President Obama Inadvertently Identifies Historic Economic Ailment

President Obama continued his assault on Congress threatening that they could be responsible for a murder. The victims of this Congressional threat are, according to President Obama, thousands of jobs and the continued improvement we have supposedly been enjoying in the economy. The method with which Congress will bludgeon the economy and jobs to death is the death by thousands, nay, millions of cuts via sequestration. According to President Obama, if the Congress does not accept his proposal to match any spending cuts with equal measure of tax increases through the removal of loopholes and credits, then uncountable numbers of jobs will be lost or never filled as without government subsidies sectors of the economy will relapse into a recession-like collapse. This is the fate the Congress will force on a hapless country where its people are thirsting for the continued supply of government milk to suckle and care for them supplying them with jobs and seeing to their every need. Well, at least this would be reality if those who believe in big government as the solution for everything were to have their way. What President Obama has managed to do with his threats is to point to one of the most dire situations confronting the United States today. Actually, this has been a growing problem since Franklin Delano Roosevelt and greatly enhanced by Lyndon Baines Johnson and numerous other assists along the way to the present. The pinnacle of this monster which has been built one bad idea after another was the farce that some companies, banks, investment, insurance, and other chosen favorites of those in power being sold as too big to fail and thus deserving of millions upon millions of taxpayer’s money. Since the too big to fail was not an Obama original but was inspired by the original bailout which was committed with the approval and blessings of President George W. Bush.

The problem is that such a large percentage of the economy and way too many of our major companies rely almost entirely on government largess, tax allowances, contracts, and in a surprising number of cases, their entire margin of profit. That is one of the problems which rarely is discussed when the entitlement debate comes under scrutiny. There are always numerous pundits willing to blame it on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, Food Stamps, and any of the other programs which assist individuals. When was the last time the evening news covered the amount of farm aid that goes to ADM, a huge agricultural conglomerate, or timber allotments granted to Weyerhaeuser and Georgia Pacific, or the any of the numerous generous funding of other industries or the customs, tariffs, and other regulations which are used to give advantages to the chosen few? No, the only government funding which is ever challenged are those which go to people, which many will claim are bad enough, and never those given to industrial giants and other large firms who often hold numerous politicians hostage to the funding these firms can put together come campaign time. The story about whose funding pig gets gored when the government decides to take austerity measures to avert fiscal crisis will almost always end with the piggy with the least cash affords the least protection. It is the same game as local, city, county and state governments take when they face times of economic hardship. The first cuts that are threatened are always police, firefighters, libraries, teachers, and the closing of parks and other recreational facilities. They never discuss ending their personal Lear Jet used to fly around the state, the limousines used to take them to dinners and other functions, the helicopter used to make grand entrance at public gatherings, or any of the myriad of perks many of which we regular people would never ever dream exist but are what makes their positions so prized that they make careers out of “public service”. I have always defined their “public service” as the elected potentates allowing the peasants to pay above and beyond the necessary so that they may feel their privileges to which they have become accustom.

Actually, there is a very cozy relationship between big business and big government, something which we were warned would be the end of the American experiment by, of all people, President Dwight David Eisenhower. Yep, Dwight D Eisenhower, the President who gave us such Constitutional projects as the Defense Highway Bill establishing the Interstate Road System for emergencies where it would allow the transport of any and all military transport and fast response by government and which in such times the public would be barred from utilizing, and the Defense College Scholarship Act which gave promising students scholarships in order to assure that we would have sufficient numbers of well-educated youth for use in an ever more advanced weapons and other systems which would be necessary for the competent operation of the military. President Eisenhower claimed to care about the Constitution and sold these programs not as being giveaways to the public for their private betterment or any such nonsense, these were purely programs which would supply necessary and desirable results for the competent and efficient utilization of the United States Military. So, the man who warned us about the, his words, “Military-Industrial Complex” also used the military in order to fund the interstate highway system and give student grants and scholarships because such investments were necessary for an adequate military of the future. Talk about your self-fulfilling prophesies.

