On the road again...

I'm headed back out on the road. I expect to be gone for several weeks.

Israel's Final Borders

(See here) a Haaretz article that reports unidentified senior American administration sources have indicated the United States will not recognize a final border as established by a unilateral Israeli withdrawal as being Israel's permanent frontier.

I respond with applause. Perhaps if the final borders resembled something like the Geneva Accords, I would urge recognition. However everything I have heard discussed does not seem to resemble anything like the Geneva Accords.

In the meantime, unilateral withdrawal is a step forward. It is progress, and progress in the right direction. It will demonstrate real, concrete steps towards a final settlement of the conflict by the Israeli side.

Quoting the article:

Any reasonable interpretation of international law, a legal expert said Tuesday, "cannot allow recognition of a border that was determined unilaterally."

More applause. Standing ovation. Perhaps there is a manner to determine final borders absent Hamas showing it can be a "partner for peace". However this would require the involvement of the UN Security Council, or perhaps negotiations with the Arab League.

Neither of the above alternatives are preferable to the involvement of the freely elected government of the Palestinians in negotiations. But for Hamas to be involved, they are going to have to give up their dream of driving the Jews into the sea. We're trying to negotiate a permanent peace agreement, and not a temporary hudna.

Should Donald Rumsfeld Resign?

Should Donald Rumsfeld resign?

(See here) an MSN Money article that reports an eighth retired Army general has joined those who call for the Secretary of Defense to resign.

My question is what would this accomplish? Does the buck stop at the Secretary of Defense's desk? Is Donald Rumsfeld the man who is responsible for getting us into the War in Iraq?

Would getting the Secretary to resign accomplish anything if the man who selected him, George Dubyah Bush, is going to be the man who selects his replacement?

Perhaps if we could get new leadership from "the top down" we might accomplish something. But by just replacing the man in the middle without replacing the man who makes the decisions, and the man who selects a replacement, we are not going to accomplish a whole lot.

Dubyah likes and has confidence in his Secretary of Defense, so let him keep Donald Rumsfeld serving. Let them together figure a way out of the mess they got us into.

If Donald Rumsfeld should resign then so should the President and most members of Congress.

Stick Your Head In the Sand

American people, what is the solution to your problems? Well Charley Reese argues that you need to play like an ostrich and stick your head in the sand.

(See here) as Charley argues that the solution to our problems is that you ignore the problems. Do not try to be an informed voter when you pull the election lever, just treat it like a Las Vegas slot machine. The more you know, and the more informed you are, you are only going to hurt yourself. Just ignore all the problems and they will all go away.

Sorry Charley! Problems are not going to go away just by ignoring them. Polticians are not going to become more honest by us just excusing them. Global warming is going to happen whether we stick our heads in the sand or if we do not.

Let me quote Charley in his article:

Still another good rule is to establish as many routines as possible so you only have to think and make decisions about significant matters. Two rules that go together are these: Limit the amount of information you absorb, and seek significance in your work, friends and family.

Another one:

I go even further and suggest that for good psychological health, people should turn off the TV and radio and cancel any newspaper and magazine subscriptions.

Wise advice? Stay uninformed? All your problems will just go away if you just ignore them?

Yeah, that is just what we need. We need more fools voting come election day. Once enough fools start voting, all our problems will be solved!

Global Warming - Kyoto Protocol

(See here) a somewhat scathing critique of the Kyoto Protocol written by Professor Roger A. Pielke, Jr that appears on the Encyclopedia Britannica website. I myself have been critical of the Kyoto Protocol. Learned Professor Pielke points out a wrinkle I had not thought of:

The architecture of the Kyoto Protocol focuses on a country-by-country accounting of emissions and tends to place countries that have a moderate to high population growth at a disadvantage. For example, the U.S. is expected to see a 40% increase in its population between 1990 and 2025, whereas the population of Europe as a whole is expected to be about the same in 2025 as it was in 1990. Assuming that greenhouse-gas emissions remain constant on a per capita basis, then most countries in Europe need only follow business as usual to equal its 1990 emissions, whereas the U.S. would need to achieve a 30% decrease in its per capita emissions.

George Dubyah Bush has pointed to how America already leads the world in reducing per capita emissions. In his 2006 State of the Union address he proposed cutting America's dependence on Middle Eastern oil by 75%. It is important to note that Dubyah points to achieving his goal by developing greenhouse gas friendly alternative fuel sources such as ethanol and hydrogen, not by exploiting something like America's vast shale oil reserves. If this goal is achieved, it will greatly decrease America's per capita emissions.

Additionally Professor Pielke points to a conclusion that I myself had reached, however he points to a study to back up the conclusion:

In 1998 Tom Wigley, a scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., and a longtime participant in climate-change-assessment activities, sought to study the effectiveness of the protocol by using a climate model similar to those underlying assessment reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. He ran the climate model under one scenario in which greenhouse-gas emissions were reduced as called for by the Kyoto Protocol and under another scenario in which no reductions were made. He found that the influence of the protocol would be not detectable for many decades.

I would even dispute that the influence of the protocol would be detectable even after many decades. Why? Because every drop of oil that stops going out an American tailpipe is allowed to got out of a Chinese or Indian tailpipe according to the Kyoto Protocol. We are already facing peak oil and the world is capable of consuming every barrel of oil that is produced. Easing up on American demands for oil (although this might help America geopolitically) will not hinder global warming if the decreased American demand is replaced by demand from the developing world.

Are we doing enough to turn back global warming? No we are not, we need to do more. But the Kyoto Protocol is nothing more then "feel good" bullshit. It is a whole lot of wasted effort.

Nuclear Proliferation - Brazil

(See here) a Jerusalem Post article which reports that as Iran faces international opposition to nuclear enrichment, Brazil is quietly preparing to do the same thing.

There is a wealth of opinion and reporting on Brazil's nuclear history and possible intentions available on the internet, all you have to do is google.

Should Brazil be allowed to develop an enrichment program, because Brazil "can be trusted" while such a program would be denied Iran because Iran "can't be trusted"? Then what if other nations seek to obtain nuclear enrichment because Brazil was allowed to do so?

My own opinion is that what is good for Iran (and North Korea) should be good for Brazil. We can not have two different standards, one for those we consider the good guys and another for those within the "axis of evil". This double standard would force each attempt to develop a nuclear enrichment capability on the court of international opinion. Even in cases where some nations are considered "good enough" to be trusted with the capability, what happens if there is an upheaval in that nation? Brazil serves as a good example. Right now, with Lula in control, perhaps Brazil could be trusted. But what happens if there is a military coup? As late as the 1980s Brazil was actively seeking to develop a nuclear weapon. What is to prevent some new "untrustworthy" governmental power within Brazil from quickly seeking to exploit the enrichment capability to obtain a nuclear weapon?

It is important to note that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (the NNPT) does allow for the peaceful exploitation of nuclear technology. It does not specifically prevent signatures of the treaty from developing an enrichment capability. Brazil became a signature in 1997.

However if wide spread enrichment capability is allowed to expand, what is to prevent other nations from following the path blazed by North Korea? Developing the enrichment capability under the umbrella of "only for peaceful purposes" and then after this capability is exploited to develop a nuclear weapon, from withdrawing from the treaty?

My fear is that by allowing "any nation" to exploit loopholes in the NNPT, we will end up with every tin pot dictator on earth eventually developing his own pocket nuclear arsenal. I do not think the world will be a better place with the likes of Idi Amin armed with an atomic bomb.

While "peaceful nuclear enrichment" might not be prevented by the NNPT, the risk to world security is too great to allow "any nation" to develop this capability. It is indeed hypocritical for the world to demand Iran cease and desist while giving the green light to Brazil. While the NNPT might not specifically bar the development of such a capability, this still does not prevent the international community from adopting a common policy that such development is not desirable, and that there will be costs for doing so.

If the IAEA can come up with safeguards that allow Brazil to "safely" develop a peaceful enrichment capability, then Iran will have to be allowed to adopt these same safeguards. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Personally I think the risk of diversion of a nuclear enrichment capability to weapons development is too great to be risked.

So What Has Neil Young Been Up To?

In a post a few months ago I wondered out loud what music artist Neil Young has been up to.

(See here) a BBC article that reports he has been recording another anti-war album.

While I probably will find it difficult to agree with all the songs on the album, I can't wait to hear a few of them.

Rock on Neil Young, rock on.

In Defense of Cindy Sheehan

(See here) an article written by Samuel Bostaph that appears on the Lew Rockwell website.

Since I have been at least slightly critical of Cindy Sheehan here in my blog (see here), I thought I would point to Samuel's spirited defense of her.

