There are so many issues I could address that I find myself in something close to paralysis in deciding which one to address.
One, however, has been bothering me for a long time and that is the slogan and the bumper stickers proclaiming, “SUPPORT OUR TROOPS.”
I have often wondered what that means. I know that is used as a euphemism for support of the war and it has been used not only in this war but in past wars as well. But is supporting a war, supporting our troops? How does getting our men and women killed and maimed supporting them?
I don’t for one moment want to suggest that supporting a war is not often a necessary endeavor. Few would question the necessity of our being in the Second World War against Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Imperial Japan. Support for that war was a matter of national survival. But even then I cannot see how support for the war was “SUPPORTING OUR TROOPS.” Being of an advanced age I remember how we supported our troops. It wasn’t with slogans like “SUPPORT OUR TROOPS” or even by wearing flag pins in our lapels. We didn’t tell them, ““you fight with the Army you have, not the one you want” as Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, told our troops. When we went to war we supported our troops by converting our auto industry to making tanks. Nothing was spared into turning our industry into making the armaments our soldiers needed. We didn’t send them into battle under equipped and undermanned as we have in Iraq.
I remember I was a youth in middle school at the time. Both boys and girls learned to knit so as to make woolen squares that could be sown together to make blankets for our soldiers. Nothing was too good for them. That was supporting our troops!
And we even made sure that our allies had all the armaments they needed. We became the “Arsenal of Democracy.” Now our troops are ill equipped and we keep hearing that the Iraqi troops that are supposed to pick up the baton, so our troops can leave, are under trained and ill equipped. Why aren’t we equipping them? Billions are spent and they disappear in corruption and war profiteering and our troops and their allies are ill equipped.
“SUPPORT OUR TROOPS” at the least is equipping them and taking care of their needs, but this administration and their lackeys in this Congress don’t give a damn about supporting our troops. To them our troops simply serve their political agenda. When we have a bunch of cowards at the highest levels of government who lie and cheat what can you expect?
Where was our Vice-President during the Vietnam War when others were dying for their country? He, as he himself stated, “ He had other priorities.” Oh what patriotism!
And our President got himself into the National Guard where he knew he would not have to fight because in that war we used regular Army troops and didn’t decimate our Guard and Reserves and break our Army in the process. And even then he went AWOL because he had more important things to do.
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS by sending them into an endless war with no clear objectives and no end in sight?
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS by overextending their deployment and by sending them back again and again far beyond their original enlistment.
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS by denying them the armor they need?
And now we discover that when they come home they are housed in slum housing outside our Walter Reed Army Medical Center in a dingy former hotel on Georgia Avenue where the wounded were housed among mice, mold, rot and cockroaches. Where was the Republican Congress oversight over the past three years that this couldn’t be discovered? But did anybody really care? I guess they had other priorities.
It took investigative reporting, of which we have had far too little to expose this outrage. Thank God for the Washington Post. Was it a surprise? Top officials at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, including the Army's surgeon general, have heard complaints about outpatient neglect from family members, veterans groups, and members of Congress for more than three years. What did they do? Nothing! Men and women who served their country in Iraq and came home maimed, with shrapnel in their heads and in their brains, without legs or arms or other horrendous injuries. What do they get? Neglect!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS!
It is time that we supported them by bringing them home so they can put their lives back together and try to resume normal lives.
But in the meantime give them the medical care they need; give them the armor they need. Equip the Iraqi troops with the weapons they need. It is time that the people entrusted with the safety of our troops stopped having other priorities.
It is time for them to support our troops by truly caring about them. This government obviously does not and never has.
The truly sad thing is that it will be almost another two years before we can send them packing along with their cohorts in the Congress.
Thursday, March 01, 2007
Monday, February 19, 2007
Hate (A Rebuttal)
On February 15 I circulated what I considered to be a hate screed and denounced haters. I said among other things “They always want to get the group that the criminals came from which in this case would be Muslims. I also promised that “next time I will reproduce this screed again in full and rebut it with specific comments on each of its points.” In doing so I particularly want address the comments made by Dr. Joel Etra of Norwich, Conn. who said, “I did not see statements about Muslims in general rather about the deadly excesses of the criminal element.” So here goes! I will reproduce the screed with my comments on it in bold letters so they can easily be distinguished.
"Are we fighting a war on terror or aren't we? Was it or was it not started by Islamic people - it was done by people of the islamic faith-this phraseology is clearly intended to tar the whole religion with the acts of the perpetrators - who brought it to our shores on September 11, 2001?
“Were people from all over the world, mostly Americans, not brutally murdered that day, in downtown Manhattan, across the Potomac from our nation's capitol and in a field in Pennsylvania? Yes, they were mostly Americans but there were a great many from other nationalities and religions among them including approximately 100 Muslims.
“Did nearly three thousand men, women and children die a horrible, burning or crushing death that day, or didn't they? - Indeed they did.
“And I'm supposed to care that a copy of the Koran was "desecrated" when an overworked American soldier kicked it or got it wet? - The desecration of a religious object is always an insult to all the members of that religion. I think that Christians would be very insulted if a Christian bible were spit on, stamped on or otherwise treated with disrespect. The Nazis when they started their persecution of the Jews first and foremost desecrated the Jewish holy book, the Torah, because they knew how painful it would be to members of that faith.
“Well, I don't. I don't care at all.
