Free market economics.
Now, the current way of thinking that the right is feeding us goes as follows. The free market creates jobs, taxes stifle the free market, regulation stifles the free market, and that is how the government stifles job creation. This is what Reagan famously referred to as "trickle down" economics, the idea that allowing the market free reign to create opportunities for the rich to enrich themselves will also provide the circumstances for the wealthy to create jobs by spending more money and investing in their own businesses. I can't argue honestly that they are totally incorrect; any way the government injects money into the economy will stimulate it. However, as a guitarist I've learned that there are good ways to practice, better ways to practice, and flawed ways to practice. Flawed practice can help, but good practice is so much more effective. Let's go.
Does the money trickle down? Yes. Does all of it trickle down? No, if it did it would be "shower down" economics. Trickle is accurate, because once some money gets diverted to offshore accounts, international investments, real estate speculation, and savings accounts, yes, some of it will be spent locally, thereby stimulating the economy. Is this as effective as targeted government spending? No. Traditionally towns spring up near military installations because soldiers have money, but not so much that they can afford to save most of it. So all the soldiers on, for instance, Ft. Riley in Kansas spend their money locally. (It should be mentioned that pay adjustments relative to the civilian sector have changed the situation somewhat since the beginning of the professional, all volunteer military. But that's not pertinent at the moment.) People paid a living wage by Uncle Sam spend it, and stimulate local economies. They generate them where they don't already exist. If we give a tax break to the commanding general on Ft. Riley, or even what we can call a well deserved raise of $1000 a month, will that affect the local economy? No. He might buy a car or a bigger house. Or he might just invest it in his retirement fund. If we extend that same raise to all the colonels and above on Riley the same applies to each individually.
Let's argue that instead of giving 100 colonels a $1000 raise we give 1000 privates $100. Would the 100 officers inject $100,000 a month into the local economy? I think we can agree they would not. But would 1000 privates? Oh you better believe it. Their families would eat better or go to an extra movie. Maybe they'd blow it on a motorcycle. But almost all of them would spend it locally, every time. And would that money trickle up? Absolutely! Who do you think owns the motorcycle dealership or the Chili's or the movie theater? So the government improves the lifestyle of 1000 privates by a small but noticeable amount, the economy gets a noticeable boost, and even rich folks see profits go up. Everybody wins.
I realize that making it a raise for privates is less frightening than leaving the wealthy at their current tax rates and spending the money on roads. It's the same concept economically but taxes are a big buzzword. Here's a reminder. Taxes under Clinton were lower than under Reagan, taxes under Obama are low than under GWB. They've been going down steadily for over half a century.
Wait, did I just say that the economic collapse under the Bush administration happened despite lower taxes than under the economic prosperity of the Clinton years, or Reagan, or even Eisenhower? How can that be true if low taxes are the only way to save the economy? Simple, you have been lied to. A dollar of tax cuts generates less than 40 cents of economic activity. (I'm sorry I can't remember the exact figure. If I find the article I'll try to post the link.) A dollar of unemployment benefits generates over $1.60 in economic activity. (Again, same article from back when Republicans were blocking unemployment benefit extensions. That's why I can't remember the exact figures, and why unemployment is the specific program.) So, clearly, if economic recovery had been a Republican priority they would have done it with targeted spending.
Do taxes stifle the free market? Despite the nasty rumors to the contrary, no. Not really. If an employee will generate income, you will hire him. (Or her, the traditional gender neutral pronoun in English is masculine, just go with it.) If that employee costs more than the revenue he will generate, you will let him go. How do taxes figure in? Simple. Employee salaries are tax deductible. They are not figured into taxable business income. Exempt. Free. Tax holiday. Got it? So if you own a business, pay yourself $80 thousand, and your company pulls in $90 thousand, its taxable income is $10 thousand minus legitimate business receipts. You still owe personal income tax on $80 thousand, but that would have been true if you worked for McDonalds. Um, as a manager? I don't know if Mickey D's pays that well, I'm guessing no. How about taxes preventing investment in your business? Computers and a company car, are they tax deductible too? You bet. If you don't want to pay income taxes, ever, just go spend every dime of profit on legitimate business expenses on the last day of each year. It would work, although you might have a whole lot more copy paper than you need.