I will not claim that Cindy Sheehan does not have the right to speak out. However I too question her use of her son's death to gain publicity while she speaks. Samuel thinks he has this objection covered, as he states:

And, there were those public-spirited correspondents who informed me that Cindy
Sheehan's anti-war protests and speeches betrayed that for which her son lived
and died and thus dishonored his memory - that he died willingly fighting for
his country and his mother was just using his death for her own political
agenda. This mirrored the August 11, 2005, letter from her aunt, Cherie
Quartarolo, and other in-laws, to Matt Drudge that said that Cindy Sheehan was
promoting her own notoriety and personal agenda at the expense of her son's good
name and reputation. Quite aside from the point that one inherits one's in-laws
- for better or worse - one can only respond with a question: "For what did
Cindy Sheehan's son Casey fight and die?"

OK Samuel, just who is to answer the question you ask? Evidently Casey did serve in the military for one reason or another, and from my own experience living on the pitiful wages paid to our warriors, I would say he was not serving so that he could become rich. I would say there must have been something else motivating him. I doubt that he shared his mother's political views or he would not have been found anywhere near a recruiter's office. Since he has been taken from us, we can not ask him that question. Do you really think, considering Casey volunteered to serve, that his mother really knows the answer to the question?

I know that as I served in the military, my own mother wanted me to get out as soon as possible and "come home". As an adult, I made up my own mind, and despite my mother's wishes, I continued to serve. If I had happened to die in some military action, and my mother set out to "right the wrong" as Casey's mother has, well...

One other complaint I have about Samuel's piece is how often he inserts "unconstitutional war" and similar phrases into it. We have had many conflicts fought under circumstances similar to the war in Iraq. Samuel seems to agree with those who think any military action conducted without a formal declaration of war is unconstitutional, however it is my understanding the Supreme Court has never ruled on this, and perhaps has even avoided doing so. If Samuel thinks that he has a strong case, he should take it up with the courts. My guess (not being even a lawyer or judge, only a citizen - so all I can express is a guess) is that he will find his argument rests on shaky ground. That a military action specifically authorized by Congress, even absent a direct declaration of war, is constitutional.

Voting For War to Prevent War

Voting for war to prevent war.

I just heard Don Imus on his MSNBC talk show interview Senator Don Biden, Democrat, Delaware. While I do not have a photographic memory, so thus can not come up with an exact quote, Sen Biden claimed that the reason he voted to authorize Dubyah to use force in Iraq is so that Dubyah wouldn't use force in Iraq. Something along the lines of showing a united front to Saddam to scare Saddam into compliance or something.

Can you imagine that? Sen Biden never imagined that Dubyah would actually USE the authorization the Congress granted him. So I guess if Sen Biden had known Dubyah was going to actually invade Iraq, heck, he wouldn't have been caught dead voting to grant the authorization to do so. So there you have it people, if the people of Delaware want to hold someone accountable for the war in Iraq, Sen Biden asks that you not blame him. He might have voted to authorize the war, but he was only bluffing and never imagined that an actual war might come out of the authorization.

Sometimes Imus puts out transcripts of his interviews, if that happens with this interview I will rewrite this article so that it contains Sen Biden's exact words. I have sent Don Imus an e-mail requesting he publish a transcript of the interview.

Don Imus published the interview, here is Senator Biden in his own words:

The reason we all voted, not all of us, I speak for myself, voted to give the
President the authority to use force was so that the force would not be used. It
was to make the point that we were totally unified and Saddam should understand
that and as a consequence of that we would get inspectors back in there and look
what they did with that authority.

To be clear (and fair), Senator Biden is speaking in the context of why he would not vote to grant Dubyah authority to use force against Iran.

Hamas Funding From A Palestinian Perspective

(See here) an article from the Palestine Chronicle written by James Brooks that discusses the funding of the Hamas led Palestinian government from a Palestinian perspective.

I see a big disconnect here. James argues that the Palestinians should not be held accountable for the manner in which they voted. To quote him:

The Palestinians' latest catastrophe shamefully reveals one of the ulterior
motives behind Washington's "democratization" agenda: Democracy will make Arabs accountable for their politics.

First let me wonder aloud just how grounded in reality James is. Does he really think the "evil American government" wanted, or somehow knew ahead of time, that Hamas would win the election?

Does James really expect the Western World to welcome the ascendance of Hamas with open arms? The same Hamas that has (what we would describe as, perhaps James has another description) an evil, twisted, vile charter (see it here).

Heck, the Western World was even motivated to try and assist Palestine while Arafat was in charge because he at least "officially" was willing to accept the existence of Israel even though he seemed to be little motivated to stop the violence against Israel. If anything, the Western World was almost hypocritical for allowing Arafat to get away with only "talking the talk" but not "walking the walk".

"Democracy will make Arabs accountable for their politics." That is the sentence James used as condemnation. I am going to use the sentence in praise. It is about time Palestinians are held accountable.

What were the words of the Prophet? Something like: "If they want peace we will give them peace. If they want war we will give them war."

Well now we have had free and fair elections in Palestine, and now we know just what the Palestinians want. They voted for war. According to the Prophet, we should give them what they want.

But of course us Christians, we will be motivated to not use food as a weapon (in a policy started I believe by Jimmy Carter) so even while we are at war, we will try to continue humanitarian aid while we wage war. But James even has a problem with that. Go read his article for yourself.

New Funding for Hamas

(See here) a Jerusalem Post article that reports on significant funding again being provided to Hamas, this time from Qatar.

(See here) a Haaretz article that includes condemnation of the most recent suicide bombing in Tel Aviv. Notice Russia is long on condemnation but there is not hint of withdrawing financial support from Hamas.

(See here) a Prensa Latina (Cuba) report on the failed attempt by the "Arab Bloc" to get the UN Security Council to condemn Israeli responses to Qassam rocket attacks from the "liberated" Gaza Strip.

Seems we are in for a world of doo doo people. Hamas won the democratic election, so the rest of the world is supposed to sit back while Hamas drives the Jews into the sea because they were democratically elected to do so.

I guess we can disregard the fact that the Jews voting in Israel might have a problem with this. Thus far they have voted to bring Olmert and Kadima into leadership. But if Olmert fails on "convergence" (or something better), and the violence continues, my guess is we are going to witness a resurgence of right wing voting in Israel and we are going to have to bow to this "democratically elected" government which insists on violence as well.

While the majority of the world is aligned, reasonably, against Hamas, some insist on pointing at us as being hypocrites. They expect that Israel should be forced to accept a government to come forth from the land they occupy, a government that is vowed to drive all their citizens into the sea, a government that will not even be happy with this unless all the citizens thus driven, drown.

We have witnessed the Israelis vote for "convergence" by majority vote. They are willing to withdraw even absent a "partner for peace". (Just what lines they must withdraw to is still open to dispute.)

We have witnessed the Palestinians vote for driving the Jews into the sea, again by majority vote, and forcing the Jews' heads under water once they are thus driven.

Now, you ask yourself which side holds the moral high ground. And watch who sends money to the side that occupies the cess pool.

I guess it is too much to expect beauty to spring from stench.

History of Religion in America

The history of religion in America.

If you live in America, have you ever wondered (like I have) what is behind all the different signs you see posted in front of the local churches? You know the ones, they identify themselves as "Church of the Nazarene", "Church of God", "Primitive Church" etc.

(See here) an excerpt of the book American Theocracy written by Kevin Phillips that appears on the National Public Radio website. This "excerpt" is in fact the complete chapter four of the book. It makes for quite heavy reading, so make sure you have a fresh cup of coffee if you attempt it. This chapter covers the history of religion in America and the rise of theology (in the author's viewpoint) to what we face today. It will help explain to you how two different churches that seem to be so related can exist within a block or two of each other.

To get to the chapter you will have to scroll down past the entry accompanying the audio clip of "America Under the Influence of Oil" which is what first attracted me to this jewel. You will not be wasting your time listening to that one either.

Reforming The Taxcode - "Fair Tax"

Today Americans face the tax filing deadline (except in Massachusetts where it is tomorrow) so it is fitting that I discuss the federal tax code.

(See here) an MSN Money article that does a pretty good job of describing the American federal tax system and reporting on some of the statistics behind them. Please note the article briefly discusses ideas/attempts to reform the tax code. Let me quote:

Last year, the President's Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform solicited ideas from the public to find out what exactly is wrong with the system. Complaints poured in from individuals, businesses and experts, with many upset about complexity. The panel is trying to simplify the tax code without losing its progressive nature, which forces Americans to pay more as they earn more. Some suggested a national sales tax that would replace the income tax. Others want a flat tax, exempting the poorest Americans. Some want value-added taxes, or VATs, which are common in Europe. These taxes are collected in small increments at every state of production of an item, such as a car.