“I'll start caring when Osama bin Laden turns himself in and repents for incinerating all those innocent people on 9/11. - Here again the linkage is that since Osama Bin Laden is evil that until he repents we are justified in treating his religion with contempt.
“I'll care about the Koran when the fanatics in the Middle East start caring about the Holy Bible, the mere possession of which is a crime in Saudi Arabia - Saudi Arabia is an intolerant society – do we really want to copy them; and even if we wanted to retaliate against the Saudis do we really want to also insult the religion of 52 countries having a population of which a majority is Muslim. India, which has a majority of Hindus, has a minority of Muslims totaling174 million. Some of our most important allies, e.g. Pakistan are Muslim states and our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are shedding their blood to try to make those Muslim countries into viable states. Muslims have been victims of Al Qaeda attacks, notably Pakistan, Indonesia, Jordan and many others. Turkey a Muslim country is a member of NATO. There are between 700,000 and 1.2 billion Muslims in the world. Between 1 and 6 million Muslims reside in the U.S. most live quiet law abiding lives and no American Muslim has been identified as being part of Al Qaeda but insults hurled at their religion helps to radicalize and helps recruitment everywhere.
“I'll care when Abu Muse al-Sarawak tells the world he is sorry for hacking off Nick Berg's head while Berg screamed through his gurgling slashed throat.
“I'll care when the cowardly so-called "insurgents" in Iraq come out and fight like men instead of disrespecting their own religion by hiding in mosques.
“I'll care when the mindless zealots who blow themselves up in search of nirvana care about the innocent children within range of their suicide bombs.
“I'll care when the American media stops pretending that their First Amendment liberties are somehow derived from international law instead of the United States Constitution's Bill of Rights. - What this has to do with insulting and desecrating a religious text is beyond me. But it is not the media that pays attention to International law. It is our government and the US Supreme Court. International law is binding on us all, often by treaty approved by the US Senate. But First Amendment liberties have never been and are not derived from international law. It should be noted, however, that in the declaration of independence there is a reference to “a decent respect to the opinions of mankind."
“In the meantime, when I hear a story about a brave marine roughing up an Iraqi terrorist to obtain information, know this: I don't care.
“When I see a fuzzy photo of a pile of naked Iraqi prisoners who have been humiliated in what amounts to a college-hazing incident, rest assured that I don't care. - It was hardly a college hazing incident. It was intended to humiliate and degrade.
“When I see a wounded terrorist get shot in the head when he is told not to move because he might be booby-trapped, you can take it to the bank that I don't care.
“When I hear that a prisoner, who was issued a Koran and a prayer mat, and fed "special" food that is paid for by my tax dollars, is complaining that his holy book is being "mishandled," you can absolutely believe in your heart of hearts that I don't care. - First the issue is not the prisoners complaint, but the insult to all members of that faith. Second none of these prisoners have ever been convicted of any crimes. In fact, they have never even been accused of any.
“And oh, by the way, I've noticed that sometimes it's spelled "Koran" and other times "Quran." Well, Jimmy Crack Corn and ---- you guessed it - - I don't care ! ! ! ! ! - Another way to insult the Muslim faith.
“If you agree with this viewpoint, pass this on to all your a-mail friends. Sooner or later, it'll get to the people responsible for this ridiculous behavior!
“If you don't agree, then by all means hit the delete button.
“Should you choose the latter, then please don't complain when more atrocities committed by radical Muslims happen here in our great country. - Whoa, if I don’t agree then I am responsible for any possible future acts of terror! This is hate directed not only against Muslims but against all those who don’t agree with her vision of a world, where we disrespect the faith of huge numbers of people; the second largest faith in the world.
First rule for a sane world! Do not disrespect other religions or their Holy Books or Holy Symbols.
"Are we fighting a war on terror or aren't we? Was it or was it not started by Islamic people - it was done by people of the islamic faith-this phraseology is clearly intended to tar the whole religion with the acts of the perpetrators - who brought it to our shores on September 11, 2001?
“Were people from all over the world, mostly Americans, not brutally murdered that day, in downtown Manhattan, across the Potomac from our nation's capitol and in a field in Pennsylvania? Yes, they were mostly Americans but there were a great many from other nationalities and religions among them including approximately 100 Muslims.
“Did nearly three thousand men, women and children die a horrible, burning or crushing death that day, or didn't they? - Indeed they did.
“And I'm supposed to care that a copy of the Koran was "desecrated" when an overworked American soldier kicked it or got it wet? - The desecration of a religious object is always an insult to all the members of that religion. I think that Christians would be very insulted if a Christian bible were spit on, stamped on or otherwise treated with disrespect. The Nazis when they started their persecution of the Jews first and foremost desecrated the Jewish holy book, the Torah, because they knew how painful it would be to members of that faith.
“Well, I don't. I don't care at all.
“I'll start caring when Osama bin Laden turns himself in and repents for incinerating all those innocent people on 9/11. - Here again the linkage is that since Osama Bin Laden is evil that until he repents we are justified in treating his religion with contempt.
“I'll care about the Koran when the fanatics in the Middle East start caring about the Holy Bible, the mere possession of which is a crime in Saudi Arabia - Saudi Arabia is an intolerant society – do we really want to copy them; and even if we wanted to retaliate against the Saudis do we really want to also insult the religion of 52 countries having a population of which a majority is Muslim. India, which has a majority of Hindus, has a minority of Muslims totaling174 million. Some of our most important allies, e.g. Pakistan are Muslim states and our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are shedding their blood to try to make those Muslim countries into viable states. Muslims have been victims of Al Qaeda attacks, notably Pakistan, Indonesia, Jordan and many others. Turkey a Muslim country is a member of NATO. There are between 700,000 and 1.2 billion Muslims in the world. Between 1 and 6 million Muslims reside in the U.S. most live quiet law abiding lives and no American Muslim has been identified as being part of Al Qaeda but insults hurled at their religion helps to radicalize and helps recruitment everywhere.
