In My Opinion – by Bob Fogarty
Ever since its inception, any number of American citizens have opposed our membership in the United Nations for a number of reasons, some good, some erroneous, and some completely frivolous. In recent years the “get us out of the UN” movement seems to be getting stronger, and certainly a lot louder. Certainly the UN has it’s share of problems as it flounders about trying to settle international arguments in a world beset with problems. It’s an international bureaucracy, after all, laced with corruption, inefficiency, favoritism, and of course politics. Many claim that the UN is “Ineffective. Undemocratic. Anti-United States.” After the bitter debate over the use of force in Iraq, we might add “useless” to that list. Bureaucratic it certainly is, considering that UN employees are drawn from all member nations, and in many cases are selected by geography not ability. Ineffective? Well, the UN is a political organization after all, and how easy is it to get a consensus when there are 192 member nations, each with their own political agenda? Undemocratic goes without saying, as most of the member nations aren’t democracies either. The UN itself isn’t anti-United States anymore than it’s “anti” any other nation. However, there are plenty of member states that are anti-US, and they do make their presence felt. I will disagree with “useless”, as the UN does provide an international forum in which diplomats may air their national disagreements, before they start shooting at each other. And there currently is no other worldwide organization with that capability.
The UN had many forerunners, which attempted to unite the various countries of the world in a quest for peace. Some of the forerunners were the International Peace Conference (1899) held in the Hague to determine how to settle crises peacefully, prevent wars, and establish the rules of war. Others were actual organizations, including the League of Nations (1919). Some of these forerunner organizations became subdivisions of the United Nations.
The United Nations was founded in 1945 to replace the defunct League of Nations in the hope that it would intervene in conflicts between nations and thereby avoid war. The organization began with fifty countries signing the UN Charter. The five permanent members of the Security Council, each of which has a veto power on any UN resolution, are the primary victors of World War II, or their successor states. These are the People’s Republic of China (Red China, which replaced the Republic of China); France, the Russian Federation (which replaced the USSR); the United Kingdom; and the United States. Whatever your opinion of the UN, keep in mind that this veto power is a very important diplomatic tool for the United States whenever third world countries (or even “first world” countries for that mater), start getting to big for their britches. Consider that if any UN member nation (or group of nations) attempted to pass economic, political, or military sanctions against the United States, as long as we are a permanent member of the Security Council and hold that veto power, those sanctions can be stopped in their tracks.
The UN is financed from assessed and voluntary contributions from member states. The General Assembly approves the budget and determines the assessment for each member, which is broadly based on the capacity of each country to pay, measured by their gross national income. The major contributors to the UN budget for 2006 were the United States (22%), Japan (19.47%), Germany (8.66%), the UK (6.13%), France (6.03%), Italy (4.89%), Canada (2.81%), Spain (2.52%), and China (2.05%). Some member nations are in arrears on their payments, most notably the United States. It might seem that the United States is paying a disporporatnate share, but that 22% is equal to about what the pentagon spends in two days.
Madeleine Albright, “Slick Willie” Clinton’s Secretary of State (and onetime US Ambassador to the UN), stated that “the United Nations is still the best investment that the world can make in stopping AIDS and SARS, feeding the poor, helping refugees, and fighting global crime and the spread of nuclear weapons”. She might have added effectively ending the worldwide threat of smallpox to her list, and an almost successful ending of polio as well.
The United Nations deals with nations in distress at their largest agenda, often calling on the use of other nation’s resources and time to help them—this is basically the revolving circle of foreign relations at the UN. In 1996, however, UN humanitarians sought to use the resources of the nation actually involved, Iraq. Because of Gulf War trade sanctions, Iraq ran out of food and medical supplies. Thus, the famed Oil-for-Food program began. However, once looked upon as a unique project, Oil-for-Food now sits as the source of arguments about its byproducts—sponsoring terrorism, promoting dependence on Hussein, and allowing smuggled oil to benefit corrupt private parties.
UN peacekeepers are sent to various regions where armed conflict has recently ceased, or temporarily halted, in order to enforce the terms of peace agreements and to discourage the combatants from resuming hostilities. These forces are provided by member states of the UN, and participation in peace keeping operations is voluntary, presently only Canada and Portugal have participated in all peacekeeping operations. The “Blue Helmet” peacekeepers have maintained order in such places as Namibia, El Salvador, Cambodia, eastern Slavonia, Mozambique, and Cyprus. The traditional U.N. mission is a confidence-building exercise, conducted in strict neutrality between parties that seek international help in preserving or implementing peace. Peacemaking however, is quite another matter. The tragic experiences in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Somalia, Lebanon, and Rwanda showed that traditional U.N. peacekeepers lack the mandate, command structure, unity of purpose, and military might to succeed in the more urgent and nasty cases—where the fighting is hot, the innocent are dying, and the combatants oppose an international presence. Such weaknesses are inherent in the voluntary and collective nature of the United Nations, and really need to be addressed by the member nations.
The United Nations' authority comes from its members; it is a servant, not a master. The United Nations has no armed forces of its own, no power of arrest, authority to tax, no right to confiscate, regulate, or override treaties. The General Assembly has little power to do anything except argue, while the Security Council cannot act without the agreement of the United States and the other four permanent members. That means that no budget can be approved, no secretary-general can be elected, no U.N. peacekeeping operation initiated, no U.N. tribunal established, and no sanctions established, without the approval of the United States government. Questions about the efficiency of the UN and many of its specific actions are legitimate, but worries about U.S. sovereignty are misplaced… only as long as the United States remains a member of the United Nations Security Council, and our congress doesn’t give away that veto authority.
