Jimmy Carter - the gift that just won't stop giving...
As president, Jimmy Carter presided over the most virulent roll back of democratic and/or US friendly governments seen since the end of WWII. Much of the cause of current problems in the Mid-East can be linked directly back to his disasterous niavete (all right, I am trying to be generous) in foriegn affairs.
The problems were even worse in our own hemisphere, with Nicaragua, Cuba, Argentine, and other South and Central American countries falling from the US into the Socialist/Communist sphere of influence.
His economic policies drove the US into 'stagflation' with double digit inflation/interest rates and record unemployment. The 'feedback' from the Great North into the Latin countries, with their smaller/weaker economies engendered inflation the likes of which had not been seen since Germany prior to WWII, further destabilizing the region.
He is, I believe, what John Kerry would have been as it regards US policy - he just wants us to be liked, and is willing to sell out anyone and our own interests to achieve this vision. After almost three decades out of offie, his vision of the US as wrong, and the left/socialism as something desirable is more apparent than ever.
Well, he isn't done yet...
It may have passed below most people's radar due to our presidential elections, but he was instrumental in validating the last election in Venezuela. The election placed a rabid anit-US communist/socialist as the head of the country that provides most of our own oil supply. His rhetoric and actions have threatned our one stalwart ally in the region Columbia. His main allies are Cuba and Communist China, both who have vested interests in honing and eventually applying the economic threat he represents against the US.
In the election, Carter pronounced it a good election and validated its results. This despite the fact that the UN, of all bodies, found so many problems that they would not certifiy the election. The US State Department followed suit, refusing to recognize or validate Carter's finding, dealing a significant (hopefully fatal) blow to the Carter's line of business - promoting socialism by validating fraudulent elections.
However, in Venezuela's case, the damage was already done. Chavez has been a busy man since, passing laws to aurthorize the arrest of anyone who express disagreement with or doubt of the rightness of his cause (John Kerry and the Dems must be so envious). He has now taken the next logical step, based on his own rhetoric, and the desires' of his political 'masters' China and Cuba. He is calling for the creation of an Anti-US, joint Military force and command to beat back the growth of democracy in South America. It would be armed with weapons purchased from
Iran and China. Since Iran is a net importer of arms, one wonders just what type of weapons that he might be seeking to purchase from them? Nukes for sale??
Any one remember Danial Ortega, the genocidal 'commander' of the Sandinistas that Carter was so fond of. It turns out he is a major beneficiary of Chavez's petro wealth (funded by our oil demand) and is enthusiastically supporting the idea.
This is a dagger aimed at our heart, and is the key piece in the endgame that I believe China is playing against the US.
Read more on this story
here.
Strange Bedfellows...
According to a report from the Australian Broadcast Co.,
attacks against Shi'ite religous sites/events continue. It should come as no suprise that foreign backed Sunni extremists are bent on stopping the move toward Democracy in Iraq.
However, Iran can have no interest in the success of a Shi'ite majority based democracy in Iraq either. Success of this type puts to question Iran's own theocracy, already bent on supressing dissent within and attempting to distract internal strife by focusing their people on an external threat due to their nuclear program. I believe they would rather see Shi'ites that would move to democracy killed, and see a return to Sunni based tyranny, than see the current democratic trend succeed.
It should be plain to everyone (except possibly Sen's Kennedy, Kerry, and Boxer), that both Iran, and North Korea desparetly need an external enemy/threat to focus their people's dissatisfaction/dissent on. It is, afterall, a technique the Saudis and Egyptians have used to export their own trouble makers elsewhere.
Nuclear capability factual or not, both need to goad the US into some overt action that they can rally their people in defense against and distract them from the internal sources of their discontent. How far are they willing to carry this 'brinkmanship'? Remember, MAD is only as stable as the most insane participant. Both the mullahs and Kim must fear for their physical as well as idealogical survival if their people rise up, so how stable/sane will that make their decisions? (
and they have such a strong hold on sanity already...)China is not too far removed from this game, but plays it with more subtlety. Their courting of Venezuala and the old Soviet Communist satellite, Cuba is part of a larger, long term strategy. A political/economic 'rupture' between Venezuala and the US would have immediate and dire economic impacts here. Due to the leverage this link holds, China must view anything that would reduce our dependence on Venezualan oil with some alarm. Is it any wonder that China pursued influence (successfully) with the Clintons and the Democratic party? Can anyone really think that 'link' ended just because there is no longer a Democrat in the White House?
Then consider the ANWR question that has been debated for almost 20 years and ask your self who has the most to gain by not allowing controlled exploration to occur?
Happy Birthday President Lincoln!!
It is an interesting thing to note, that in today's MSM environment, and in the way both political parties currently operate, that many of our undeniably greatest Presidents couldn't get elected.