I wish to discuss one proposal that is being actively touted on right wing radio in America, the so called "Fair Tax".

(See here) an article that appears at Fair Tax Volunteer that provides a thumbnail of the proposal.

Let me try and further clarify one thing this article does a fairly good job of explaining. Proponents of the Fair Tax speak of the tax rate as being 23%. As in, if after the Fair Tax is calculated into the expense of an item, if you paid $1 for the item, 23% of that cost would go to the government. Hence the rate they guote, 23%. This rate does most favorably compare with the federal income tax rate, because there, if you earn a dollar and are taxed at a rate of 23%, 23 cents of every dollar you earn goes to the government. Where this comparison breaks down is the comparison to a sales tax. Here Americans traditionally think of it in the way opponents think of it. With the fair tax, something that costs $1 will cost you about $1.30 after the Fair Tax is calculated in, thus it is often described as a 30% tax rate. This is more like a sales tax of 7%, where something that costs $1 costs $1.07 after sales tax. Both manners of speaking of it are correct in their own way.

But let me point out where this thumbnail gets overly enthusiastic in pushing the "fairness" of the Fair Tax.

To ensure no American pays tax on necessities, the FairTax plan provides a prepaid, monthly rebate (prebate) for every registered household to cover the consumption tax spent on necessities up to the federal poverty level. This, along with several other features, is how the FairTax completely untaxes the poor, lowers the tax burden on most, while making the overall rate progressive.

They say the Fair Tax is progressive, got that? It is progressive up to a point, but only progressive in that it protects the lower class. But what about the middle class? Will the Fair Tax result in a shift of the tax burden from the upper class to the middle class? Let me again quote the article.

So, instead of paycheck-earning Americans paying 7.65 percent of their paychecks in Social Security/Medicare payroll taxes, plus an average of 18 percent of their paychecks in federal income tax, for a total of about 25.65 percent, consumers in America pay only $23 out of every $100. Or about 30 percent at the cash register when they elect to spend on new goods or services for their own personal consumption. And this tax is collected only on spending above the federal poverty level, providing important progressivity.

Again they speak of progressivity. But where do they come up with their average of 18 percent? I know the MSN Money article contains a chart that shows the average, total (including state and local) tax bite for the average American taxpayer with two kids is 11.9%, considerably less then 18% of federal income tax alone after excluding the Social Security/Medicare payroll taxes. I know my own average, effective tax rate is something like 12.32% and I am fairly well off. While I too would enjoy the "prebate" that would effectively lower what I pay in taxes to something significantly less then 23%, it seems to me that many middle class people are going to end up paying significantly more in taxes every year under this proposal.

(See here) another article that goes to great lengths to argue for the Fair Tax. This one appears at Neal Boortz's website. I point to this one because Neal often and vociferously argues for the Fair Tax on his radio talk show. He also is attempting to make a buck by coauthoring a book that tries to sell the idea. Let me quote Neal:

It is amazing how many people don't like the idea because they don't think that the rich will be paying enough in taxes. It doesn't matter that paying taxes will be voluntary under the Fair Tax plan. It doesn't matter that nobody pays the retail sales tax on the basic necessities of life. It doesn't matter that lower income Americans will virtually get a free ride when their entire federal tax liability disappears, including Social Security and Medicare taxes. What does matter? Some people are afraid the evil, hated rich won't pay enough. How dare these people work hard, make good decisions, and save all that money? How dare they achieve that much more than I have? Make 'em pay!

Neal just doesn't seem to get it does he? Why doe he think it is "fair" that we protect the lower class, that the middle class will be willing to pay more then the lower class, but when it comes to the upper class progressivity should disappear? Remember now people, proponents say this proposal is revenue neutral. Think about it, the upper class is going to end up paying a whole lot less in taxes. Somebody is going to have to take up the slack we are going to be giving to the wealthy. Who is going to be taking up the slack? I say the burden is going to be shifted to the middle class.

Neal Boortz and proponents do not have a problem with shifting more of the tax burden to the middle class. Well I do. Seems I am not alone in demanding a progressive tax code. When Abraham Lincoln (wasn't he a Republican?) came up with the first federal income tax to pay for the civil war he came up with a progressive system. The lower class would pay nothing, the middle class would pay some, and the wealthy would pay more. Every generation of loyal Americans, including my Daddy's generation (sometimes called the greatest generation) continued with a progressive tax code. Now some would have us scrap what these previous generations agreed to in order to reward the most fortunate members of our society.

Well I stand against it. Perhaps some remnant of the Fair Tax would not be a bad idea (although Alan Greenspan seemed to have problems relying to such a large degree on a tax code that discourages consumption, he evidently thinks it would be bad for the economy) but not if it is enacted according to the wishes of the loudest proponents.

I stand against any new system of financing our government that rewards the most fortunate at the expense of the working stiff.

Russia Promises Aid to Hamas

(See here) where the Chicago Tribune reports Russia has promised aid to the Hamas led government of Palestine. This has been reported by various other members of the media, including the Moscow Times website.

Once again Russia is breaking from the pack and going her own way. We have seen where Russia has bucked the Western World when it comes to Iranian nuclear enrichment, and now Russia is thumbing her nose at the Western World's efforts to isolate the government of Palestine until Hamas rejects violence, recognizes Israel and honors past peace agreements.

While some might claim it would be hypocritical to not allow Russia to have her own foreign policy, I am wondering when it becomes hypocritical to allow Russia to react as if she were a loose cannon on the deck. Why must it be that every time some effort is put into reaching an international consensus, Russia insists on standing nearly alone? Is there some gene in Russians that causes contrarianism?

I also can hear some barking that this is a strange complaint to be coming from an American, seeing as how America engaged in the unilateral (almost) invasion of Iraq. However I would point out that THIS American was against the invasion of Iraq, and one of the reasons I was against it was because we could not win a UN sanction and enough international support for the action.

In the case of Hamas, Russia is even part of the Quartet. Doesn't Russia remember what the Roadmap to Peace calls for? Yes there are problems with the Israeli side honoring requirements of the Roadmap as well, but once we can get the Palestinian side to again officially agree to the intent of the Roadmap, we can get to work on getting BOTH SIDES to honor their obligations outlined in the Roadmap.

Just how out of line are Russian actions when it comes to Palestine? Even Peace Now, while continuing to take actions for peace, agrees that Hamas can not be dealt with until Hamas meets certain requirements. Peace Now is a pretty tolerant group of people, and yet even they agree Hamas must change. Russia, with her promise of aid, seems to be patting Hamas on the back, telling them they do not need to change, and to keep at it.

(See here) a New York Times article that Iran has promised significant aid to Hamas. Seems Russia has at least one ally in the world. Sometimes this almost seems to look like it is habitual. What does Russia think on an issue, well, we better check with the Iranians first!

I wonder if Russia agrees with Iran and Hamas that Israel needs to be wiped off the map? This is the position of the people with whom Russia has allied herself.

New Orleans Relief

I have recently heard a number of editorials about how we are not doing enough for New Orlean's relief. Demands we rebuild the Ninth Ward for all the disadvantaged citizens who lost their homes to flooding. Some would even suggest the government must step in and "make these people whole".

First let me say that I am a resident of Virginia Beach. I live at the edge of the major hurricane risk area. Every year more hurricanes are going to hit the US, according to the prognosticators. Not just more hurricanes, but more powerful hurricanes as well. Every year we are going to see people who lose everything because of hurricanes.

With what we do for the people of New Orleans, we are going to set a precedent. Anything you do for the people of New Orleans, when (if) it comes to pass for me, I am going to be holding up my hand saying "My turn".

We are facing global warming. Sea levels are rising. As much as New Orleans currently lies below sea level, sitting "in the bowl" the bowl is going to become that much deeper in the future. Current cities that are now above sea level are going to find themselves, too, sitting in the bowl. Are we willing to spend as much money saving every community as we are willing to spend on New Orleans? Remember, my hand is waiting to shoot up too.

What about when the "next big one" (earthquake) hits California? Are we going to somehow tell these citizens they are not worthy of our help because "they should have known"? Can you tell me that citizens of California, facing the risk of earthquakes, should have been any wiser then the citizens of Southeast America who reside along the coasts?

If people insist on living as if they thumb their noses at danger and they are rewarded with a punch in the nose from Mother Nature, just how much money should we provide to them as they continue to insist on not changing?