Does regulation stifle the free market? Absolutely, and thank God for that. Because if I know anything, I know that child labor, slavery, and no meat inspections were profitable. Standard Oil made a fortune before anti-monopoly regulations. OSHA makes workplaces expensive, even more expensive than paying the families of some people who die in unsafe working conditions. What about banking regulations? Even with them Wall Street managed to package sub-prime loans as grade A investment packages and destroy our economy. Imagine what could have happened if Reagan hadn't put in new regulations during the S&L crisis in the 80s! Oh, Bush repealed those. That was the problem, got it. Almost forgot. I like the airbags that Uncle Sam makes car companies put in my car, and as a daddy I like the Latch system that attaches to my safe, government regulated, car seat. Remember the Ford Pinto? Now with exploding rear bumpers, great fun at parties! I'm glad for building regulations that make surviving a tornado in Oklahoma or an earthquake in California a statistical likelihood.
I think tomorrow I'll correct all the scary Republican buzz words like Socialist and Nazi. Liberal is not a dirty word, nor is it actually linked to elitism!
Thanks for reading.
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Monday, April 4, 2011
I'm a little worried about not getting paid.
I'm honestly a little concerned about not getting paid.
I've mentioned previously that I'm in the Army. I honestly love my job. I'm a guitarist in the Army band, which allows me a unique opportunity to serve my country and play my guitar simultaneously. It has, so far provided over a decade of reliable paychecks and government health care, both of which are the reasons I re-enlisted the first time. Now I'm just pretty sure I'll stay in as long as they'll have me. I like being one of the good guys, and I honestly believe that members of the US military are the good guys.
However. I'm in Iraq, sending money back to the States each month to ensure the my kids get things like food on a regular basis. This is not only a good thing, it's a moral and, I'm fairly certain, legal obligation. And one I may not be able to fulfill if the government shuts down. Oh I'll have to go to work each day. But I won't be able to send food money to the family, and that's a huge concern. I know that the unemployed have had to fight this battle many for years. My heart bleeds for them, really. But there's no place to go sign up for food stamps here if my paycheck next month is $0.00. It will be difficult to call all my creditors from Iraq to say, hey, I can't pay you until they pay me. Call Boehner.
I feel for him. He's stuck between not having any way to win with the budget he has proposed, and not having any way to get re-elected if he compromises. The Tea Party will be directly to blame if I don't get paid next month.
Since I brought the Tea Party up, let's tackle that issue for a moment. Lower taxes are their answer to everything. Taxes are lower now than at any point in the last 50 years. So it would stand to reason that the economy is better than at any point in the last 5 decades, right? Oh, is that not the case? It is true that lower taxes stimulate the economy. I can't disagree with that, however, I will point out how much less effective lower taxes are than targeted spending. The argument that the Rockefellers will spend more, thereby creating jobs, is only a little bit true. Because Donald Trump may build a skyscraper, but he will also buy stocks and put some into banking, maybe save a few million, all actions which contribute little to the economy. Building a highway or hiring cops and teachers improves, respectively, interstate commerce, security in areas that need safety for economic growth, and education for the next generation of business, scientific, or political leaders. Will some money trickle down? Sure, and the dog under the table usually gets a nibble. I'd rather see my government invest in the future than in people who are already unbelievably wealthy.
If our roads were as nice as the German autobahn, we could have higher speed limits. It would decrease shipping times and, since long drives would be shorter, it would lead to fewer sleepy drivers causing accidents. Shippers could deliver more goods in the same amount of time, leading to increased productivity. I've driven the autobahn at 145 mph. I would never drive an American road at that speed, even if it were legal. It's too dangerous, because we won't invest in it. However, the investment would pay for itself in the long run. But not as much as high speed rail. Germany does that better than we do, too.
American technological dominance was guaranteed for the last half of the 20th century. Why? Because the US government, frequently under the auspices of military advancement, funded technological research at an unfathomable rate. The reason research programs are always on the chopping block is because the money we invested was astronomical. Did it pay off? Absolutely. Silicon Valley because source of astonishing revenue, and names like Apple, IBM and Microsoft became world leaders in high technology. We took the world from tube radios to microchips and superconductors in 50 years. Because the government invested in it. And then they reaped the benefits in increased tax collection, from more productive, higher earning citizens.
And now the Tea Party wants to fix the deficit, right now. Few credible economists see the deficit as a significant threat; many see government cutbacks as a quick way to a double dip recession. (I would like to thank the oatmeal.com for their handy guide to the use of the semicolon.) Government cutbacks, the $61 billion that Boehner is being told he must generate, will remove $61 billion from the economy. That's how it works. Boehner is on the record saying "so be it" with regards to the jobs that will be destroyed by the Republican plan. So be it. So he'll let the government shut down. With me as a government employee, I'll play the example. Shut down. I don't get paid. I don't send money home, my family goes to family and friends begging for food. Since the military changes my state every few years, we don't live near any family, so they go get food stamps. I hope; states are cutting back on those programs this year. I don't pay the car payment, or credit card, or student loans. I get hit with late fees, my family is hungry, my credit takes a hit, all because the Tea Party won enough votes to scare the Republicans out of any chance of being reasonable. Sending up an unacceptable proposal and refusing to negotiate isn't reasonable. And my life may well get very bad in a month or two.