It is 'common knowledge' (always a questionable statement) that Richard Nixon's make up and lack of preparedness for the new TV media, cost him the debate and probably the election to JFK. One has only to look at the pictures of President Lincoln, to realize that he couldn't even have gotten to the debate in today's pretty boy climate.
Of course, in Lincoln's time, today's campaigning on the part of candidates did not exist as we recongnize it today. The 'virtues' of our founding fathers in regards to seeking public office still pertained, holding influence over the process. Many of them felt that anyone who wanted and sought public office was inherently unfit to hold it, subscribing to the belief that the best candidate was one who served reluctantly and was quite happy to leave office.
Which does beg a question about today's politics and politicians. Both the parties and the candidates, independently and toghether, spend millions of dollars to get the candidate in a job that (at the top) pays less $200k/yr. Economically, this is insane, if everything is above board. So, this economic equation must be balanced somewhere/somehow.
The cynic in me tends to the opinion that this just proves that all politicians are de facto crooks. The idealist (and sometimes realist) in me hopes that some sense of duty to the nation rather than self informs these efforts/expenditures. I also realize that running for election is not a straightforward economic transaction - payback occurs in ways that are not material and therefore not truly accountable. Favors, pure contributions with no expectations of payback other than staying true to promises, all these and others skew the political process from a straight economic buy/sell. But that patina is still present, and it can't help but skew the process for both the supporters/contributors and the candidates given the sums involved today.
Happy Birthday Mr. Lincoln, haven't we come a long way?!
Anti-Americanism as an Industry...
Davids Medienkritik puts anti-Americanism in a new perspective, especially since this post is from the European point of view. This posting hits on some unsettling (to the left) points.
I believe that the root of much of the European/East coast liberal anit-Americanism springs from two conjoined sources:
- Despite 'democratic' reforms of the 19th and 20th centuries, much of Western Europe, in particular France and Britian, remain societies stratified by class based on pre-industrial royalty. As such, we (the US) are the 'trash' that they threw out. To be beholden to the colonials, for us to not realize their inherently superior culture is inherently galling to much of the intelligensia/elites of Europe. We must be put in our place, to recognize our true status - this pespecitve appears to drive and inform much of their world view and actions.
- The New Englander elites buy into this. For their part, they seem to imagine themselves the new American Royalty, and are constantly frustrated by Joe Schmoe American's refusal to pander to this perception, despite our fascination with the remaining bastion of Royalty in Britian. They view Europe as the precedent for the type of preferential status that is afforded the select in Europe and is not (except in Universities it seems) afforded to anyone here except on merit. They want, no, they need the semi-socialist/communist type government/society that has grown up in Europe, since only in a system where the 'peasants' are dependent on government for almost everything and individualism is denigrated, can their true 'status' be realized.
It is amazing (and at times, amusing) to me, how similar discussions about us stupid peasants within the left, and genealogical research (which does have a valid basis) always begin based on a predetermined premise with some groups/people. In both venues, the assumption is that the correspondent is naturally going to be one of the elite in the new order/has royal/highly ranked/historically important ancestors. If all these assumptions were factually true, there would be no peasants (Joe Schmoes to the rest of us) for these elites to guide.
History tells us that leftist (the tyranny of the righteous intellect left or right) is so jealous of its power that fraticide is its most common form of self protection and advancement. Power at the top is held more in a balance of fear/terror between uneasy alliances than any desire to work to the common good. Interestingly, the only political body with a lower turnover rate than the Soviet Politburro is purported to the the US Senate, that bastion to those towers of reason, Kennedy, Kerry, and Boxer.
The Blogosphere stikes again - Empire beware!!
If you are almost entirely dependent on MSM for your news (and you wouldn't be here if you were), then the story about and behind Eason Jordan's resignation at CNN is going to be something of a mystery to you.
To summarize briefly, at a closed conference/workshop of journalists and politicians (in Switzerland), Eason stated as fact that US military forces were deliberately targeting journalist in Iraq, had captured and tortured others, was overall behaving just like the terrorists.
One participant challenged him to prove this, a request supported after the fact by the US politicians that were attendees (I'm still having a hard time wondering why they weren't the first to challenge this assertion).
Michelle Malkin, The Captians Quarters, Instapundit, and other blogs picked up on the original posting by
Rony Abovitz, keeping the pressure on and preventing the story from fading away (giving it legs to borrow from MSM jargon).
MSM coverage to this point has been tepid and tends to accuse the blogosphere as much or more for pressing the story, than Eason for making proveably false statements. The reason for this reluctance is clear; it is proof that MSM no longer operates in a vacumn, free to espouse opinion as news without challenge. It is the breath of accountability, something to balance MSM heretofore unchallenged unaccountability.