Sunday, July 29, 2007
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Treason
As a part of my continual research into the wheeling and dealings of the American political circus, I regularly look into the publications of the various political persuasions, from the far right to the far left, and nearly everything between. (I get a lot of laughs that way, but occasionally I find a few points that I can agree with.) One set of terms quite often used by the very far right includes “Traitor” or “Treason” in reference to various left wing politicians, and quite a few of their political positions.
The reader might note that I refrain from using those terms no matter how much I dislike a particular person, or political view. “Traitor” and “Treason” are after all, quite serious accusations. It’s also far too easy to run afoul of the laws concerning libel and slander, which, despite my editor’s well known philanthropy and kind hearted generosity, I rather doubt we could long afford to fight a scadzillion dollar libel suit. Then too, with my well known tendency to grumble and growl about American politics and politicians, and while I might not think to highly of any particular political office holder, I have far too much respect for their office to be dragging it through the mud.
Personally I think much of Ted Kennedy’s left wing political agenda is leading this country down a “feel good” garden path to destruction. From the right wing, we have Homeland Security and a runaway fiscal policy, which I think are also going to destroy this nation. We have two diametrically opposed political stances, both of which are quite adamant that they are correct, and the other side is wrong. (I think both are wrong, but that’s another story.) Both ends of the American political spectrum need to get a healthy dose of reality, but certainly neither side is doing anything that could properly be called treasonous. Mistaken, misguided, or just plain stupid perhaps, but certainly not treasonous.
Nearly everyone who holds political office has a few skeletons hidden away that they desperately hope the media, and their political opponents, never discover. They have private lives (despite the media’s best efforts) that may or may not be shining examples of what we consider “Americanism”, but that’s hardly treasonous either. The mud slinging, baseless accusations, and rabble rousing, and flat out lying that accompanies our campaign season is little more than typical American “politics as usual”, not treason. Many of the conspiracy theories so beloved by our radical extremist’s could well be considered treasonous if they were in any way true. They have yet to be proven however, so we can leave them on the sidelines for now.
What I do think borders on treason against the United States is the “what’s in it for me and the rest of you can go hang” mindset that has developed among the American people over the last few decades, a mindset that I see nothing admirable in, and that I feel is rapidly tearing us apart as a nation. Perhaps we need to re-learn the lessons of national pride and cooperation, with a bit of common sense thrown in as well. A little morality in Hollywierd wouldn’t hurt either.
I’m the great-grandson of Irish and German immigrants who, through a lot of toil, sweat, and tears succeeded at becoming Americans, and who taught their children and children’s children American values. Certainly I’m proud of my Irish ancestry, but the catch-phrase here is “made in America… with Irish parts”. I don’t believe that “cultural diversity” is such a wonderful thing that we must become a nation of raging (and often warring) minority groups, each demanding special treatment. We don’t need that in America; people come to this country from wherever to escape just that!
I’m a man who dedicated his working life to public service, both as a soldier and as a firefighter and paramedic, for the "privilege" of working 60, 70 and 80 hours a week, risking life and limb, because I do believe in John Kennedy’s words, “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what can you do for your country”. I’m quite tired of hearing from people who seek only “entitlements”, who see only negativity in this land, racism in its people, class warfare in our society, and "political incorrectness" in our national character.
While I don’t attend church very often, I’m a man who believes in God; a God who has blessed this country, its people, and all that it stands for. I’m someone who knows that miracles do exist in this modern world, and if you doubt that, you need only to look into the face of those who receive them… and the eyes of those who give them. I believe in the sanctity of life, and that abortion is something to be decided between a woman, her husband, her doctor, and her priest, not by politicians pandering the political left for votes, nor by fanatics clamoring for attention at the expense of the unborn.
I’m ashamed of those individuals in public and private life, whose decisions and actions are devoid of any sense of character or morals, individuals who only consider what's most advantageous for them, rather than what's morally right or wrong.
I’m an ex-movie fan who is totally disgusted with insecure, socially inept, elementary thinking, ego-inflated "entertainers" who have appointed themselves "experts" in the fields of national security and geo-politics, and who then use their forum to attack our nation, its leaders and its actions, much to the delight and encouragement of our enemies.
I’m a voter who’s getting almighty tired of politicians who, every time their voting record is subjected to public scrutiny, try to divert attention from their political and legislative failures by accusing their opponents of "attack ads" and "negative campaigning". I’m also quite tired of the self-serving news media that lets them get away with it.
What I am is a human being, full of faults and failures, but still a man who, though not always successful, has continually striven to do "what's right" instead of "what's easy." I’m an American who wants to preserve our way of life for all who seek it, and who will defend it until the day I die. So, rather than getting my dander up (and risking a frivolous lawsuit as well), I’ll merely challenge the political, social, educational, and religious leaders of this nation to live up to no more than my somewhat simplistic standards.
I’d like them to stop being ‘Americas "Axis of Idiots"’ whose collective greed and stupidity will ultimately destroy us. If it bothers them that defending our nation, ourselves, and our way of life, gets in the way of their elitist self-serving politics, vapid utopian dreams, and ignorant editorializing, then I’ll suggest they follow their own advice and go elsewhere… if they can find someplace that will have them.
The reader might note that I refrain from using those terms no matter how much I dislike a particular person, or political view. “Traitor” and “Treason” are after all, quite serious accusations. It’s also far too easy to run afoul of the laws concerning libel and slander, which, despite my editor’s well known philanthropy and kind hearted generosity, I rather doubt we could long afford to fight a scadzillion dollar libel suit. Then too, with my well known tendency to grumble and growl about American politics and politicians, and while I might not think to highly of any particular political office holder, I have far too much respect for their office to be dragging it through the mud.
