Monday, July 5, 2010
Sunday, July 4, 2010
Our Runaway Military
Good article by David Hoppe at Nuvo. He accurately notes that the military has become a parallel government.
David closes by quickly pondering what Americans most want the role of President to be, chief executive of the government or commander-in-chief of the military. David has bumped into a tremendously important question that deserves its own exposition.
For so many of the phony Conservatives, it seems the primary role of the President is to be in charge of the military, a task denied any peacetime President. For our extensive legions, whether serving or retired, glory comes through combat, and without combat, their particular form of government employment loses its bragging rights.
If David listens closely to what today's Conservative says in private, he'll get an answer to his question, an answer that will terrify all those who believe in civilian control of the military and use of the military only for those rare moments when America is attacked.
David closes by quickly pondering what Americans most want the role of President to be, chief executive of the government or commander-in-chief of the military. David has bumped into a tremendously important question that deserves its own exposition.
For so many of the phony Conservatives, it seems the primary role of the President is to be in charge of the military, a task denied any peacetime President. For our extensive legions, whether serving or retired, glory comes through combat, and without combat, their particular form of government employment loses its bragging rights.
If David listens closely to what today's Conservative says in private, he'll get an answer to his question, an answer that will terrify all those who believe in civilian control of the military and use of the military only for those rare moments when America is attacked.
Saturday, July 3, 2010
The War Party Spreads More Evil
Liz Cheney, the current nepotistic darling of the big-government Republicans, has been sent on a mission to spread disinformation about Michael Steele's honest and accurate conclusion that the war in Afghanistan is unwinnable.
Cheney is calling for Steele's resignation because Steele dared to speak the truth to the world about the raison d'etre of the War Party. The great Ron Paul has come to Steele's defense, and Paul should be joined by all people who appreciate the truly destructive nature of war. Steele should also be assured that the Republicans are not a monolithic bloc of hateful troglodytes who cheer the latest episode of war to quench their bloodlust.
Of course, Steele is correct in his analysis. When was the last time you received a clear definition of "winning" from the politicians? When they come anywhere near such a definition, do their objectives strike you as attainable? Of course, not. As a basic political fact, Afghanis want no governmental export from the United States. Our governance is foreign to them and will ultimately be rejected by them. As our attempts to force our government on them are foolish and will never take, America has a convenient reason to stay in Afghanistan, forever, as we press our futile attempt to get them to accept the political system we'd wish they'd have.
America is now engaged in perpetual war for perpetual peace, as Vidal cautioned. We should all be more demanding of her politicians. We deserve answers to some basic questions: When can we stop the loss of American and Afghani life, and when can we stop the pointless expenditure of billions of dollars we squander to prosecute this exercise in futlity? In a more prickly question, do Americans value the loss of an Afghan life as equal to the loss of an American life?
This adoration of a standing military and perpetual war makes the Republican Party absolutely intolerable to those who advocate limited government and fiscal austerity and want to have America be thought of favorably in the world. At the close of WWII, America couldn't have been more revered in the world. Currently, however, we're a thug country, a dangerous bully, a country with a short temper that engages in wars for resources.
The Republican Party used to be a strongly anti-war party who counseled war only when the country was under attack. These pro-war advocates are not, in any way, "conservative." They're social meddlers on a global scale who preach limited government only toward domestic spending programs such as public transportation and welfare which are quite cheap, as government programs go, certainly as compared to war.
It's O.K. to be Republican and anti-war. If more Republicans demanded the end of the war and an end to our stationing of troops around the world, we'd make some progress toward reducing the deficit and debt. Further, the party that advertises itself as the champion of "limited government" might reclaim a bit of credibility on the subject.
Cheney is calling for Steele's resignation because Steele dared to speak the truth to the world about the raison d'etre of the War Party. The great Ron Paul has come to Steele's defense, and Paul should be joined by all people who appreciate the truly destructive nature of war. Steele should also be assured that the Republicans are not a monolithic bloc of hateful troglodytes who cheer the latest episode of war to quench their bloodlust.
Of course, Steele is correct in his analysis. When was the last time you received a clear definition of "winning" from the politicians? When they come anywhere near such a definition, do their objectives strike you as attainable? Of course, not. As a basic political fact, Afghanis want no governmental export from the United States. Our governance is foreign to them and will ultimately be rejected by them. As our attempts to force our government on them are foolish and will never take, America has a convenient reason to stay in Afghanistan, forever, as we press our futile attempt to get them to accept the political system we'd wish they'd have.
