Syria

Open email to Congress:
    The warmongers are again beating the war drums. Sen. McCain is back with his usual war rhetoric. The Pentagon generals want to supply Syrian rebels with weapons.
    It's all ridiculous!
    We fought a war in Korea which we did not win and has brought us to the present situation of threats of nuclear war.
    We fought a war in Vietnam to stop communism. It was lost with the lives of many American men, who were forced into military service. We now have a significant part of our own population who are communists.
    We fought a war in Iraq, which we ostensibly won at great monetary expense, and the vast country is in greater turmoil than when we started.
    We are fighting a 10-year-old war in Afghanistan for no reasonable purpose. If the Afghanistan people want the Taliban, do we have some reasonable justification to say they can't have it.
    Our record of fighting most recent wars is horrible. We spent billions of dollars and sacrificed thousands of American lives for no benefit. Are we stupid enough to continue that program?
    The Syrian government has every right to protect its continuance of power. The rebels have every right to try to wrest that power from the present government. We have no right to interfere, nor any reason to do so.
    President Obama has the ability to promulgate our involvement in the Syrian revolution without a formal declaration. It is up to Congress to see that it doesn't happen.

Immigration Reform

Open email to Congress:

    I respectfully suggest that you listen to Jim DeMint of the Heritage Foundation concerning the cost of the proposed immigration reform legislation and then vote against the proposal.
    There is little doubt that we need immigration reform, mostly in the control of our borders. We also previously developed economically as a country with the help of immigration. However, the previous conditions of immigration were significantly different than they are now and did not include consideration for several million illegals.
    Congress needs to go back to the drawing board to develop a practical immigration program. We simply cannot afford to borrow 40 cents on every dollar of the projected several trillion dollar expense in the current proposal.
    May I be so boring is to remind you that it should be the intention of Congress to cut spending and the size of government, not find new ways to spend money.

The Morning After Pill for 13 Year Old Girls

    There has been considerable discussion in the TV news concerning making the morning after pregnancy pill available to children of 13 years or so by over-the-counter means.
    It may come as a surprise to some that I, as a conservative, support this viewpoint.
    I do so reluctantly but from a pragmatic consideration.
    A few generations ago, parents made themselves responsible for the outside sexual activities of their children, particularly daughters. There were two primary reasons for this; economic and moral  The economic reason is obvious. Birth and subsequent care of a child costs money, and the economic burden of a grandchild from an unwed daughter was a considerable strain to a family already on the edge of poverty. One solution was for the unwed daughter's father to coerce his pregnant daughter's male partner to assume the responsibility of marrying his daughter and supporting both the daughter and maybe as a traditional family. So-called shot gun weddings were common.

    At that time, most people were also religious and tended to follow the precepts of the bible, which advocated sexual morality, marriage, and family development.

    With subsequent generational increase in the power of government and an increase in relieving the populace from individual responsibility, the father's responsibility for the welfare of the family has now been usurped. This has been an easy transition. A father's previous role as breadwinner and controller of his family's activities was difficult. Anyone who has raised a teenager will attest to that. Therefore, the indirect offer that fathers give up their leadership responsibilities in this aspect of family life was met with ready acceptance.

    However, the nature of government is such that government administrators cannot control the detailed lives of teenagers, particularly sexual activities. Fathers and mothers had difficulty doing it. For government, it is impossible.

    The net result of reduced sexual control of teenager's activities thus leads to a significant increase in  pregnancies. The ramifications are that since the daughter's family had no control over the situation, it feels it has no responsibility for financial support. This is also consistent with the government's desire to eliminate personal responsibility from the populace, as it takes over this power. 

    In many cases, this leads to more abortions, as the personal responsibility of a birth is forced back to the daughter and the family. An alternative is to proceed with the birth, and since government can now control the results of such birth, it pays for  the birth and subsequent support of the child. But government has no money of its own. It must take the money from the general population. Because taking money from the government is easy, the daughter then moves to separate quarters and attempts to raise the child in an atmosphere without male authority or responsibility. In fact, the child is taught irresponsibility, as a number of irresponsible sexual boyfriends of the daughter move through the child's life.