The American people can not afford to bale out every American who insists on living like a fool. We can insist on shaking our fist at Mother Nature, but in light of global warming, in light of rising sea levels, we are going to lose.

It seems we have done this to ourselves this time, we have ourselves punched Mother Nature in the nose and now we see the fury for what we have done. We better learn to live with what we have wrought.

Should we help the unfortunate citizens of New Orleans? Yeah, I think this would be noble. But we should wisely help them to rebuild somewhere else.

The Dollar is a Swindle?

(See here) an article written by Bill Bonner that appears on the Lew Rockwell website. Bill puts forth that the dollar is a swindle.

I guess Bill is amongst those that believes the dollar should be tied to something "valuable" like gold? Let's see, gold will not tarnish, and is a rather soft metal that is easily fashioned into jewelry. It's pretty, but you can't eat it. Truth is that while I wear a gold wedding band on my finger (out of tradition) no other gold adorns my body. The "value" of gold is lost on me. Sure, if someone wants to give me some gold bullion I will say thank you. But I think I would then immediately attempt to convert it into something I think holds true value.

So, since the dollar is not based on the "gold standard", what is it about these small pieces of paper that give them value?

How about this? If you accumulate enough dollars, even if you get run out of your own country by a revolution or a "Democratically elected" socialistic government, you can come to the United States and find safe haven. In America, you will be able to freely flaunt your wealth and perhaps even be celebrated while you flaunt it. What other nation can offer as much stability and guarantee of safe haven as the United States?

If you buy a mansion in America, American citizens (along with some illegal aliens) will even be willing to be employed as servants as they prune your landscape and wash your limousine. There is the annoying factor of you must live within the law, but the laws are basically "fair" and if some armed gang holds you up and takes your money the populace will even assist you in hunting down the culprits. You need not keep an armed militia to guarantee your wealth, the public's police force will act as your guarantors and you do not need to pay them one red cent, other then pay your taxes every year. "People power" will even demand "your rights" are protected, just as they would demand "their rights" are protected.

Of course you must find a way to accumulate this wealth without going too far. If enough examples of where you violated basic human rights are publicized you will find yourself in quite a pickle. Entry into the United States might be denied you, or if allowed, your liberty might be at risk. But if you came by your wealth "honestly" (with the definition of honest subject to interpretation) you have a pretty easy life awaiting you.

What is the value of a dollar? It has the backing of the US government, and more importantly, the backing of the American people. While some people might call this backing worthless, I call it better then the gold standard. After all, why in hell do people think gold is so valuable?

Jimmy Carter On The Colonization of Palestine

(See here) an Op Ed written by Jimmy Carter that appears on the Carter Center website.

I am going to point to this one without added comment.

The Case of Jonathan Pollard

The case of Jonathan Pollard.

(See here) a Haaretz article that discusses this.

Please note that this article continues to point towards Pollard as being a devout Jew. Let me point out there was nothing devout about this man in his religious observance until his butt ended up in prison.

Before he ended up in prison he was willing to "sell his soul" for a few shekels. After he ended up in prison he suddenly become a devout Jew and attempted to exploit this new devotion with appeals to the truly devout.

Well, as an American, I see Pollard as an example of what it means to be a traitor. No matter what your religion, Americans are expected to remain loyal to Old Glory.

Perhaps the time will come when we will ask Israel to trade the freedom of someone who they are loathe to grant freedom to, like Marwin Barghouti, for the freedom of someone who America is loathe to grant freedom to, like Jonathon Pollard. The time has not yet come.

I Like McCain But...

I like Arizona Senator John McCain but...

(See here) and (here) Slate Webzine articles that discuss the Senator McCain's run for the Republican nomination for President in 2008.

First off let me say that I respect and admire Senator McCain. The one real problem I have with John serving as President is his age. Ronald Reagan showed us that age does matter when it comes to serving as President. I am not saying that age alone should disqualify a person from serving, since in my years I have met some really sharp people who were "old", however Ronald Reagan proved that age does claim at least some of us as we get broad in our years. Will this happen to John? Well there is no sign of it yet. Perhaps we should give him a chance. But if we do this (give him a chance) I put forth that it will be more important then ever that we insist he picks wisely on a running mate.

Look at what happened to Ariel Sharon after he conceived the Kadima Party in Israel for a more recent example of where age does matter. Now Ariel Sharon was overweight, and John at least seems to be fit and trim. But Ariel was able to lead while he was young and overweight. Age seems to be at least a contributing factor in his present health condition.

John McCain might be fit and trim, but he is elderly. Age does matter.

Beyond his age, I am wondering if I will still be willing to vote for the John McCain who will position himself so far to the right to win the Republican nomination that I will find it difficult to vote for him. I am in love with the John McCain of history. I think I might find it difficult to remain in love with the John McCain who would win the Republican nomination.

But that is a problem we are going to have to deal with for whoever wins the Democratic nomination. Whoever ends up being the Democratic nominee is going to end up swinging so far to the left to win the nomination I am not going to be "in love" there either.

Too bad the "moderate (almost, but not quite - we poll 45%) majority" can't make ourselves felt in the nomination process. We fall victim to the minority right wingers in the Republican Party and the even more minority left wingers in the Democrat Party to pick who we have to choose between when it comes to election day.

I wish we could do a poll. Let America decide between two legitimate moderates from both parties (like John McCain to represent Republicans and Mark Warner to represent Democrats) and then all us moderates agree to swing our support behind the winner come hell or high water. (An even better Democrat nominee might be Senator Conrad, but he has not expressed an interest in running.)

If moderates could somehow agree to unite our powerful center behind one single voice, we might obtain a candidate we could support with gusto instead of hurling as we pull the election lever while we vote.

More Movement By Hamas on Recognizing Israel

(See here) an Aljazeera article that reports Hamas might be willing to recognize Israel as long as certain conditions are met.

Once again we see some movement in the Hamas position. Not enough movement, but movement none the less.

As I said before, Hamas seems to be motivated to try and split (divide and conquer) the international communities' position that is pretty much aligned against them.

Hamas is agreeing to recognize Israel IF Israel withdraws totally back to 1967 borders. Well in my opinion this is not reasonable. This might be a reasonable position to start negotiations with, but it is an unreasonable position that this must be what negotiations will result in, and stipulating this must be the case in return for recognizing Israel. As I have stated many times in the past, about the best Hamas can reasonably expect to obtain through negotiations is something along the lines of the Geneva Accords.

I am going to quote myself. A few short days ago I stated:

My opinion is that while there does seem to be some evidence the Hamas position
is softening, Hamas has not journeyed far enough down the path to moderation.
The requirements for Hamas to be a player in the peace process is for Hamas to
renounce violence, recognize Israel and accept previous peace agreements.

While the Hamas position continues to soften, my opinion has not changed. The requirements stated are the requirements for Hamas to enter into negotiations, not the requirements for what Hamas will do if negotiations go their way.

I hope the international community stands resolute in the face of Hamas efforts to crack the united front we currently present. That Hamas is moderating at all is proof that our efforts are effective.

Global Warming - Climate of Fear?

Are attempts to promote Global Warming as being man-made an attempt to promote a climate of fear? (See here) a Wall Street Journal piece that expresses this.

Let us examine the piece. Let us examine if we are dealing with hysterics or if we are dealing with "Wall Street types" that refuse to bow to the truth.

Let us examine what Richard Lindzen, the author, has to say. He states:

The problem with this is that the ability of evaporation to drive tropical
storms relies not only on temperature but humidity as well, and calls for drier,
less humid air. Claims for starkly higher temperatures are based upon there
being more humidity, not less--hardly a case for more storminess with global
warming.

Don't we understand that the development of hurricanes that afflicts the US coast often comes from humid air coming off the North African coast and becoming disturbances within the middle Atlantic? That these moisture laden disturbances are driven into hurricane due to the warm air they encounter enroute to our region? If more moisture laden air is driven off of North Africa into the now warmer middle Atlantic waters, shouldn't this result in more, and more powerful, hurricanes?

Look at recent events. The Gulf Coast of America has received a couple of powerful hurricanes from the gulf. While the frequency of the hurricanes received is still open to dispute, that the ferocity of the hurricanes due to an average 2 degree increase in gulf waters due to global warming is beyond dispute.

Let us look at what the man has to say for himself:

Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels
of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by about 30% over the same period; and
CO2 should contribute to future warming. These claims are true.

He then goes on to try and debunk Global Warming threats. But I ask you to take into account what the man himself says is true. Then take a look at the weather around you. But this man claims Global Warming is not a threat? This man discounts, after what he admits is true, that man is not the cause?

