Our fire season started early this year, and so far I’ve seen no indication that it’s going to be anything but a long, hot, smoky, and probably miserable, summer. At the time of this writing we have twenty major fire incidents working in the Northern Rockies region of North Idaho, Montana, part of Wyoming, and North Dakota. We’re not alone either, considering that the entire great basin area (part of Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, and south Idaho) seems to be burning, with twenty major fire incidents working, along with the Oregon and Washington region having six major incidents working, and several more recently contained. As I understand the statistics, so far this year we’ve had over 56,000 fires large and small across the nation, at a loss of more than 4.5 million acres of federal, state, and private lands. The nationwide extended weather outlook doesn’t promise any relief either.
Several days ago I toured the northern area of the Poe Cabin fire (mostly the Twin Rivers Ranch area) with Brian Scott of the incident command staff. Brian hails from South Dakota where (when he’s not out on major fires) he works as a natural resources technician for the state’s Department of Agriculture. He briefly described the problems facing the IMT and the firefighters, which included rugged terrain, fast burning fuels, hot and dry weather of course, and a shortage of fire fighting resources. I’ve fought a few fires in nasty terrain before, but the area these crews are working in would have to be very near the top of my list of nastiness! It looks like these guys are doing a whale of a job, with particular kudos to both the Whitebird and Salmon River Rural Fire Departments, who held the line alone for quite some time.
We met up with Mike Dannenberg of the BLM (in Montana), who’s in charge of the Structural Protection Unit on the northern perimeter of the fire. Mike also noted the particular problems of wildland firefighting in this area, and stressed the value of having a defensible space around each home. During our tour he showed us a prime example of a highly defensible home, that he thought should be a “Poster Child” for the Fire Safe program. For anyone who’s not aware of it, “Fire Safe” is an effort to teach homeowners living in or near wild lands how to protect their homes from the ravages of wildfire. The home he showed us has a number of safety features built-in to the landscaping, in that brush and tall grass were not allowed near the place, and a fire free decorative gravel strip had been placed all around the house and yard. Mentioning the terrain features, Mike pointed out that the house was very near the head of a brushy ravine that would funnel a fire right to the house. However, in this case the house is set back slightly from the ravine, and any intervening brush had been removed. I didn’t notice any shade trees near the house, but Mike also said that while our local conifers are comparatively easy to ignite, hardwood trees are apparently much more difficult to set afire. If you have a choice, hardwoods are a safer bet. He commented that if he were in Reno, and were a betting man, he’s bet that this particular home would survive a burnover. In visiting another home close by, Mike pointed out several problem areas, in that tall grass, brush, and trees were in very close proximity to the house, providing a fuel chain directly to the house. Pity, it’s a nice looking home.
First and foremost, we all recognize that fire is a natural part of our environment. Today, as the population continues to move away from the suburbs and into a more rural setting, homes are being built and maintained without regard to wildfire hazards. With our present warmer summers and drought conditions, and with more people using our wildlands for recreational purposes, there is also a greater chance of fire starts. Today’s wildfires often burn very intensely and can be quite difficult to control. Fire in the “Urban Interface” is a growing problem nationwide. (“Urban Interface” being defined as the place where towns meet the woods.) A lot of people assume that when a wildfire starts, it will be quickly controlled and extinguished. This is accurate most of the time, for most wildfires. But occasionally wildfires burn so intensely that there is little firefighters can do, particularly so if the home isn’t defensible. In most areas, a safety zone should be cleared away from your home for a distance of not less than 30 feet. As the slope of your home site increases, additional clearance as far out as 100 feet or more may be necessary. Flammable vegetation too close to your home will make it almost impossible for firefighters to save much of anything in the event of a fire. When people are living in high hazard fire environments, the human built environment becomes an important factor in the loss of life and property. Untreated wood shake and shingle roofs, narrow and one-way roads, limited access, lack of fire-wise landscaping, inadequate water supplies, are all examples of the increased risk to people living with the threat of wildfire.
Quoting from a Fire Safe pamphlet; “Clear away flammable vegetation and combustible growth a minimum of 30 feet away from homes. If a wooden deck is part of the back of the home, this 30-foot distance starts from the edge of the deck outward. Brush and weeds must be cut to the ground, raked up, and removed from the property. Single specimens of trees and shrubbery used as ground cover, provided that they don’t form a means of rapidly transmitting fire from the native growth to any structure, can be kept in this 30-foot space. Trim trees horizontally to at least 10 feet away from the home and decks. If a homeowner wishes to keep a tree within this 10-foot distance they must trim any nearby trees a minimum of 10 feet away from this tree within this first 30-foot space. Large trees must be limbed up to a minimum of six feet above the ground and smaller trees limbed up proportionately. Homes that have any type of slope must have an additional defensible space created. This distance must be an additional minimum of 70-foot space in addition to the first 30 feet for a total of 100 feet. In this additional 70-foot space, the vegetation should be cut so that it is not more than 18” above the ground. The cut vegetation can be left in place as long as it is mulched down. Trees within this 70-foot space should also be limbed up a minimum of 6 feet above the ground for large trees and proportionately for smaller trees. Flammable vegetation and combustible growth should be cut and removed from below the canopies of the trees in this 70-foot space.”
To this I’ll add that we all have an assortment of flammable materials around the place. Gasoline for the lawnmower, paints and thinners, propane tanks, whatever. These materials present not only more fuel for a fire, they can also be quite hazardous to the firefighter that’s trying to save your home. Store them safely, well away from the house. Due to a disastrous fire incident I was involved with years ago, propane tanks in a fire situation are one of my major concerns. If you use propane, make sure than there are no fuels anywhere near the tank. Keep the brush as far away as you can, keep the grass under the tank cut, and don’t hide the tank behind a wall of firewood!
It’s your home, “Learn not to burn.”
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
Sunday, July 29, 2007
United Nations
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.