America is now engaged in perpetual war for perpetual peace, as Vidal cautioned. We should all be more demanding of her politicians. We deserve answers to some basic questions: When can we stop the loss of American and Afghani life, and when can we stop the pointless expenditure of billions of dollars we squander to prosecute this exercise in futlity? In a more prickly question, do Americans value the loss of an Afghan life as equal to the loss of an American life?
This adoration of a standing military and perpetual war makes the Republican Party absolutely intolerable to those who advocate limited government and fiscal austerity and want to have America be thought of favorably in the world. At the close of WWII, America couldn't have been more revered in the world. Currently, however, we're a thug country, a dangerous bully, a country with a short temper that engages in wars for resources.
The Republican Party used to be a strongly anti-war party who counseled war only when the country was under attack. These pro-war advocates are not, in any way, "conservative." They're social meddlers on a global scale who preach limited government only toward domestic spending programs such as public transportation and welfare which are quite cheap, as government programs go, certainly as compared to war.
It's O.K. to be Republican and anti-war. If more Republicans demanded the end of the war and an end to our stationing of troops around the world, we'd make some progress toward reducing the deficit and debt. Further, the party that advertises itself as the champion of "limited government" might reclaim a bit of credibility on the subject.
Friday, July 2, 2010
Daniels Increases Costs By Turning Public Property into a For-Profit Business
This is what happens when you sell off public property to people who want to run it for profit, instead of at cost. Tolls have now risen 89% on the Indiana Toll Road, now owned by Cintra of Spain.
From the Indianapolis Star:
"MERRILLVILLE, Ind. -- Drivers using the Indiana Toll Road started shelling out more cash for fares Thursday as rates went up for the first time in two years.
Tolls have increased by 89% in the four years since Mitch sold off the Toll Road. Drivers will never have a passable alternative to the Toll Road, allowing drivers to participate in a free market for roads, since the contract signed with Cintra forbids alternative routes from being built or improved.
If Daniels would have allowed the Toll Road to impose rate increases, instead of phonily saying that rates could not be increased, then these rate increases would have been imposed by the State to cover the actual costs of the road. The Public would have been furious to see a profit being made from its travels. Mitch found a way around public accountability. Presently, Cintra is raising toll rates to to recoup its investment of $3.85 billion that it paid to the State, and they are raising rates earn their profit, both at the expense of drivers' pockets. All Mitch did with the sale of the Toll Road was to impose a massive tax on drivers and shift citizen dollars to the government and private industry, all while tiptoeing around the public ire for being known as the guy who raised taxes. Not surprisingly, most Republicans love this proto-Fascism.
How does it benefit a citizen to have the public treasury receive $3.85 B for a public asset, only to be forced to repay that $3.85 billion to a private company, while being forced to pay higher use charges for the public asset? This deal is a massive net loss for each citizen.
This bad deal is crony capitalism and corporatism, at its worst.
From the Indianapolis Star:
"MERRILLVILLE, Ind. -- Drivers using the Indiana Toll Road started shelling out more cash for fares Thursday as rates went up for the first time in two years.
The cost for cars to drive the 157-mile road from Illinois to Ohio went from $8 to $8.80.
It's the second rate increase since the state leased the Toll Road to a private company. In 2008, the price to go the full length of the road went from $4.65 to $8 for drivers paying cash."
Don't look for Cintra to lay off the toll increases:
Tolls have increased by 89% in the four years since Mitch sold off the Toll Road. Drivers will never have a passable alternative to the Toll Road, allowing drivers to participate in a free market for roads, since the contract signed with Cintra forbids alternative routes from being built or improved.
If Daniels would have allowed the Toll Road to impose rate increases, instead of phonily saying that rates could not be increased, then these rate increases would have been imposed by the State to cover the actual costs of the road. The Public would have been furious to see a profit being made from its travels. Mitch found a way around public accountability. Presently, Cintra is raising toll rates to to recoup its investment of $3.85 billion that it paid to the State, and they are raising rates earn their profit, both at the expense of drivers' pockets. All Mitch did with the sale of the Toll Road was to impose a massive tax on drivers and shift citizen dollars to the government and private industry, all while tiptoeing around the public ire for being known as the guy who raised taxes. Not surprisingly, most Republicans love this proto-Fascism.
How does it benefit a citizen to have the public treasury receive $3.85 B for a public asset, only to be forced to repay that $3.85 billion to a private company, while being forced to pay higher use charges for the public asset? This deal is a massive net loss for each citizen.