I call into question the honesty of the conclusions this man would lead us towards. That he himself admits to the truth of most of the facts, while drawing such unreasonable conclusions, speaks for itself.

Bury your head in the sand, as Richard would have you do, if you want to do so people. But if you are going to do so please admit you do not give a damn what happens to the world.

Does America Have Options On Striking Iran Without Going Nuclear

Does America have options on striking Iran without going nuclear?

Apparently America does. (See here) a website that reports on the development of a massive conventional weapon that could be as effective as a tactical nuclear weapon.

While Iranian nuclear development sites might be hardened to the point they would be resistant to even such a weapon, it is hard to imagine that wise use of such a weapon on support facilities, entrances to the site etc, could not be effective in making the sustainability of operations at the site untenable.

My question is this. Where does the world community (including Russia and China) stand on this? Where do we draw our "line in the sand"? If there is going to be a line it has to be drawn somewhere.

Anything we allow Iran to do other nations are going to demand the same rights. If Iran uses what she is allowed to do to develop nuclear weapons, other nations are going to demand the same rights. Do we want every tin pot dictator on this planet armed with nuclear weapons? Isn't the world as a whole going to become a less desirable place to live as a result?

Can the Iranian "problem" be dealt with using something less then military force? I think it can. However I do not see much evidence that all members of the United Nations Security Council are willing to authorize the steps necessary to deal with the problem with something less then military force.

Even if the UN Security Council refuses to cooperate, I could see ways of dealing with the problem other then resorting to military force. However this is going to result in uncooperative members of the UN Security Council (I.E. Russia and China) being declared on the wrong side of the "line in the sand" and we will have a resumption of the Cold War. Once again we will "choose sides".

If Russia and China have some real wisdom on this issue on how to resolve the problem, I have yet to witness any of it. Russian and Chinese reluctance to follow American leadership often seems to be solely attempts to thwart American leadership for the sake of thwarting it alone.

I'm not saying American leadership is perfect. But just where will Russian and Chinese leadership get us? What is their vision for the future of the world? I'm still waiting to see something I would call acceptable.

Bailing Water In The Middle East

Bailing water in the Middle East.

Slow progress people, very slow progress. But when you are bailing water, and the water subsides by even a quarter inch, well I guess we should point to that as progress.

Hamas is renouncing suicide attacks! (See here) a Guardian article that reports on this. (Credit goes to Boris Epstein of Building a Pyramid that called this to my attention.) My only question is whether this declaration carries any real weight? Is this declaration going to be followed through with the "majority" of Palestinians taking real action to end suicide bombings, or are we going to see continued "leaks" of suicide bombers without any attempts by the Palestinian people to plug the leaks? Will we continue to see the deaths of suicide bombers, and the deaths they caused, openly celebrated? Is this just another case of all talk and no action?

I was also going to point at attempts by the "Arab bloc" to get United Nations Security Council action on Israeli artillery barrages into Gaza in response to Qassam rocket barrages into Israel. For some reason a search of both Haaretz, and the Jerusalem Post where I saw these articles is unsuccessful. I did note, at Haaretz (see here) that these attempts have been abandoned.

I am still going to comment on these attempts. Does the "Arab bloc" think Israel should have to endure rocket barrages from Gaza without reprisal? After all, if we are attempting to honestly seek an end to the conflict, Gaza could serve as the model. Is the model that Israel must look at an example of endless rocket barrages as she gives up territory? Is what the Israeli right wing puts forth as true really true, that every withdrawal will be exploited by the Arab/Muslim right wing for an opportunity to "drive the Jews into the sea"? Is what Israel now experiences from Gaza evidence of what Israel is going to have to endure after Israel withdraws from the West Bank?

Israel withdrew TOTALLY from Gaza. For this withdrawal she is rewarded with WHAT? Israel is not going to withdraw TOTALLY from the West Bank. What is she expected to endure for this less then total withdrawal? (Look at the Geneva Accords for a model of what "something" might represent.)

If the Palestinians are willing to settle for that which I define as just, they do nothing to help me as I try to defend them. They most certainly thwart me as I would somehow try to paint them as reasonable while they adopt unreasonable positions.

I want to enable the Palestinian people to obtain a reasonable resolution as long as they are reasonable. I want the Palestinian people to openly, publicly, declare what their intentions are. "Them dirty Jews" are retreating. Personally I would describe it as regrouping to more solid foundations. But I am not going to be hesitant to describe "them dirty Arabs" as being dirty when the description fits. I still look at the charter of Hamas and shake my head. My head not only shakes but my mouth screams NO.

When it comes to suicide bombings, Hamas says "no more". This is signs of progress. Will this be the mouthing of words only or will we see real results.

Our side (us "dirty Jews", us "Dirty Crusaders/Christians), is going to act. Does the Muslim side want to be part of the action?

I still insist that Hamas renounces their vile charter. I still insist Hamas recognizes the right of Israel to exist. No "hudna". We are looking for something more permanent then a temporary peace.

Dubyah Bush Dismisses "wild Speculation" on Iran

Dubyah Bush dismisses "wild speculation" on Iran.

(See here) a Washington Post article that reports on this.

Let's get this straight. With one statement he tries to backpedal, dismissing reports he is even considering resorting to nuclear weapons as "wild speculation". 'Why, that is just preposterous!' he seems to be attempting to say.

But just how "wild" or preposterous truly are these speculations? Doesn't he refuse to deny that his administration has studied airstrikes as an option? Doesn't our military say that airstrikes without tactical nukes would be ineffective? Doesn't he have a proven track record of reaching for the military option to resolving things as in Iraq? Hasn't he authorized the development of low yield, burrowing nuclear weapons that would be useful in dealing with the "Iranian problem"? Haven't we been through this drill before?

"Wild speculation"? I say it would be irresponsible of us as American citizens to not take these reports seriously. It is preposterous for Dubyah to claim they need not be taken seriously.

Dubyah is already starting to speak of "prevention" rather then "preemption". With preemption, which is generally accepted by international law, you strike to stop your enemy from launching an attack on you. It is better for the war that is to be fought to be fought on the enemy's turf rather then waiting for it to be fought on your turf. Preventive would mean you strike before your enemy even has the capability to attack you. There is no crime with any country trying to obtain the weapons they need to defend themselves. With all this talk, Dubyah is even strengthening the Iranian hand that they need nukes to defend themselves, after all, the USA, through Dubyah, is considering nuking them.

I am going to look at the facts. Dubyah Bush has actively sought to develop the means to strike. He refuses to swear off that he will not use the method he has developed. He is extremely concerned about the current situation in Iran. We all know what his track record is as to how he goes about resolving problems and just how wise his solutions have turned out to be.

And now what do we witness? Dubyah tries to reassure us that reasonable, deep concern is "wild speculation". I'm saying it ain't so. We need to be concerned. Deeply concerned.

I'm A Deficit Hawk

I'm a Deficit Hawk - Or Why I am Against the Dubyah Tax Cuts.

(See here) a New York Times article that discusses the Dubyah taxcuts and just which portions of society benefited the most.

I am in favor of some taxcuts. I am in favor of rolling back the effects of the Alternative Minimum Tax on the middle class, continuing with the elimination of the "marriage penalty" and continuing increases in the child tax credit. I wish to point out I do not personally benefit from any of these changes, but I am still in favor of them.

As for all the other Dubyah tax cuts, I say "roll 'em back". I believe that this would result in my paying at least $1,000 additional in taxes every year, possibly as much as a couple thousand. But I am willing to shoulder my portion of helping to balance the budget, as long as the greedy, wealthy segments of society are required to pay what I consider to be their fair share.

The strongest argument those in favor of extending the tax cuts for our most fortunate citizens have is that these cuts encourage investment and strengthen the economy. Perhaps there is some truth to this statement, which is why the American people are so receptive to it. However I feel there is at least some false logic behind it, that the argument is being twisted so as to justify cutting taxes by so great an amount for those who already have so much.

Let us look at the effects of the tax cuts. Cutting taxes spurs investment in America they say. But what guarantee is there that the additional money landing in the pockets of the wealthy ends up being invested in America? What is to keep this money from being invested in a new manufacturing plant in China or a snow cone stand in Iceland? Seems that with the tax cuts the American economy has continued to hemorrhage jobs to over seas.

What happens if we roll back the tax cuts? Well immediately the size of the deficit would decrease. The Treasury would need to borrow less money from the capital market, which should tend to drive down long term interests rates. Foreign investors who have benefited from the current large trade imbalance will have to find something new to invest in as the US Treasury markets fewer treasury bills due to a decreased deficit. The foreign investors are going to have to find something to invest their wealth in. What are they going to do? Build up a mountain of greenbacks in their back yard and allow inflation to erode their wealth?

