some might disagree, most would agree that, based on these criteria, Obama is not a fascist.
But there are also economic aspects of fascism. The four major economic characteristics that define a fascist economic system are:
- Free markets are discouraged
- Private property and profits are acceptable as long as they support the overall objectives of – and are supervised by – the state.
- Councils of workers and employers, with the state acting as umpire, make decisions regarding prices, wages and production.
- A protectionist trade policy aims at making and keeping the state self-sufficient.
In the white trunks, Ronald Reagan; in the red trunks, Mikhail Gorbachev
I had an interesting exchange the other day on the merits of Ronald Reagan versus Mikhail Gorbachev and which one was more instrumental in ending the Cold War. I maintained that Reagan was more influential and the other fellow held for Gorbachev. He did have some good arguments.
In brief, the case for Gorbachev is that through glasnost (openness) and perestroika (restructuring), he opened up the Soviet Union. He was instrumental in getting Eastern Europe to democratize, by opening borders and by ending the Brezhnev Doctrine of playing whack-a-mole any time the eastern Europeans raised their heads for democracy. The case for Reagan can be made in that he pursued a policy of negotiating from strength, supported the mujahedeen against the Soviets in Afghanistan, saw the economic weakness of the Soviet Union and forced them into an arms race that pushed them over the precipice to their ultimate collapse.
Who was more influential? I thought that the best way to settle the debate was to apply scientific experimentation technique to the discussion. I readily admit that applying the scientific method to a political/historical problem is bogus but bogosity never prevented me from anything before, so here goes.
In a scientific experiment with two variables, we hold one constant while changing the other and see what results. Okay, for the first part of the experiment we'll keep Reagan constant and speculate what would happen if we changed the Soviet leader to someone other than Gorbachev. What would that person be like and what would he do? It couldn't be someone just like Gorbachev because that begs the question. It would have to be someone different and that person would probably be something like his predecessors Yuri Andropov and Konstantin Chernenko. Andropov was the former head of the Soviet secret police (KGB). He had been serving the Soviets in Hungary at the time of the abortive Hungarian Revolution in 1956, approved of the harshness with which the revolution was suppressed and thought that harshness was required to keep Eastern Europe in line. Chernenko was very much a Party man and would have probably carried out the policies of his predecessors. Both believed in concentrating Soviet power in Moscow, and extending its domination in Eastern Europe and anywhere else it could. They believed that the Soviet Union was strong militarily and should continue to build its strength and continue the fight in Afghanistan. They never thought that the Soviet Union was in any serious trouble economically.
The conclusion drawn from this is that someone other than Gorbachev would probably have continued the policies of the old Soviet Union. This person would not have had Gorbachev's insight that without change the Soviet Union wouldn't survive (survival of the Union and communism were certainly Gorbachev's aim). Another Soviet leader almost certainly would not have instituted glasnost and perestroika. More important, Gorbachev could see that the Soviet Union was failing economically and failing rapidly; his replacement from the Politburo would more likely have been oblivious to the pending economic catastrophe and would not have tried to reign in spending. In conclusion, someone other than Gorbachev would probably have hastened the Soviet Union's downfall by not making any changes to correct the rapidly deteriorating situation – although, given the quickness of the collapse, the collapse could not have come too much sooner. Whether Gorbachev or someone else, collapse was imminent.
Now for the other side of the experiment. What if Mikhail Gorbachev had assumed power and someone other than Reagan had been the U.S. President? Let's parallel the rationale that we used for the Soviet side and posit that a different U.S. leader could not have been anyone like Reagan. Someone different would probably be something like his predecessors Richard Nixon or Jimmy Carter. Nixon was the author of détente. Détente was, essentially, the policy of live and let live; although the U.S. and Soviets would disagree, the two would work together and the U.S. would even help the Soviets. Further, Nixon would probably have economically aided the Soviets by extending their credit line, allowing them to purchase wheat and other goods – and it seems likely that he would not have opposed the Soviet venture in Afghanistan by aiding the mujahedeen. Carter was idealistic and placed great stock in human rights. Seeing Gorbachev's policy of glasnost and perestroika, Carter would probably have assumed good intentions and worked with the Soviets to tide them over the rough spots. Neither a Nixon nor a Carter would have forced the Soviets into an arms race and both would have worked to reduce arms, thus reducing the economic pressure on the Soviets.