“I'll care when Abu Muse al-Sarawak tells the world he is sorry for hacking off Nick Berg's head while Berg screamed through his gurgling slashed throat.
“I'll care when the cowardly so-called "insurgents" in Iraq come out and fight like men instead of disrespecting their own religion by hiding in mosques.
“I'll care when the mindless zealots who blow themselves up in search of nirvana care about the innocent children within range of their suicide bombs.
“I'll care when the American media stops pretending that their First Amendment liberties are somehow derived from international law instead of the United States Constitution's Bill of Rights. - What this has to do with insulting and desecrating a religious text is beyond me. But it is not the media that pays attention to International law. It is our government and the US Supreme Court. International law is binding on us all, often by treaty approved by the US Senate. But First Amendment liberties have never been and are not derived from international law. It should be noted, however, that in the declaration of independence there is a reference to “a decent respect to the opinions of mankind."
“In the meantime, when I hear a story about a brave marine roughing up an Iraqi terrorist to obtain information, know this: I don't care.
“When I see a fuzzy photo of a pile of naked Iraqi prisoners who have been humiliated in what amounts to a college-hazing incident, rest assured that I don't care. - It was hardly a college hazing incident. It was intended to humiliate and degrade.
“When I see a wounded terrorist get shot in the head when he is told not to move because he might be booby-trapped, you can take it to the bank that I don't care.
“When I hear that a prisoner, who was issued a Koran and a prayer mat, and fed "special" food that is paid for by my tax dollars, is complaining that his holy book is being "mishandled," you can absolutely believe in your heart of hearts that I don't care. - First the issue is not the prisoners complaint, but the insult to all members of that faith. Second none of these prisoners have ever been convicted of any crimes. In fact, they have never even been accused of any.
“And oh, by the way, I've noticed that sometimes it's spelled "Koran" and other times "Quran." Well, Jimmy Crack Corn and ---- you guessed it - - I don't care ! ! ! ! ! - Another way to insult the Muslim faith.
“If you agree with this viewpoint, pass this on to all your a-mail friends. Sooner or later, it'll get to the people responsible for this ridiculous behavior!
“If you don't agree, then by all means hit the delete button.
“Should you choose the latter, then please don't complain when more atrocities committed by radical Muslims happen here in our great country. - Whoa, if I don’t agree then I am responsible for any possible future acts of terror! This is hate directed not only against Muslims but against all those who don’t agree with her vision of a world, where we disrespect the faith of huge numbers of people; the second largest faith in the world.
First rule for a sane world! Do not disrespect other religions or their Holy Books or Holy Symbols.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Hate
I recently received a hate screed being circulated by e-mail. Rather than simply delete it I believe it is important that we are all aware of the type of poison being circulated. The polemic originated from a woman in Atlanta, Georgia. I will reproduce it below, followed by my general comments on it. Next time I will circulate it again with my specific comments on each point made. The polemic is reproduced below:
I am always fascinated by people who hate. What is there in them that makes them hate so? In this case the polemic was directed against Muslims but what I find fascinating is that people like this will always hate some group. These are the kind who blindly hated Japanese-Americans and provoked the panic that caused the internment of 120,000 American citizens during the Second World War to our everlasting shame. Yes, Japan had attacked us, but these American citizens had nothing to do with it, except that they shared a common ancestry.
It is the haters who are killing each other in Iraq. To them if some Sunnis blew up their Shiite mosque they will not seek out the perpetrators, but will hate and kill all Sunnis randomly. And then the haters among the Sunnis will not look for the killers of Sunnis, but they will kill Shiites randomly and innocent people on both sides of the religious divide suffer and die.
It is the haters who manage to always find reason to lump a whole ethnic group together for hate. Sometimes it is Jews and sometimes it is African-Americans. At one time we hated Chinese and barred them from immigrating. At one point the haters hated Catholics; they called them Papists and Jews were Christ killers.
When a crime is committed they can never focus on the individuals and their coconspirators who committed the crime and hunt them down and bring them to justice and dismantle their network. They always want to get the group that the criminals came from. These are the haters who supported the lynching of large numbers of African-Americans every time they thought that one of them had committed a crime.
Haters have never been a force for good, or justice, or for success in war, or in any other endeavor. God spare us from their poison.
Next time I will reproduce this screed again in full and rebut it with specific comments on each of its points. I find the fact that it was well written more disturbing because it suggests that the writer is not an ignorant person and yet the contents smack not only of hate but of ignorance.
"Are we fighting a war on terror or aren't we? Was it or was it not started by Islamic people who brought it to our shores on September 11, 2001?
“Were people from all over the world, mostly Americans, not brutally murdered that day, in downtown Manhattan, across the Potomac from our nation's capitol and in a field in Pennsylvania?
“Did nearly three thousand men, women and children die a horrible, burning or crushing death that day, or didn't they?
“And I'm supposed to care that a copy of the Koran was "desecrated" when an overworked American soldier kicked it or got it wet?