There is some danger to this. Tightening up the supply of treasury bills might encourage foreign investors (like the Chinese government) to start trying to buy up American corporations. However the degree of foreign ownership of American corporations could be limited. China seems to be successful in limiting foreign ownership of Chinese corporations without anyone crying foul after all.

If foreign investors no longer have the quick and easy choice of investing in treasury bills, they will have to find new ways to invest or spend their money. Did anyone else fail to notice that when the American economy took off at the end of the Clinton years it was as the federal government was successful in starting to decrease deficit spending? This resulted in a snowball effect as the increased economic activity yielded increased tax revenue, further closeing the deficit gap, further limiting investment choices etc etc.

While not every dollar that leaves America necessarily has to return to America, there is not going to be an endless demand for dollars in the world economy unless some of those dollars find their way back into the American economy. Right now the method of return is through treasury bills that fuel the deficit spending. But what happens if we close up the spigot a little bit on this path of return and we start decreasing the federal deficit? Is it not possible that some of this money will be used to purchase something actually (gasp) "Made in America" because they have got to spend the money somewhere? (This contention becomes more realistic if "Mexican guest workers" are restricted to occupations that face direct foreign competition as I have previously put forth.) An alternative path of return might be the increasing availability of start up money for new entrepreneurs in America who want to see if a new, great idea, might pan out to produce respectable profits.

As I said before, count me amongst the deficit hawks. Also count me against those who, like George Dubyah Bush, want to try to get us to believe that deficits are good for the American economy. I'm saying they (Dubyah included) are full of shit.

What Has APN (Americans for Peace Now) Been Up To

What has APN (Americans for Peace Now) been up to?

(See here) one of their more recent updates as regards their legislative activism. In reading it, I found nothing that I could disagree with.

Let me commend Americans for Peace Now. It is pretty hard to come up with a statement that does not contain SOMETHING I can disagree with, grin.

Delaying "Convergence" in Israel

Delaying "convergence" in Israel.

(See here) a Haaretz article that expresses Olmert seeks to delay "convergence".

Let me get this straight. Olmert ran on a campaign of "convergence". The majority of Israelis who voted, voted for either his party or parties that wanted to go further then he was supposedly leading. Now that he has won the election he is starting to backpedal.

He didn't really mean "convergence". While he ran on "convergence" and he won the election, it now appears we must put off "convergence" so far into the future that it will never be attained.

If "convergence" is actually where Olmert was leading he should strike while the iron is hot. He can not guarantee support will be there in the future. Attempts to put the measure off into the indefinite future is only an attempt to let the iron cool off. If Olmert wanted to lead Likud, why did he represent himself to the Israeli public as being at the helm of Kadima? The Israeli public voted for "convergence". If the Israeli public wanted to put it off, they would have voted for Likud.

We are being fed a bunch of bullshit people. Even when the majority of Israelis support us, Israeli politicians will try to wheezle out of it.

JUSTICE FOR ALL. Even the Israeli public demands it. Now if we can just get the Israeli politicians to go along with it!

Dubyah On Foreign Policy

Dubyah on foreign policy.

(See here) a Washington Post article that pretty well discusses the situation regarding possible first strike use of nuclear weapons and the Iranian nuclear weapons development issue.

I wish this was as simple as "Dubyah is just rattling his saber". I could write a wonderful piece just on that. Something that sticks to condemning Dubyah for having to resort to saber rattling in his foreign policy. But remember, Dubyah is the guy who led America, along with a few reluctant allies, into invading Iraq. My fear is that what is being discussed is not just bluster.

Quoting from the article:

Bush views Tehran as a serious menace that must be dealt with before his
presidency ends, aides said, and the White House, in its new National
Security Strategy, last month labeled Iran the most serious challenge to the
United States posed by any country.

So how is Dubyah going to deal with the "problem" of Iran so that the "problem" is solved before he leaves office? If all the options, all the solutions, are being looked at through that narrow prism (before he leaves office), we are in for a world of excrement.

Dubyah hasn't learned his lesson from leading us into the mess he has got us into in Iraq. That he thinks the military option is the trump card that will win the day, at least under current circumstances, is proof this man lacks any of the vision necessary to solve this problem. Evidently within the Bush administration there is nothing that even remotely resembles wisdom. Even a blind man who walks into a wall and bloodies his nose learns to be more careful.

Dubyah repeatedly appeals to the American public to follow him because of his "sober" leadership. Well I am saying I would rather have a drunk wise man sitting in the Oval Office than a sober idiot.

Come on Dubyah. How come every time you want to do something, the only solution you can come up with is actual use of military force or the threatened use of military force?

Learn from history man. How did we win the Cold War? Who is going to side with Iran if they understand the cost of siding with Iran (and North Korea) is to be on the wrong side of a new Cold War? It should not be that hard to get the Free World to sign up. Russia and China might be a little more difficult, however if they are made to understand that, yes, the stakes are that high, we should be able to win their support.

Iran can up the stakes of the "cold war" into an actual hot one. However force Iran to make the first move.

Come on Dubyah, show some wisdom. Maybe if we get Dubyah to crack open a beer every now and them we can get him to "change his evil ways". Somebody give that man a beer. Maybe we can get some wisdom out of him. We've tried "sober leadership" and that ain't working.

Perhaps we can get Dubyah's attention by putting some demands on him. Dubyah, if you are going to resort to open warfare against Iran, the only way you are going to be able to pull this off is with a resumption of the draft. In order to win broad support for the draft, you are going to have to convince your daughters (your twins) to serve in the military and to serve in actual harms way.

I wish I could say we had nothing to worry about people, but remember, Dubyah is the one that led us into the mess in Iraq. We as a nation should be learning a lesson in Iraq. The guy we put into the Oval Office should have learned a lesson as well. Did he learn ANYTHING? I do not think he has. I doubt he has learned ONE DAMN THING.

Somebody give Dubyah a beer, we've got to try something.

Hamas Will Not Bow to Blackmail

(See here) a Voice of America article that reports Hamas says they will not bow to blackmail.

Ain't these guys hypocrites? They not only expect America and the EU should allow them to "do their own thing" but they have the gaul to expect America and the EU to pick up the tap for them "doing their own thing" contrary to the wishes of the person who picks up the tab?

Hey, Hamas is so wise they figured out a way to finance the government that they ran for while bucking against the ways of the people who pick up the expenses of that government.

They think they should be allowed to launch suicide bombers against Israeli society and that Israel should be prevented from striking back at the government that launched them in reprisal?

Talk about Christian hypocrites? Let us judge THEM by the same standards that we use to judge ourselves.

When Hamas seeks to approach a position that approaches reasonableness, we can show we too can be reasonable. But as long as Hamas tries to stand firm on the crumbling foundation of hypocrisy, I say we tighten the screws.

NOT ONE DIME goes to Hamas. If they are so smart they do not need us, force them to prove it.

Of course, Hamas should be allowed to change just like Yassar Arafat was allowed to change.

Our goal is to bring this conflict to an end. What is Hamas's goal?

First Strike Nuclear Weapons Use

First strike nuclear weapons use. (See here) a Haaretz article that reports the Bush administration is at least considering first strike nuclear weapons use against Iran in the current squabble concerning Iran's potential development of nuclear weapons.

First off, let me state that this is being reported as being an option that has been presented to the Bush administration. Hopefully it is an option that is being immediately dismissed. There are better ways of dealing with Iran even if they develop nuclear weapons. Hopefully we do not have a mad man at the helm sitting in the Oval Office who would take this "option/suggestion" seriously.

Let me point to history. Harry Truman fired Douglas Macarthur because Douglas demanded the first use of nuclear weapons while we still had overwhelming nuclear superiority. Harry Truman wisely decided we would not resort to nuclear weapons. That if the conflict could not be won without the use of these weapons we would rather accept defeat.

Dubyah, you are no Harry Truman. If you resort to first use of nuclear weapons, you will be setting the precedent that first use of nuclear weapons is SOMETIMES justified. If Iran does develop nuclear weapons there are many, far wiser, options for isolating Iran until she gives up the nuclear weapons she has developed. I, for one, demand we continue on the path that Harry Truman's wise leadership led us towards. Even Ronald Reagan pointed towards the wisdom of Harry Truman when he set out to be elected President.

George Dubyah Bush does not possess the wisdom to lead us into a new world reality. I see no threat from Iran being a nuclear power that can not be resolved with something other then first use of nuclear weapons.