This scientific experiment leads us to the conclusion that had Reagan not been President, the Soviet Union would not have collapsed when it did and may have been still in existence today. Another U.S. president would like as not assumed the Soviets to be a robust on-going state and provided assistance where necessary. Had someone other than Gorbachev been in office, it is likely that the Soviet state would not have fared any better than it did.
Reagan's policy toward the Soviet Union was, "we win, they lose" – and we won and they lost. It's hard to see the same outcome with any other person serving in the White House at the time. Were there other circumstances that contributed to the Soviet disintegration? Of course but it's hard to imagine the same outcome without Reagan.
Quote without comment
President Barack Obama at his April 29th press conference responding to a question on abortion: "I think abortion is a moral issue and an ethical issue. I think that those who are pro-choice make a mistake when they – if they suggest – ... that this is simply an issue about women's freedom and that there's no other considerations."
Robert J. Kulak
West Hartford, Connecticut
Thursday, May 07, 2009
Ruminations, May 3, 2009
Politics and poker
In the opening act of the 1959 Musical Fiorello!, Republican Party leaders lament their prospects in the song "Politics and Poker":Gentlemen, here we are, and one thing is clear:
We gotta pick a candidate for Congress this year.
Gentlemen, how about some names we can use?
Some qualified Republican who's willing to lose.
With the defection of Arlen Specter to the Democrats, the prospects for present-day Republicans look as bleak as they did to the stage Republicans in the musical. According to the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll, 21 percent of voters consider themselves to be Republicans. That's down from 29 percent a year ago. In Connecticut in 2006, three of the five congressional seats were held by Republicans; today, it is zero – in fact, there are no Republicans representatives in any of the six New England states.
Things do look bleak for Republicans and many are predicting that they will get worse. But, informed prognosticators don't always get it right. The late historian Theodore Paulin told me that after the Roosevelt landslide of 1936, "Many people, including me, predicted the demise of the Republican Party." Obviously, Paulin and his cohorts were wrong.
Republicans can, however, take heart from another statistic: even fewer people identified themselves as Republicans in 1983: 19 percent. The next year, Ronald Reagan carried 49 states, Republicans maintained control of the Senate and they gained 16 seats in the House of Representatives. Of course, as the political cronies of Fiorello! remind us in "Politics and Poker":Bless the nominee, and give him our regards
And watch while he learns that in poker and politics
Brother, you've gotta have ... the cards!
Chavez's book of the month club
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez presented President Barack Obama with a book at the Summit of the Americas two weeks go. "It's an extraordinary book," Chavez said, "that helped me understand Latin America when I was young, our history, our reality."
Some people think that Obama should not have accepted the book. Practically speaking, under the circumstances Obama had no other choices except for throwing a temper tantrum and storming out – not very presidential.
Chavez's presentation was loaded with symbolism. He knows that Obama does not read Spanish and yet Chavez made a point of giving him a book written in Spanish. The message was that the predominant language of the Americas is Spanish and not English. The rest of the message was plainly said by Chavez, that the book represents, for many, Latin American "reality."
What is the reality represented by the book, Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent? Eduardo Galeano, the author, is definitely anti-American, anti-capitalist and firmly believes that Latin Americans are losers while North Americans are winners. You don't have to read far into the book to get Galeano's perspective. The second sentence reads: "Our part of the world, known today as Latin America, was precocious; it has specialized in losing ever since those remote times when Renaissance Europeans ventured across the ocean and buried their teeth in the throats of Indian civilizations."