“Well, I don't. I don't care at all.
“I'll start caring when Osama bin Laden turns himself in and repents for incinerating all those innocent people on 9/11.
“I'll care about the Koran when the fanatics in the Middle East start caring about the Holy Bible, the mere possession of which is a crime in Saudi Arabia.
“I'll care when Abu Muse al-Sarawak tells the world he is sorry for hacking off Nick Berg's head while Berg screamed through his gurgling slashed throat.
“I'll care when the cowardly so-called "insurgents" in Iraq come out and fight like men instead of disrespecting their own religion by hiding in mosques.
“I'll care when the mindless zealots who blow themselves up in search of nirvana care about the innocent children within range of their suicide bombs.
“I'll care when the American media stops pretending that their First Amendment liberties are somehow derived from international law instead of the United States Constitution's Bill of Rights.
“In the meantime, when I hear a story about a brave marine roughing up an Iraqi terrorist to obtain information, know this: I don't care.
“When I see a fuzzy photo of a pile of naked Iraqi prisoners who have been humiliated in what amounts to a college-hazing incident, rest assured that I don't care.
“When I see a wounded terrorist get shot in the head when he is told not to move because he might be booby-trapped, you can take it to the bank that I don't care.
“When I hear that a prisoner, who was issued a Koran and a prayer mat, and fed "special" food that is paid for by my tax dollars, is complaining that his holy book is being "mishandled," you can absolutely believe in your heart of hearts that I don't care.
“And oh, by the way, I've noticed that sometimes it's spelled "Koran" and other times "Quran." Well, Jimmy Crack Corn and ---- you guessed it - - I don't care! ! ! ! !
“If you agree with this viewpoint, pass this on to all your e-mail friends. Sooner or later, it'll get to the people responsible for this ridiculous behavior!
“If you don't agree, then by all means hit the delete button.
“Should you choose the latter, then please don't complain when more atrocities committed by radical Muslims happen here in our great country.”
I am always fascinated by people who hate. What is there in them that makes them hate so? In this case the polemic was directed against Muslims but what I find fascinating is that people like this will always hate some group. These are the kind who blindly hated Japanese-Americans and provoked the panic that caused the internment of 120,000 American citizens during the Second World War to our everlasting shame. Yes, Japan had attacked us, but these American citizens had nothing to do with it, except that they shared a common ancestry.
It is the haters who are killing each other in Iraq. To them if some Sunnis blew up their Shiite mosque they will not seek out the perpetrators, but will hate and kill all Sunnis randomly. And then the haters among the Sunnis will not look for the killers of Sunnis, but they will kill Shiites randomly and innocent people on both sides of the religious divide suffer and die.
It is the haters who manage to always find reason to lump a whole ethnic group together for hate. Sometimes it is Jews and sometimes it is African-Americans. At one time we hated Chinese and barred them from immigrating. At one point the haters hated Catholics; they called them Papists and Jews were Christ killers.
When a crime is committed they can never focus on the individuals and their coconspirators who committed the crime and hunt them down and bring them to justice and dismantle their network. They always want to get the group that the criminals came from. These are the haters who supported the lynching of large numbers of African-Americans every time they thought that one of them had committed a crime.
Haters have never been a force for good, or justice, or for success in war, or in any other endeavor. God spare us from their poison.
Next time I will reproduce this screed again in full and rebut it with specific comments on each of its points. I find the fact that it was well written more disturbing because it suggests that the writer is not an ignorant person and yet the contents smack not only of hate but of ignorance.
Thursday, February 08, 2007
Bush - Is He Smart?
This article is prompted by an e-mail that I received from Jo-Anna Cooke an American citizen who writes from Dresden, Germany,
To which I responded:
"It is nice to hear from you and even nicer to receive an interesting and difficult question from you.
"I say difficult because we use so many terms that have multiple meanings. What is the meaning of smart? Is it one's IQ? Is it based on how well educated they are? When Bush went to Yale college he was a C student. By that measure he is not smart. Kerry had similar grades. By that measure he is no smarter. I don't know what kind of grades Clinton got but as I recall he was a brilliant student. They say he was a brilliant politician but he didn't get his health plan through a Democratic Congress and after two years into his Presidency he lost Congress.
"But I come back to what is smart? A long time ago I knew a young women who was a refugee from Ecuador. She was not well educated though she was fun to be with. She set out to become very rich by marriage. In a series of moves, the details of which I will not bore you with, she married a very rich man and became an international socialite. Diplomats and Senators are delighted to be entertained by her. She had three daughters one of whom married a prince in London attended by all the royalty from around the world, another married a Getty and the third married a von Furstenberg. Was she smart?
"Was Reagan smart. He lived in a world of make-believe in which the movies he had had seen were his reality. (See the Reagan Biography by Lou Cannon) and yet he changed the whole political landscape in the US.
"Bush has difficulty speaking the English language. But he won the Governorship of Texas and the Presidency of the U.S. Well, he was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. But so did FDRs and Eleanor Roosevelt's sons and they went nowhere.
"He has been quite successful in effectuating his policies, pushing enormous tax cuts through the Congress and destroying many environmental protections. He has extended the Reagan policies successfully far beyond anything Reagan would have dreamt of or possibly even approved of. Can a dumb man be that successful? I don't know. I don't even know that his poor speech is not an affectation which it was judged would appeal to those who speak no better than he does. His success may be due to having smart people about him, but it takes a kind if smartness to pick people who will effectuate what you want.
