EIN News says, "Iran Executes Man Convicted of Spying for Israel. Iran on Tuesday executed two men, one of them said to be a member of an exiled opposition group and the other convicted of spying for Mossad, the Israeli intelligence service, according to official reports. (nytimes.com)".
I have mixed feelings on this primarily because it is so nonspecific. Spying is too general a term. Before we start to consider a penalty for spying, we really should understand the specific nature of the action. For example, if a person or group is able to obtain through subterfuge military plans or a design of a military weapon, which is later placed in the hands of a foreign government, a significant number of lives could be jeopardized. This is the traditional concept of spying, as demonstrated in novels, movies and TV programs. The spy, when caught, prosecuted, and convicted, deserves the death penalty in this case, because he has contributed to potential mass murder.
On the other hand, spying may be much less dangerous to human life. An example is industrial spying, where the spy is stealing commercial secrets, which he can then sell to competitive companies. Another example is a person peeking under a window shade at another person undressing, which is an invasion of personal privacy. While these two examples are morally and legally prosecutable, they obviously do not deserve the death penalty.
Before we can agree or disagree with Iran's execution of an Israeli spy, we should know more about the specifics of the charges. Since he was convicted of spying for the Israeli intelligence service, there is an implication that his action placed in jeopardy the lives of Iranian citizens, in which case a death penalty would be warranted. However, we know from experience that the Iranian government is somewhat erratic in the perusal of such matters, and we would be completely justified in questioning the action they took in this matter until further detail would be presented.
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Friday, December 24, 2010
International Terrorism
Open letter to President Obama, US State Department, US Military, and News Media:
I have a few questions concerning international terrorism, which I propose to all of the above. Those persons may have personally considered answers to these questions in private, but I have not heard answers in public announcements.
The Department of Homeland Security has recently switched their announced program from an accent on international terrorism, including Al Qaeda, to homegrown terrorism. The matter of homegrown terrorism can be discussed later. For now, I would like to question our policies and activities on international terrorism, even though international seems to have reduced attention.
Yemen and Pakistan are considered to be nesting places for the development of terrorism programs against the US. We have presumably been giving these countries significant amounts of money to reduce and eliminate terrorism development within their borders. This has obviously not been completely successful. We have the military capability to locate training camps and use explosive missiles to wipe them out, without putting a foot on foreign soil. Why don't we advise the administration's of those countries that their programs of control have basically failed, and we are now taking the next step of assuming direct responsibility for this elimination or at least much improved control?
I notice that when the US catches a foreign terrorist, he is usually of Jordanian, or other Middle Eastern or African origin. I also notice that Western Europe seems to be a target as well as the US. How about Russia? I don't see any reports on Middle Eastern or African terrorist activities in Russia. They seem to have some problems with terrorists from areas previously controlled by the Soviet Union, but why no Middle East and or African terrorists? Am I missing something? Do Middle Eastern and African terrorist have no complaints against Russia, and therefore are inactive there? If so, why?
We have many terrorist control procedures in US airports, and the same goes for Western European airports. We hear a little about terrorist control procedures at Israeli airports, but nothing about Russian airports. Why? Russians are very capable people, and their government is usually very efficient in such matters. Is there something we can learn from them, or does the problem not exist there? The same goes for China. No problem there or do they have some good control procedures on international terrorism, which we should be using?
Now switch to the Taliban in Afghanistan. The international terrorism of the Taliban seems to be confined against our military in Afghanistan, rather than terrorism episodes on the US homeland. If our military was not in Afghanistan, there presumably would be no terrorism against it. The Russians fought against somebody in Afghanistan for several years and finally gave up the fight. Were they fighting against the Taliban? Is the Taliban seeking revenge on Russia by terrorist activities on Russian soil? If not, why not? Perhaps there is some sort of armed truce. If there is, can we do that too? Remember, this is an Obama war. We do not need to be in Afghanistan to protect ourselves at this stage, and we are not in the business of nation building, with all of our other problems. If we leave the Afghanis to their own devices, as we should, we solve the immediate problem of terrorism against our military.
What's the bottom line? I suspect that we have not been looking at international terrorism in a practical way. We even tend to foster it by giving away money, which indicates our lack of resolve in reducing the problem. Terrorism is a physical activity. It must be controlled in a physical way by the military. A "do good" attitude only contributes to its continuance, with money needlessly flowing down the drain. Public opinion is strongly to blame in developing this "do good" attitude. A public demand of quickly prosecuting and sentencing captured terrorists will do much in reducing the problem. Strong measures are necessary, including the death penalty for those who have attempted mass murder.
I have a few questions concerning international terrorism, which I propose to all of the above. Those persons may have personally considered answers to these questions in private, but I have not heard answers in public announcements.