Thanks for reading. And if this happens, please remember what they did to me next election season.
I've mentioned previously that I'm in the Army. I honestly love my job. I'm a guitarist in the Army band, which allows me a unique opportunity to serve my country and play my guitar simultaneously. It has, so far provided over a decade of reliable paychecks and government health care, both of which are the reasons I re-enlisted the first time. Now I'm just pretty sure I'll stay in as long as they'll have me. I like being one of the good guys, and I honestly believe that members of the US military are the good guys.
However. I'm in Iraq, sending money back to the States each month to ensure the my kids get things like food on a regular basis. This is not only a good thing, it's a moral and, I'm fairly certain, legal obligation. And one I may not be able to fulfill if the government shuts down. Oh I'll have to go to work each day. But I won't be able to send food money to the family, and that's a huge concern. I know that the unemployed have had to fight this battle many for years. My heart bleeds for them, really. But there's no place to go sign up for food stamps here if my paycheck next month is $0.00. It will be difficult to call all my creditors from Iraq to say, hey, I can't pay you until they pay me. Call Boehner.
I feel for him. He's stuck between not having any way to win with the budget he has proposed, and not having any way to get re-elected if he compromises. The Tea Party will be directly to blame if I don't get paid next month.
Since I brought the Tea Party up, let's tackle that issue for a moment. Lower taxes are their answer to everything. Taxes are lower now than at any point in the last 50 years. So it would stand to reason that the economy is better than at any point in the last 5 decades, right? Oh, is that not the case? It is true that lower taxes stimulate the economy. I can't disagree with that, however, I will point out how much less effective lower taxes are than targeted spending. The argument that the Rockefellers will spend more, thereby creating jobs, is only a little bit true. Because Donald Trump may build a skyscraper, but he will also buy stocks and put some into banking, maybe save a few million, all actions which contribute little to the economy. Building a highway or hiring cops and teachers improves, respectively, interstate commerce, security in areas that need safety for economic growth, and education for the next generation of business, scientific, or political leaders. Will some money trickle down? Sure, and the dog under the table usually gets a nibble. I'd rather see my government invest in the future than in people who are already unbelievably wealthy.
If our roads were as nice as the German autobahn, we could have higher speed limits. It would decrease shipping times and, since long drives would be shorter, it would lead to fewer sleepy drivers causing accidents. Shippers could deliver more goods in the same amount of time, leading to increased productivity. I've driven the autobahn at 145 mph. I would never drive an American road at that speed, even if it were legal. It's too dangerous, because we won't invest in it. However, the investment would pay for itself in the long run. But not as much as high speed rail. Germany does that better than we do, too.
American technological dominance was guaranteed for the last half of the 20th century. Why? Because the US government, frequently under the auspices of military advancement, funded technological research at an unfathomable rate. The reason research programs are always on the chopping block is because the money we invested was astronomical. Did it pay off? Absolutely. Silicon Valley because source of astonishing revenue, and names like Apple, IBM and Microsoft became world leaders in high technology. We took the world from tube radios to microchips and superconductors in 50 years. Because the government invested in it. And then they reaped the benefits in increased tax collection, from more productive, higher earning citizens.
And now the Tea Party wants to fix the deficit, right now. Few credible economists see the deficit as a significant threat; many see government cutbacks as a quick way to a double dip recession. (I would like to thank the oatmeal.com for their handy guide to the use of the semicolon.) Government cutbacks, the $61 billion that Boehner is being told he must generate, will remove $61 billion from the economy. That's how it works. Boehner is on the record saying "so be it" with regards to the jobs that will be destroyed by the Republican plan. So be it. So he'll let the government shut down. With me as a government employee, I'll play the example. Shut down. I don't get paid. I don't send money home, my family goes to family and friends begging for food. Since the military changes my state every few years, we don't live near any family, so they go get food stamps. I hope; states are cutting back on those programs this year. I don't pay the car payment, or credit card, or student loans. I get hit with late fees, my family is hungry, my credit takes a hit, all because the Tea Party won enough votes to scare the Republicans out of any chance of being reasonable. Sending up an unacceptable proposal and refusing to negotiate isn't reasonable. And my life may well get very bad in a month or two.
Thanks for reading. And if this happens, please remember what they did to me next election season.
Anti-Environmentalism
Anti-Environmentalism
Ok, so here's an argument I get. Global warming doesn't exist, because the world has actually cooled down, or the world does this naturally every few centuries, or it's all attributable to dragon flatulence. Ok, carbon from volcanoes, maybe not so much the dragon thing.