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.
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?
Saturday, June 23, 2007
Islamic RoE
In My Opinion – by Bob Fogarty
It appears that those wondrous folks who brought you the big hole in the side of the USS Cole, the blown-up Bamyan statues in Afghanistan, and the 9-11 attack in New York, are at it again. Now it seems that an Al-Qaeda inspired mob of Syrians are threatening to begin terrorist attacks on Lebanon’s interests in Syria, if the government of Lebanon doesn’t stop attacking the Palestinian terrorists hiding out in a Lebanese refugee camp. In a Web statement, the group “Tawhid and Jihad in Syria” promised its support for Fatah Islam, the militant group holed up in the camp. "We warn the Lebanese government that its vital interests, officials, and sons living in Syria will be moving targets for us if it does not lift its siege of the camp". The unauthenticated statement went further with; "Let the Lebanese government wait for the hell of kidnapping, shooting and chopping of heads if it does not respond to the demand". "Tawhid and Jihad", Arabic for "monotheism and holy war", is a name used by several groups apparently inspired by Al Qaeda, though their actual links to Osama bin Laden are unknown. The most prominent militant group in Syria is known as Jund al-Sham, but it is sometimes called the Jund al-Sham for Jihad and Tawhid. The warning said that the groups current leader, al-Dimashqi allegedly met with Fatah Islam's representative, who "explained the ideology of the group, its aims to support Islam and the establishment of the State of Islam, which is a dream for every Muslim." Tawhid and Jihad promised to support Fatah Islam, saying "Jews, Christians and the malevolent Crusaders in Lebanon and in Europe ... (and) Lebanese officials — France and America's dogs, weaned on the breast of treason — have all rushed to help against the brothers of Fatah Islam." I can understand the extremists being mad at the United States, in the aftermath of 9-11 the US actually has the effrontery to oppose the march of militant Islam! Why that’s nothing less than anti-Moslem Sacrilege!! But now they’re accusing FRANCE of opposing Muslim extremism!?
These folks do have some strange ways of fighting their wars though; An American journalist was in Zarqa, Jordan, was trying to interview two heavily bearded Islamic militants when he asked one too many questions. "He's American?" one of the militants growled. "Let's kidnap and kill him." But before anyone could act on that idea the rules of jihadi etiquette kicked in. Apparently you can't just slaughter a visitor, as the militants are taught by Islamic scholars that you need permission from whoever arranges the meeting. And in this case, the arranger declined to sign off.
During the late unlamented war in Vietnam, the United States had a quite extensive set of orders, the “Rules of Engagement”, telling us when, where, how (or even if), we could shoot back. From talking to some of our local veterans of the Iraq war, I understand they also have rules of engagement, but nothing as extensive, exasperating, and “enemy friendly” and the RoE in Vietnam. Now I find that the Sunni insurgents have their own set of rules.
Jihadi etiquette is unwritten, and apparently varies in interpretation and practice almost as much as the extremist groups vary in their stated goals. But the rules do have some generalized guidelines. Some are rooted in Middle Eastern culture, and some are based on the Koran, which generally prohibits the slaying of children, women, the elderly, and the infirm. However, an Egyptian Islamic scholar, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, has argued it is fine to kill Israeli citizens because Israeli compulsory military service means they are not truly civilians. Apparently you can also kill innocent bystanders without feeling guilt. Fatah Al Islam in Lebanon claims that government officials are proper targets, claiming that "Any person that comes to our region with a military, security, or political aim, then he is a legitimate target." Considering that Kassam rockets aren’t all that accurate, nor very particular about who or how many they kill, I guess it’s a good thing the collateral damage is incidental and acceptable under Islam. ‘Course a “Crusader” bomb or artillery shell is a different story.
The Iraqi war is changing things too. Suicide bombers from radical Muslim groups have long been called martyrs, a word that apparently bypasses the Koran's ban on killing oneself, in favor of the honor it accords death in battle against the infidel. But now you can kill children too, without concern. It seems the extremists in Jordan who embrace Al Qaeda's ideology teach their recruits that children receive special consideration in death. They are not held accountable for any sins until puberty, and if they are killed in a jihad operation, they will go straight to heaven. There, they will instantly age to their late 20s and enjoy the same access to virgins and other occupational benefits of martyrdom.
Sometimes you can single out civilians for killing; bankers are an example. In Islamic theory noncombatants cannot be the target of a militant operation, but the list of exceptions is long and rapidly growing. A Briton of Cypriot descent awaiting trial in England on terrorism charges claims "It would be legitimate to attack banks because they charge interest, and this is in violation of Islamic law." And then he came up with this additional tidbit; "We have a voting system here in Britain, so anyone who is voting for Tony Blair is not a civilian and therefore would be a legitimate target." With this, perhaps Homeland Security will cancel our next presidential election, in order to “protect” us from a perceived terrorist threat?
You’re not supposed to kill in the country where you reside unless you were born there. Militants who go to Iraq apparently get a free pass on this as they’re “expeditionary warriors”. And the 9-11 attack did not violate this rule either, since the hijackers originally came from outside the United States. Huh… and all this time I thought they’d been living here for quite some time. Then to, you can lie or hide your religion if you do this for jihad. Muslims are instructed by the Koran to be true to their religion, but lying about it is allowed when it is deemed a necessity - for example, when deception serves a good purpose, such as posing as a passenger on an airliner perhaps?
Militant Islamists interpret the Koran and the separate teachings of Muhammad that are known as the “Sunna” as laying out five criteria to be met by people wanting to be jihadis. They must be Muslim, at least 15 years of age and mature, of sound mind and debt-free, and they must have parental permission. The parental rule is currently waived inside Iraq, where Islamists say it is every Muslim's duty to fight the Americans. The rule is optional for residents of nearby countries like Jordan.