If Iran insists on developing nuclear weapons America can isolate Iran just like America isolated the Soviet Union and Red China during the Cold War. I believe that the vast majority of the world will be willing to follow us in this leadership.

The mere ENTERTAINMENT of first strike use, even the THREAT of first strike use is MADNESS.

If Iran insists on developing nuclear weapons, she will be unable to use them. For daring to develop them she should be forced to pay a heavy price. But if we resort to first strike use to prevent her from developing them, we are going to open up Pandora's box.

Our veterans in the Korean War paid a heavy price to seal Pandora's box under the leadership of Harry Truman. I am unwilling to waste the sacrifices these wonderful veterans made on some mad "new world order" that Dubyah would dream up for us that allows first strike use of nuclear weapons.

We can deal with an Iran armed with nuclear weapons. We can make the price to be paid for having them more then the Iranian people will be willing to bare. We can not deal with a world that allows first strike use of nuclear weapons.

Dubyah, Mr President, I beg of you to please leave Pandora's Box sealed.

Massachusetts Tries to Tackle Healthcare

(See here) an NPR article that discusses the state of Massachusetts' efforts to crack the tough nut of what to do about healthcare.

My first reaction was: What, Massachusetts is going to MANDATE that her citizens MUST purchase health care coverage? Isn't that a little un-American?

But as I thought about it, I came to the realization that we ARE going to have to do something. Is this, requiring citizens to purchase at least minimal health care coverage, any more draconian then forcing citizens to pay taxes to support socialized medicine?

Massachusetts seems willing to embark on a social experiment that the rest of us can sit back and watch.

One question I still have though. While this program might solve the problem of what to do about the uninsured, just how does this help us to control runaway healthcare costs? Won't this potentially have the affect of adding fuel to the fire?

Patrick Buchanan Tries to Claim The Left

Just how mixed up can American politics get to be?

(See here) where Patrick J. Buchanan condemns John Kerry's new opposition to the war in Iraq.

At first I was going to condemn Pat for speaking with two sides of his voice. That is until I did a little research and noticed that Patrick has been speaking out against this war from the point of inception.

Pat surprises me. Perhaps I too often view his opinions as being too narrow. Perhaps this man is not as narrow in his opinion as I first judged him. If you like where John Kerry now stands, perhaps you should look at where Patrick Buchanan stood all along before John Kerry changed his position?

Peace Now Continues to Work For Peace

Blessed are the peacemakers. Peace Now continues to work for peace.

(See here) an Arutz Sheva article that reports on Peace Now's most recent efforts to guide us towards a just settlement of the conflict between Israel and Palestine. Please note that this article appears in a right wing Israeli site and they are trying to condemn Peace Now's efforts.

Well the intent of the article was lost on me. All it did was motivate me to once again sing the praises of Peace Now. While I do not always find myself in 100% agreement with Peace Now, particularly in some of their methods (I often think they are a little naive) here I am prompted to sing their praises.

Peace Now has come out against the Hamas led Palestinian government. However they are still motivated to get the Palestinian People a fair deal absent Palestinian government participation. How do I judge the Peace Now position? Seems to me it is something like "Even if the Palestinian People have retreated from reasonableness, our side, our people, should still be reasonable."

You know, somebody behind Peace Now (and it might be a group effort) is displaying some leadership that I can only describe as beautiful.

If the Palestinian People (and their leadership) are unwilling to be reasonable, Peace Now is going to be reasonable for them.

I think I am going to close this one just the way I opened it. Blessed are the peacemakers.

Charley Reese on Consequences of a War State

(See here) another of Charley Reese's columns, this one that appeared at the Information Clearing House.

Charley makes some good points in this column. I really appreciate reading his thoughts on things, however I think he goes just abit too far in his condemnations of my (our) nation. The only just war in the past century was World War II?

Charley specifically takes aim at the Korean War as being unjust. Come on Charley, America was trying to combat the expansion of Stalinistic Communism back then. Stalin was as big a piece of doo doo as Hitler. Proof that this was a just war lies in the comparison of what our veterans fought and died to defend and the end results. Compare the society we fought against (North Korea) and the one we helped defend (South Korea). Charley, if you were forced to pick one of these societies to live in, which one would you choose?

I also find fault with Charley trying to compare Slobodan Milosevic with Abraham Lincoln. Sigh. I do not think I need to say anything more about this other then to point out Charley made the comparison.

And Charley, you find fault with our invasion of Afghanistan too?

I think the only thing that would have made Charley happy is that after the last war he deems a just war, World War II, America had retreated to Fortress America as we did after World War I. While America's involvement in world affairs has not been perfect since the end of World War II, can you imagine what kind of world we would be looking at with no American involvement since the close of that war?

I look back at America's leadership of the Free World after the close of WW II, and I am amazed at just how well we did. Were we perfect? No. We proved that even Americans are not perfect.

But I challenge Charley Reese to take an honest look at history and try to come up with a reasonable vision of just how the world would have ended up by now had America retreated back into Fortress America after WW II.

Can honest criticism of America's actions since WW II be leveled against us? Yes. But I also think that there is some room for honest praise as well.

Personally I look back at history since WW II and my own opinion of American leadership is: Pretty damn good. Far from perfection, but who could have done better?

Honest criticism is warranted. Dishonest white washing is certainly at least regrettable.

Hamas moderating?

(See here) a New York Times article that reports Hamas might be moderating their position a little bit. (See here) a Haaretz article and (here) a Jerusalem Post article that reports the same.

I am encouraged that Hamas seems to be moderating slightly. However I look at their actions as attempts to "divide and conquer" the international communities' position that is pretty much aligned against them. In my opinion, any efforts to reach a "compromise" with Hamas results in backsliding from what little previous progress has been made to bring the conflict to a conclusion. Hamas wants to wipe the board clean and start all over. There should be no compromise on the international communities' pressure for Hamas to renounce violence and recognize Israel. Any compromise on this requirement is a step backward in the peace process, and I am reluctant to sacrifice hard won gains.

Quoting from the Jerusalem Post article, Palestinian Foreign Minister Zahar (Hamas) stated:

...the new Hamas-led PA would be prepared to discuss a two state solution of a
Palestinian state alongside Israel. He demanded to know however, what Israel
and the international community would offer in return.

Let's see, Hamas is demanding that before Hamas agrees to engage in negotiations, Israel and the international community must tell Hamas what the results of the negotiations will be. Doesn't this kind of defeat the purpose of holding negotiations in the first place? If the results are predetermined, then why hold the negotiations?

How about this Mr Zahar? About the best you can hope for is something along the lines of the Geneva Accords. If Hamas agrees to negotiations, Hamas can even influence what the final results will look like. However the Israeli government seems determined to disengage with or without negotiations. I do not feel that Israel alone should be allowed to dictate what final borders and final conditions will be. However I think there are a few options for coming up with something that is fair and just even absent Palestinian participation.

I also have a real problem with what Hamas seems to think a final peace agreement will mean. Hamas seems to think acceptance of a two state solution means a "hudna" that will only last for a period of time. They think that they should not have to give up on their dream of one day "liberating" all of what they consider to be Palestine. Quoting again from the Jerusalem Post:

In an interview with the Chinese news agency Xinhua, he (Zahar) said that he dreamed of hanging a huge map of the world on the wall at his Gaza home that did not show Israel on it.

My opinion is that while there does seem to be some evidence the Hamas position is softening, Hamas has not journeyed far enough down the path to moderation. The requirements for Hamas to be a player in the peace process is for Hamas to renounce violence, recognize Israel and accept previous peace agreements.

Teetotalers Unite!

(See here) a Yahoo News article that reports on how Texas is cracking down on people who dare to be drunk in a bar.

Exscuse me, but what are we going to see next? Are we going to start sending undercover cops into McDonalds and arresting people for being obese while eating a Big Mac?

According to Carolyn Beck, the goal is to arrest these awful humans (who dare to be inebriated in a bar) BEFORE they break the law. Note that this is going on in Texas, so it is apt to start showing on a theater near you.

We have cracked down on drunken driving with notable success. Now it is no longer acceptable to even have a few too many without getting behind the wheel.

OK, I am no longer allowed to be "drunk in public" even in a bar. I'll adjust.

But when you come up to the door of MY HOUSE to arrest me for being drunk in private, you are going to be met with gunfire. Understand?

Credit goes to Jake on zenlunatique for pointing this one out to me.

Evolutionism Is False?

Evolutionism is false?

(See here) an MSNBC article that seems to point, yet again, at how evolution is reality.