Personally I think much of Ted Kennedy’s left wing political agenda is leading this country down a “feel good” garden path to destruction. From the right wing, we have Homeland Security and a runaway fiscal policy, which I think are also going to destroy this nation. We have two diametrically opposed political stances, both of which are quite adamant that they are correct, and the other side is wrong. (I think both are wrong, but that’s another story.) Both ends of the American political spectrum need to get a healthy dose of reality, but certainly neither side is doing anything that could properly be called treasonous. Mistaken, misguided, or just plain stupid perhaps, but certainly not treasonous.
Nearly everyone who holds political office has a few skeletons hidden away that they desperately hope the media, and their political opponents, never discover. They have private lives (despite the media’s best efforts) that may or may not be shining examples of what we consider “Americanism”, but that’s hardly treasonous either. The mud slinging, baseless accusations, and rabble rousing, and flat out lying that accompanies our campaign season is little more than typical American “politics as usual”, not treason. Many of the conspiracy theories so beloved by our radical extremist’s could well be considered treasonous if they were in any way true. They have yet to be proven however, so we can leave them on the sidelines for now.
What I do think borders on treason against the United States is the “what’s in it for me and the rest of you can go hang” mindset that has developed among the American people over the last few decades, a mindset that I see nothing admirable in, and that I feel is rapidly tearing us apart as a nation. Perhaps we need to re-learn the lessons of national pride and cooperation, with a bit of common sense thrown in as well. A little morality in Hollywierd wouldn’t hurt either.
I’m the great-grandson of Irish and German immigrants who, through a lot of toil, sweat, and tears succeeded at becoming Americans, and who taught their children and children’s children American values. Certainly I’m proud of my Irish ancestry, but the catch-phrase here is “made in America… with Irish parts”. I don’t believe that “cultural diversity” is such a wonderful thing that we must become a nation of raging (and often warring) minority groups, each demanding special treatment. We don’t need that in America; people come to this country from wherever to escape just that!
I’m a man who dedicated his working life to public service, both as a soldier and as a firefighter and paramedic, for the "privilege" of working 60, 70 and 80 hours a week, risking life and limb, because I do believe in John Kennedy’s words, “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what can you do for your country”. I’m quite tired of hearing from people who seek only “entitlements”, who see only negativity in this land, racism in its people, class warfare in our society, and "political incorrectness" in our national character.
While I don’t attend church very often, I’m a man who believes in God; a God who has blessed this country, its people, and all that it stands for. I’m someone who knows that miracles do exist in this modern world, and if you doubt that, you need only to look into the face of those who receive them… and the eyes of those who give them. I believe in the sanctity of life, and that abortion is something to be decided between a woman, her husband, her doctor, and her priest, not by politicians pandering the political left for votes, nor by fanatics clamoring for attention at the expense of the unborn.
I’m ashamed of those individuals in public and private life, whose decisions and actions are devoid of any sense of character or morals, individuals who only consider what's most advantageous for them, rather than what's morally right or wrong.
I’m an ex-movie fan who is totally disgusted with insecure, socially inept, elementary thinking, ego-inflated "entertainers" who have appointed themselves "experts" in the fields of national security and geo-politics, and who then use their forum to attack our nation, its leaders and its actions, much to the delight and encouragement of our enemies.
I’m a voter who’s getting almighty tired of politicians who, every time their voting record is subjected to public scrutiny, try to divert attention from their political and legislative failures by accusing their opponents of "attack ads" and "negative campaigning". I’m also quite tired of the self-serving news media that lets them get away with it.
What I am is a human being, full of faults and failures, but still a man who, though not always successful, has continually striven to do "what's right" instead of "what's easy." I’m an American who wants to preserve our way of life for all who seek it, and who will defend it until the day I die. So, rather than getting my dander up (and risking a frivolous lawsuit as well), I’ll merely challenge the political, social, educational, and religious leaders of this nation to live up to no more than my somewhat simplistic standards.
I’d like them to stop being ‘Americas "Axis of Idiots"’ whose collective greed and stupidity will ultimately destroy us. If it bothers them that defending our nation, ourselves, and our way of life, gets in the way of their elitist self-serving politics, vapid utopian dreams, and ignorant editorializing, then I’ll suggest they follow their own advice and go elsewhere… if they can find someplace that will have them.
Sunday, July 15, 2007
Rethinking Government
A good many Americans, including myself, can commonly be heard complaining about the size of government, the tax burden, mindless regulation, and the burgeoning bureaucracy. At the same time, a student of modern history could readily tell you that growth in government is essentially a modern phenomenon. Until the 1920s the government’s share of GDP (Gross Domestic Product) in most of the world’s industrialized economies was about six percent. From that time on, and particularly since the 1950s, we’ve seen a massive increase in government’s “take” of the GDP, which has increased in some places to as much as 35 to 45 percent. (In Sweden it reached nearly 65 percent, and Sweden almost self-destructed as a result.) Can this insane growth of government be stopped or perhaps even reversed? In my view, the answer is “yes”, but it will require a lot of high level transparency in government, and severe consequences for bad decisions, something nearly unknown in government circles today.
The idea held by government is that money should be spent in accordance with appropriations. The new ideas on government spending are based on, “What do we get in return for our tax dollars?” This has always been considered by private business, but not by governments. The few governments that are asking that question today are showing some interesting results.