The Department of Homeland Security has recently switched their announced program from an accent on international terrorism, including Al Qaeda, to homegrown terrorism. The matter of homegrown terrorism can be discussed later. For now, I would like to question our policies and activities on international terrorism, even though international seems to have reduced attention.
Yemen and Pakistan are considered to be nesting places for the development of terrorism programs against the US. We have presumably been giving these countries significant amounts of money to reduce and eliminate terrorism development within their borders. This has obviously not been completely successful. We have the military capability to locate training camps and use explosive missiles to wipe them out, without putting a foot on foreign soil. Why don't we advise the administration's of those countries that their programs of control have basically failed, and we are now taking the next step of assuming direct responsibility for this elimination or at least much improved control?
I notice that when the US catches a foreign terrorist, he is usually of Jordanian, or other Middle Eastern or African origin. I also notice that Western Europe seems to be a target as well as the US. How about Russia? I don't see any reports on Middle Eastern or African terrorist activities in Russia. They seem to have some problems with terrorists from areas previously controlled by the Soviet Union, but why no Middle East and or African terrorists? Am I missing something? Do Middle Eastern and African terrorist have no complaints against Russia, and therefore are inactive there? If so, why?
We have many terrorist control procedures in US airports, and the same goes for Western European airports. We hear a little about terrorist control procedures at Israeli airports, but nothing about Russian airports. Why? Russians are very capable people, and their government is usually very efficient in such matters. Is there something we can learn from them, or does the problem not exist there? The same goes for China. No problem there or do they have some good control procedures on international terrorism, which we should be using?
Now switch to the Taliban in Afghanistan. The international terrorism of the Taliban seems to be confined against our military in Afghanistan, rather than terrorism episodes on the US homeland. If our military was not in Afghanistan, there presumably would be no terrorism against it. The Russians fought against somebody in Afghanistan for several years and finally gave up the fight. Were they fighting against the Taliban? Is the Taliban seeking revenge on Russia by terrorist activities on Russian soil? If not, why not? Perhaps there is some sort of armed truce. If there is, can we do that too? Remember, this is an Obama war. We do not need to be in Afghanistan to protect ourselves at this stage, and we are not in the business of nation building, with all of our other problems. If we leave the Afghanis to their own devices, as we should, we solve the immediate problem of terrorism against our military.
What's the bottom line? I suspect that we have not been looking at international terrorism in a practical way. We even tend to foster it by giving away money, which indicates our lack of resolve in reducing the problem. Terrorism is a physical activity. It must be controlled in a physical way by the military. A "do good" attitude only contributes to its continuance, with money needlessly flowing down the drain. Public opinion is strongly to blame in developing this "do good" attitude. A public demand of quickly prosecuting and sentencing captured terrorists will do much in reducing the problem. Strong measures are necessary, including the death penalty for those who have attempted mass murder.
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Face up to North Korea Now on Use of Atomic Weaponry
Open letter to the Federal Administration, Military, and Congress:
EIN News says, "North Korea Threatens Nuclear 'Holy War'. North Korea's armed forces minister says his country's military is ready for a holy war involving nuclear weapons after the South conducted large-scale military exercises. (net.au)"
This is a typical bullying situation. We have heard much in the news recently about bullying. Most of the rhetoric is confined to children and schools. There is a ridiculous discussion of passing laws to control it. The fact is that bullying is a part of life, just like love and hate. They are uncontrollable emotions. Only the actions therefrom can be controlled. For that, we have laws, such as assault and battery.
There are bullies in the schoolyard and also on the broader international scale. North Korea is a bully. It threatens dire consequences unless it gets his way.
I tell my kids that you cannot pacify a bully by acceding to his requests. You must not allow him to steal your lunch money. He may be bigger than you and threaten physical violence, but you must stand up against him. You will likely get beaten up but you can do considerable damage to him in the encounter. It is attitude that counts and it is almost guaranteed that the bully will no longer continue bullying you after the encounter.
The situation of North Korea bullying is more complicated. Their threat of physical violence is undefined, with respect to the recipient, but the implication is South Korea. The US is involved, because South Korea is our friend. We even fought a war against North Korea to retain the freedom of South Koreans. However, that's history. We must look at things more pragmatically in terms of the present situation. We have no actual moral obligation to defend South Korea, any more than we have a moral obligation to defend any other country in the world. Our primary responsibility is to the citizens of the United States.
North Korea is said to have a nuclear energy bomb, which we know by previous experience in our own production and use is a terrible weapon of destruction. North Korea's threats to use the atomic device is its basis of bullying. We must accept the challenge. They may actually try to use it. We hope not, but it could happen. Consider that sooner or later someone in on the world will detonate another nuclear device just as we did against Japan. We must stand up to the bullying of North Korea now.