I am not trying to say God did not create the world. I still give God the credit (or the blame - grin). But if God created the world and did not do so through evolution, then he is also to blame for leaving us all the evidence that evolution is how things came to be. I guess if you want to be a creationist you have to accept that God tried to fool us by creating all this fossil evidence.

Nah, God didn't create these fossils, it was the devil. The devil created these fossils to fool us foolish humans into believing in evolution and into doubting the infallibility of the Bible.

Egads, think about it people. The devil created these fossils, and MSNBC, by publicizing these findings, is a tool of the devil.

Either we need to pray harder or we need to visit our friendly neighborhood shrink and ask for some medication. I'll leave it up to you to choose.

Bedbugs

Bedbugs. The American public has finally woke up to the threat.

Is the threat of bedbugs a public health threat? I am not going to go that far. We are not going to die from bedbug infestations. Without overblowing the threat, I will say that we face a serious "quality of life" issue. With bedbugs, life is going to be either (take your pick) a whole lot less enjoyable or a whole lot more miserable.

What do I suggest we do? When I first became aware of this threat about a year ago, reports were that exterminators were able to deal with the problem. Now I hear that some who have become infested with bedbugs in their homes have spent sums as large as $20,000 to eradicate them and these expensive efforts have been unsuccessful.

Seems we need to do something new (or old). What eliminated this pest from our society in the past? It was DDT. We need to break out the DDT as soon as possible for the greater good of society. The sooner we break out the DDT and eliminate this threat the lesser will be the harm to the world's environment. As the threat of bedbugs spreads, and greater and greater segments of society are forced to "live with" this pest, the greater will be the demand to combat this pest with something we know works.

We can either break out the DDT now, and minimize the impact on the environment, or sit on our hands and wait until the majority of society is infested and demands the use of DDT.

If a safer pesticide that works on bedbugs is not quickly identified, we are going to eventually break out the DDT anyway once enough people are affected.

Let us break out the DDT now while we can limit the impact on the environment. If we act now, we can nip this problem in the bud. Every day wasted is a day when the infestation spreads. My wife and I have already cancelled travel plans because the area we were going to travel to is infested with bedbugs.

For just how the bedbug infestation is going to spread look at how West Nile spread. However West Nile spread by wild birds, and bedbugs are going to be spread by businessmen.

We need to break out the DDT. Perhaps our government can offer chemical companies a bounty for coming up with something that is as effective as DDT without as being as harmful to the environment. But in the meantime every day that goes by is a day that is lost. Eventually bedbugs are going to infest nearly every household in America and the public is going to demand (by majority vote) that action be taken.

I suggest we break out the DDT in the short term while we work on safer alternatives for the long term. My own guess is that safer pesticides will kill bedbugs. The problem is persistence. All the safer alternatives do not persist long enough to kill the bedbugs that escape direct application.

While we wait for safer alternatives let's break out what we know works. Let's break out the DDT and exterminate the suckers.

Katie Couric To Be CBS News Anchor

(See here) an MSNBC article that announces Katie Couric is leaving the Today Show and will take up a post as CBS News' evening news anchor.

Personally I think Katie will be a great addition to CBS News. But I look at this change with some regret. Why the regret? Because I guess I am going to be deprived of the opportunity to view this gorgeous woman's legs anymore. As CBS News anchor she is going to mainly be sitting behind a counter with her legs hidden. On the Today Show, she at least occasionally sat on a couch and even crossed those gorgeous legs she possesses.

Call me a male chauvinist pig if you want, but I really appreciated the glimpses of her legs. Beyond her legs I appreciated her wit and intellect. Due to these qualities I think she will make a great news anchor. Perhaps CBS News can even figure out a way for me to get an occasional peek at those legs of hers, grin.

Government Conspiracy Behind 9-11?

(See here) Boris Epstein's piece that discusses a possible government conspiracy behind 9-11.

Personally, I think the conspiracy proponents are a little unrealistic. I think they have too much confidence in the competence of our government to pull off what they propose. Every time our government tries to do something (like respond to Katrina) they show vast incompetence, but on 9-11, they had this spectacular evil plan and everyone performed his part of this conspiracy without any failures.

Could what the conspiracy theory advocates put forth as fact happened? Yeah, it is not beyond the realm of possibility. But in order for what they propose to have really happened, everyone involved would have almost had to be super human. Personally I do not think our government is as capable to pull it off as the conspiracy theorists try to make us believe.

Our government is so incompetent that sometimes I wonder how these people even figure out how to tie their shoes in the morning. But on 9-11 they were perfect. Yeah right.

But we need to keep an open mind. Boris does a good job of exploring the issue, but I still think the conspiracy theorists have a screw loose.

US Immigration Policy

(See here) a Newsweek article by Fareed Zakaria that discusses US immigration policy, specifically as it relates to illegal immigrants.

I think I have a rather unique viewpoint on this issue. Some might describe my "solution" as being counter intuitive.

I propose that America sign up the 11 or 12 million illegal immigrants already in our society as guest workers. I am not saying that this is what makes my proposal unique, as this is what is being debated. What is unique in my proposal is that the guest workers would be limited to certain occupations. They would only be allowed to be employed in jobs where the employer is threatened by direct foreign competition.

What I am saying is that guest workers should be barred from many of the service and construction jobs that they currently serve in. These jobs MUST be performed in America, face no foreign competition, and they should be reserved for American citizens.

Those that are pro guest worker say illegal immigrants fill only jobs Americans are unwilling to do. I say bullshit. I put forth that American citizens will be willing to do ANY job that needs to be done as long as the employer is willing to pay enough to make it worth the employees time to do the work. American citizens are just unwilling to do slave labor at low wages. Up the size of the paycheck and American's will line up to apply for the work.

The problem with this is when foreign competition enters the equation. If the employer increases the size of the payroll, will the product he produces remain competitive with foreign made goods that enjoy the benefit of cheap foreign labor? Probably not. American consumers themselves will not be willing to pay more for a television "made in America" that is of no better quality then one produced in China that sells for considerably less money.

I would rather buy a television made in America by Mexicans then one produced in China made by Chinese, as long as the price was about the same and the quality was equal.

American manufacturers are packing up their facilities and moving production to China at an alarming rate. If we give these manufacturers the ability to hire cheaper labor maybe they will keep the facilities here in America where they will be paying American taxes and contributing to the American economy.

Some may say this is crazy. Manufacturing is where all the best paying jobs are in America, that if we give all these jobs to guest workers the only thing left will be the low paying jobs that illegal immigrants currently do. But what happens if we bar all the illegal immigrants (and the guest workers) from these occupations? Doesn't the law of supply and demand kick in? Wouldn't there then become a huge demand for labor in these occupations and wouldn't employers have to increase what they are willing to pay in order to attract enough workers? I can't speak for everyone, but I know that I would leave my present occupation and take up cleaning toilets for a living if it paid enough. Problem now with taking up toilet cleaning for a living is that so many illegal immigrants are willing to do it for a whole lot less then I would demand to do it.

We MUST do something in order to allow American manufacturers to compete successfully with the Chinese here within America's shores. If we do nothing, American workers are going to slowly lose these "good paying" jobs to foreign competition anyway as American manufacturers are forced out of business or move their production to China.

If we allow American manufacturers to hire guest workers, we could even see new production facilities opening here in America. These facilities would also generate jobs for Americans in areas that are reserved for American workers.

With a wisely implemented guest worker program we could kill two birds with one stone. We could solve the illegal immigration problem and lessen the low labor cost advantage China enjoys at the same time.

Our representatives in government need to start coming up with solutions to these problems with consideration as to their long term effects. Yes, my proposal might cause some short term hardships as the American economy adjusts to the changes, but in the long term everyone will be better off.

Beer Commercials

While rolling through Missouri I heard a new beer commercial. It went something like "A clear conscience is a sign of a bad memory or a boring weekend." The commercial then went on to urge the listener to drink Busch Light beer.

What message did I take away from this commercial? How about "Get drunk, get stupid, and don't let your conscience get in the way of a good time."

Seems Anheuser Busch is rethinking past advertising campaigns that urged people to drink responsibly. Now the urge is for people to go ahead and get drunk and to not have any regrets about foolish behavior while drunk.

This is the same corporation that runs the advertising campaign that makes fun of certain segments of our society. If you live in America, I am sure you have heard them. They go something like "Here's to you Mr Public Restroom Urinal Scrubber".

My own opinion is that Anheuser Busch needs to put someone new in charge of their advertising. Whoever runs things for them is giving their company a black eye. I know that when I go to the store and walk up to the beer cooler, their advertising does nothing to influence me towards buying an Anheuser product. In fact it is quite the opposite.