Galeano's winner-loser take is interesting. In North America, we regard winners with esteem and losers are to be encouraged to become winners. In Galeano's world, winners are the bad guys – real bad – while losers are their victims.
More a student of polemics than of economics, Galeano equates capitalism with slavery – another reason to be against capitalism, if you accept his premise. Without a foundation in economics, Galeano cannot see that slavery is antithetical to capitalism; without labor being free to sell their services or to begin new enterprises, capitalism falters.
He attributes the "Great Depression of 1929" solely to the United States. Although the Depression was world wide, we would have to admit that as the world's preeminent economy, the United States did play a significant role in the downturn; but, by placing all blame on the United States and capitalism, the victim (loser) can claim to be pure as the driven snow.
Galeano quotes Che Guevara (a doctor by training and a revolutionary by experience) on economics: "The nation that buys, commands. The nation that sells, serves." This simplistic aphorism ignores the supply demand price curve but is consistent with the notion that capitalism and the United States, by buying raw materials from Latin America, are the winners that exploit the losers.
Is the book worth reading? It depends on why you read it. If you read it for a historical construct of Latin America, you will get a distorted picture. If, on the other hand, you read it to understand the way many in Latin America view history and their perspectives vis-à-vis relationships with the United States – their "reality" -- it can be informative.
My mother told me that when you do something wrong, admit it, apologize for it and go on. She never told me to do what politicians seem to be doing.
More and more, American politicians seem to be traveling the world and apologizing. Have you noticed, though, they never apologize for what they have done; they apologize for what someone else has done.
When you admit no culpability for anything but point to what others have done as wrong and apologize for them, isn't this a form of self-aggrandizement? Of making yourself look good in comparison with others whose acts require apologies?
Mom never told me to apologize for others and never told me to engage in self-aggrandizement. Of course, Mom was not a politician.
Quote without comment
Comedian Rita Rudner: "Thanks to the baby boomers, 30 million women are now going through menopause; that's a billion hot flashes a day. Do you think that could be the cause of global warming?"
Robert J. Kulak
West Hartford, Connecticut
Wednesday, May 06, 2009
Bill Whittle Eviscerates Jon Stewart
Go now. See what Whittle has to say.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Ruminations, April 26, 2009
Against inflation, against deflation, for flation
Actor William Powell, as fictional Senator Melvin G. Ashton in the 1948 comedy film The Senator Was Indiscreet, runs a presidential campaign in which he declares himself to be against inflation, against deflation but for flation. (Flation, we would have to assume, means price stability.) And that is the current debate in the financial community.
The financial leadership of the Obama Administration has conflicting views. In a conference at Vanderbilt University last week, Federal Reserve Vice Chairman Donald Kohn was for inflation when he said that while deflation was still a risk, he was targeting a 2 percent inflation rate and that he could prevent inflation from becoming an unwieldy problem by "reversing the programs, reducing reserves, and raising interest rates in a timely fashion." Speaking at the same conference, New York Federal Reserve Bank President William Dudley said that although the Administration planned to double the Fed's balance sheet to $2 trillion, they don't anticipate a resulting round of runaway inflation.
But, we have some dissention within the Obama Administration. Paul Volcker, Federal Reserve Chairman under Presidents Carter and Reagan and currently Obama's head of the Economic Recovery Advisory Board listened to Kohn and succinctly said, "I don't get it." He told Kohn that if we set and achieve a 2% annual inflation rate, then we are "telling people in a generation they're going to be losing half their purchasing power." Volcker has had experience fighting inflation and knows the difficulty: when he assumed the chair of the Federal Reserve, the annual inflation rate was over 13 percent and the policies he instituted are largely credited for halting our runaway inflation – It took Volcker several years to be successful.
Volcker's not the only one concerned about an inflationary policy. St. Louis Fed President William Poole posited that "We are very vulnerable to an inflation explosion ... [and] are underestimating the political forces [we're] going to face once the recovery starts." Volcker added, "I don't think the political system will tolerate the degree of activity that the Federal Reserve, in conjunction with the Treasury, has taken."