So what?
Dear Mr. Conservative, are you trying to tell me we should continue to pollute? Maybe we should leave the trash for the next generation? Because although my daughter is cute now, in 15 years she'll be an adult and will have had time to find a solution to the fact that the Pacific is a cesspool and can now be smelled from Kansas? Are the pollutants killing off fish in the Gulf of Mexico a good thing? What, precisely, is your objective by raising the grim specter of "maybe global warming doesn't exist?"
At this point global warming becomes a red herring. The thought is, pin the whole environmental movement to one issue, debunk it by any means necessary, discredit environmentalists, go back to polluting as much as we want. And yes, I'm talking about American industry and big business. Not because I hate capitalism, on the contrary I think it's great and applaud American ingenuity and industry. It's because industry has consistently shown that in the absence of regulation, it will take short term profits over long term sustainability almost every time, regardless of the consequences or the devastating consequences to people other than the CEO or large shareholders. Does anybody remember the Pinto? It would have cost $11 per car to retrofit a part that would have prevented explosions in rear end collisions; it was cheaper to pay victims a standard cash settlement based on the percentage of cars Ford researchers thought would explode. How many people died in blazing infernos to save Ford $11 per car? That's not the only example, it's just one I read about the other day while researching the fine vintage automobile I want to buy when I get out of Iraq. Pinto? No.
Back to the issue at hand. Discrediting environmentalists on one issue distracts from so many other issues. I offended someone once by pointing that out. I asked if he was saying we shouldn't recycle, or that destroying mountains for cheap filthy coal was a good thing, or whether or not he missed acid rain. Nope, he did care. He just wanted to point out that he thought my side was wrong. Maybe we are, I don't know for sure. I'm not a scientist, although a lot of them seem to think we are collectively ruining the planet. I could be wrong. Just so long as he acknowledges that all of the goals of the green movement are good things whether the Earth is heating up, cooling down, staying the same, or having cookies and milk before bed, I don't care.
I'm willing to be wrong as long as the greater good is still served. Save some gas, install some wind turbines, don't throw your trash out the window. There are lots of good reasons, I don't care which one you believe in.
Thanks for reading.
Ok, so here's an argument I get. Global warming doesn't exist, because the world has actually cooled down, or the world does this naturally every few centuries, or it's all attributable to dragon flatulence. Ok, carbon from volcanoes, maybe not so much the dragon thing.
So what?
Dear Mr. Conservative, are you trying to tell me we should continue to pollute? Maybe we should leave the trash for the next generation? Because although my daughter is cute now, in 15 years she'll be an adult and will have had time to find a solution to the fact that the Pacific is a cesspool and can now be smelled from Kansas? Are the pollutants killing off fish in the Gulf of Mexico a good thing? What, precisely, is your objective by raising the grim specter of "maybe global warming doesn't exist?"
At this point global warming becomes a red herring. The thought is, pin the whole environmental movement to one issue, debunk it by any means necessary, discredit environmentalists, go back to polluting as much as we want. And yes, I'm talking about American industry and big business. Not because I hate capitalism, on the contrary I think it's great and applaud American ingenuity and industry. It's because industry has consistently shown that in the absence of regulation, it will take short term profits over long term sustainability almost every time, regardless of the consequences or the devastating consequences to people other than the CEO or large shareholders. Does anybody remember the Pinto? It would have cost $11 per car to retrofit a part that would have prevented explosions in rear end collisions; it was cheaper to pay victims a standard cash settlement based on the percentage of cars Ford researchers thought would explode. How many people died in blazing infernos to save Ford $11 per car? That's not the only example, it's just one I read about the other day while researching the fine vintage automobile I want to buy when I get out of Iraq. Pinto? No.
Back to the issue at hand. Discrediting environmentalists on one issue distracts from so many other issues. I offended someone once by pointing that out. I asked if he was saying we shouldn't recycle, or that destroying mountains for cheap filthy coal was a good thing, or whether or not he missed acid rain. Nope, he did care. He just wanted to point out that he thought my side was wrong. Maybe we are, I don't know for sure. I'm not a scientist, although a lot of them seem to think we are collectively ruining the planet. I could be wrong. Just so long as he acknowledges that all of the goals of the green movement are good things whether the Earth is heating up, cooling down, staying the same, or having cookies and milk before bed, I don't care.
I'm willing to be wrong as long as the greater good is still served. Save some gas, install some wind turbines, don't throw your trash out the window. There are lots of good reasons, I don't care which one you believe in.
Thanks for reading.
Glenn Beck
Glenn Beck is good at his job.