Several years ago, New Zealand elected a reform government that apparently took the term “accountability” seriously. Their per capita income in the period prior to the late 1950s was right around number three in the world, slightly behind the United States and Canada. But by 1984, per capita income had sunk to 27th in the world, alongside Portugal and Turkey, the unemployment rate was 11.6 percent, and they had lived with 23 successive years of deficits (sometimes ranging as high as 40 percent of GDP). The debt had grown to 65 percent of GDP, and the government credit ratings were continually being downgraded. Spending was 44 percent of GDP, investment capital was leaving the country in huge quantities, with government controls and micromanagement felt at all levels of the economy. Foreign exchange controls were so severe that a Kiwi couldn’t buy stock in a foreign company without surrendering his citizenship. There were price controls, wage controls, wage freezes, import controls, and massive subsidies to industry to keep them viable. Young people were leaving the country in droves.
When the new government took office it identified three problems: too much spending, too much taxing and too much government. The question was how to cut spending and taxes, and how to diminish government’s role in the economy. The first thing they had to do was to figure out what they’re getting for their tax dollars. With this, they implemented a new policy where money wouldn’t simply be handed to various agencies; instead, there would be a “purchase contract” with the senior executives of those agencies that clearly stated what was expected in return for the money. And with that kind of incentive, agency heads (like CEOs in the private sector) made certain that the next tier of employees had very clear objectives that they were expected to achieve.
First they asked every agency for policy advice. That advice was meant to produce a debate between the cabinet and agency heads about how to achieve goals like reducing hunger and homelessness. This didn’t mean how government could feed or house more people—that’s not important. What’s important is the extent to which hunger and homelessness are actually reduced. They made it clear that it’s not how many people are on welfare, but how many people get off welfare and into independent living. As they started through this process they also asked some questions of the agencies. The first was “What are you doing?” and the second was, “What should you be doing?” Based on the answers, they then said, “Eliminate what you shouldn’t be doing”—that is, if you are doing something that clearly is not a responsibility of the government, stop doing it. Then they asked: “Who should be paying—the taxpayer, the user, the consumer, or the industry?” This because, in many instances the taxpayers were subsidizing things that did not benefit them. And if you take the cost of services away from actual consumers and users, you promote overuse and devalue whatever it is you’re doing.
When they started with the Department of Transportation, it had 5,600 employees. When they finished, it had 53. The Forest Service had 17,000 employees, and when finished had 17. The Ministry of Works had 28,000 employees, and wound up with one! In this last case most of what the department did was construction and engineering, and there are plenty of people who can do that without government involvement. But, if you say, “You eliminated all those jobs!” well, they didn’t. The government stopped hiring people to fill those positions, but those jobs didn’t evaporate, they were privatized. Forestry workers some months after they’d lost their government jobs were quite happy. They were earning much more than what they used to earn, and had learned that they could accomplish much more than they had previously. The same lesson applies to other government jobs. They achieved a reduction of 66 percent in the size of government, measured by the number of employees. The government’s share of GDP dropped from 44 to 27 percent. Now they use most of the surplus to pay off debt, and debt went from 63 percent down to 17 percent of GDP.
When the Kiwi’s looked at their tax system, they found it extremely complicated (somewhat like the US tax system). They decided to have only two mechanisms for taxation, an income tax and a sales tax, and to lower the rates as much as they could. The high income tax rate dropped from 66 to 33 percent, and that became a flat rate for high-income earners. Then they brought the low end down from 38 to 19 percent, and set that as the flat rate for low-income earners. Finally they set a 10 percent sales tax, and eliminated all other taxes. The system was designed to produce the same revenue as previously, but what actually happened was that they got 20 percent more revenue than before, as they hadn’t allowed for increased voluntary compliance. If tax rates are low, it seems that taxpayers don’t employ high priced lawyers and accountants to find loopholes.
What about government regulations? Regulatory power is usually delegated to non-elected officials who then limit the people’s liberties, with no accountability. Regulations are also extremely difficult to eliminate once they’re in place. But the Kiwi’s simply rewrote the laws on which those regulations were based, effectively repealing the old, which meant that all existing regulations died, having no further legal basis.
I say “Good for the New Zealanders”! Apparently they could get a less intrusive and less expensive government, rather painlessly. If Americans are so smart, why can’t we do that?
The idea held by government is that money should be spent in accordance with appropriations. The new ideas on government spending are based on, “What do we get in return for our tax dollars?” This has always been considered by private business, but not by governments. The few governments that are asking that question today are showing some interesting results.
Several years ago, New Zealand elected a reform government that apparently took the term “accountability” seriously. Their per capita income in the period prior to the late 1950s was right around number three in the world, slightly behind the United States and Canada. But by 1984, per capita income had sunk to 27th in the world, alongside Portugal and Turkey, the unemployment rate was 11.6 percent, and they had lived with 23 successive years of deficits (sometimes ranging as high as 40 percent of GDP). The debt had grown to 65 percent of GDP, and the government credit ratings were continually being downgraded. Spending was 44 percent of GDP, investment capital was leaving the country in huge quantities, with government controls and micromanagement felt at all levels of the economy. Foreign exchange controls were so severe that a Kiwi couldn’t buy stock in a foreign company without surrendering his citizenship. There were price controls, wage controls, wage freezes, import controls, and massive subsidies to industry to keep them viable. Young people were leaving the country in droves.
When the new government took office it identified three problems: too much spending, too much taxing and too much government. The question was how to cut spending and taxes, and how to diminish government’s role in the economy. The first thing they had to do was to figure out what they’re getting for their tax dollars. With this, they implemented a new policy where money wouldn’t simply be handed to various agencies; instead, there would be a “purchase contract” with the senior executives of those agencies that clearly stated what was expected in return for the money. And with that kind of incentive, agency heads (like CEOs in the private sector) made certain that the next tier of employees had very clear objectives that they were expected to achieve.