"Is he a tool. No, the President is never a tool. Cheney and Karl Rove may be doing the thinking for him but they can only function within the broad parameters of the policies he advocates, which was also true of Reagan or any President.
"I think his policies are outrageous but that goes to belief not smarts.
"All that is a long non-answer to a short question. The greatest difficulty is that our language is so imprecise."
"I have appreciated your emails regarding politics. I am learning about the issues and enjoy the debate that can be seen.
"I have a question for you, which I feel a little strange about, but thought you might have some ideas. I am listening through the internet to the NPR interview with President Bush. I am struck (often) by how "simpleton" his answers are to the questions. There are jokes about him being a "tool" and not being very smart. Other people say that he is very smart and knows exactly what is going on. What do you think? I am struck by how often Clinton is referred to as "brilliant", this is very different from what Bush is portrayed as. Just curious! I am realize that I should perhaps ask a spectrum of people, but you were the first person I thought of."
To which I responded:
"It is nice to hear from you and even nicer to receive an interesting and difficult question from you.
"I say difficult because we use so many terms that have multiple meanings. What is the meaning of smart? Is it one's IQ? Is it based on how well educated they are? When Bush went to Yale college he was a C student. By that measure he is not smart. Kerry had similar grades. By that measure he is no smarter. I don't know what kind of grades Clinton got but as I recall he was a brilliant student. They say he was a brilliant politician but he didn't get his health plan through a Democratic Congress and after two years into his Presidency he lost Congress.
"But I come back to what is smart? A long time ago I knew a young women who was a refugee from Ecuador. She was not well educated though she was fun to be with. She set out to become very rich by marriage. In a series of moves, the details of which I will not bore you with, she married a very rich man and became an international socialite. Diplomats and Senators are delighted to be entertained by her. She had three daughters one of whom married a prince in London attended by all the royalty from around the world, another married a Getty and the third married a von Furstenberg. Was she smart?
"Was Reagan smart. He lived in a world of make-believe in which the movies he had had seen were his reality. (See the Reagan Biography by Lou Cannon) and yet he changed the whole political landscape in the US.
"Bush has difficulty speaking the English language. But he won the Governorship of Texas and the Presidency of the U.S. Well, he was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. But so did FDRs and Eleanor Roosevelt's sons and they went nowhere.
"He has been quite successful in effectuating his policies, pushing enormous tax cuts through the Congress and destroying many environmental protections. He has extended the Reagan policies successfully far beyond anything Reagan would have dreamt of or possibly even approved of. Can a dumb man be that successful? I don't know. I don't even know that his poor speech is not an affectation which it was judged would appeal to those who speak no better than he does. His success may be due to having smart people about him, but it takes a kind if smartness to pick people who will effectuate what you want.
"Is he a tool. No, the President is never a tool. Cheney and Karl Rove may be doing the thinking for him but they can only function within the broad parameters of the policies he advocates, which was also true of Reagan or any President.
"I think his policies are outrageous but that goes to belief not smarts.
"All that is a long non-answer to a short question. The greatest difficulty is that our language is so imprecise."
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
War on the Middle Class
During most of the Republican Party’s history they have objected to programs for the poor, depicting them as the undeserving, whose shiftlessness and laziness has resulted in their sorry state. This attitude was best exemplified in Reagan’s fictitious “Welfare Queen” which he rolled out in 1976 with this description, “"She has 80 names, 30 addresses, 12 Social Security cards and is collecting veteran's benefits on four non-existing deceased husbands. And she is collecting Social Security on her cards. She's got Medicaid, getting food stamps, and she is collecting welfare under each of her names."
Now, however, Republicans attack Democrats for being for the middle class and not focusing enough attention on the poor. Thus Republican columnist, David Brooks, wrote in last Sunday’s NY Times, “Raising the minimum wage won’t be of much benefit to the working poor. Only 0.6 percent of all wage workers make the minimum (and) a mere 12.7 percent of the benefits of a federal minimum wage hike would go to poor families, while 63 percent would go to families earning more than twice the poverty line.” Even if this is correct, (Brooks gives no study to support this conclusion) his objection speaks worlds to the new Republican attitude. In 2005 the poverty threshold in the U.S. for a family of four was $22,951. Thus twice that, or $46,000 would place a family of four into the lower middle class. Is there anything wrong with extending a helping hand to people in this income category?
Possibly more striking is the approach to Health Care proposed in the President’s State of the Union Speech. Having again and again reduced taxes on the very wealthy and having vowed no tax increases for anyone, the Administration now proposes to penalize people who have health insurance through their employer by taxing this insurance. This would most certainly strike at the middle class. In his weekly radio address Bush did not address the inefficiency of the present system which is the most expensive in the world, but rather decried, the system for “unwisely encourag(ing) workers to choose overly expensive, gold plated plans…”
While proposing increased taxes on the middle class, he and his party continue their attack on Social Security, warning that unless “something” is done the system will go bankrupt, though whether that is true is debatable. According to the Social Security trustees the payroll tax revenues currently exceed benefit payments so that there is now a growing surplus that would allow present benefits to be paid in full for the next 28 years. After 2034 a problem is projected in that surpluses now building up will be exhausted. At that point the fund will only have enough income to pay 70 percent of benefit payments. However, these projections are based on the economy expanding at a rate of 1.5 percent per year over the next 75 years. This rate is about half the average rate of growth over the past 75 years. Therefore an assumption of rate of growth of 2.5% is reasonable. If that assumption is made Social Security is solvent and running a surplus ad infinitum.