I would like to state for the record that I believe that Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and a host of other conservative talk show hosts are amazing at their jobs. Really really good. Their job, of course, is to convince the Republican base that voting Republican is in their best interest, and get them scared enough of any other outcome that they get out and vote in strength. Those guys are good at that. What they are bad at is facts and legitimate debate. They state opinions as facts, they employ logical fallacies, they misrepresent statistics, and sometimes they just use scare tactics and lies. These are master propagandists at the height of their powers. And there's no effective was to fight them. There's not.
The human brain has an interesting reaction to fear. Have you ever woken from a nightmare, realized that it was just a bad dream, and then stayed awake for hours? Of course you have. I, myself, have on several occasions woken from a dream where my kids were in some imagined peril, and been unable to sleep until I checked on them asleep in their beds. It's silly, of course. My dream has little to do with the kids and is probably based on Dad's own insecurities about keeping them safe in a big scary world, but that's the power of the fear response. That's why these talk show hosts do everything they can to scare the audience. Scary scary! Nazi! Socialist! Kenyan! (Note the subtle racist slant to that one.) Why can't he produce a birth certificate, what is he hiding? The insinuation of some evil conspiracy plays right into the minds of people who want to believe there's a reason to get rid of Obama, or who want to believe deep down in their souls that environmentalism is a conspiracy to inconvenience them and drive down the prices of their stock in landfill futures. It's all a conspiracy against big business! They want to wreck the economy! And facts don't work against people who buy into this garbage.
I have a relative who forwards me these scary, ridiculous emails regularly. Sometimes I go through, correct all the lies, and send them back. So begins the debate, and we have a ball. But really, I won't ever change his mind because he doesn't want it to be changed. He votes Republican because he likes guns, so he believes that gun control doesn't work. Or that registration for firearms just gives "them" a way to find you when the super volcano under Yellowstone finally blows and destroys all government control west of the Mississippi. Seriously. Fear response leads to an irrational need for a way to maintain control in this incredibly unlikely scenario. So he has guns. That's ok, he's responsible with them. But if his guns were registered, and then stolen and used in a crime in the next state, there might be some additional evidence at the disposal of investigators looking for a murderer. He never responds to that argument. It doesn't fit his world view, so it doesn't exist.
So tell your dittohead co-workers that Limbaugh lies if you want. Heck, prove it to them with some quick Internet research. I'll probably do some of that right here over the coming days and weeks. Explain to the guy with the Glenn Beck T-shirt that Obama can't be both a Socialist and a Nazi, because the Nazis hated the Socialists to the point of killing them all. He won't believe you, and might not understand your argument. But the poor person whom "Beck-fan" is regaling with tales of Glenn's goodness? That might be the person to catch before they get on board the crazy train. (If I just got Ozzy Osbourne stuck in your head you're probably about my age. Sorry for the song bomb.)
Thanks for reading.
I would like to state for the record that I believe that Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and a host of other conservative talk show hosts are amazing at their jobs. Really really good. Their job, of course, is to convince the Republican base that voting Republican is in their best interest, and get them scared enough of any other outcome that they get out and vote in strength. Those guys are good at that. What they are bad at is facts and legitimate debate. They state opinions as facts, they employ logical fallacies, they misrepresent statistics, and sometimes they just use scare tactics and lies. These are master propagandists at the height of their powers. And there's no effective was to fight them. There's not.
The human brain has an interesting reaction to fear. Have you ever woken from a nightmare, realized that it was just a bad dream, and then stayed awake for hours? Of course you have. I, myself, have on several occasions woken from a dream where my kids were in some imagined peril, and been unable to sleep until I checked on them asleep in their beds. It's silly, of course. My dream has little to do with the kids and is probably based on Dad's own insecurities about keeping them safe in a big scary world, but that's the power of the fear response. That's why these talk show hosts do everything they can to scare the audience. Scary scary! Nazi! Socialist! Kenyan! (Note the subtle racist slant to that one.) Why can't he produce a birth certificate, what is he hiding? The insinuation of some evil conspiracy plays right into the minds of people who want to believe there's a reason to get rid of Obama, or who want to believe deep down in their souls that environmentalism is a conspiracy to inconvenience them and drive down the prices of their stock in landfill futures. It's all a conspiracy against big business! They want to wreck the economy! And facts don't work against people who buy into this garbage.