Rules of Engagement in the sandbox, based on inescapable Islamic religious logic… I think I kinda prefer “Bob’s one rule of engagement”, something that dates back to what seemed like a lifetime spent in a gawd forsaken jungle… “Shoot at ME you dumba- - , and you’d better not miss!”
It appears that those wondrous folks who brought you the big hole in the side of the USS Cole, the blown-up Bamyan statues in Afghanistan, and the 9-11 attack in New York, are at it again. Now it seems that an Al-Qaeda inspired mob of Syrians are threatening to begin terrorist attacks on Lebanon’s interests in Syria, if the government of Lebanon doesn’t stop attacking the Palestinian terrorists hiding out in a Lebanese refugee camp. In a Web statement, the group “Tawhid and Jihad in Syria” promised its support for Fatah Islam, the militant group holed up in the camp. "We warn the Lebanese government that its vital interests, officials, and sons living in Syria will be moving targets for us if it does not lift its siege of the camp". The unauthenticated statement went further with; "Let the Lebanese government wait for the hell of kidnapping, shooting and chopping of heads if it does not respond to the demand". "Tawhid and Jihad", Arabic for "monotheism and holy war", is a name used by several groups apparently inspired by Al Qaeda, though their actual links to Osama bin Laden are unknown. The most prominent militant group in Syria is known as Jund al-Sham, but it is sometimes called the Jund al-Sham for Jihad and Tawhid. The warning said that the groups current leader, al-Dimashqi allegedly met with Fatah Islam's representative, who "explained the ideology of the group, its aims to support Islam and the establishment of the State of Islam, which is a dream for every Muslim." Tawhid and Jihad promised to support Fatah Islam, saying "Jews, Christians and the malevolent Crusaders in Lebanon and in Europe ... (and) Lebanese officials — France and America's dogs, weaned on the breast of treason — have all rushed to help against the brothers of Fatah Islam." I can understand the extremists being mad at the United States, in the aftermath of 9-11 the US actually has the effrontery to oppose the march of militant Islam! Why that’s nothing less than anti-Moslem Sacrilege!! But now they’re accusing FRANCE of opposing Muslim extremism!?
These folks do have some strange ways of fighting their wars though; An American journalist was in Zarqa, Jordan, was trying to interview two heavily bearded Islamic militants when he asked one too many questions. "He's American?" one of the militants growled. "Let's kidnap and kill him." But before anyone could act on that idea the rules of jihadi etiquette kicked in. Apparently you can't just slaughter a visitor, as the militants are taught by Islamic scholars that you need permission from whoever arranges the meeting. And in this case, the arranger declined to sign off.
During the late unlamented war in Vietnam, the United States had a quite extensive set of orders, the “Rules of Engagement”, telling us when, where, how (or even if), we could shoot back. From talking to some of our local veterans of the Iraq war, I understand they also have rules of engagement, but nothing as extensive, exasperating, and “enemy friendly” and the RoE in Vietnam. Now I find that the Sunni insurgents have their own set of rules.
Jihadi etiquette is unwritten, and apparently varies in interpretation and practice almost as much as the extremist groups vary in their stated goals. But the rules do have some generalized guidelines. Some are rooted in Middle Eastern culture, and some are based on the Koran, which generally prohibits the slaying of children, women, the elderly, and the infirm. However, an Egyptian Islamic scholar, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, has argued it is fine to kill Israeli citizens because Israeli compulsory military service means they are not truly civilians. Apparently you can also kill innocent bystanders without feeling guilt. Fatah Al Islam in Lebanon claims that government officials are proper targets, claiming that "Any person that comes to our region with a military, security, or political aim, then he is a legitimate target." Considering that Kassam rockets aren’t all that accurate, nor very particular about who or how many they kill, I guess it’s a good thing the collateral damage is incidental and acceptable under Islam. ‘Course a “Crusader” bomb or artillery shell is a different story.
The Iraqi war is changing things too. Suicide bombers from radical Muslim groups have long been called martyrs, a word that apparently bypasses the Koran's ban on killing oneself, in favor of the honor it accords death in battle against the infidel. But now you can kill children too, without concern. It seems the extremists in Jordan who embrace Al Qaeda's ideology teach their recruits that children receive special consideration in death. They are not held accountable for any sins until puberty, and if they are killed in a jihad operation, they will go straight to heaven. There, they will instantly age to their late 20s and enjoy the same access to virgins and other occupational benefits of martyrdom.
Sometimes you can single out civilians for killing; bankers are an example. In Islamic theory noncombatants cannot be the target of a militant operation, but the list of exceptions is long and rapidly growing. A Briton of Cypriot descent awaiting trial in England on terrorism charges claims "It would be legitimate to attack banks because they charge interest, and this is in violation of Islamic law." And then he came up with this additional tidbit; "We have a voting system here in Britain, so anyone who is voting for Tony Blair is not a civilian and therefore would be a legitimate target." With this, perhaps Homeland Security will cancel our next presidential election, in order to “protect” us from a perceived terrorist threat?
You’re not supposed to kill in the country where you reside unless you were born there. Militants who go to Iraq apparently get a free pass on this as they’re “expeditionary warriors”. And the 9-11 attack did not violate this rule either, since the hijackers originally came from outside the United States. Huh… and all this time I thought they’d been living here for quite some time. Then to, you can lie or hide your religion if you do this for jihad. Muslims are instructed by the Koran to be true to their religion, but lying about it is allowed when it is deemed a necessity - for example, when deception serves a good purpose, such as posing as a passenger on an airliner perhaps?
Militant Islamists interpret the Koran and the separate teachings of Muhammad that are known as the “Sunna” as laying out five criteria to be met by people wanting to be jihadis. They must be Muslim, at least 15 years of age and mature, of sound mind and debt-free, and they must have parental permission. The parental rule is currently waived inside Iraq, where Islamists say it is every Muslim's duty to fight the Americans. The rule is optional for residents of nearby countries like Jordan.