First they asked every agency for policy advice. That advice was meant to produce a debate between the cabinet and agency heads about how to achieve goals like reducing hunger and homelessness. This didn’t mean how government could feed or house more people—that’s not important. What’s important is the extent to which hunger and homelessness are actually reduced. They made it clear that it’s not how many people are on welfare, but how many people get off welfare and into independent living. As they started through this process they also asked some questions of the agencies. The first was “What are you doing?” and the second was, “What should you be doing?” Based on the answers, they then said, “Eliminate what you shouldn’t be doing”—that is, if you are doing something that clearly is not a responsibility of the government, stop doing it. Then they asked: “Who should be paying—the taxpayer, the user, the consumer, or the industry?” This because, in many instances the taxpayers were subsidizing things that did not benefit them. And if you take the cost of services away from actual consumers and users, you promote overuse and devalue whatever it is you’re doing.
When they started with the Department of Transportation, it had 5,600 employees. When they finished, it had 53. The Forest Service had 17,000 employees, and when finished had 17. The Ministry of Works had 28,000 employees, and wound up with one! In this last case most of what the department did was construction and engineering, and there are plenty of people who can do that without government involvement. But, if you say, “You eliminated all those jobs!” well, they didn’t. The government stopped hiring people to fill those positions, but those jobs didn’t evaporate, they were privatized. Forestry workers some months after they’d lost their government jobs were quite happy. They were earning much more than what they used to earn, and had learned that they could accomplish much more than they had previously. The same lesson applies to other government jobs. They achieved a reduction of 66 percent in the size of government, measured by the number of employees. The government’s share of GDP dropped from 44 to 27 percent. Now they use most of the surplus to pay off debt, and debt went from 63 percent down to 17 percent of GDP.
When the Kiwi’s looked at their tax system, they found it extremely complicated (somewhat like the US tax system). They decided to have only two mechanisms for taxation, an income tax and a sales tax, and to lower the rates as much as they could. The high income tax rate dropped from 66 to 33 percent, and that became a flat rate for high-income earners. Then they brought the low end down from 38 to 19 percent, and set that as the flat rate for low-income earners. Finally they set a 10 percent sales tax, and eliminated all other taxes. The system was designed to produce the same revenue as previously, but what actually happened was that they got 20 percent more revenue than before, as they hadn’t allowed for increased voluntary compliance. If tax rates are low, it seems that taxpayers don’t employ high priced lawyers and accountants to find loopholes.
What about government regulations? Regulatory power is usually delegated to non-elected officials who then limit the people’s liberties, with no accountability. Regulations are also extremely difficult to eliminate once they’re in place. But the Kiwi’s simply rewrote the laws on which those regulations were based, effectively repealing the old, which meant that all existing regulations died, having no further legal basis.
I say “Good for the New Zealanders”! Apparently they could get a less intrusive and less expensive government, rather painlessly. If Americans are so smart, why can’t we do that?
Monday, July 9, 2007
Fourth of July
On the 6th of June, 1944, less than two years after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor catapulted the United States into WW II, armed forces of the United States, England, Canada, and Free France, landed on the French coastline in a province called Normandy. The Invasion Fleet was drawn from 8 different navies, comprising 6,938 vessels: 1,213 warships, 4,125 transport vessels, ships and landing craft, and 1,600 support vessels which included a number of merchant vessels, put more than 170,000 allied troops ashore. In the initial phase of the Normandy operation, The US Army Air Force’s Ninth Troop Carrier Command alone dispatched 1,662 aircraft and 512 gliders, landing 17,262 troops behind enemy lines. The names of Utah and Omaha Beaches became permanently enshrined in American military history. The Normandy invasion was, without a doubt, the single greatest military effort in recorded history. The success at Normandy, and the subsequent defeat of Nazi Germany, was the defining moment in American history and aptly demonstrated the great feats an aroused, free people were capable of.
A couple of days ago we celebrated the 4th of July, this year it was our nation’s 231st anniversary. The United States has seen a lot of change over the course of those two hundred and thirty-one years! We’ve gone from being thirteen rather insignificant colonies squabbling with the home country (and each other usually), to fifty states comprising the richest and most powerful nation on the planet. From holding a small strip of land down our eastern seaboard, we now take up a large part of the North American continent. From only a few million hard scrabble colonists, we’ve expanded to around three hundred million people with ancestors hailing from just about every land imaginable. (And we’re still squabbling with each other as well.)
For the first seventy five years as a nation, the US was primarily an agricultural country slowly encroaching into the interior of the continent. During that time we proved ourselves to be a “mind our own business” bunch of people, tough, durable, and inventive. We certainly weren’t a world power of any note, and we managed to keep friendly relations with (almost) all other countries. Our Navy was small but potent, our merchant marine sailed the seven seas, wheeling and dealing in every port of the world. The small American Army wasn’t much to brag about, but it was backed by a citizen militia that, while having a problem in taking orders from higher authority, certainly did know how to shoot! Our industrial capability wasn’t very large either, but it was growing by leaps and bounds, and was nearly always “cutting edge”. Our farms were easily feeding the country and a part of Europe as well. We enjoyed seemingly boundless natural resources, and we could welcome the “poor and downtrodden masses” of Europe with open arms and vast lands to be settled. Our arts and culture were a bit rough around the edges perhaps, but the world was beginning to take notice of the brash young upstart on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean. All in all we were a fairly well-to-do young country, flexing our muscles, and enjoying the good life.