I have a relative who forwards me these scary, ridiculous emails regularly. Sometimes I go through, correct all the lies, and send them back. So begins the debate, and we have a ball. But really, I won't ever change his mind because he doesn't want it to be changed. He votes Republican because he likes guns, so he believes that gun control doesn't work. Or that registration for firearms just gives "them" a way to find you when the super volcano under Yellowstone finally blows and destroys all government control west of the Mississippi. Seriously. Fear response leads to an irrational need for a way to maintain control in this incredibly unlikely scenario. So he has guns. That's ok, he's responsible with them. But if his guns were registered, and then stolen and used in a crime in the next state, there might be some additional evidence at the disposal of investigators looking for a murderer. He never responds to that argument. It doesn't fit his world view, so it doesn't exist.
So tell your dittohead co-workers that Limbaugh lies if you want. Heck, prove it to them with some quick Internet research. I'll probably do some of that right here over the coming days and weeks. Explain to the guy with the Glenn Beck T-shirt that Obama can't be both a Socialist and a Nazi, because the Nazis hated the Socialists to the point of killing them all. He won't believe you, and might not understand your argument. But the poor person whom "Beck-fan" is regaling with tales of Glenn's goodness? That might be the person to catch before they get on board the crazy train. (If I just got Ozzy Osbourne stuck in your head you're probably about my age. Sorry for the song bomb.)
Thanks for reading.
Why Libya?
Why Libya?
An old associate of mine recently posed this question. Why was it ok to invade Libya but not Iraq? This presents, to me, several interesting points.
First, we can all agree that Saddam and Moammar both represent humanity at its worst. Then again, there are horrible dictatorships all over the world, from Sudan in Africa to Myanmar in Asia. Some have even, historically been our allies. (Like Saddam in Iraq, and Bin Laden in Afghanistan, but there's no need to rehash cold war alliances. The enemy of my enemy is not always my friend, as it turns out.) By that line of reasoning, Saddam Hussein was a bad guy holds little water as an argument for the invasion of Iraq, and Qaddafi is a bad guy holds similarly little influence on my thinking. So let's look at the threat that each poses to America and her allies and interests.
Saddam Hussein was boxed in by a NATO enforced no fly zone. It was pretty effective, when combined with UN embargoes, at keeping him from rebuilding his military might or committing genocide again. And yes, we all know he gassed the Kurds prior to our implementation of the no fly zone. But we hadn't given him and chemical weapons since the Reagan administration and there remains no proof that he had the ability to make his own. They do have a shelf life. The argument that he was just waiting for the right time to use them washes out the moment our guys rolled into Baghdad. When would the right moment have been if not then? Presumably before we caught and executed him, right?
Saddam, despite rumors to the contrary, did not sponsor terrorism. He was a greedy selfish despot, but not a very good Muslim. Not even by the warped standards Al Qaeda and similar groups adhere to. He was pretty westernized, wore suits, and demonstrated his religion only enough to prove to his country that he was Muslim. That's why terrorist groups, especially Al Qaeda, shunned him.
Iraq presented no threat to our economic interests, nor those of our allies. They have no industry other than oil, and they had to leave the spigot on if they wanted food. It was true then and it's true now. Any threat they could have made was imagined.
Qaddafi is a horse of an altogether more dangerous color. He has been a state sponsor of terrorism for decades now, to the point that under the Reagan administration we bombed him. There seems to be a lack of intelligence on what his real military capabilities are, but at one time he had spent billions on building a massive army. Whether that was maintained during the embargo years is a question of speculation but it remains prudent to assume he still has some capability, or did until NATO started bombing the heck out of his defenses. And no, he's no military threat to the US directly. But he could supply arms to Somali pirates or use his influence through northern Africa to destabilize the region in ways that could affect us and our allies.
Which brings me to economic destabilization. Qaddafi could, single handedly, raise the price of our oil. Now hear me out, I'm not going where you think I am. We have all seen what inflated oil prices do to us as individuals at the pump. And how they affect shipping costs. And eventually the price of things like food, paper, diapers which have to be shipped to the store. It puts pressure on everybody's wallet, making us buy less. Which does what to our finally beginning to recover economy? Yup, guarantees the double dip recession that we all fear. (At least I hope we all do. I think the Republicans are going to cause it but that's another day.)
So those are all the reasons we stop the genocidal monster in Libya, but not the ones in Sudan. Or Myanmar. Or...
Thanks for reading.
An old associate of mine recently posed this question. Why was it ok to invade Libya but not Iraq? This presents, to me, several interesting points.
First, we can all agree that Saddam and Moammar both represent humanity at its worst. Then again, there are horrible dictatorships all over the world, from Sudan in Africa to Myanmar in Asia. Some have even, historically been our allies. (Like Saddam in Iraq, and Bin Laden in Afghanistan, but there's no need to rehash cold war alliances. The enemy of my enemy is not always my friend, as it turns out.) By that line of reasoning, Saddam Hussein was a bad guy holds little water as an argument for the invasion of Iraq, and Qaddafi is a bad guy holds similarly little influence on my thinking. So let's look at the threat that each poses to America and her allies and interests.