So what is all the hullabaloo about? It has only one purpose and that is to justify the privatization of this system with “private accounts’, which in fact would quickly bankrupt the system. In other words we fix something that isn’t broken by abolishing it.
Caution does dictate some adjustments, which Republicans oppose because they mean higher taxes. Yet as can be seen, The Administration has no objections to higher taxes provided they are on the middle class and serve no useful purpose. Reagan, who initially also wanted to privatize Social Security, in the end agreed to a bill that increased the number of people covered by the program including members of Congress, and government employees, increased Social Security tax rates from 6.6% to 7.0 percent in 1984, and 7.05 percent in 1985, 7.15 percent in 1986-87, 7.51 percent in 1988-89 and 7.65 percent in 1990 and thereafter. At the same time he raised the age for eligibility for unreduced retirement benefits in two stages to 67 by the year 2027. Workers born in 1938 will be the first group affected by the gradual increase.
Nevertheless, as a precaution against Social Security running into difficulty the date when the 67 eligibility standard kicks in could be moved up to 2015, provided the cap on income to be taxed for Social Security is also raised. Under current law, Americans pay a 12.4% Social Security tax on all wages up to $94,200 in 2006, and the cap rises each year with inflation. (There is also an uncapped 2.9% Medicare payroll tax on top of that.) This cap could be lifted by $10,000 a year until it reaches $150,000. The trust fund should also be taken out of the budget where it masks a deficit much larger than the one shown and should be treated like state pension funds, allowing the trustee manager to make conservative investments of part of the fund in the stock market. An S&P Index Fund would be such a conservative investment and would entail very little in management costs. Then if we find that the income for the fund exceeds needs, an increase in Social Security payments, or a reduction in payroll taxes for the lower incomes, could be contemplated This is important at a time when corporations seem to be cutting pension benefits, forcing wage earners to rely ever more on their Social Security benefits. If needed it could be used to shore up Medicare, which is more vulnerable than Social Security.
What is particularly interesting in this hullabaloo is that a new rationale is being offered for destroying this treasured benefit. In December 2002 the Vice-President declared, “Reagan proved deficits don't matter.” Now, Republicans argue, deficits matter, but we must not stop cutting taxes for the rich-it is entitlement that we can’t afford. As shown above, the most important entitlement pays for itself. Rather than a drag on the treasury, it masks the size of the deficit.
Now, however, Republicans attack Democrats for being for the middle class and not focusing enough attention on the poor. Thus Republican columnist, David Brooks, wrote in last Sunday’s NY Times, “Raising the minimum wage won’t be of much benefit to the working poor. Only 0.6 percent of all wage workers make the minimum (and) a mere 12.7 percent of the benefits of a federal minimum wage hike would go to poor families, while 63 percent would go to families earning more than twice the poverty line.” Even if this is correct, (Brooks gives no study to support this conclusion) his objection speaks worlds to the new Republican attitude. In 2005 the poverty threshold in the U.S. for a family of four was $22,951. Thus twice that, or $46,000 would place a family of four into the lower middle class. Is there anything wrong with extending a helping hand to people in this income category?
Possibly more striking is the approach to Health Care proposed in the President’s State of the Union Speech. Having again and again reduced taxes on the very wealthy and having vowed no tax increases for anyone, the Administration now proposes to penalize people who have health insurance through their employer by taxing this insurance. This would most certainly strike at the middle class. In his weekly radio address Bush did not address the inefficiency of the present system which is the most expensive in the world, but rather decried, the system for “unwisely encourag(ing) workers to choose overly expensive, gold plated plans…”
While proposing increased taxes on the middle class, he and his party continue their attack on Social Security, warning that unless “something” is done the system will go bankrupt, though whether that is true is debatable. According to the Social Security trustees the payroll tax revenues currently exceed benefit payments so that there is now a growing surplus that would allow present benefits to be paid in full for the next 28 years. After 2034 a problem is projected in that surpluses now building up will be exhausted. At that point the fund will only have enough income to pay 70 percent of benefit payments. However, these projections are based on the economy expanding at a rate of 1.5 percent per year over the next 75 years. This rate is about half the average rate of growth over the past 75 years. Therefore an assumption of rate of growth of 2.5% is reasonable. If that assumption is made Social Security is solvent and running a surplus ad infinitum.
So what is all the hullabaloo about? It has only one purpose and that is to justify the privatization of this system with “private accounts’, which in fact would quickly bankrupt the system. In other words we fix something that isn’t broken by abolishing it.
Caution does dictate some adjustments, which Republicans oppose because they mean higher taxes. Yet as can be seen, The Administration has no objections to higher taxes provided they are on the middle class and serve no useful purpose. Reagan, who initially also wanted to privatize Social Security, in the end agreed to a bill that increased the number of people covered by the program including members of Congress, and government employees, increased Social Security tax rates from 6.6% to 7.0 percent in 1984, and 7.05 percent in 1985, 7.15 percent in 1986-87, 7.51 percent in 1988-89 and 7.65 percent in 1990 and thereafter. At the same time he raised the age for eligibility for unreduced retirement benefits in two stages to 67 by the year 2027. Workers born in 1938 will be the first group affected by the gradual increase.