By the end of the Civil War in 1865, we had nearly overnight become a world power of some note. Certainly not in the same class as Britain, France, or Russia, but you might remember that when the US Army began moving toward our border with Mexico in response to a perceived violation of the Monroe Doctrine, the French under Napoleon III suddenly decided to un-annex Mexico, leaving a puppet Emperor Maximilian to face a bunch of rather angry Mexican citizens. Our farms, mines, and industry were producing more than ever, with American technology leading the world in many areas. Immigrants continued to pour in, and our national expansion was nothing short of awe inspiring.
By 1918 and the end of WW I, the United States suddenly and unexpectedly found itself one of the worlds leading financial, industrial, and political powers. When WW II ended in 1945, diplomats and politicians had to find an entirely new word to describe the position of the United States in the world hierarchy, that of a “Superpower”. And we remain the world’s leading superpower, sixty years later.
How did this amazing transformation come about? To start with, the original colonists had fled Europe for many reasons, usually religious, economic, or political. They were, for the most part, entirely fed up with established authority telling them how to worship, how to live, where to work, and what to think. European society severely restricted any possibility of individual advancement, such that if your parents were servants at the local manor house, that was usually your ultimate fate as well. Anything more than a rudimentary education was restricted to the ruling elite. Taxes were inevitably “all the market would bear”, and the possibility of owning your own land was slim indeed.
On arrival in the new world immigrants found themselves with considerably more individual independence and freedom of choice than they had ever dreamed of. Land was available at ridiculously low costs, and there was nobody around to tell you what you had to do with that land. If you had a job you didn’t like, you had the option to go elsewhere. And advanced education was available to all. The industrious flourished, leaving the lazy to fall by the wayside. Americans co-operatively met every national challenge head-on, and emerged victorious.
During the length of time that our current generation has been flailing about responding to the 9/11 attacks, the “greatest generation” of World War II rebounded from the attack on Pearl Harbor, defeated the axis powers, built a worldwide military capability second to none, built the atomic bomb, massed and organized industrial power, and laid the foundation for the network of alliances that stabilized the world for 60 years. To add icing to the cake, they put Americans on the moon by 1969. Their achievements should be an inspiration to us today as we face the present Islamic fundamentalist assault on human freedom. At present, the current generation seems to be flailing around, with no real idea of who the enemy is, or just how serious the threat is. Thanks to incessant political infighting we seem to be loosing not only the war on terror, but our national character as well. America has defeated its enemies before, and with a little cooperation we can certainly do it again.
We know how Americans respond to an attack calculated to intimidate us into submission. We saw it on the morning of 9/11, and on the morning of Dec. 7, 1941.
A couple of days ago we celebrated the 4th of July, this year it was our nation’s 231st anniversary. The United States has seen a lot of change over the course of those two hundred and thirty-one years! We’ve gone from being thirteen rather insignificant colonies squabbling with the home country (and each other usually), to fifty states comprising the richest and most powerful nation on the planet. From holding a small strip of land down our eastern seaboard, we now take up a large part of the North American continent. From only a few million hard scrabble colonists, we’ve expanded to around three hundred million people with ancestors hailing from just about every land imaginable. (And we’re still squabbling with each other as well.)
For the first seventy five years as a nation, the US was primarily an agricultural country slowly encroaching into the interior of the continent. During that time we proved ourselves to be a “mind our own business” bunch of people, tough, durable, and inventive. We certainly weren’t a world power of any note, and we managed to keep friendly relations with (almost) all other countries. Our Navy was small but potent, our merchant marine sailed the seven seas, wheeling and dealing in every port of the world. The small American Army wasn’t much to brag about, but it was backed by a citizen militia that, while having a problem in taking orders from higher authority, certainly did know how to shoot! Our industrial capability wasn’t very large either, but it was growing by leaps and bounds, and was nearly always “cutting edge”. Our farms were easily feeding the country and a part of Europe as well. We enjoyed seemingly boundless natural resources, and we could welcome the “poor and downtrodden masses” of Europe with open arms and vast lands to be settled. Our arts and culture were a bit rough around the edges perhaps, but the world was beginning to take notice of the brash young upstart on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean. All in all we were a fairly well-to-do young country, flexing our muscles, and enjoying the good life.
By the end of the Civil War in 1865, we had nearly overnight become a world power of some note. Certainly not in the same class as Britain, France, or Russia, but you might remember that when the US Army began moving toward our border with Mexico in response to a perceived violation of the Monroe Doctrine, the French under Napoleon III suddenly decided to un-annex Mexico, leaving a puppet Emperor Maximilian to face a bunch of rather angry Mexican citizens. Our farms, mines, and industry were producing more than ever, with American technology leading the world in many areas. Immigrants continued to pour in, and our national expansion was nothing short of awe inspiring.
By 1918 and the end of WW I, the United States suddenly and unexpectedly found itself one of the worlds leading financial, industrial, and political powers. When WW II ended in 1945, diplomats and politicians had to find an entirely new word to describe the position of the United States in the world hierarchy, that of a “Superpower”. And we remain the world’s leading superpower, sixty years later.
How did this amazing transformation come about? To start with, the original colonists had fled Europe for many reasons, usually religious, economic, or political. They were, for the most part, entirely fed up with established authority telling them how to worship, how to live, where to work, and what to think. European society severely restricted any possibility of individual advancement, such that if your parents were servants at the local manor house, that was usually your ultimate fate as well. Anything more than a rudimentary education was restricted to the ruling elite. Taxes were inevitably “all the market would bear”, and the possibility of owning your own land was slim indeed.
On arrival in the new world immigrants found themselves with considerably more individual independence and freedom of choice than they had ever dreamed of. Land was available at ridiculously low costs, and there was nobody around to tell you what you had to do with that land. If you had a job you didn’t like, you had the option to go elsewhere. And advanced education was available to all. The industrious flourished, leaving the lazy to fall by the wayside. Americans co-operatively met every national challenge head-on, and emerged victorious.