No one What if North Korea is crazy enough to take the first step by detonating a nuclear device on the Korean Peninsula? We must retaliate, and we must say so before hand in the hope that it will deter North Korea from taking the initial action. We have shown considerable weakness in the past, which will further weaken our hand in the initial rhetoric. In short, the North Koreans may not believe this but we should do our best to convince them of our resolve. What is our resolve? If they detonate a nuclear device over a populated area, we will use better devices in wiping out the whole population of North Korea, with hopefully as little ancillary destruction as possible.
We certainly don't want a complete international nuclear war, which would essentially destroy all world population, but for that to happen, China and Russia would have to be participants. To avoid that, we must have serious talks with China and Russia beforehand to determine whether they would generally be in agreement with our intention to confront the bully or whether they in turn would contribute to the bullying by threatening use of their own atomic weaponry. That would be a case for reconsideration of the secondary bullying, because the stakes would be too high. It would be mutual destruction. A bullied kid can live with a bloodied nose to counteract a bullying situation, but if the confrontation would lead to the death of both contestants, the stakes are too high.
The world can presently live with an absence of South Korea and North Korea, if that appears necessary. It can't continue if we are all gone.
If we don't take action now, the bullying action of North Korea and acceding to their demands will eventually place them in a position of extreme atomic military power, equivalent to the US, China and Russia. Confronting the bully at that time would be impossible. We confronted the Nazi bully in World War II, but the stakes were low. Not all populations were at risk. Mutual atomic construction is another matter. It is suicide.
Face up to North Korea now or it becomes worse if not impossible.
EIN News says, "North Korea Threatens Nuclear 'Holy War'. North Korea's armed forces minister says his country's military is ready for a holy war involving nuclear weapons after the South conducted large-scale military exercises. (net.au)"
This is a typical bullying situation. We have heard much in the news recently about bullying. Most of the rhetoric is confined to children and schools. There is a ridiculous discussion of passing laws to control it. The fact is that bullying is a part of life, just like love and hate. They are uncontrollable emotions. Only the actions therefrom can be controlled. For that, we have laws, such as assault and battery.
There are bullies in the schoolyard and also on the broader international scale. North Korea is a bully. It threatens dire consequences unless it gets his way.
I tell my kids that you cannot pacify a bully by acceding to his requests. You must not allow him to steal your lunch money. He may be bigger than you and threaten physical violence, but you must stand up against him. You will likely get beaten up but you can do considerable damage to him in the encounter. It is attitude that counts and it is almost guaranteed that the bully will no longer continue bullying you after the encounter.
The situation of North Korea bullying is more complicated. Their threat of physical violence is undefined, with respect to the recipient, but the implication is South Korea. The US is involved, because South Korea is our friend. We even fought a war against North Korea to retain the freedom of South Koreans. However, that's history. We must look at things more pragmatically in terms of the present situation. We have no actual moral obligation to defend South Korea, any more than we have a moral obligation to defend any other country in the world. Our primary responsibility is to the citizens of the United States.
North Korea is said to have a nuclear energy bomb, which we know by previous experience in our own production and use is a terrible weapon of destruction. North Korea's threats to use the atomic device is its basis of bullying. We must accept the challenge. They may actually try to use it. We hope not, but it could happen. Consider that sooner or later someone in on the world will detonate another nuclear device just as we did against Japan. We must stand up to the bullying of North Korea now.
No one What if North Korea is crazy enough to take the first step by detonating a nuclear device on the Korean Peninsula? We must retaliate, and we must say so before hand in the hope that it will deter North Korea from taking the initial action. We have shown considerable weakness in the past, which will further weaken our hand in the initial rhetoric. In short, the North Koreans may not believe this but we should do our best to convince them of our resolve. What is our resolve? If they detonate a nuclear device over a populated area, we will use better devices in wiping out the whole population of North Korea, with hopefully as little ancillary destruction as possible.
We certainly don't want a complete international nuclear war, which would essentially destroy all world population, but for that to happen, China and Russia would have to be participants. To avoid that, we must have serious talks with China and Russia beforehand to determine whether they would generally be in agreement with our intention to confront the bully or whether they in turn would contribute to the bullying by threatening use of their own atomic weaponry. That would be a case for reconsideration of the secondary bullying, because the stakes would be too high. It would be mutual destruction. A bullied kid can live with a bloodied nose to counteract a bullying situation, but if the confrontation would lead to the death of both contestants, the stakes are too high.
The world can presently live with an absence of South Korea and North Korea, if that appears necessary. It can't continue if we are all gone.