The ultimate outcome, to this point, has been Eason Jordan's resignation from CNN. This is a first step, but I don't believe even this indicent is enough to shake MSM from it doldrums, from its perception as a priviliged class of elites.
A 14 year old give birth in a grocery store...
At a San Antonio HEB, an employee heard a girl calling for help from the restroom. As it turns out, she was in labor and gave birth in the restroom. See the story
here.
The part of this story that strectches credulity/imaginantion to the breaking point is that the girl reports that she didn't know she was pregnant.
My Significant Other, says this is impossible, there are just too many changes that take place during a pregnancy for parents/others and the individual not to notice. Having been witness to this miraculous process in my wife, I can say that I can't imagine how anyone could not realize that something odd was happening - given the supposition that everyone involved was completely ignorant of sex and all other reproductive functions. I mean, a baby moving and kicking is not the same as have a bloated stomach after a full meal.
If you can believe this, then I'm sure that Eason Jordan would love to talk to you...
Privacy in this...
Most of us expect to have some privacy in a restroom, even a public. At least privacy to the extent that there are no cameras or video survelliance.
In our place of work, this is probably more true than in 'public' facilities. I imagine all of us at one time or another have wondered if some type of survelliance system might exist to stop shop lifters in some of the larger malls/stores.
However, I think most of would not expect this in 'employee only' territory. A woman in San Antonio, Texas got a rude suprise when she went into her boss's office and noticed the women's restroom was on display on his monitor.
Read more
here.
The Diplomad is leaving
I'm really sorry to see this;
The Diplomad is leaving his blog. I've enjoyed reading his posts and have learned much of the international scene from blog. Please go by and say hello/goodbye to a great blogger!
Social Security Reform - the hard number comparison
Patrick Ruffini has posted a web based
Social Security calculator that compares the performance of your SS contributions in the 'standard' system and with a Personal Savings Account.
This calculator is based on the details from President Bush's proposal and position papers, while the 'standard' portion is based, well, on the non Reformed Social Security System.
As a point of inquiry, MSM/interviewers of all those decrying PSA's should ask them how many have failed to invest in Keogh/401K accounts because the market place is 'such a gamble'. One should also ask how many federal workers have failed to take advantage of their access to PSA's for this reason.
One 'fact' that is being overlooked (intentionally?) by all the negative MSM reporting and Dem's raving, is that all employer/employee funded retirement accounts (outside of SS), are invested in a mix of bonds, stocks, and money market accounts. It is big business and big money, and these accounts are the 'elephants' on Wall Street. They are so lucrative, and generate so much profit, that anytime corruption in labor gets investigated, this is one area that is looked into almost automatically.
I have been a participant in my own employer's 401k plan since it became available over 20 years ago (in response to the increasing liquidity concerncs about SS among both mangement and employees). In all that time, my account has shown a net loss only once, and that was in the two years of market depression immediately following 9/11. It has sense rebounded and recovered all of its losses and moved on to further gains. I contribute to this account about the same amount as my SS withholding. Suffice to say, if my SS were also part of this or a similar fund, I would retire a at the SS retirment age (if I wanted to wait that long) with more than enough money to continue my salary at that time I retired (without touching the principal)rather than considering a reduction in means that anyone who depends primarily on SS must face.
I believe the 'real' issue to AARP and Dems, is loss of control. Loss of control of the political process, and more importantly, loss of control of people who might not be dependent on government dole/handouts any longer.
Non of this takes into accout the surge/drive this much capitol coming into the investment market would give our economy. SS withholding, as currently constituted, is a drag on the economy since it is a direct pay - what is withheld from you paycheck goes directly to current recipients and whatever govenment programs are being funded with the 'surplus'.
There is no trust account, in the common understanding of the term. SS witholding earns no interest, invests in nothing, provides barest sustenance level support for those who do depend on it for their entire retirement (something it was never intended to do, if you read much of the historical documentation on the creation of SS). It forces those at lower income levels, who have accumulated anything, to divest that to avoid compromising their benefit (if they are in dire need of it).
As the SS becomes income negative in the next decade, the funding 'borrowed' from it for other programs will have to be diverted back to cover the shortfall. That will require a redistribuion of the federal budget (ie cuts in programs) or tax hikes. The outlook for Medicare is worse. The
Federal Reserve has concluded in a study referenced by
Bruce Bartlett, that taxes as a proportion of the GNP, are where they need to be - the economy is in balance to provide the most return. Any increase in tax rates, would slow the economy down to an extent that tax revenues would decrease despite the higher rates. One of the most under reported consequence of President Bush's tax cuts, is that current federal tax revenues are actually increasing in response - his tax cut is income positive for the government rather than income negative.
You won't read about this in MSM...