The problem with a coupling of big government with big business is that such an arrangement discourages inventiveness, competition, efficiency, and eventually economic growth. If certain companies have an arrangement with government, nothing formal or written, just an understanding between the leadership of both parties and the ownership of the companies, sometimes the two are one and the same as many of our Congressional leaders are heavily invested in the same companies, then it becomes much more difficult if not impossible for a smaller company to come along and compete. As soon as a small company gets a foothold and gives the slightest of hints that they might pose a challenge, a threat to the larger established company, if that company can utilize government to change the playing field making it more difficult on the smaller company, then innovation and other possible benefits of competition are snuffed out. Imagine if the carriage industry of the horse and carriage era had an undue influence on government such that laws could be passed which made it impossible to operate motor vehicles on public roads, we would still be watching carefully where we stepped when crossing the street. Companies such as Ford, Packard, Studebaker, and others would never have been allowed to replace the horse drawn vehicles as government could have enacted laws preventing such progress. This sounds ridiculous but there were such laws implemented in some places. Motor carriages were required to have a man walk ahead of them with a flag by day and a lantern by night warning any people who were riding in their horse drawn carriages that a noisy, smelly, frightening motor vehicle was coming.

So, thank you President Obama for pointing out one of the difficulties plaguing our economy, namely that too much of our economy and too many companies are completely addicted and dependent on government monies which damages the competitiveness and equality of opportunity which damages economic progress. With your plea to the Congress, you have, likely inadvertently, made likely the strongest argument in favor of allowing sequestration to strike government spending thus cutting the effect of government on everything back in size. Perhaps, once we find we can survive just fine with less government across the boards, then we might enact planned sequestrations for the future and continue to make cuts with such abandon until government has been shrunk down to a more manageable size. Who knows, if we allow this to go far enough we might even actually return to Constitutional governance and thus return the real American dream. In case you have lost sight of the real American dream, allow us to remind you. The Founding Fathers had a new and previously unimagined idea which had never before been attempted in the history of mankind. Their revolutionary idea was that man; regular, everyday, run-of-the-mill man was capable of governing themselves. Mankind did not need a King or an oligarchy of his betters to lord over him and direct his life because without their higher wisdom and abilities the common man would be lost and all would fall to pieces in ruination. Instead, the Founding Fathers saw mankind as being fully capable of knowing what was best for him and through self-government they would be able to provide adequate, nay, superior governance than that or any potentate or collection of self-righteous individuals who placed themselves above the common man. Simply put, they did not find the simple man to be that simple. Today we are faced with a megalomaniacal governance that had run afoul of the Constitution and no longer believes in the common man but does believe that the common man must be ruled over by his superiors. We do not need superiors and anyways, you in government are supposed to be working at our pleasure, not the other way around. Read the Declaration of Independence, it is also a founding document if not the founding document. Right there it explains the place of government, to serve at the pleasure of the people having only those powers delegated to it by the people. Perhaps it is time to have a vote of the public and let the people once again decide how much government we need. That is our right and someday soon we just may exercise that right.

Beyond the Cusp

Women in Combat, the United States Joins the World

Secretary of Defense Panetta told the press and the world that the United States ban on women in combat was to be terminated and now all military positions and MOS are now available to all regardless of gender. There were the expected gasps and exclamations predicting the end of the military as we have known it. Others congratulated the United States for finally joining the modern world and recognizing that women are equal to men and should be allowed entrance into all fields, especially those provincially thought to be the providence of men. We would like to make a bold prediction. There will be very few women lining up to enter into combat arms and of those who take that route the majority will decide it is not worth the effort demanded. There will not be an end to the world or the military as we know them and everything will continue on with barely a ripple. Oh, sure there will be a great din from the extremes still fighting the same battle over the wisdom of allowing women into combat arms, except the sides will have changed. Now it will be those who once argued against the status quo defending it and vice-versa. The only question left to answer is what will happen should the United States become involved in a war with women on the front lines?