If we don't take action now, the bullying action of North Korea and acceding to their demands will eventually place them in a position of extreme atomic military power, equivalent to the US, China and Russia. Confronting the bully at that time would be impossible. We confronted the Nazi bully in World War II, but the stakes were low. Not all populations were at risk. Mutual atomic construction is another matter. It is suicide.
Face up to North Korea now or it becomes worse if not impossible.
Example of Ineffective Socialism
Here is a homegrown example of how socialism doesn't work!
Giving Thanks for the Free Market
As truly an American holiday as Thanksgiving is, it was not actually made a formal federal holiday until 1941. And it wasn’t even routinely celebrated nationally on the fourth Thursday of every November until after President Abraham Lincoln’s Thanksgiving Address in 1863. Still, the holiday does have a strong basis in our nation’s history—a history that is all too often left untold.
As described by Plymouth Colony Governor William Bradford in his diary Of Plymouth Plantation, the first Pilgrim winters in America were tough. The colonists failed to produce adequate food and shelter, and as a result, many did not survive. But eventually the colony rebounded. The Pilgrims did build sufficient homes and did plant enough crops to feed the entire colony. So great was their bounty that they celebrated with a harvest feast that eventually became the Thanksgiving holiday that we celebrate today. But what was the key to the colony’s turnaround? What drove them from poverty to prosperity? The answer may surprise you.
When the first Pilgrims founded the Plymouth Colony, all property was taken away from families and transferred to a “comone wealth.” In other words, the Pilgrims tried to do away with private property. The results were disastrous. According to Bradford, the stronger and younger men resented working for other men’s wives and children “without any recompence.” And the women forced to cook and clean for other men saw their uncompensated service as “a kind of slavery.” The system as a whole bred “confusion and discontent” and “retarded much employment that would have been to [the Pilgrims’] benefit and comfort.” Unable to produce their own food, some settlers “became servants to the Indians,” cutting wood and fetching water in exchange for “a capful of corn.” Others tragically perished.
It was not until private property rights were restored and every man was allowed to “set corn for his own particular”that prosperity came to the colony. Bradford reported,“This had very good success for it made all hands very industrious. … [M]uch more corn was planted than otherwise would have been. … Women went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn.”
A profoundly religious man, Bradford saw the hand of God in the Pilgrims’ economic recovery. After witnessing this experiment “amongst godly and sober men,” Bradford concluded that the elimination of private property was incompatible with human nature. He described those who thought they could make men “happy and flourishing” by taking away their property as “vain … as if they were wiser than God.”
Today, as families across America gather to celebrate Thanksgiving, let us give thanks to God for the many blessings he has bestowed upon us. But let us also not forget the Pilgrims’ lesson on private property that all too often is forgot in Washington, D.C.
Dave Sucsy Photography
www.iStock.com/dszc
mobile email
Giving Thanks for the Free Market
As truly an American holiday as Thanksgiving is, it was not actually made a formal federal holiday until 1941. And it wasn’t even routinely celebrated nationally on the fourth Thursday of every November until after President Abraham Lincoln’s Thanksgiving Address in 1863. Still, the holiday does have a strong basis in our nation’s history—a history that is all too often left untold.
As described by Plymouth Colony Governor William Bradford in his diary Of Plymouth Plantation, the first Pilgrim winters in America were tough. The colonists failed to produce adequate food and shelter, and as a result, many did not survive. But eventually the colony rebounded. The Pilgrims did build sufficient homes and did plant enough crops to feed the entire colony. So great was their bounty that they celebrated with a harvest feast that eventually became the Thanksgiving holiday that we celebrate today. But what was the key to the colony’s turnaround? What drove them from poverty to prosperity? The answer may surprise you.
When the first Pilgrims founded the Plymouth Colony, all property was taken away from families and transferred to a “comone wealth.” In other words, the Pilgrims tried to do away with private property. The results were disastrous. According to Bradford, the stronger and younger men resented working for other men’s wives and children “without any recompence.” And the women forced to cook and clean for other men saw their uncompensated service as “a kind of slavery.” The system as a whole bred “confusion and discontent” and “retarded much employment that would have been to [the Pilgrims’] benefit and comfort.” Unable to produce their own food, some settlers “became servants to the Indians,” cutting wood and fetching water in exchange for “a capful of corn.” Others tragically perished.
It was not until private property rights were restored and every man was allowed to “set corn for his own particular”that prosperity came to the colony. Bradford reported,“This had very good success for it made all hands very industrious. … [M]uch more corn was planted than otherwise would have been. … Women went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn.”
A profoundly religious man, Bradford saw the hand of God in the Pilgrims’ economic recovery. After witnessing this experiment “amongst godly and sober men,” Bradford concluded that the elimination of private property was incompatible with human nature. He described those who thought they could make men “happy and flourishing” by taking away their property as “vain … as if they were wiser than God.”