Saddam Hussein was boxed in by a NATO enforced no fly zone. It was pretty effective, when combined with UN embargoes, at keeping him from rebuilding his military might or committing genocide again. And yes, we all know he gassed the Kurds prior to our implementation of the no fly zone. But we hadn't given him and chemical weapons since the Reagan administration and there remains no proof that he had the ability to make his own. They do have a shelf life. The argument that he was just waiting for the right time to use them washes out the moment our guys rolled into Baghdad. When would the right moment have been if not then? Presumably before we caught and executed him, right?
Saddam, despite rumors to the contrary, did not sponsor terrorism. He was a greedy selfish despot, but not a very good Muslim. Not even by the warped standards Al Qaeda and similar groups adhere to. He was pretty westernized, wore suits, and demonstrated his religion only enough to prove to his country that he was Muslim. That's why terrorist groups, especially Al Qaeda, shunned him.
Iraq presented no threat to our economic interests, nor those of our allies. They have no industry other than oil, and they had to leave the spigot on if they wanted food. It was true then and it's true now. Any threat they could have made was imagined.
Qaddafi is a horse of an altogether more dangerous color. He has been a state sponsor of terrorism for decades now, to the point that under the Reagan administration we bombed him. There seems to be a lack of intelligence on what his real military capabilities are, but at one time he had spent billions on building a massive army. Whether that was maintained during the embargo years is a question of speculation but it remains prudent to assume he still has some capability, or did until NATO started bombing the heck out of his defenses. And no, he's no military threat to the US directly. But he could supply arms to Somali pirates or use his influence through northern Africa to destabilize the region in ways that could affect us and our allies.
Which brings me to economic destabilization. Qaddafi could, single handedly, raise the price of our oil. Now hear me out, I'm not going where you think I am. We have all seen what inflated oil prices do to us as individuals at the pump. And how they affect shipping costs. And eventually the price of things like food, paper, diapers which have to be shipped to the store. It puts pressure on everybody's wallet, making us buy less. Which does what to our finally beginning to recover economy? Yup, guarantees the double dip recession that we all fear. (At least I hope we all do. I think the Republicans are going to cause it but that's another day.)
So those are all the reasons we stop the genocidal monster in Libya, but not the ones in Sudan. Or Myanmar. Or...
Thanks for reading.
Opinion polls.
"Excuse me, could you answer some questions? In your opinion, does 2+2 really equal 4?"
Opinion polls are dangerous. I have a co-worker who took statistics years ago, and is fond of reminding people that there are three levels to lies. Lies, damn lies, and statistics. I frequently debunk forwarded emails from friends and relatives by going straight to the source of a poll or examining, closely, how a question was phrased. 80% of Americans responded to a poll by saying that Obama had no legal right to be President? Wow, that's stunning, who did the poll? Ok, a polling agency named after the guy who owns it, what else does he do? He hosts a conservative talk show in Toledo. The poll is listeners calling into a radio show. Ok, that's hardly scientific, it's probably a good sampling of the most biased and paranoid conservative voters out there. So this qualifies as a statistical lie.
Which brings me to my next point. A poll about facts isn't a poll of people's legitimate opinions, it's finding out what percentage of America is failing the test of life. "Could you answer a few questions" is the American media equivalent to a high school civics pop quiz, and our populace is failing. Not only failing but being deluded into thinking at their incorrect knowledge is a legitimate opinion. Opinion polls on Obama's Presidential legitimacy are only legitimate if you poll legal experts who have seen the necessary documentation. And since the (conservative leaning) Supreme Court has upheld Obama's presidency, I think we know how that poll would turn out. My opinion on global warming? Not legitimate unless I do research and base it on scientific findings from other people. Even though we covered it in my college chemistry class, I am not an expert.
So as you get stuck in debates with co-workers, friends and well intentioned relatives who want to save you from the creeping evil that they truly envision Liberalism to be, I'll try to give you some ammo to shoot their argument full of holes with. Be calm, don't take it personally.
Oh, and cite your sources. They hate that.
Than for reading.
Opinion polls are dangerous. I have a co-worker who took statistics years ago, and is fond of reminding people that there are three levels to lies. Lies, damn lies, and statistics. I frequently debunk forwarded emails from friends and relatives by going straight to the source of a poll or examining, closely, how a question was phrased. 80% of Americans responded to a poll by saying that Obama had no legal right to be President? Wow, that's stunning, who did the poll? Ok, a polling agency named after the guy who owns it, what else does he do? He hosts a conservative talk show in Toledo. The poll is listeners calling into a radio show. Ok, that's hardly scientific, it's probably a good sampling of the most biased and paranoid conservative voters out there. So this qualifies as a statistical lie.