    I consider the above process an intentional government program to increase its power through destruction of families and responsibilities of individuals. While I am strongly opposed to the program, and have been through my few generations of life, I have concluded that there is nothing I can do about it. However, I can take pragmatic approach.

    I want young sexually girls to have easy access to birth control pills, in the hope that this will reduce young girl pregnancies, reduce the number of abortions and reduce the number of children doomed to irresponsibility, which I as a taxpayer would have to support. I regret having to take this position, but it has been forced upon me by government. 

Federal Waste on R&D

    I have touched on this subject previously, but it deserves another attack.
    President Obama recently submitted his 10-week late budget for 2014. Previous reports are that the total budget will go nowhere, but Congress has already demonstrated a propensity for accepting certain portions. For some unknown reason, Congress appears to favor significant funding of various government agencies for Research and Development.
    President Obama included in his 2014 budget a 1.3% increase in R&D expenditures for 2014. The total R&D budget for the agencies would be $143 billion. The question is simple. Do you want to spend $1000 per year for yourself and another $1000 per year for every one of your family members on something which you don't understand? I am not being critical of your understanding ability. I'm only pointing out that the expenditure would be for something, which is not clearly defined. It does not fit the category of clarity, such as lunch for students or the purchase of 14 new fighter planes. By its nature, R&D is nebulous. It is either a search for something now unknown or an investigation of details on known things or events, further information of which is likely to be of no value to the general public.
    Of the proposed $143 billion expenditure, half is proposed for Research and Development In the Department of Defense. For such expenditure, I have little objection, because there are foreign entities with strong desires to do us physical damage.  Cite the bellicose rhetoric from North Korea and Iran.. As those countries increase their technological capability, we need to stay one step ahead of them on matters of defense. In addition, I can think of one specific area requiring Research and Development. That is an appropriate defense against roadside bombs. We have recently heard of another five soldiers, who have been killed by a roadside bomb in Afghanistan. This has been going on for many years and has actually led to the continuing solicitation for public funding of wounded veterans. I think it's a shame that we have not resolved this problem earlier, but better late than never.
    For the other government agencies, including the National Science Foundation, NASA, the Department of Energy, Department of Health and Human Services, and the Department of Commerce, I see no basic reason why these agencies should be doing any R&D. Private companies and organizations are much more adept at specifying specific objectives for improving their operations and controlling the programs toward those objectives. In other words they look for success in a new product or process. Conversely, the government objective is only to spend money.
    I call on Congress to get off the notion that R&D by federal agencies is an important endeavor requiring the use of taxpayer funds. It is ridiculous in these times of budgetary imbalance and tremendous national debt to consider any increase in R&D agency funding, when the basic funding should be cut to the bone.

Terrorism in Perspective

     In a recent presentation, Pres. Obama was discussing terrorism and the Jihad. He said there are different meanings for Jihad. However, an Internet search for the meaning of Jihad brings up only one basic meaning. The word broadly means struggle. From there, Muslims go into various definitions involving application or action. One notable interpreter says that Islamic militants regard Jihad as an unlimited offensive to bring the whole world under Islamic law.
    While the above may be considered a basis for Islamic terrorism, a terrorist invariably requires a few other characteristics. He must have in mind a specific enemy. He must be incensed that that enemy has done and continues to do significant damage to the people of his religious faith, and he must be young enough with enough energy to take aggressive action.
With the above limitations, the number of actual terrorists in the massive worldwide number of Muslims is extremely small.
In addition, terrorists generally lack the ability to coordinate into a significant army, although they can and do form small groups. In effect, most terrorists are rogues, with individual grievances motivating them to do preposterous acts of violence, but their actual power to do real damage can be very variable.
If a terrorist's motivation is to do damage to a society to the extent that enough fear is generated for that society to capitulate to the objectives of Jihad, it is apparent that this would never succeed. The acts of violence are usually too small to significantly affect the mindset of the society. The most significant terrorist act to date was the destruction of the NY Twin Towers on 9/11.  Most people also realize that a nuclear bomb set off by a terrorist is at least possible. In spite of this, the US population has not self destructed to conform to the wishes of Islam. I also predict that it would not, even if a nuclear device were detonated Terrorism is not an effective means to achieve a position of dominance. Examples are the ineffectiveness of Indian raids in attempting to deter the advance of the white man in settling the West and the continuing Arab terrorist activities against the Israelis. The only objective that terrorism achieves is to increase the wariness of the target population. Even if fear is generated in some members of the target population, it is not enough to significantly change the objectives or the life style of the whole.
In essence, terrorists are then mostly a societal nuisance with a slight potential to do catastrophic damage, in the same manner as natural events. Rain on a picnic is a nuisance. Tornados are local devastations. Drought and floods are regional disasters, and the world could be hit by a large asteroid or the Sun dim in its power. However, we do not live in fear, We take as many precautions to protect ourselves as we reasonably can, and we persevere through life. We will also do so with terrorists.
The US is now spending billions of dollars for terrorism control and essentially nothing on weather control. Presumably the difference is justified, because one is man-made destruction and the other is not. However, that seems to an unjustified emotional and arbitrary distinction.
In the writer's opinion, we need to continue terrorism control and do it as efficiently as possible, within limits of a budgeted amount, In the South we have cockroaches, which we cannot eliminate. We control them. In site of the ineffectiveness of terrorism, people will continue to use it. The Western settlers had homesteads and even forts wiped out by Indian raids. No matter how much money we throw at the present problem, we will continue to have terrorist activity, and we should start to accept it, as did the developers of the West and the present day Israelis.