Today, as families across America gather to celebrate Thanksgiving, let us give thanks to God for the many blessings he has bestowed upon us. But let us also not forget the Pilgrims’ lesson on private property that all too often is forgot in Washington, D.C.
Dave Sucsy Photography
www.iStock.com/dszc
mobile email
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Congressional 9/11 Health Bill
The 911 Health Bill now being discussed in Congress is loaded with innuendo, misinformation, abusive compassion, and opportunism.
Let's start with some realism.
911 Responders to the World Trade Center disaster and other less significant disasters, have special conditions under which they work. This is contrary to normal public employment, under which OSHA has said very specific rules for private employers. However, none 11 hazards are essentially little different from those to which our military are subjected. In both cases, those people performing hazardous work are volunteers. In volunteering, they automatically accepted the risks of the job.
This is not to say that we should not give our 911 responders and our military the reasonable best of safety equipment, health benefits, and life insurance. However, it is unreasonable to expect that the public should write a blank check for every claimant who comes down the pike.
In discussing the Twin Towers Disaster, there is much talk of toxic substances. The uninitiated public is generally fearful of any reference to toxic substances, which is why promoters of the present congressional bill use the term. However, we really need to define what the toxic substances are. Are they asbestos? Carbon monoxide gas? What other? How do we know they are toxic? We have experts who study toxicity of materials and generally compare death or illness from exposure with the similar distresses of the general public. The average doctor is not an expert in diagnosing mesothelioma or asbestosis. Yet, this is necessary for determining whether a particular claimant has a justification for his claim.
It was my understanding that the reason that the Twin Towers collapsed was because the steel structure was not adequately protected from fire. Asbestos had been previously used for this in skyscraper construction, but the EPA had radically exaggerated claims of asbestos toxicity, such that deficient materials was used in the Twin Towers construction. If this is true, what is the justifications for claims relating to asbestos toxicity?
There are a lot of similar questions that need to be answered before there is a general consideration of significant money handouts to claimants. It is obvious that a person who died from being hit by a falling beam has some right to compensation, but we are not talking about that. We are talking about people who are still alive and claiming to be disabled. This is not a new area for consideration. Insurance companies have been handling disability insurance for years and have much experience with rules in determining justifiable disability payments. We should be using this expertise.
The bottom line is that 911 responders and military should have special consideration over other government employees and the public in general, with respect to health and life insurance. Private companies have supplied this benefit for years for hazardous work.
For the bill now in Congress, it should be stalled. A commission of toxicity, health, accounting, and insurance experts should be set up to define the rules of providing health and life insurance for 911 Responders, and which will separate fact from innuendo. The rules should basically establish who qualifies, the reasons for compensation and the amount of compensation, within the limits of weeding out opportunists, non-performing volunteers, and the public in general. Subsequent payments should be made retroactive, within limits, and all of this under the recognition that 911 Responders are volunteers in their jobs and have accepted the job risks.
Let's start with some realism.
911 Responders to the World Trade Center disaster and other less significant disasters, have special conditions under which they work. This is contrary to normal public employment, under which OSHA has said very specific rules for private employers. However, none 11 hazards are essentially little different from those to which our military are subjected. In both cases, those people performing hazardous work are volunteers. In volunteering, they automatically accepted the risks of the job.
This is not to say that we should not give our 911 responders and our military the reasonable best of safety equipment, health benefits, and life insurance. However, it is unreasonable to expect that the public should write a blank check for every claimant who comes down the pike.
In discussing the Twin Towers Disaster, there is much talk of toxic substances. The uninitiated public is generally fearful of any reference to toxic substances, which is why promoters of the present congressional bill use the term. However, we really need to define what the toxic substances are. Are they asbestos? Carbon monoxide gas? What other? How do we know they are toxic? We have experts who study toxicity of materials and generally compare death or illness from exposure with the similar distresses of the general public. The average doctor is not an expert in diagnosing mesothelioma or asbestosis. Yet, this is necessary for determining whether a particular claimant has a justification for his claim.
It was my understanding that the reason that the Twin Towers collapsed was because the steel structure was not adequately protected from fire. Asbestos had been previously used for this in skyscraper construction, but the EPA had radically exaggerated claims of asbestos toxicity, such that deficient materials was used in the Twin Towers construction. If this is true, what is the justifications for claims relating to asbestos toxicity?
There are a lot of similar questions that need to be answered before there is a general consideration of significant money handouts to claimants. It is obvious that a person who died from being hit by a falling beam has some right to compensation, but we are not talking about that. We are talking about people who are still alive and claiming to be disabled. This is not a new area for consideration. Insurance companies have been handling disability insurance for years and have much experience with rules in determining justifiable disability payments. We should be using this expertise.