This bad deal is crony capitalism and corporatism, at its worst.
Monday, June 28, 2010
Chicago Gun Ban Defeated
The opinion is available here:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf
While the ruling is good news, as usual with Supreme Court opinions, it's a tour de force of sophistry. Why does it take 214 pages to say that all Americans are protected by the Bill of Rights? Why are the rights of all Americans subject to the opinions of five people? When did I ever consent to a system of governance that subjects my liberty to a vote of five people? Why does the Supreme Court feel itself entitled to ramble in its rulings, its babblings creating law and authority, along the way, free to be cited by other sophist lawyers and judges who, though having at least seven years of college, find the plain meaning of documents opaque? Why cannot the Supreme Court tersely answer the question before it, and shut up?
What has happened to the rule of judicial restraint that judges claim to obey? How did we ever let this country become a place where judges can boundlessly opine, and their ruminations are given the force of law?
This ruling ought be read for its essence, only, and the remainder, the surplusage, dismissed as irrelevant obiter dictum.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf
While the ruling is good news, as usual with Supreme Court opinions, it's a tour de force of sophistry. Why does it take 214 pages to say that all Americans are protected by the Bill of Rights? Why are the rights of all Americans subject to the opinions of five people? When did I ever consent to a system of governance that subjects my liberty to a vote of five people? Why does the Supreme Court feel itself entitled to ramble in its rulings, its babblings creating law and authority, along the way, free to be cited by other sophist lawyers and judges who, though having at least seven years of college, find the plain meaning of documents opaque? Why cannot the Supreme Court tersely answer the question before it, and shut up?
What has happened to the rule of judicial restraint that judges claim to obey? How did we ever let this country become a place where judges can boundlessly opine, and their ruminations are given the force of law?
This ruling ought be read for its essence, only, and the remainder, the surplusage, dismissed as irrelevant obiter dictum.
Great Article on the Perils of Endless War
Simply, the wars are bad. We need to come home, now. We cannot sustain this level of spending, and we are destroying the purpose of the military by engaging in permanent wars and occupations. We still have troops in Germans and Korea, making WWII and the Korean War now 60 and 50 years old, respectively. We flatly cannot afford permanent occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The national debt is at 14 trillion dollars, and rising. The only way out of this may be to repudiate the debt, and doing that will set off a deep depression in this country.
From the Washington Post.
The national debt is at 14 trillion dollars, and rising. The only way out of this may be to repudiate the debt, and doing that will set off a deep depression in this country.
From the Washington Post.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
The Republicans Are Becoming Nuttier and Nuttier
It's becoming increasingly difficult to see this party as anything but the party of hate, the party of angry old White men.
Check out this latest bit of nuttery from Texas. The Texas Republicans actually want to recriminalize sodomy, you know, getting a blow job from your girlfriend, and they want to make gay marriage a felony.
Seriously.
This the the Texas GOP's new platform:
"We believe that the practice of homosexuality tears at the fabric of society, contributes to the breakdown of the family unit, and leads to the spread of dangerous, communicable diseases. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country’s founders, and shared by the majority of Texans. Homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable “alternative” lifestyle in our public education and policy, nor should “family” be redefined to include homosexual “couples.” We are opposed to any granting of special legal entitlements, refuse to recognize, or grant special privileges including, but not limited to: marriage between persons of the same sex (regardless of state of origin), custody of children by homosexuals, homosexual partner insurance or retirement benefits. We oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values."
The article continues. Read on. There's more good batshit crazy Republican nuttery in there.
Check out this latest bit of nuttery from Texas. The Texas Republicans actually want to recriminalize sodomy, you know, getting a blow job from your girlfriend, and they want to make gay marriage a felony.
Seriously.
This the the Texas GOP's new platform:
"We believe that the practice of homosexuality tears at the fabric of society, contributes to the breakdown of the family unit, and leads to the spread of dangerous, communicable diseases. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country’s founders, and shared by the majority of Texans. Homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable “alternative” lifestyle in our public education and policy, nor should “family” be redefined to include homosexual “couples.” We are opposed to any granting of special legal entitlements, refuse to recognize, or grant special privileges including, but not limited to: marriage between persons of the same sex (regardless of state of origin), custody of children by homosexuals, homosexual partner insurance or retirement benefits. We oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values."
The article continues. Read on. There's more good batshit crazy Republican nuttery in there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)