The answer to that question has actually already been answered. Does anybody remember Jessica Lynch? Not how her story turned tragic, but the initial shock and reaction to her being taken captive in Iraq. Suddenly Jessica Lynch became the most important captive in the entire Iraq War. The rescue of Private Lynch became the highest priority for the military, the press and pretty much the entire country if not the world, or at least much of it. Special Forces went into high gear with planning and executing a plan without taking six months to do practice runs, or even six days. We heard all about the valiant Private Lynch who fought off as long as she could finally going down with serious injuries to which she finally succumbed allowing her capture. It was the makings of a Hollywood blockbuster. There was even a movie made based on the theme of her resistance and capture. Then something really terrible happened, the truth. The truth sparked outrage and hearings in Congress where Private Lynch explained she never fired her weapon or put up any resistance or even knew any of the events. It turn out she was knocked unconscious when her truck wrecked and woke up captured. The whole house of cards collapsed and the brave woman fighting as bravely just like a man or even better was borne out as the lie it was. The arguments that Private Lynch’s heroic stance was proof that women could stand in combat just as strong and steady as any man also fell apart with the rest of the myth that was sold to the public.

The United States nearly fell apart over one woman caught by the freak instance, something which could become more prevalent with women in combat roles, so what happens when such is reported regularly on the nightly news. My question is what would happen should a battle go poorly and a fair number, say four or five, women be captured. Then what will happen when the press reports this incident? The truth about women being placed on the front lines is not the real question which ever needed to be answered. The real question is how will the United States public react when women are captured or worse, come home in numbers in caskets? Are the people of the United States ready when such occurrences become a common part of future conflicts? Whether or not women can perform in a combat role has never been the question. Even what affect women fighting and possibly dying or being captured will have on their male comrades was not the question. The training and daily rigors of being in a combat unit will weed out any women not physically strong or mentally capable of thriving or even barely surviving in a combat role. Thirty mile forced marches and the other physical and mental requirements which are a part of every year’s training along with the daily runs, calisthenics, weapons training, weapons maintenance and the rest of the rigors involved with being in a front line unit will weed out those who find such to be beyond what they are willing to do.

There are reasonable questions about unit cohesion and the possibilities of relation between soldiers within units are another angle which will produce problems which will need to be addressed. Such problems will not be as difficult as those faced since the change of the policy regarding homosexuals allowing them to serve openly. Any problem that has been predicted to result from women in a combat unit are not as critical as they have been made out to be and likely already there are procedures on how to handle them which can be adopted from other units which have had women and men serving together, even in the field, for as long as we have had a standing military. The military is not where the problem will lie as the one thing the military is adept at it is solving problems and taking care of those who do not follow the rules. The military has procedures, rules, regulations, and all that any organization could ever need to cover any situation which might crop up. It’s the civilians that are the largest potential for problems as we are not under any strict regimentation and stringent codes of conduct, nor are we used to the kind of environment which the military is at its most efficient. We need not concern ourselves with how the military will operate and adjust to women serving in combat units and on the front lines as the military will take it all in stride, write a few more rules, establish some new customs, and then march off to take care of business because that is what the military does. As long as we, the civilians, can give them our support or at least stay out of their way, then the military will take care and adjust to women within their combat ranks just as they have handled every other change societies have been placing upon their shoulders since before Thermopylae. So, hopefully we can have people stop claiming that the military will have big problems when what we really mean is that many in the public will have big problems adjusting and accepting women serving in front line combat units.

Beyond the Cusp

Iran Nuclear Talks Conducted by the Blind and Deaf

Somewhere a decision was made which placed European Union Foreign Policy Chief Catherine Ashton in the lead for the P5+1 negotiating team who are presumably talking with intent to curb the Iranian nuclear program before they attain nuclear weapons capability. It has been reported that the Iranians have graciously granted the P5+1 mediators another meeting in Moscow in order to discuss the demands regarding nuclear uranium enrichment and the offers to Iran should they comply. This was accomplished after Lady Catherine Ashton held a one-hour phone conversation with Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili where she managed to convince him to allow the meeting. This meeting was originally scheduled during the negotiations in Baghdad last month and was touted as a great achievement as it was the sole accomplishment to result from the meetings. Since then the Iranians, as stated by Ahmadinejad as well as chairman of the Iranian Parliament Ali Larijani, Iran claimed that to continue with the negotiations with the P5+1 was simply assisting the West in wasting time. This is what made it necessary for Lady Ashton to beg for Iran to return to negotiations and resume their meetings as scheduled in Moscow. I am sure this will be touted as a great step and a sign of progress and the seriousness with which Iran is treating the negotiations. Does anybody outside of the governments of the P5+1 honestly believe that any amount of negotiations with Iran will produce any results other than an eventually nuclear armed Iran?