Which brings me to my next point. A poll about facts isn't a poll of people's legitimate opinions, it's finding out what percentage of America is failing the test of life. "Could you answer a few questions" is the American media equivalent to a high school civics pop quiz, and our populace is failing. Not only failing but being deluded into thinking at their incorrect knowledge is a legitimate opinion. Opinion polls on Obama's Presidential legitimacy are only legitimate if you poll legal experts who have seen the necessary documentation. And since the (conservative leaning) Supreme Court has upheld Obama's presidency, I think we know how that poll would turn out. My opinion on global warming? Not legitimate unless I do research and base it on scientific findings from other people. Even though we covered it in my college chemistry class, I am not an expert.
So as you get stuck in debates with co-workers, friends and well intentioned relatives who want to save you from the creeping evil that they truly envision Liberalism to be, I'll try to give you some ammo to shoot their argument full of holes with. Be calm, don't take it personally.
Oh, and cite your sources. They hate that.
Than for reading.
Here we go.
Here we go.
So I've decided to become more politically active. I've noticed in the media that there tends to be a conservative leaning in the way things get reported, even down to the myth of the liberal media. I have co-worker who insists that CNN is an extreme left organization, even when Lou Dobbs was spouting birther nonsense daily from a CNN pulpit. MSNBC? Yes, liberal bias. CNN? From what I've seen slightly right of center, although there's certainly room for interpretation. That, when combined with the lies of the Republican propaganda machine, is what gave me the impetus necessary to begin this little journey into truth.
Let me start by saying that everyone has the right to an opinion. Opinions are never, in and of themselves, wrong. However, opinions based on lies and misinformation are a problem to me. Also, opinions on factual things aren't opinions, they're just an outward and visible expression of whether or not the opinion holder is wrong.
If you wish to comment, feel free to do so. I'm looking for civil political debate, so if you're trying to correct me on some facts please cite source material. Rehashing Fox talking points to prove me wrong is a waste of time and will be deleted, as will insults leveled at me or any commenter who says anything in a civil fashion, regardless of the position they take.
By the way, for those who are interested, here's a little background. I'm in my late 30s, from Tulsa, Oklahoma, have four years of college behind me and am working to finally finish my degree. My major was music years ago and I've worked as a guitarist now for over a decade. My employer is the US Army, and I'm on my third deployment to Iraq, as of this writing. Being in the Army does constrain me somewhat in a legal sense, as there can be repercussions if I am openly disrespectful toward my leadership, whether that's my own commander or GEN whoever or the President. Fortunately I mostly agree with this President. My kids are what I'm most proud of in the world, I love my job even when I hate hate hate being in Iraq, and I used to be a solid Republican. That should cover the pertinent points.
Thanks for stopping by.
So I've decided to become more politically active. I've noticed in the media that there tends to be a conservative leaning in the way things get reported, even down to the myth of the liberal media. I have co-worker who insists that CNN is an extreme left organization, even when Lou Dobbs was spouting birther nonsense daily from a CNN pulpit. MSNBC? Yes, liberal bias. CNN? From what I've seen slightly right of center, although there's certainly room for interpretation. That, when combined with the lies of the Republican propaganda machine, is what gave me the impetus necessary to begin this little journey into truth.
Let me start by saying that everyone has the right to an opinion. Opinions are never, in and of themselves, wrong. However, opinions based on lies and misinformation are a problem to me. Also, opinions on factual things aren't opinions, they're just an outward and visible expression of whether or not the opinion holder is wrong.
If you wish to comment, feel free to do so. I'm looking for civil political debate, so if you're trying to correct me on some facts please cite source material. Rehashing Fox talking points to prove me wrong is a waste of time and will be deleted, as will insults leveled at me or any commenter who says anything in a civil fashion, regardless of the position they take.
By the way, for those who are interested, here's a little background. I'm in my late 30s, from Tulsa, Oklahoma, have four years of college behind me and am working to finally finish my degree. My major was music years ago and I've worked as a guitarist now for over a decade. My employer is the US Army, and I'm on my third deployment to Iraq, as of this writing. Being in the Army does constrain me somewhat in a legal sense, as there can be repercussions if I am openly disrespectful toward my leadership, whether that's my own commander or GEN whoever or the President. Fortunately I mostly agree with this President. My kids are what I'm most proud of in the world, I love my job even when I hate hate hate being in Iraq, and I used to be a solid Republican. That should cover the pertinent points.
Thanks for stopping by.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)