Nevertheless, as a precaution against Social Security running into difficulty the date when the 67 eligibility standard kicks in could be moved up to 2015, provided the cap on income to be taxed for Social Security is also raised. Under current law, Americans pay a 12.4% Social Security tax on all wages up to $94,200 in 2006, and the cap rises each year with inflation. (There is also an uncapped 2.9% Medicare payroll tax on top of that.) This cap could be lifted by $10,000 a year until it reaches $150,000. The trust fund should also be taken out of the budget where it masks a deficit much larger than the one shown and should be treated like state pension funds, allowing the trustee manager to make conservative investments of part of the fund in the stock market. An S&P Index Fund would be such a conservative investment and would entail very little in management costs. Then if we find that the income for the fund exceeds needs, an increase in Social Security payments, or a reduction in payroll taxes for the lower incomes, could be contemplated This is important at a time when corporations seem to be cutting pension benefits, forcing wage earners to rely ever more on their Social Security benefits. If needed it could be used to shore up Medicare, which is more vulnerable than Social Security.
What is particularly interesting in this hullabaloo is that a new rationale is being offered for destroying this treasured benefit. In December 2002 the Vice-President declared, “Reagan proved deficits don't matter.” Now, Republicans argue, deficits matter, but we must not stop cutting taxes for the rich-it is entitlement that we can’t afford. As shown above, the most important entitlement pays for itself. Rather than a drag on the treasury, it masks the size of the deficit.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Bush’s New-Old Iraq Strategy.
As I listened to The President's speech I could only think: He is still in a State of Denial. What we have here is more of the same failed policy and a refusal to face up to reality.
What is evident is that to Bush there is only one reality that he is concerned with, and that is the disillusionment of the American people; that he is now facing a Democratic Congress ready to ask hard questions and wavering Republicans fearful of their fate in the next election. The country wants out of Iraq. The people understand what Bush does not. The mistakes of the past can no longer be undone. Iraq is a disaster and our pulling out will cause a larger disaster. But that will happen no matter when we pull out. Our staying may delay an all out civil war but it can no longer change the dynamics on the ground.
Bush realized even before the election that the American people had enough of the same. So a commission of wise men from past Administrations, of Democrats and Republicans was formed. It was known as the Baker/Hamilton commission and it was generally agreed that this was the source from which a new policy could spring. The commission spent a great deal of time studying the situation and they came up with a new plan. Not one that guaranteed success, but one that at least has a chance.
The President has totally ignored those recommendations just as he failed to implement most of the recommendations of the 9/11 commission.
In the meantime the media is failing to give us the whole story. In drawing up his “new plan” he was greatly influenced by recommendations made by Frederick W. Kagan, a military historian who has taught at West Point, and whose education consists of B.A., Soviet and East European studies; Ph.D., Russian and Soviet military history, Yale University and Jack Keane who is a retired Army general. Both are scholars at the right wing Enterprise Institute. In an article written for that think tank and published here they write, “It is difficult to imagine a responsible plan for getting the violence in and around Baghdad under control that could succeed with fewer than 30,000 combat troops beyond the forces already in Iraq.” So Bush true to his past does a halfhearted job of following the recommendations for stepping up our commitment instead of phasing it down. Thus it is evident that even Bush’s strongest supporters make it clear that Bush’s plan is doomed to failure.
They emphasize this when they say; “The United States faces a dire situation in Iraq because of a history of half-measures. We have always sent "just enough" force to succeed if everything went according to plan. So far nothing has, and there's no reason to believe that it will. Sound military planning doesn't work this way. The only "surge" option that makes sense is both long and large.
Furthermore it is interesting to note that Bush did not tell us exactly what neighborhoods in Baghdad are to be targeted. The article does. It says, “Reducing the violence in the SUNNI AND MIXED NEIGHBORHOODS (emphasis added) in Baghdad is the most critical military task the U.S. armed forces face anywhere in the world.” Please note the absence of any mention of Shiite neighborhoods or Sadr’s militia. What they are evidently advocating and what Bush is apparently planning is to take sides in the Civil war on the side of the Shiite against the Sunni’s.
This would certainly get the support of the Shiite Prime minister of Iraq, Maliki, a Shiite, the head of the Dawa Shiite party and an ally of Muqtada al-Sadr. We have ostensible tried to get him to be a peacemaker between the warring factions but it is increasingly evident that Maliki like most Shiites in Iraq, has an agenda which can be summarized as, the Sunnis, who are a minority in Iraq, ruled over us under Sadam Hussein-now it is our turn to rule over the Sunnis. We are the majority, we won the election, and it is our turn to rule.
To support this may sound tempting to the authors of this article and to the Administration but it ignores that except for Iran, who we have dubbed our enemy, the Middle East from Saudi Arabia, to Egypt to Jordan, etc are all Sunnis. They will not stand by idly and Iran will benefit hugely as will the Shiite terrorists, Hezbollah, in Lebanon. Is this what victory now means to the President.
Finally, it should be noted that in the Army’s first field manual devoted exclusively to counterinsurgency operations issued in twenty years, which was published in December of 2006 and which can be found here, the following is stated:
"1-67…. MOST DENSITY RECOMMENDATIONS FALL WITHIN A RANGE OF 20 TO 25 COUNTERINSURGENTS FOR EVERY 1000 RESIDENTS IN AN AO. TWENTY COUNTERINSURGENTS PER 1000 RESIDENTS IS OFTEN CONSIDERED THE MINIMUM TROOP DENSITY REQUIRED FOR EFFECTIVE COIN OPERATIONS; (emphasis added)
If we take the recommended density recommendations of the Army and we take into account the fact that there are 5 million residents in Baghdad it becomes obvious that the Army believes that nothing less than 100,000 troops are required for Baghdad alone.