Rules of Engagement in the sandbox, based on inescapable Islamic religious logic… I think I kinda prefer “Bob’s one rule of engagement”, something that dates back to what seemed like a lifetime spent in a gawd forsaken jungle… “Shoot at ME you dumba- - , and you’d better not miss!”
Monday, June 18, 2007
Immigration
16 June 2007
Apparently I’ll have to take the position on immigration reform that we must deport all 12 million illegal aliens immediately, as this is claimed to be the only alternative to immediate amnesty. The fact that we "can't deport them all" is supposed to lead to the conclusion that we must grant amnesty to all illegal aliens. Well, we can’t catch all the murderers either, so I guess we need a "comprehensive murder reform bill” as well. It's not "amnesty" I guess, if we ask them to pay a small fine. But if it's "impossible" to find and deport illegal aliens, how come we know so much about them? I keep hearing they are Catholic, pro-life, hardworking, just dying to become American citizens, and will take jobs other Americans won't. How do we even know there are 12 or so million of them? Why not only 1 million, or perhaps 25 million? Since Ted Kennedy's 1965 Immigration Act, more than half of all legal immigrants have been unskilled and non-English-speaking Mexicans. America takes in roughly 1 million legal immigrants each year, and only about 30,000 of them have Ph.D.s. Why would any rational immigration policy discriminate against immigrants with Ph.D.s in favor of unskilled, non-English-speaking people? Notably, the biggest proponents of the government's policy of importing a huge underclass of unskilled workers are not themselves unskilled workers. The great bounty of cheap labor by unskilled immigrants isn't going to Americans who hang drywall or clean hotel rooms… and who are having trouble getting jobs now that they're forced to compete with the vast influx of unskilled workers who don't pay taxes. The people who make arguments about "jobs Americans won't do" never seem to be in a line of work where unskilled immigrants can compete with them.
Perhaps the immigration debate would be different if we were importing millions of politicians. At present, it’s a case of “you lose your job, while I keep my Senate seat, and I get a low cost maid as well!” If immigrants were to threatened Senate seats… The only beneficiaries of these famed hardworking immigrants -- unlike the rest of us lazy Americans, are the wealthy, who want the cheap labor while making the rest of us pay for the immigrants' schooling and health care. These great lovers of the downtrodden (the downtrodden trimming their hedge that is), pretend to believe that their gardeners' children will be graduating from Harvard and curing cancer someday, but 1) they don't believe that; and 2) if it happened, they'd lose their gardeners.
According to "Alien Nation" author Peter Brimelow, "There is recent evidence that, even after four generations, fewer than 10% of Mexican-Americans have post-high school degrees, as opposed to nearly half of non-Mexican Americans." So this means you'll always have the gardener and maid I guess. As New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg recently said, our golf fairways would suffer without illegal immigrants: "…who takes care of the greens and the fairways on your golf course?" Another job that Americans won’t take perhaps? Well, mowing a lawn that size wouldn’t rate real high on my “things I’d like to do” list, but I’ve done worse.In Samuel P. Huntington's book "Who Are We? The Challenges to America's National Identity," he asks: "Would America be the America it is today if in the 17th and 18th centuries it had been settled not by British Protestants but by French, Spanish or Portuguese Catholics? The answer is no it would not be America; it would be Quebec, Mexico or Brazil", and I don't particularly want to live in Quebec, Mexico, or Brazil either. But now I guess I have no choice, since our open border immigration policy means they’re coming here instead.
Yes, this country has absorbed huge migrations of illiterate peasants in the past, most notably the wave of Irish immigrants (my great-grand-parents included) during and after the Great Famine, then the influx of German (more of my great-grand-parents) and Italian immigrants at the turn of the last century. But they came here legally, and worked hard at becoming Americans. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, immigrant and first Jewish member of the Supreme Court, said that Americanization required that the immigrant adopt "the clothes, the manners and the customs generally prevailing here" and that he adopt "the English language as the common medium of speech." Brandeis also said "We properly demand of the immigrant even more than this -- he must be brought into complete harmony with our ideals and aspirations and cooperate with us for their attainment. Only when this has been done will he possess the national consciousness of an American." Or, in view of the politically correct “cultural diversity” beloved by so many liberals, is this merely "empty rhetoric" and "racist" speech?Until our culture is again capable of Americanizing immigrants, it's ridiculous to talk about a massive influx of Hispanic immigrants accomplishing anything other than turning America into yet another Latin American banana republic. And it is a fact that no one is trying to turn these immigrants into Americans, witness the expanding barrios and ghettos in so many of our larger cities. To the contrary, Democrats are trying to turn new immigrants into wards of the state (apparently with considerable success), so that they will become permanent Democratic voters, while Republicans in Washington are seemingly trying to turn immigrants into a permanent servant class. In the meantime, as politics rage on, Central Americans migrate to the United States in great numbers, bringing with them an assortment of criminal drug organizations, along with some of the world's most brutal gangs -- including the notorious and rapidly growing MS-13's (Mara Salvatrucha), an extremely violent group with close to 10,000 members in thirty-three states.I can well understand why so many people would like to immigrate to this country. As stated above, my own ancestors came to the new world to escape any number of cultural and economic difficulties. (A dedicated Feinian, and having a slight difference of opinion with the British occupation forces, great grandpa Fogarty [as the story goes] left Ireland one step ahead of the hangman.) However, he came to this country, legally. He became an American citizen, legally. He worked and paid taxes, legally. He became a comparatively wealthy man, legally. And he stayed out of trouble (except with his Priest probably) while doing all this. Is it asking to much of today’s immigrants to do things legally as well? We’re supposed to be a nation of law abiding people, and breaking our laws in getting here is a poor way to start on the road to citizenship. Most people immigrate to the United States to gain the standard of living they would like to have as Americans… Well, OK, if they want to come to this country and be Americans, perhaps they should start behaving like Americans, beginning with obeying our immigration laws.