Today there was a report coming out of Iran where the Fars News Agency published a commentary that stated, “The Islamic World should rise up and shout that a nuclear bomb is our right.” Since the Fars News Agency is under the complete control of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps, they often are utilized to release trial balloons as a method of releasing official views and judge the reactions before formally having the Supreme Leader the Grand Ayatollah Sayyed Ali Hosseini Khamenei or other high officials announce them as laws or objectives. For some reason I find this statement released by the Fars News Agency to be more than just simply troubling. Stating that the Islamic World needs to fully insist and achieve possession of nuclear weaponry makes the efforts by Lady Ashton to be simply a waste of time. This information should leave the P5+1 with no alternative other than to place a direct challenge demanding Iranian immediate complete compliance. This Fars News Agency statement is nothing short of a direct statement that it truly is a complete waste of time holding negotiations with Iran. It proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that Iran is negotiating simply to talk endlessly and never actually make any progress. Their previous actions have been proving this ever since the entire charade started back in 2006. Despite this being obvious even to the most casual of observers, the P5+1 have chosen the Lady Catherine Ashton to lead the talks. This is the same woman who sounded like a love-struck teenager when describing how enthralled she was and what a magnificent gentleman and accomplished statesman the Iranian head negotiator had appeared to be in her judgment.

As far as the Islamic World having to demand their incontestable right to produce and stockpile nuclear weapons, it is a completely ignorant demand. The Islamic World already possesses and has a stockpile of well over one-hundred nuclear weapons which are located and owned by Pakistan. The truth of their declaration has nothing to do with the Muslim World possessing and having available for Islamic use of nuclear weapons. They are not demanding, or requesting if you wish me to be more polite, for Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Morocco, Egypt, Somalia, Eritrea, Syria (though they might settle for Syria), Sudan or any other Islamic Country to attain nuclear weapons. Their demand is for Iran to be equipped with their own stockpile of nuclear weapons, and not simply a few but sufficient nuclear weapons to intimidate the entire Islamic World into allowing Iran to establish a new Caliphate with Iran as the sole and unchallenged leadership. They want sufficient nuclear weapons for Iran to completely obliterate Israel, the United States, and any other country which they feel is not showing the Iranian leadership sufficient deference. There are those who hold some power within Iran who would even like to have sufficient nuclear weapons to cause a complete and total conflagration throughout the entire globe in order to cause the conditions necessitated to cause the return of the Mahdi, the Twelfth Imam. Yet we still are allowing Iran to talk and talk and make promises that they only intend to break.

Just to add one last example of the fruitlessness of dealing with the Iranians was made evident this week. Over the last few weeks the IAEA has been holding talks in Tehran in order to attempt to coerce Iran into allowing them access to both the known nuclear installations and also to gain access to some military controlled locations where it is suspected that work, research and possible production of nuclear trigger and high explosive shaped charge tests have been conducted which are necessary for both gun and compression style nuclear weapons. Late last week progress was announced and hope was expressed that possibly the clean-up of one of the military locations may not have destroyed all evidence the IAEA sought. Over the past three days Iran has come up with some preconditions and then excuses and finally a total reversal reneging on every agreement the head of the IAEA had announced to great fanfare last Friday. This was announced by The Hindu who wrote “Iran has announced that it is ready to open up its Parchin military facility for inspections by the IAEA.” This has been the exact modus operandi from Iran throughout the entire tortuous, strange, fruitless excuse for serious talks. It has been two steps forward, three steps backwards, install ten more centrifuges. I must honestly congratulate the Iranian negotiators as they have thus far resisted breaking into uncontrolled laughter right into the faces of the negotiators of the P5+1. Such restraint is a rare talent, even if it is being used to conceal through and through deceit.

Beyond the Cusp