The bottom line is that 911 responders and military should have special consideration over other government employees and the public in general, with respect to health and life insurance. Private companies have supplied this benefit for years for hazardous work.
For the bill now in Congress, it should be stalled. A commission of toxicity, health, accounting, and insurance experts should be set up to define the rules of providing health and life insurance for 911 Responders, and which will separate fact from innuendo. The rules should basically establish who qualifies, the reasons for compensation and the amount of compensation, within the limits of weeding out opportunists, non-performing volunteers, and the public in general. Subsequent payments should be made retroactive, within limits, and all of this under the recognition that 911 Responders are volunteers in their jobs and have accepted the job risks.
Friday, December 17, 2010
Why North Korea Does What It Does
EIN News says, "Deciphering Clues to North Korea's Mysteries. North Korea's Kim Jong Il may be using recent military incidents and the unveiling of a new nuclear facility to accelerate the transfer of power to his 26-year-old son and secure his own legacy by getting a peace treaty that cements North Korea's legitimacy, according to senior U.S. officials who closely follow the Hermit Kingdom. (msnbc.msn.com)".
That's a load of gobbledygook, which is typical of the imaginative thinking of the US State Department.
The more obvious likelihood is the scenario of the spoiled child, who in continually acting up, gets what he wants.
That's a load of gobbledygook, which is typical of the imaginative thinking of the US State Department.
The more obvious likelihood is the scenario of the spoiled child, who in continually acting up, gets what he wants.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Hooray for Private Enterprise Efficiency
EIN News says, "AGL Resources to Buy Nicor for $2.4 Billion. AGL Resources, a major natural gas distributor in the U.S. Southeast, said it will buy peer Nicor Inc for about $2.4 billion in cash and stock, nearly doubling its customers at a time of surging gas production in the country. (reuters.com)".
See how nicely private industry can react to opportunities, which will presumably benefit itself and customers. Organization and consolidation are the keys to efficiency. If you don't initially believe in this, look at the operation of most African countries and the Middle East, where tribal warfare prevails without any standard of living progress.
Notice that the purchase does not involve government assistance in any form. The only role the government needs to play in this is to be sure that the controlling industry does not create a monopoly which works to the disadvantage of the public. It is for this reason that we have antitrust laws. It is government's job to see that any significant monopoly is prosecuted. It should do so gone on the basis of anticipation, but rather when it sees an actual infraction of antitrust laws.
See how nicely private industry can react to opportunities, which will presumably benefit itself and customers. Organization and consolidation are the keys to efficiency. If you don't initially believe in this, look at the operation of most African countries and the Middle East, where tribal warfare prevails without any standard of living progress.
Notice that the purchase does not involve government assistance in any form. The only role the government needs to play in this is to be sure that the controlling industry does not create a monopoly which works to the disadvantage of the public. It is for this reason that we have antitrust laws. It is government's job to see that any significant monopoly is prosecuted. It should do so gone on the basis of anticipation, but rather when it sees an actual infraction of antitrust laws.
Advise Lame-Duck Democrats You Will Undo Their Recent Work in January
Open letter to Representative Neugebauer:
I have read your latest newsletter.
Tell your House Democratic Associates that they are wasting their time in the lame-duck session by passing things, with which you do not agree.
In January, when you have full control of the House, your first order of business will be to undo Communistic/Socialistic actions of the lame-duck session. You will simultaneously explain to the American public why you are doing so. For example, you will change the straight extension of unemployment benefits, to a sliding scale. You will explain that to the people as a change necessary to reduce free riders and to give added incentive to the legitimately unemployed to take available jobs, even though those jobs may not be up to the caliber of previous employment. The longer people are out of work, the less likely they are to find satisfactory employment..
I have read your latest newsletter.
Tell your House Democratic Associates that they are wasting their time in the lame-duck session by passing things, with which you do not agree.
In January, when you have full control of the House, your first order of business will be to undo Communistic/Socialistic actions of the lame-duck session. You will simultaneously explain to the American public why you are doing so. For example, you will change the straight extension of unemployment benefits, to a sliding scale. You will explain that to the people as a change necessary to reduce free riders and to give added incentive to the legitimately unemployed to take available jobs, even though those jobs may not be up to the caliber of previous employment. The longer people are out of work, the less likely they are to find satisfactory employment..
Anti-Socialists in Congress Need Better PR
Open letter to Representative Randy Neugebauer:
You anti-Communist/Socialists in Washington need better PR.
Why do you let the Communist/Socialists continue to get away with saying that they are opposed to tax cuts for the wealthy? This incites jealousy and obtains the support of many voters to the Communist/Socialist cause. They also build on this by saying that the country can't afford this additional debt of tax reduction to the rich.