With my deadline rapidly approaching, I’ve just learned that Teddy Kennedy’s compromise immigration bill (S.2611) failed a Senate test vote by a 45-50 margin, somewhat short of the 60 votes needed, and has now been withdrawn. But never fear, it’ll soon be back, in an only slightly modified form I’m sure.
Apparently I’ll have to take the position on immigration reform that we must deport all 12 million illegal aliens immediately, as this is claimed to be the only alternative to immediate amnesty. The fact that we "can't deport them all" is supposed to lead to the conclusion that we must grant amnesty to all illegal aliens. Well, we can’t catch all the murderers either, so I guess we need a "comprehensive murder reform bill” as well. It's not "amnesty" I guess, if we ask them to pay a small fine. But if it's "impossible" to find and deport illegal aliens, how come we know so much about them? I keep hearing they are Catholic, pro-life, hardworking, just dying to become American citizens, and will take jobs other Americans won't. How do we even know there are 12 or so million of them? Why not only 1 million, or perhaps 25 million? Since Ted Kennedy's 1965 Immigration Act, more than half of all legal immigrants have been unskilled and non-English-speaking Mexicans. America takes in roughly 1 million legal immigrants each year, and only about 30,000 of them have Ph.D.s. Why would any rational immigration policy discriminate against immigrants with Ph.D.s in favor of unskilled, non-English-speaking people? Notably, the biggest proponents of the government's policy of importing a huge underclass of unskilled workers are not themselves unskilled workers. The great bounty of cheap labor by unskilled immigrants isn't going to Americans who hang drywall or clean hotel rooms… and who are having trouble getting jobs now that they're forced to compete with the vast influx of unskilled workers who don't pay taxes. The people who make arguments about "jobs Americans won't do" never seem to be in a line of work where unskilled immigrants can compete with them.
Perhaps the immigration debate would be different if we were importing millions of politicians. At present, it’s a case of “you lose your job, while I keep my Senate seat, and I get a low cost maid as well!” If immigrants were to threatened Senate seats… The only beneficiaries of these famed hardworking immigrants -- unlike the rest of us lazy Americans, are the wealthy, who want the cheap labor while making the rest of us pay for the immigrants' schooling and health care. These great lovers of the downtrodden (the downtrodden trimming their hedge that is), pretend to believe that their gardeners' children will be graduating from Harvard and curing cancer someday, but 1) they don't believe that; and 2) if it happened, they'd lose their gardeners.
According to "Alien Nation" author Peter Brimelow, "There is recent evidence that, even after four generations, fewer than 10% of Mexican-Americans have post-high school degrees, as opposed to nearly half of non-Mexican Americans." So this means you'll always have the gardener and maid I guess. As New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg recently said, our golf fairways would suffer without illegal immigrants: "…who takes care of the greens and the fairways on your golf course?" Another job that Americans won’t take perhaps? Well, mowing a lawn that size wouldn’t rate real high on my “things I’d like to do” list, but I’ve done worse.In Samuel P. Huntington's book "Who Are We? The Challenges to America's National Identity," he asks: "Would America be the America it is today if in the 17th and 18th centuries it had been settled not by British Protestants but by French, Spanish or Portuguese Catholics? The answer is no it would not be America; it would be Quebec, Mexico or Brazil", and I don't particularly want to live in Quebec, Mexico, or Brazil either. But now I guess I have no choice, since our open border immigration policy means they’re coming here instead.
Yes, this country has absorbed huge migrations of illiterate peasants in the past, most notably the wave of Irish immigrants (my great-grand-parents included) during and after the Great Famine, then the influx of German (more of my great-grand-parents) and Italian immigrants at the turn of the last century. But they came here legally, and worked hard at becoming Americans. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, immigrant and first Jewish member of the Supreme Court, said that Americanization required that the immigrant adopt "the clothes, the manners and the customs generally prevailing here" and that he adopt "the English language as the common medium of speech." Brandeis also said "We properly demand of the immigrant even more than this -- he must be brought into complete harmony with our ideals and aspirations and cooperate with us for their attainment. Only when this has been done will he possess the national consciousness of an American." Or, in view of the politically correct “cultural diversity” beloved by so many liberals, is this merely "empty rhetoric" and "racist" speech?Until our culture is again capable of Americanizing immigrants, it's ridiculous to talk about a massive influx of Hispanic immigrants accomplishing anything other than turning America into yet another Latin American banana republic. And it is a fact that no one is trying to turn these immigrants into Americans, witness the expanding barrios and ghettos in so many of our larger cities. To the contrary, Democrats are trying to turn new immigrants into wards of the state (apparently with considerable success), so that they will become permanent Democratic voters, while Republicans in Washington are seemingly trying to turn immigrants into a permanent servant class. In the meantime, as politics rage on, Central Americans migrate to the United States in great numbers, bringing with them an assortment of criminal drug organizations, along with some of the world's most brutal gangs -- including the notorious and rapidly growing MS-13's (Mara Salvatrucha), an extremely violent group with close to 10,000 members in thirty-three states.I can well understand why so many people would like to immigrate to this country. As stated above, my own ancestors came to the new world to escape any number of cultural and economic difficulties. (A dedicated Feinian, and having a slight difference of opinion with the British occupation forces, great grandpa Fogarty [as the story goes] left Ireland one step ahead of the hangman.) However, he came to this country, legally. He became an American citizen, legally. He worked and paid taxes, legally. He became a comparatively wealthy man, legally. And he stayed out of trouble (except with his Priest probably) while doing all this. Is it asking to much of today’s immigrants to do things legally as well? We’re supposed to be a nation of law abiding people, and breaking our laws in getting here is a poor way to start on the road to citizenship. Most people immigrate to the United States to gain the standard of living they would like to have as Americans… Well, OK, if they want to come to this country and be Americans, perhaps they should start behaving like Americans, beginning with obeying our immigration laws.