This Administration has learned nothing. It ignores the recommendations of its greatest supporters in the political sphere; it ignores the Army manual; it ignores the recommendation of its generals and of-course it ignores the recommendations of the independent commission.
Even the Washington Times, that stalwart ally of Bush, believes the plan to be folly.
Unfortunately our fighting men are the victims of these misguided and bizarre policies, which are neither fish, nor fowl but have only one purpose in mind and that is to pass the hard decisions on to the next Administration. To sacrifice untold lives to this endeavor is the height of ignominy.
What is evident is that to Bush there is only one reality that he is concerned with, and that is the disillusionment of the American people; that he is now facing a Democratic Congress ready to ask hard questions and wavering Republicans fearful of their fate in the next election. The country wants out of Iraq. The people understand what Bush does not. The mistakes of the past can no longer be undone. Iraq is a disaster and our pulling out will cause a larger disaster. But that will happen no matter when we pull out. Our staying may delay an all out civil war but it can no longer change the dynamics on the ground.
Bush realized even before the election that the American people had enough of the same. So a commission of wise men from past Administrations, of Democrats and Republicans was formed. It was known as the Baker/Hamilton commission and it was generally agreed that this was the source from which a new policy could spring. The commission spent a great deal of time studying the situation and they came up with a new plan. Not one that guaranteed success, but one that at least has a chance.
The President has totally ignored those recommendations just as he failed to implement most of the recommendations of the 9/11 commission.
In the meantime the media is failing to give us the whole story. In drawing up his “new plan” he was greatly influenced by recommendations made by Frederick W. Kagan, a military historian who has taught at West Point, and whose education consists of B.A., Soviet and East European studies; Ph.D., Russian and Soviet military history, Yale University and Jack Keane who is a retired Army general. Both are scholars at the right wing Enterprise Institute. In an article written for that think tank and published here they write, “It is difficult to imagine a responsible plan for getting the violence in and around Baghdad under control that could succeed with fewer than 30,000 combat troops beyond the forces already in Iraq.” So Bush true to his past does a halfhearted job of following the recommendations for stepping up our commitment instead of phasing it down. Thus it is evident that even Bush’s strongest supporters make it clear that Bush’s plan is doomed to failure.
They emphasize this when they say; “The United States faces a dire situation in Iraq because of a history of half-measures. We have always sent "just enough" force to succeed if everything went according to plan. So far nothing has, and there's no reason to believe that it will. Sound military planning doesn't work this way. The only "surge" option that makes sense is both long and large.
Furthermore it is interesting to note that Bush did not tell us exactly what neighborhoods in Baghdad are to be targeted. The article does. It says, “Reducing the violence in the SUNNI AND MIXED NEIGHBORHOODS (emphasis added) in Baghdad is the most critical military task the U.S. armed forces face anywhere in the world.” Please note the absence of any mention of Shiite neighborhoods or Sadr’s militia. What they are evidently advocating and what Bush is apparently planning is to take sides in the Civil war on the side of the Shiite against the Sunni’s.
This would certainly get the support of the Shiite Prime minister of Iraq, Maliki, a Shiite, the head of the Dawa Shiite party and an ally of Muqtada al-Sadr. We have ostensible tried to get him to be a peacemaker between the warring factions but it is increasingly evident that Maliki like most Shiites in Iraq, has an agenda which can be summarized as, the Sunnis, who are a minority in Iraq, ruled over us under Sadam Hussein-now it is our turn to rule over the Sunnis. We are the majority, we won the election, and it is our turn to rule.
To support this may sound tempting to the authors of this article and to the Administration but it ignores that except for Iran, who we have dubbed our enemy, the Middle East from Saudi Arabia, to Egypt to Jordan, etc are all Sunnis. They will not stand by idly and Iran will benefit hugely as will the Shiite terrorists, Hezbollah, in Lebanon. Is this what victory now means to the President.
Finally, it should be noted that in the Army’s first field manual devoted exclusively to counterinsurgency operations issued in twenty years, which was published in December of 2006 and which can be found here, the following is stated:
"1-67…. MOST DENSITY RECOMMENDATIONS FALL WITHIN A RANGE OF 20 TO 25 COUNTERINSURGENTS FOR EVERY 1000 RESIDENTS IN AN AO. TWENTY COUNTERINSURGENTS PER 1000 RESIDENTS IS OFTEN CONSIDERED THE MINIMUM TROOP DENSITY REQUIRED FOR EFFECTIVE COIN OPERATIONS; (emphasis added)
If we take the recommended density recommendations of the Army and we take into account the fact that there are 5 million residents in Baghdad it becomes obvious that the Army believes that nothing less than 100,000 troops are required for Baghdad alone.
This Administration has learned nothing. It ignores the recommendations of its greatest supporters in the political sphere; it ignores the Army manual; it ignores the recommendation of its generals and of-course it ignores the recommendations of the independent commission.
Even the Washington Times, that stalwart ally of Bush, believes the plan to be folly.
Unfortunately our fighting men are the victims of these misguided and bizarre policies, which are neither fish, nor fowl but have only one purpose in mind and that is to pass the hard decisions on to the next Administration. To sacrifice untold lives to this endeavor is the height of ignominy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