As you well know, an extension of the Bush tax cuts is a maintenance of income taxes at recent levels. It is NOT a tax increase. Similarly, maintaining a non-increase to ALL Americans is an anticipated increase of tax revenues, through improvements in the economy. This has been historically shown to be accurate.
If you need a simplistic statement, say that you are extending a tax increase to those people and organizations who make jobs, which is the fundamental need of our society. Do not allow use of financial class distinction, such as people who have more than two pairs of shoes or cars newer than 2010, to cloud the vision of the general public.
You anti-Communist/Socialists in Washington need better PR.
Why do you let the Communist/Socialists continue to get away with saying that they are opposed to tax cuts for the wealthy? This incites jealousy and obtains the support of many voters to the Communist/Socialist cause. They also build on this by saying that the country can't afford this additional debt of tax reduction to the rich.
As you well know, an extension of the Bush tax cuts is a maintenance of income taxes at recent levels. It is NOT a tax increase. Similarly, maintaining a non-increase to ALL Americans is an anticipated increase of tax revenues, through improvements in the economy. This has been historically shown to be accurate.
If you need a simplistic statement, say that you are extending a tax increase to those people and organizations who make jobs, which is the fundamental need of our society. Do not allow use of financial class distinction, such as people who have more than two pairs of shoes or cars newer than 2010, to cloud the vision of the general public.
Saturday, December 4, 2010
Kill the Dream Act
We all know that a dream is a fantasy. It has little basis in fact and in most cases an impossibility of realization. I dream that I am President of the United States. I also dream that I am standing at the top of Mount Everest. Does that mean that I should be making plans to fulfill those dreams? Should I expect that the taxpayers give me a grant so that I can organize a trip to the top of Mount Everest?
Forget the Dream Act. It's a ridiculous consideration brought about by super liberalism and compassion abuse. Every dollar that would be spent on fostering the education of an illegal person (child or adult) is a dollar out of the pocket of the public who would have no say on whether to make that contribution. There is plenty of room for private donations by people who could support this. Do not engage in the consistent socialistic principle of making laws to spend other people's money, whether they agree or not.
Kill the Dream Act. Make it dead, dead, dead. Children born in the US are citizens and have a right of opportunity. Children not born in the US have no basis for opportunity in this country and should not be considered for taxpayer grants.
Let us remember that the whole basis of our growth through immigration was to accept people who could immediately contribute to the economic growth of the country. In the main, they had already received their education abroad and were able to then use it for opportunities in the US. People without skills were not previously accepted. Yes, we can change that policy. We can now accept any poor person who can bum a ride to the United States or scale a wall in the Southwest. Would this be the way we want to expand the standard of living of our citizenry? It wouldn't work. It would be a national redistribution of wealth. All citizens would become poorer as they support Dream Act noncitizens.
I have a rule of thumb for my life. I first take care of myself. After that and through the strength which I have achieved, I've been able to help others. I have seen the weak try to help the weak. It doesn't work. They both go down the tube. My way can also work on a national basis.
Forget the Dream Act. It's a ridiculous consideration brought about by super liberalism and compassion abuse. Every dollar that would be spent on fostering the education of an illegal person (child or adult) is a dollar out of the pocket of the public who would have no say on whether to make that contribution. There is plenty of room for private donations by people who could support this. Do not engage in the consistent socialistic principle of making laws to spend other people's money, whether they agree or not.
Kill the Dream Act. Make it dead, dead, dead. Children born in the US are citizens and have a right of opportunity. Children not born in the US have no basis for opportunity in this country and should not be considered for taxpayer grants.
Let us remember that the whole basis of our growth through immigration was to accept people who could immediately contribute to the economic growth of the country. In the main, they had already received their education abroad and were able to then use it for opportunities in the US. People without skills were not previously accepted. Yes, we can change that policy. We can now accept any poor person who can bum a ride to the United States or scale a wall in the Southwest. Would this be the way we want to expand the standard of living of our citizenry? It wouldn't work. It would be a national redistribution of wealth. All citizens would become poorer as they support Dream Act noncitizens.
I have a rule of thumb for my life. I first take care of myself. After that and through the strength which I have achieved, I've been able to help others. I have seen the weak try to help the weak. It doesn't work. They both go down the tube. My way can also work on a national basis.
Can We Compete with China and Russia?
C&EN's quote of the week is, "We may just press the pause button here for several years. But China is pressing the fast-forward button."
I will now add to that. "We have been eating political cheese for years, and we are now constipated."
The opportunities for private enterprise are now in China and Russia. Not in the US or Western Europe.
The reason for this is that China and Russia never established impediments to private industry. In their recent history of Communism/Socialism, private industry did not exist and therefore did not require any restrictions. Private industry now has a clear field in those countries.