With my deadline rapidly approaching, I’ve just learned that Teddy Kennedy’s compromise immigration bill (S.2611) failed a Senate test vote by a 45-50 margin, somewhat short of the 60 votes needed, and has now been withdrawn. But never fear, it’ll soon be back, in an only slightly modified form I’m sure.
Sunday, June 10, 2007
Who Lost Iraq
8 June, ‘07
A question being batted about by the media today is “Who Lost Iraq”? Strangely enough, I wasn’t aware that it had been lost… if they’ll look on a world map, it’s still right there, jammed in between Saudi Arabia and Turkey, with Iran to the northeast. Irregardless, the rabid and bloodthirsty liberal search for a scapegoat to blame for a somewhat raggedy war continues in the media, in Congress, and in the minds of the American people. There seems to be no shortage of culprits either.
The Defense Department is blaming the State Department, and State is blaming Defense, as usual. The Generals are quoted as saying "there is no military solution to this conflict" (meaning "don't blame us if we fail"). Diplomats, for their part, argue that they’ve seen to the drafting of a constitution, organized elections, and have installed a new Iraqi government. They complain that the military has failed to establish a secure environment in which these institutions can function. Defense apparently fails to remember that historically one guerrilla usually ties down eight to ten regular troops. Thus General Sherman, when asked how many men he would need to control Georgia (during the Civil War), responded that he’d need about 200,000 Union soldiers. Typically, the resulting press hysteria nearly cost him his job. To control South Vietnam, General Westmorland would have needed well over a million soldiers! State, for their part, seems to forget that all the laws, Constitutions, and elections in the world mean absolutely nothing if the combatants are ignoring them.
In Congress the Democrats are blaming the Republicans, the Republicans are running for cover, and the media is having a field day slinging mud at everyone involved. In Europe, the current thing to do is blame everything on the United States, as they usually do whenever we fail to handle a situation in whatever way they think best. In Iraq the Shia blame the Sunni, the Sunni are returning the favor in spades, and the Kurds are seemingly getting shot at by everyone. Meanwhile the Iraqi civil war goes on, and Iraqi civilians that didn’t get killed or crippled by the last car bomb continue to live in the US media’s favorite shooting gallery.
Actually there’s more than enough blame to go around. Congress authorized the war by an overwhelming majority, something that hasn’t occurred since WW II. A good many Democratic political leaders also thought intervention was a good idea. The press was uncritical, and the American people were generally supportive. So now we have a rather messy war going on, with apparently no way out. Although responsibility for this war is widely shared, the temptation to blame the Iraqis may become irresistible to everybody involved. We gave the Iraqis a chance, so the argument goes, and if they failed to build a peaceful state, whose fault is that? Yet if the Iraqis failed to live up to American expectations, do we blame their reality, or our own illusions?
Among the Democrats, antiwar activists criticize those who voted for the war, as well as those who continue to resist legislating an end to it all. Among Republicans, the neoconservatives blame the conservatives, in particular former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, but also President George W. Bush, for not committing adequate manpower and money to the task. Well, they didn’t, actually. What’s needed I’d think, is about four more US divisions, preferably divisions of well trained and combat experienced military police.
What most people completely fail to realize is that the “War” was won (with minimal American casualties) when the statues of Saddam started to topple. What followed, and continues today, isn’t a war, but a policing action carried out by an army of occupation. Granted that to the troops on the ground, or to the families of the casualties, there’s little difference between the two terms.
Before we give up and run for home, perhaps we should have some sort of idea just who we’re fighting. Approximately 90% of the insurgents are Iraqis, Sunnis who are embittered at the toppling of the Sunni Arab government of Saddam Hussein, and are often members of Saddam’s old security services. Former Iraqi military personnel are providing the technical know-how for all those roadside bombs. Former Iraqi military ammunition dumps are providing the explosives and detonators. The AK-47s and RPGs used to terrorize or kill other Iraqis are also formerly the property of the Iraqi armed forces. Certainly there are a few out-of-town recruits arriving every day, but who are they? They’re even more Sunni Arabs, youth for the most part with no combat experience, supercharged with Islamic fundamentalism and looking for a chance to die for Islam. (The Arabic version of the wartime Japanese Kamikaze pilot I presume.) So far, the Iraqi government and the US military have been helping quite a few of them find their way to paradise. The Iraqi terrorists are killing Iraqis with the expectation that this will get Sunni Arabs back in control of Iraq once more. They are encouraged by European support, noting that most Europeans were against the American invasion that removed Saddam Hussein, and Sunni Arabs, from power. The current squabble in the US Congress (and press) is encouraging to them as well. What isn’t reported in the worlds press (it doesn’t make good headlines), is that the majority of Iraq is comparatively quiet. The “war” is going on in those few predominately Sunni areas where the population is either pro-terrorist, or terrorized into silence. Islamic terrorists who tried to do it “Iraqi style” in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, found that fewer sympathizers, and more police, made it impossible for them to do much. In both countries, terrorist cells were unable to do much damage before being hunted down and arrested or killed. Currently most terrorist cells are being caught before they can carry out any attacks at all. Those that escaped have apparently been too busy staying escaped to create more mayhem. But if you still think the Iraqi insurgency is a bloodbath now, just wait until our Democratic Congress forces an American withdrawal, and the whole place blows up!
The Bush administration, like the American public, now recognizes that the occupation of Iraq was mismanaged, and they’ve learned that nation building cannot be done on the cheap. The surge of troops into Baghdad is a belated admission that rebuilding a failed state takes an enormous commitment of manpower, money and time. Unfortunately this realization probably comes too late to rescue the American venture in Iraq.