Just a bunch of Administration guys talking shop. In an article in the Financial Times, another administration guy, Martin Feldstein, chimed in. Feldstein, also a member of Obama's Economic Recovery Advisory Board, stated that under Obama's budget, "Even with a strong economic recovery, the ratio of government debt to GDP would double to 80 percent in the next 10 years." With a weak recovery it could be much higher. Furthermore, "Fed purchases ... have led to the enormous $700bn increase in the excess reserves ... when the economy begins to recover, these reserves can be converted into new loans and faster money growth." And faster money growth means higher, perhaps much higher, inflation.
In a world economy in which countries interact, we need to be concerned about what others are thinking and doing as well. In Spain, economists are worrying that deflation is now settling in. In Japan, there is speculation that a May 1 report will show that deflation has returned to Japan. In Britain, the Retail Price Index dropped 0.4 percent last month and in Ireland, it fell 0.7 percent -- that's deflation. Will these countries embark on fiscal programs to counter deflation with inflationary policies? Not so fast: In France, Finance Minister Christine Lagarde said that she's not concerned about deflation but, "We're more concerned about inflation down the road, not this year, not next year, but unfortunately soon enough."
When we have inflation, people are spending and the economy over-heats. When we have deflation, people are not spending and the economy cools. The Keynesian thinking goes that inflation can create jobs. That seems why, for political reasons, Keynesian politicians favor inflation over deflation -- at least in countries that have not experienced runaway inflation. However, our experience of the late 1970s shows that a country can have high inflation and high unemployment at the same time – what is called "stagflation."
The Friedman school of economics points to stagflation and says that a stable currency is best suited to provide economic growth. Looking at the years 1982 to 2007, we had a long period of growth (with a few blips) and relatively stable prices.
Within the Obama Administration it appears that Keynesian and Friedman economists are going at it, and it looks like they are leaning to the Keynesian side.
After listening to some of the pronouncements of the current crop of Washington financial experts, why does the incipient William Powell movie character seem to fit right in? When politicians begin imitating farcical comedies, it's disconcerting.
Hold the cream
A friend was, for years, concerned about her weight. Whenever she had coffee, she would always insist on skim milk -- not cream. Also, no sugar; artificial sweetener instead. Oh, and don't forget the donut.
Well, she was going to have the donut anyway and rationalized that if she cut back on the sweetener and the cream, at least she would be saving some calories.
This came to mind as I read of President Obama's cabinet meeting in which he insisted that the cabinet cut expenditures by $100 million. By 2010, the national debt is projected to be $17.6 trillion. At 5 percent, the annual interest will be $88 billion. The $100 million that the cabinet is targeting for saving comes to 0.1 percent of the annual interest of the debt.
It's kind of like saying, "hold the cream." I wish Obama would forego the donut.
Americans support torture
The Pew Research Center has released their latest statistics on American attitudes on torture and the results are surprising, especially if you read Pew's headline: "Views About Torture Remain Evenly Split."
The respondents were asked to complete the following statement: Torture, to gain important information from suspected terrorists, is justified ... (Often, Sometimes, Rarely, Never or Don't know).
The first three answers (Often, Sometimes and Rarely) seem to agree that there are some conditions under which terrorists can be tortured; 71 percent of Americans support that position. "Never" is the response of 25 percent – not really "evenly split," as the Pew headline purports. Here are the results:
Torture to gain important information from suspected terrorists is justified ...
It's interesting that 58% of Democrats support torture under some circumstances. One would assume, judging by the coverage of the statements in the media that Democrats were overwhelming opposed to torture in all cases.
Of course, there is still a debate as to whether the interrogations used by the CIA amounted to "torture" or were "harsh interrogations." One would have to guess that had the Pew Research Center used the term "harsh interrogations" instead of "torture," the results would be even more supportive.