Contrarily in the United States, we have continued year after year to establish private industry restrictions and have now reached the constipation stage. If private industry wants to do anything fast, they do it in China or Russia. It can't be done in the United States.
This does not necessarily mean that we are doomed to become a third world country equivalent to West Africa. It only means that we have to work twice as hard as China and Russia, because we must first undo all of the damage that was done in past years. However, before we can start on such a program, we must first recognize the problem, in government and in the people. As Pogo said, "We have met the enemy, and they are us."
Government is always in the leadership position. If it maintains its policy, as we have continued for the last two administrations and even before, it will become doomsday. First need is for government to recognize the requirement to do an about-face. It is doubtful that this will occur through the Present Administration. Our only hope is to get some kind of immediate response by a strong Congress. There's always a possibility of a new Administration in 2012, but every day that we wait is to our disadvantage.
I will now add to that. "We have been eating political cheese for years, and we are now constipated."
The opportunities for private enterprise are now in China and Russia. Not in the US or Western Europe.
The reason for this is that China and Russia never established impediments to private industry. In their recent history of Communism/Socialism, private industry did not exist and therefore did not require any restrictions. Private industry now has a clear field in those countries.
Contrarily in the United States, we have continued year after year to establish private industry restrictions and have now reached the constipation stage. If private industry wants to do anything fast, they do it in China or Russia. It can't be done in the United States.
This does not necessarily mean that we are doomed to become a third world country equivalent to West Africa. It only means that we have to work twice as hard as China and Russia, because we must first undo all of the damage that was done in past years. However, before we can start on such a program, we must first recognize the problem, in government and in the people. As Pogo said, "We have met the enemy, and they are us."
Government is always in the leadership position. If it maintains its policy, as we have continued for the last two administrations and even before, it will become doomsday. First need is for government to recognize the requirement to do an about-face. It is doubtful that this will occur through the Present Administration. Our only hope is to get some kind of immediate response by a strong Congress. There's always a possibility of a new Administration in 2012, but every day that we wait is to our disadvantage.
Friday, December 3, 2010
Competitive Russia
EIN News says, "Below Surface, U.S. Has Dim View of Putin and Russia. Early in 2009, as recession rippled around the world, the United States Embassy in Moscow sent to Washington a cable summarizing whispers within Russia's political class. Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin, the rumors said, often did not show up at his office. (nytimes.com).
Naturally, the US government would have a dim view of Putin and Russia. They are world competitors. Russian power is variable from time to time, which makes them variable weak and strong competitors. Early in Reagan's Administration, Russia was in a seemingly powerful position as controller of the Soviet Union. Reagan put the kibosh on that by being able to outspend them on defense issues. That led to the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Competitive Russia The situation is now radically different, Russia has been able to reorganize since the Soviet Union collapse, and the US is fallen into poverty. The US Administration will not admit its deficiency, and the strong arm of jealousy now prevails.
It is ridiculous to even talk about Putin often not showing up at his office. I say that if he always showed up at his office, he would not doing his job. An office is a base of operations. It's not a place to continually rest your butt.
In its reorganization, Russia has come to realize the advantages of capitalism and is moving in that direction. The recent partnership with Shell Oil in developing Siberian fossil fuels and also allowing the Russians to operate in areas outside of their own territory is likely a thorn in the Obama Administration's side. The US has basically become more socialistic/communistic than Russia. There is still an opportunity for the U. S. Congress and the public to turn this around. The world is a competitive place. Let's not spend time criticizing our competitors. Rather we should become more capable competitors ourselves.
Naturally, the US government would have a dim view of Putin and Russia. They are world competitors. Russian power is variable from time to time, which makes them variable weak and strong competitors. Early in Reagan's Administration, Russia was in a seemingly powerful position as controller of the Soviet Union. Reagan put the kibosh on that by being able to outspend them on defense issues. That led to the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Competitive Russia The situation is now radically different, Russia has been able to reorganize since the Soviet Union collapse, and the US is fallen into poverty. The US Administration will not admit its deficiency, and the strong arm of jealousy now prevails.
It is ridiculous to even talk about Putin often not showing up at his office. I say that if he always showed up at his office, he would not doing his job. An office is a base of operations. It's not a place to continually rest your butt.
In its reorganization, Russia has come to realize the advantages of capitalism and is moving in that direction. The recent partnership with Shell Oil in developing Siberian fossil fuels and also allowing the Russians to operate in areas outside of their own territory is likely a thorn in the Obama Administration's side. The US has basically become more socialistic/communistic than Russia. There is still an opportunity for the U. S. Congress and the public to turn this around. The world is a competitive place. Let's not spend time criticizing our competitors. Rather we should become more capable competitors ourselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