Fracking for Gas and Oil

Open email to Representative Neugebauer (Texas):

Randy,
    I read your newsletter.    Good job on explaining fracking to the House Science Subcommittees on Energy & Environment.
    I have one objection. You mentioned government research. We don't need it. Research is not the function of government. It is an industrial function, which is part of the cost of doing business.
    If government has any questions concerning contamination of aquifers or other possible disadvantages to the public, it should require industry to answer those questions. Any investigative work involved should be at the cost of industry and not the taxpayers.

Perspective on Chemical Weapons

    We hear a lot on the TV news these days concerning chemical weapon use in Syria. Reports are confusing. No chemical weapons are being used. Yes, chemical weapons are being used by the Assad regime. No, they are actually being used by the rebels, who are claiming the Assad regime is using them.
    Does it really make a difference? Pres. Obama drew a line in the sand saying that use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime would constitute justification for retribution by the US. A big mistake! The Obama administration is now trying to find out where chemical weapons are being used, and if so, who is using them.
    Normally, I will give credit to Obama for his reluctance on war. He is trying to get us out of Afghanistan, and hopefully will not put us into the Syrian conflict.
    With large conventional explosive bombs, one can kill hundreds or thousands of people. With chemical weapons, the same thing can be a accomplished. Does it make a difference whether those people will have died from conventional explosives or chemical weapons? If one says we should also consider ancillary nonlethal casualties, there will be no greater pain and hardship from chemical use than from bombs and bullets.
    A segment of the Syrian population has chosen to oust their president by physical means. It is their country and they have the right to do this, if they wish. Simultaneously, Pres. Assad has every right to try to retain power by conventional means of using military force to repel rebel attacks. In total, it is no business of the US, whether one side or the other wins. It is not significant to the American public, and because it is not significant, the US government should not be involved.
    If one could make the case that there is a real potential danger to the US, if one side or the other wins, that would change the situation. Similarly, if any of our allies would be threatened, that would also change the situation. However, we see no specific threat to our ally Israel on the outcome of the Syrian conflict, and again see no justification for involvement.
    Unfortunately, we have nation builders in our midst and they are vociferous. They want to turn the world into a democracy, or mostly their brand of socialism/communism. They must be contained in the same way we would contain potential terrorists. In fact, the nation builders could do more harm to our country than any single terrorist incident.
    We also have "hawks", who will start a war at the slightest provocation. Sen. McCain is in that group. He spent many years in a prison camp, which emotionally crippled him to an unreasonable judgment state on the matter of war. In addition, he actually knows nothing about war, other than his experiences in the prison camp. His promotions of war for Syria or anywhere else should be completely disregarded.
    In antiquity, wars had some justification, because the winners had access to spoils, which were an economic advantage. However, in the modern concept of war, the winners bear the cost of the war itself and the rehabilitation of the vanquished. Can we afford that? We seem to be unable to even afford a semi-peacetime economy rampant with waste. Do we want to add the waste of another war to that?