More important, will the results of this survey have any effect on the Obama Administration's possible decision to hold hearings and, bring charges against members of the Bush Administration who engaged in "harsh interrogations?" If the Obama Administration continues to pursue investigations, will the investigations become persuasive or divisive? Can Obama abandon investigations, given his support by those party members who favor investigations? Will world opinion favor the actions of Obama, whatever they may be? Does world opinion mirror that of the United States with ostensible opposition but underlying support?
We live in interesting times.
Quote without comment
Senator Judd Gregg (R, NH) commenting to The Wall Street Journal on President Obama's budget: "We're headed on an unsustainable path. The simple fact is these numbers don't work and the practical implications of them are staggering for the nation and the next generation."
Robert J. Kulak
West Hartford, Connecticut
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Ruminations, April 19, 2009
This passed week, President Obama had documents released that identified the intense forms of interrogation that were allowed under the rules set forth by President Bush's justice department. These interrogations were conducted by the Central Intelligence Agency and were directed at enemy combatants at war with the United States. There is no question that the techniques used were at times harsh; whether or not they constituted torture is a subject of debate. Also under debate is whether or not the techniques were necessary.
On one side of the debate are those who believe that the moral authority of the United States should never be in question and that there are no circumstances under which America should ever employ techniques under which we could be accused of torture. They find the techniques used reprehensible.
On the other side of the debate are those who hold that, although distasteful, there are times in which "intense" techniques are necessary to save American lives. These people state that, in fact, the interrogation results did prevent attacks.
Who's to say which position is right? Persuasive arguments can be made for both sides.
The argument seems similar to a hypothetical situation that is often given to platoon leaders in training class. During the course of battle, they are told, you may encounter a situation that will test your ethics. You may be faced with the dilemma: do you save your principles and sacrifice your troops? Or, do you sacrifice your principles and save your troops?
What's the correct answer? There is no set correct answer. It depends on the situation, your principles and you.
Swatting the Taliban
The Swat Valley in northwest Pakistan is an area of 1,382 square miles and its geographical features made it a tourist spot and that was known as the "Switzerland of Pakistan." No more.
The Taliban operating in Swat has made it a dangerous spot not only to its citizens but to the Pakistani government. During the past month, the Taliban and the Pakistani government have agreed to a permanent cease-fire in the region; Pakistan has also agreed to allow the Taliban to impose Sharia law and, in effect, run the Swat Valley.
Since the agreement, the Taliban have been flocking to the area. This is not good news for the million or so residents of Swat, especially female residents. The West is concerned; BBC's Pakistan analyst Owen Bennett-Jones called the Pakistani-Taliban deal "a capitulation by the Pakistani state." Still others warn that this agreement may set precedent for the rest of Pakistan.
Maybe so. On the other hand, if you are fighting the Taliban, would you want them spread out across Afghanistan and Pakistan, or would you rather have them concentrated in an area 55 miles by 25 miles?
To be continued.
When an individual takes the oath of enlistment in the U.S. armed forces, he or she states:I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. (So help me God.)
Implicit in the oath (and understood by all who take it) is a pledge to give one's life, if necessary, in defense of one's country. To take that oath is an awesome commitment. People who take the oath should be accorded some respect.
Respect has not always been accorded to servicemen and -women or to the veterans. A Vietnam veteran told me about marching in a New Britain, Connecticut, Memorial Day Parade shortly after he had returned from Vietnam. Demonstrators threw rocks at him and his cohorts.
Other troops returning from Vietnam were spat upon and called "baby killers."
Things have changed a lot since then. There are few stonings these days. War opponents today commonly say, "We support the troops but oppose the mission." In other words, when a troop goes out facing an enemy intent on the troop's death, these war opponents hope that the American fails in his mission.