During the length of time that our current generation has been flailing about responding to the 9/11 attacks, the “greatest generation” of World War II rebounded from the attack on Pearl Harbor, defeated the axis powers, built a worldwide military capability second to none, built the atomic bomb, massed and organized industrial power, and laid the foundation for the network of alliances that stabilized the world for 60 years. To add icing to the cake, they put Americans on the moon by 1969. Their achievements should be an inspiration to us today as we face the present Islamic fundamentalist assault on human freedom. At present, the current generation seems to be flailing around, with no real idea of who the enemy is, or just how serious the threat is. Thanks to incessant political infighting we seem to be loosing not only the war on terror, but our national character as well. America has defeated its enemies before, and with a little cooperation we can certainly do it again.
We know how Americans respond to an attack calculated to intimidate us into submission. We saw it on the morning of 9/11, and on the morning of Dec. 7, 1941.
Sunday, July 1, 2007
Immigration, again
It seems the “withdrawn” Senate immigration/amnesty bill didn’t get withdrawn very far. It’s back, unchanged, and apparently going up for yet another vote. President Bush, John McCain, and Teddy Kennedy have been joined by another big gun, Sen. Hillary Clinton, in pushing for its passage. Even the pentagon has weighed in, asking that the bill be passed, so that they can recruit a couple of hundred thousand previously unavailable illegal aliens into the US Army!
The bill has been reintroduced three times in the last month. The government has been pushing for its passage a couple of times a year for last six years. This obviously isn’t a "second chance" as the media claims, this is its 14th or 15th chance! We’re being told that its being “brought back” and “killed off” so much that most people are worn to a frazzle trying to keep track of it. This brilliant government idea has more lives than the neighborhood tomcat! I would think that by now our elected representatives employed at the big hot air machine on the hill would understand the meaning of the word “NO”, particularly when it’s being spoken loud and clearly by the “legal” voters in the land. Although if they do pass it, there will be ten or twenty million brand new voters who will quite happily say “Si” to every harebrained scheme that Teddy, Hillary, Harry, or Nancy come up with.
The part about the pentagon wanting to recruit so many illegals is alarming to me, even though I’m a strong supporter of the US military. (I’m also prone to lecture about Roman history every now and then, and this is as good an excuse as any.) Historically, the Roman Legions beat all comers, and extended “Pax Romana” to all corners of the known world. They did loose a battle occasionally, but Rome ruled the western world for centuries. Then the Roman citizens, tired of serving in the army, building roads, and “seeing the world”, decided to stay home and enjoy the famed “bread and circuses”. The Roman Senate, in desperation, began the practice of recruiting non-citizens to fill the thinning ranks of the legions. It didn’t take long before those legions were primarily made up of alien barbarian soldiers with no loyalty to Rome, but only to their particular commander, as long as they were paid regularly. The kicker came about when the Roman Senate started cutting the budget, and “downsizing” the legions. Shortly thereafter, the barbarian Vandals, who had incorporated a lot of those laid-off legionnaires into their ranks, along with a good many fellow tribesmen who had deserted from the remaining legions, were pounding on the gates of Rome itself, gates undefended by loyal Roman soldiers! Exit the Roman Empire, and say hello to the beginning of the dark ages.
According to the polls a few weeks ago (which I generally take with a grain of salt anyway), approximately 72% of the American people were opposed to this compromise immigration deal being considered by Congress. Today it’s even worse from Mr. Kennedy’s viewpoint, with (according to yet another poll) slightly over 90% of the population being opposed. Strange that the politicians, whose careers rise or fall on those polls, seem to be ignoring these astounding numbers. I can understand President Bush not being concerned, as he’s out of a job next election anyway. But all the Senators and Representatives who hope to get re-elected in the not to far distant future? Then to, why are the two major political parties in this country, both of whom have popularity problems with the voters, ignoring the public will and apparently daring the voters to do their worst? Is something going on in the arcane world of American politics that we don’t know about?
President Bush has stated "We've got to convince the American people this bill is the best way to enforce our border." It’s somewhat enlightening that our president, who is sworn to uphold the laws of this nation, thinks that the people need to be "convinced" that ignoring the laws, leaving the border wide open, allowing mass amnesty, and inviting chain migration, is the best thing for the country. To my way of thinking, that’s the exact opposite of ensuring our border security or enforcing our existing immigration laws.
Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) published a list of 20 loopholes in this recurrent immigration bill which he claims is indicative of the flaws. This list of loopholes includes things like border security, chain-migration and assimilation policies. The list also exposes a lack of attention to legislation curing our present immigration ailments. For example, one loophole in the legislation prevents the benefits of merit-based immigration from taking full effect until 2016. Until then, chain migration into the U.S. will reportedly triple, compared to a very low increase in skill-based immigration. Another allows immigrants to avoid demonstrating a proficiency in English for more than a decade. Legal status must be granted to illegal aliens 24 hours after they file an application, even if the aliens have not yet “passed all appropriate background checks.” (The previous bill gave DHS 90 days to check an alien’s background before any status was granted). After filing an application and waiting 24 hours, illegal aliens will receive full “probationary benefits,” complete with the ability to legally live and work in the U.S., travel outside of the U.S. and return, and their own social security card. Claims that the bill also “expands fencing” are erroneous, as the bill only requires 370 miles of fencing to be completed, while current law already mandates that more than 700 miles be constructed. Some felons, including child molesters are not barred from getting amnesty. Even better, illegal aliens with terrorist connections are not barred. The to, members of violent gangs such as MS 13 are not deported after coming out of the shadows, but are instead are allowed amnesty if they “renounce” gang membership on their application. Oh yeah, free legal counsel and the expenses of arbitrators will be provided to aliens that have been working illegally in agriculture. Now however, the Washington Times reports that House Democrats are breaking the immigration issue up into a series of smaller bills that would put off the tougher parts and allow others to pass, such as border security, and high-tech and agriculture worker programs that have clear support. That would allow the Democrats more time to find an answer to the problem of amnesty for the millions of illegal aliens now here. It would go against the Senate's massive catchall approach and contradicts President Bush's call for the broad based bill to pass. So now instead of the big “compromise” package deal, we get a bunch of little ones, amounting to the same thing?