No, Iraq and the rest of the mid-east isn’t lost yet, but, like the war in Vietnam, it’s rapidly being lost in our Congress, and in the US media.
A question being batted about by the media today is “Who Lost Iraq”? Strangely enough, I wasn’t aware that it had been lost… if they’ll look on a world map, it’s still right there, jammed in between Saudi Arabia and Turkey, with Iran to the northeast. Irregardless, the rabid and bloodthirsty liberal search for a scapegoat to blame for a somewhat raggedy war continues in the media, in Congress, and in the minds of the American people. There seems to be no shortage of culprits either.
The Defense Department is blaming the State Department, and State is blaming Defense, as usual. The Generals are quoted as saying "there is no military solution to this conflict" (meaning "don't blame us if we fail"). Diplomats, for their part, argue that they’ve seen to the drafting of a constitution, organized elections, and have installed a new Iraqi government. They complain that the military has failed to establish a secure environment in which these institutions can function. Defense apparently fails to remember that historically one guerrilla usually ties down eight to ten regular troops. Thus General Sherman, when asked how many men he would need to control Georgia (during the Civil War), responded that he’d need about 200,000 Union soldiers. Typically, the resulting press hysteria nearly cost him his job. To control South Vietnam, General Westmorland would have needed well over a million soldiers! State, for their part, seems to forget that all the laws, Constitutions, and elections in the world mean absolutely nothing if the combatants are ignoring them.
In Congress the Democrats are blaming the Republicans, the Republicans are running for cover, and the media is having a field day slinging mud at everyone involved. In Europe, the current thing to do is blame everything on the United States, as they usually do whenever we fail to handle a situation in whatever way they think best. In Iraq the Shia blame the Sunni, the Sunni are returning the favor in spades, and the Kurds are seemingly getting shot at by everyone. Meanwhile the Iraqi civil war goes on, and Iraqi civilians that didn’t get killed or crippled by the last car bomb continue to live in the US media’s favorite shooting gallery.
Actually there’s more than enough blame to go around. Congress authorized the war by an overwhelming majority, something that hasn’t occurred since WW II. A good many Democratic political leaders also thought intervention was a good idea. The press was uncritical, and the American people were generally supportive. So now we have a rather messy war going on, with apparently no way out. Although responsibility for this war is widely shared, the temptation to blame the Iraqis may become irresistible to everybody involved. We gave the Iraqis a chance, so the argument goes, and if they failed to build a peaceful state, whose fault is that? Yet if the Iraqis failed to live up to American expectations, do we blame their reality, or our own illusions?
Among the Democrats, antiwar activists criticize those who voted for the war, as well as those who continue to resist legislating an end to it all. Among Republicans, the neoconservatives blame the conservatives, in particular former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, but also President George W. Bush, for not committing adequate manpower and money to the task. Well, they didn’t, actually. What’s needed I’d think, is about four more US divisions, preferably divisions of well trained and combat experienced military police.
What most people completely fail to realize is that the “War” was won (with minimal American casualties) when the statues of Saddam started to topple. What followed, and continues today, isn’t a war, but a policing action carried out by an army of occupation. Granted that to the troops on the ground, or to the families of the casualties, there’s little difference between the two terms.
Before we give up and run for home, perhaps we should have some sort of idea just who we’re fighting. Approximately 90% of the insurgents are Iraqis, Sunnis who are embittered at the toppling of the Sunni Arab government of Saddam Hussein, and are often members of Saddam’s old security services. Former Iraqi military personnel are providing the technical know-how for all those roadside bombs. Former Iraqi military ammunition dumps are providing the explosives and detonators. The AK-47s and RPGs used to terrorize or kill other Iraqis are also formerly the property of the Iraqi armed forces. Certainly there are a few out-of-town recruits arriving every day, but who are they? They’re even more Sunni Arabs, youth for the most part with no combat experience, supercharged with Islamic fundamentalism and looking for a chance to die for Islam. (The Arabic version of the wartime Japanese Kamikaze pilot I presume.) So far, the Iraqi government and the US military have been helping quite a few of them find their way to paradise. The Iraqi terrorists are killing Iraqis with the expectation that this will get Sunni Arabs back in control of Iraq once more. They are encouraged by European support, noting that most Europeans were against the American invasion that removed Saddam Hussein, and Sunni Arabs, from power. The current squabble in the US Congress (and press) is encouraging to them as well. What isn’t reported in the worlds press (it doesn’t make good headlines), is that the majority of Iraq is comparatively quiet. The “war” is going on in those few predominately Sunni areas where the population is either pro-terrorist, or terrorized into silence. Islamic terrorists who tried to do it “Iraqi style” in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, found that fewer sympathizers, and more police, made it impossible for them to do much. In both countries, terrorist cells were unable to do much damage before being hunted down and arrested or killed. Currently most terrorist cells are being caught before they can carry out any attacks at all. Those that escaped have apparently been too busy staying escaped to create more mayhem. But if you still think the Iraqi insurgency is a bloodbath now, just wait until our Democratic Congress forces an American withdrawal, and the whole place blows up!
The Bush administration, like the American public, now recognizes that the occupation of Iraq was mismanaged, and they’ve learned that nation building cannot be done on the cheap. The surge of troops into Baghdad is a belated admission that rebuilding a failed state takes an enormous commitment of manpower, money and time. Unfortunately this realization probably comes too late to rescue the American venture in Iraq.
No, Iraq and the rest of the mid-east isn’t lost yet, but, like the war in Vietnam, it’s rapidly being lost in our Congress, and in the US media.
Saturday, June 2, 2007
Another Vietnam
In My Opinion – by Bob Fogarty
We made a great mistake in the beginning of our struggle, and I fear, in spite of all we can do, it will prove to be a fatal mistake. We appointed all our worst generals to command our armies, and all our best generals to edit the newspapers.