Last week, the head of the Department of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, was on thin ice in terms of respect for veterans. Homeland Security issued a threat assessment in which veterans were identified as a recruiting target of right-wing militias because of veterans' "combat skills and experience." Napolitano, herself a recipient of the American Legion veterans scholarship to Girls' State, then broke through the thin ice by suggesting that "the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone-wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks." If her assumptions were well-founded, one would have to consider that this country is indeed in dire straits because we have created some 42 million veterans; people like Lyndon Johnson, John Kennedy, Dwight Eisenhower and Harry Truman not to mention Colin Powell, Richard Armitage, Al Gore and John Kerry were and are, according to Napolitano's assumptions, potential terrorists.
It is true that some veterans have had trouble "reintegrating into their communities." Is it any wonder? Put yourself in the veterans place. After taking the enlistment oath and putting your life on the line for your country, you have rocks thrown at you; people who claim to be loyal Americans support your enemy's mission rather than yours; your own government, to whom you have sworn to "defend ... against all enemies, foreign and domestic," views you as a potential terrorist. People who have taken the oath of enlistment should be accorded some respect.
If a veteran has any difficulty reintegrating into the community, it is generally not due to character or military experience. It is due to people who are dismissive of them. People like, perhaps, the Secretary of Homeland Security.
Quote without comment
President Barack Obama to American troops in Iraq: "From getting rid of Saddam, to reducing violence, to stabilizing the country, to facilitating elections -- you have given Iraq the opportunity to stand on its own as a democratic country. That is an extraordinary achievement."
Robert J. Kulak
West Hartford, Connecticut
Miss California takes stand against gay marriage
Monday, March 30, 2009
GM and Our Tax Dollars at Work
When you remove the consequences, why bother making the right choice?
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Insty Gets Hit On, Thinks It's His Kindle 2
Using it in public places — cafes, restaurants, even once at the car wash — I’ve been surprised that most of the people who approach me to ask about it are women. (I’ve noticed this with the little netbook computers, too.)
Insty, you're far too modest. I bet Clint Howard could be reading a Harlequin Romance novel on a diamond encrusted Kindle that emits chocolate fumes and women would find a way to ignore him.
- Blogmeister USA
- Degrees of Grey in Iowa City
- Dr. Helen
- First Things
- Found Shit
- Futility Closet
- J-Walk Blog
- James Lileks
- Kim du Toit
- Little Green Footballs
- National Review
- Neptunus Lex
- Not Ready for My Burqua
- Opinion Journal
- Pajamas Media
- Reflections by Kris
- Richard Hawley
- Slate Magazine
- Spiked Online
- The Art of Marc Fishman
- The Corner
- The Daily Gut
- The Onion
- The Sneeze
- Vodka Pundit
- Weekly Standard
- XKCD Comic
An Aggregation of Recrement
- June 2020 (3)
- February 2015 (1)
- September 2013 (1)
- August 2011 (1)
- July 2011 (1)
- September 2009 (1)
- July 2009 (1)
- June 2009 (3)
- May 2009 (6)
- April 2009 (3)
- March 2009 (7)
- February 2009 (8)
- January 2009 (24)
- December 2008 (46)
- November 2008 (35)
- October 2008 (33)
- September 2008 (48)
- August 2008 (15)
- July 2008 (17)
- June 2008 (26)
- May 2008 (18)
- April 2008 (22)
- March 2008 (21)
- February 2008 (33)
- January 2008 (43)
- December 2007 (28)
- November 2007 (25)
- October 2007 (36)
- September 2007 (35)
- August 2007 (15)
- July 2007 (28)
- June 2007 (23)
- May 2007 (29)
- April 2007 (33)
- March 2007 (52)
- February 2007 (36)
- January 2007 (43)
- December 2006 (41)
- November 2006 (41)
- October 2006 (49)
- September 2006 (30)
- August 2006 (24)
- July 2006 (40)
- June 2006 (24)
- May 2006 (41)
- April 2006 (29)
- March 2006 (39)
- February 2006 (43)
- January 2006 (48)
- December 2005 (44)
- November 2005 (31)
- October 2005 (27)