Perhaps they’ll finally get the message, and eliminate some of the more odious provisions?
The bill has been reintroduced three times in the last month. The government has been pushing for its passage a couple of times a year for last six years. This obviously isn’t a "second chance" as the media claims, this is its 14th or 15th chance! We’re being told that its being “brought back” and “killed off” so much that most people are worn to a frazzle trying to keep track of it. This brilliant government idea has more lives than the neighborhood tomcat! I would think that by now our elected representatives employed at the big hot air machine on the hill would understand the meaning of the word “NO”, particularly when it’s being spoken loud and clearly by the “legal” voters in the land. Although if they do pass it, there will be ten or twenty million brand new voters who will quite happily say “Si” to every harebrained scheme that Teddy, Hillary, Harry, or Nancy come up with.
The part about the pentagon wanting to recruit so many illegals is alarming to me, even though I’m a strong supporter of the US military. (I’m also prone to lecture about Roman history every now and then, and this is as good an excuse as any.) Historically, the Roman Legions beat all comers, and extended “Pax Romana” to all corners of the known world. They did loose a battle occasionally, but Rome ruled the western world for centuries. Then the Roman citizens, tired of serving in the army, building roads, and “seeing the world”, decided to stay home and enjoy the famed “bread and circuses”. The Roman Senate, in desperation, began the practice of recruiting non-citizens to fill the thinning ranks of the legions. It didn’t take long before those legions were primarily made up of alien barbarian soldiers with no loyalty to Rome, but only to their particular commander, as long as they were paid regularly. The kicker came about when the Roman Senate started cutting the budget, and “downsizing” the legions. Shortly thereafter, the barbarian Vandals, who had incorporated a lot of those laid-off legionnaires into their ranks, along with a good many fellow tribesmen who had deserted from the remaining legions, were pounding on the gates of Rome itself, gates undefended by loyal Roman soldiers! Exit the Roman Empire, and say hello to the beginning of the dark ages.
According to the polls a few weeks ago (which I generally take with a grain of salt anyway), approximately 72% of the American people were opposed to this compromise immigration deal being considered by Congress. Today it’s even worse from Mr. Kennedy’s viewpoint, with (according to yet another poll) slightly over 90% of the population being opposed. Strange that the politicians, whose careers rise or fall on those polls, seem to be ignoring these astounding numbers. I can understand President Bush not being concerned, as he’s out of a job next election anyway. But all the Senators and Representatives who hope to get re-elected in the not to far distant future? Then to, why are the two major political parties in this country, both of whom have popularity problems with the voters, ignoring the public will and apparently daring the voters to do their worst? Is something going on in the arcane world of American politics that we don’t know about?
President Bush has stated "We've got to convince the American people this bill is the best way to enforce our border." It’s somewhat enlightening that our president, who is sworn to uphold the laws of this nation, thinks that the people need to be "convinced" that ignoring the laws, leaving the border wide open, allowing mass amnesty, and inviting chain migration, is the best thing for the country. To my way of thinking, that’s the exact opposite of ensuring our border security or enforcing our existing immigration laws.
Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) published a list of 20 loopholes in this recurrent immigration bill which he claims is indicative of the flaws. This list of loopholes includes things like border security, chain-migration and assimilation policies. The list also exposes a lack of attention to legislation curing our present immigration ailments. For example, one loophole in the legislation prevents the benefits of merit-based immigration from taking full effect until 2016. Until then, chain migration into the U.S. will reportedly triple, compared to a very low increase in skill-based immigration. Another allows immigrants to avoid demonstrating a proficiency in English for more than a decade. Legal status must be granted to illegal aliens 24 hours after they file an application, even if the aliens have not yet “passed all appropriate background checks.” (The previous bill gave DHS 90 days to check an alien’s background before any status was granted). After filing an application and waiting 24 hours, illegal aliens will receive full “probationary benefits,” complete with the ability to legally live and work in the U.S., travel outside of the U.S. and return, and their own social security card. Claims that the bill also “expands fencing” are erroneous, as the bill only requires 370 miles of fencing to be completed, while current law already mandates that more than 700 miles be constructed. Some felons, including child molesters are not barred from getting amnesty. Even better, illegal aliens with terrorist connections are not barred. The to, members of violent gangs such as MS 13 are not deported after coming out of the shadows, but are instead are allowed amnesty if they “renounce” gang membership on their application. Oh yeah, free legal counsel and the expenses of arbitrators will be provided to aliens that have been working illegally in agriculture. Now however, the Washington Times reports that House Democrats are breaking the immigration issue up into a series of smaller bills that would put off the tougher parts and allow others to pass, such as border security, and high-tech and agriculture worker programs that have clear support. That would allow the Democrats more time to find an answer to the problem of amnesty for the millions of illegal aliens now here. It would go against the Senate's massive catchall approach and contradicts President Bush's call for the broad based bill to pass. So now instead of the big “compromise” package deal, we get a bunch of little ones, amounting to the same thing?
Perhaps they’ll finally get the message, and eliminate some of the more odious provisions?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)