We made a great mistake in the beginning of our struggle, and I fear, in spite of all we can do, it will prove to be a fatal mistake. We appointed all our worst generals to command our armies, and all our best generals to edit the newspapers.
Robert E. Lee
For people of a certain age or political views, the Vietnam War is something like Elvis, it’s everywhere. One of the many consequences of the American political defeat in Vietnam has been the uncontrolled proliferation of “Vietnams” in the political mind ever since. Nicaragua threatened to become another Vietnam, Lebanon nearly became another Vietnam. Had Grenada been only slightly larger than a manhole cover and lasted a bit longer, it would have been another Vietnam I suppose. The invasion of Panama was rapidly degenerating into another Vietnam, right up until we won. Likewise, the First Gulf War was certainly becoming another Vietnam, but then sadly, it ended quickly, with victory and few casualties. No country today is more prepared to fight a long unconventional war against a few grubby little terrorists in a far away sandbox than America, who learned how to lose in Vietnam. Thus, it is with considerable joy that those who are ready to teach us the lesson of Vietnam find that they finally have another war that has lasted longer than John Kerry’s campaign. “Obviously” they say, “the best course of action is to withdraw from Iraq immediately, and allow the country to become an oil-producing Al-Qaeda super-state”. Oh yes, and begin the political posturing to win the 2008 election on an “I KNEW IT WAS VIETNAM RIGHT AWAY!” platform. And that would probably be the smart thing, because the lesson apparently learned by the Looney Left is, “It’s best to lose quickly, so as to avoid a quagmire”. For example, it’s said that during a long wait at a Chinese Buffet in Georgetown in 1987, Ted Kennedy reportedly yelled “QUAGMIRE!” and thinking quickly, attempted to surrender to a Spanish-speaking busboy. Unfortunately, other than peacenik rallies and the American media preparing to report an Iraqi “Tet offensive,” the similarities to Vietnam are pretty sparse. It could be reasonably argued that the real lesson of Vietnam is that it seriously damages a country’s reputation, and character, to lose at all.
The differences in the two conflicts are obvious, but that’s no reason to interrupt a good “IT’S ANOTHER VIETNAM!” flashback from the political left. Unless of course you want America to win in Iraq, rather than lose “another Vietnam” all over again. For the minority of the population that do think we should win, I’ll mention a few minor differences between Iraq and Vietnam, ranging from the material to philosophical.
First off, the Iraqi insurgency has no universal philosophy to attract Iraq’s population. The Viet Cong were communists I believe, and Communism was a worldwide political movement with a following on every Continent. The Iraqi insurgency however is primarily a religious affair among the Arabs. Shiites and Sunnis are not converting one another, and haven’t for the last few hundred years. In Iraq, the Sunni are fighting to continue dominating the local Kurds and Shiites, leaving this a cause that the Shiites and Kurds are highly unlikely to join, as it’s difficult to recruit from a Shiite and Kurdish majority while preaching Sunni religious supremacy. Even with no other difference, this alone would completely eliminate any comparison of the two situations.
The Iraqi insurgency has no country in which to organize the population. North Vietnam had a border that we could not cross for assorted political reasons. Inside that border the Communists could train, rest, and work at an assortment of warlike pursuits. They controlled the media broadcasts, recruiting centers, schools, the police, the courts, the roads, and ports full of supply ships. Every week they sent more troops down the Ho Chi Minh trail to invade South Vietnam. And every week we sat outside the border and played left tackle against those troops and supplies. The Sunni insurgents have no such refuge, as we’re already in their towns, fields, roads, and skies. They have no country anymore; we already took it away from them. They have holes in the ground to hide in, and a few basement bomb factories. The North Vietnamese fielded a modern military with tanks, artillery, and jet aircraft. The Sunni insurgents carry rifles, while strapping bombs to donkey carts and worn out taxicabs. They cannot openly recruit or train, because “their” country is full of assorted Shiites, Kurds and other Sunni Arabs that arrest them, shoot at them, and bomb them, quite regularly. The insurgency has no Soviet or Chinese material support either. A few truckloads of ordinance from Syria and Iran can in no way compare to the massive material support that the Vietnamese Communists received from the USSR and Red China.
Additionally, there were no free elections in Hanoi during the war. The effect of the Iraqi elections changed the nature of the war completely. Now, the issue is no longer Sunni rebels fighting an infidel occupier. It’s now an Iraqi majority vs. an Iraqi minority, with the US Army assisting the majority to get their feet on the ground. The Communists had never ruled South Vietnam either. By contrast, the Sunni Baathists have ruled Iraq. The Iraqi people know who they are, and how they will really rule. Saddam Hussein had been recruiting allies for us for the last twenty years, with his mass graves, prisons and rape rooms. No one really believes the Sunni are fighting for a worker’s paradise. Besides, who is Iraq’s Ho Chi Minh? This war is strictly a local religious and tribal affair remember. The closest thing to a grand leader is Shiite Grand Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani, and he’s on Democracy’s side. Nor was Ho Chi Minh at any point during the Vietnam War, sitting in a cell awaiting trial and execution by his vengeful former victims.
But despite all that, “Iraq is just Vietnam all over again”, according to the media, and brought to us in glorious living color on the six-o’clock news. The only similarities I see to the Vietnam War are in the minds of our liberal media, a few left wing politicians, and a wobbly population.
Now, consider one more reason why the two wars are not alike. A loss in Vietnam was not going to bring hordes of freshly inspired Viet Cong into New York or San Francisco with truck-bombs or an Iranian supplied suitcase nuke to finish us off. A loss in Iraq, regardless of why the war was begun, or how badly we want to go home, will greatly strengthen our enemies, as only a victory on the world stage can do. You’ll just love what a surrender, as espoused by Kennedy, Reid, Pelosi, and their followers, will do for us.
If we surrender in Iraq, it just might be a good idea to refurbish Grandpa’s old cold war bomb shelter…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)