The subject of the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq has been broached of late, more specifically the issue of a timetable for withdrawal has been raised, and it has caused no small amount of consternation among the guardians of the status quo. As such, I suspect the low level conflict between those who want us out of Iraq, and those who want us in indefinitely is becoming a bit more intense. As usual, those who seek to defend our presence there are, at least from my perspective, less than convincing.
Of course Barack Obama, the primary torch bearer these days for the withdrawal contingent, may simply be posturing for votes when he intones that he would have troops out of Iraq in eighteen months. After all, such talk is a sure vote getter, and he is in a credible position to attract the votes of those who are like minded. In the meantime, I am mindful of the desperation of those who want us in Iraq for a seemingly permanent stay. The only questions in my mind are how reckless are they, and how much wherewithal do they have to, for example, go to war with Iran, which would seal the deal on U.S. troops remaining indefinitely, not just in Iraq, but in the entire region. These are the $64 trillion dollar questions, and I, for one, hope the answer to those questions are that the administration is not, prospectively, so reckless, and that, in any event, they do not have the maneuvering room to engage in any more major military expeditions. Having said that, it is becoming increasingly clear that, we live, as per the Chinese curse, in interesting times.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2008/07/20/troop_withdrawal_timetable_concerns_pentagon_chief/?page=2
Sunday, July 20, 2008
Saturday, July 19, 2008
An Open Letter To The Voters of Massachusetts
Dear Fellow Residents,
Repealing the income tax in Massachusetts isn't a bad idea, it's an atrocious one that would usher in a debacle the likes of which the state has never experienced. Pardon my apocalyptic tone, but there can be no hyperbole when one considers the level of decimation to public services that would ensue if the income tax is repealed. And the widespread loss of public services is just one in a whole range of deeply unpleasant effects that would occur as a result of such a repeal. Why should this be so?
Massachusetts is already facing the prospect of severe budget shortfalls that will challenge its ability to meet its core obligations. Should the repeal of the income tax pass, the state will fall so far behind in its ability to raise revenue that government will have no choice but to massively cut services, even basic services. Concomitantly, unemployment will increase as state employees are fired en masse. And in order to try and compensate for the loss of income tax revenue, the government will resort to the following desperate measures, massive increases in real estate taxes, sales taxes, and corporate taxes. They will have no choice. Get your mind around a state full of renters and what that will mean, because no one will want to buy residential property. Equally, prepare yourselves for the sickening sucking sound of businesses deserting our inhospitable shores for more tax friendly ones.
Last but not least, Massachusetts as a viable financial entity will likely cease to exist, as the cost to borrow for municipalities and state government will skyrocket. After all, would you loan money to someone or something that had little prospect of paying you back? Perhaps, but only at astronomical rates of interest so as to cover your risk. Are you convinced yet of the epic badness of the proposition? If not, then perhaps you are impervious to reason or suffer from some equally unfortunate malady that precludes a sense of self preservation. I hope not, because the price for voting out the state income tax is far far too high.
Repealing the income tax in Massachusetts isn't a bad idea, it's an atrocious one that would usher in a debacle the likes of which the state has never experienced. Pardon my apocalyptic tone, but there can be no hyperbole when one considers the level of decimation to public services that would ensue if the income tax is repealed. And the widespread loss of public services is just one in a whole range of deeply unpleasant effects that would occur as a result of such a repeal. Why should this be so?
Massachusetts is already facing the prospect of severe budget shortfalls that will challenge its ability to meet its core obligations. Should the repeal of the income tax pass, the state will fall so far behind in its ability to raise revenue that government will have no choice but to massively cut services, even basic services. Concomitantly, unemployment will increase as state employees are fired en masse. And in order to try and compensate for the loss of income tax revenue, the government will resort to the following desperate measures, massive increases in real estate taxes, sales taxes, and corporate taxes. They will have no choice. Get your mind around a state full of renters and what that will mean, because no one will want to buy residential property. Equally, prepare yourselves for the sickening sucking sound of businesses deserting our inhospitable shores for more tax friendly ones.
Last but not least, Massachusetts as a viable financial entity will likely cease to exist, as the cost to borrow for municipalities and state government will skyrocket. After all, would you loan money to someone or something that had little prospect of paying you back? Perhaps, but only at astronomical rates of interest so as to cover your risk. Are you convinced yet of the epic badness of the proposition? If not, then perhaps you are impervious to reason or suffer from some equally unfortunate malady that precludes a sense of self preservation. I hope not, because the price for voting out the state income tax is far far too high.
Friday, July 18, 2008
Whiners!
The unfailingly odious Phil Gramm has resigned from The McCain campaign after he said, in so many words, that the nation's recession-slouching towards a Depression as we speak- is illusory, existing only in the fevered collective imagination of a nation of "whiners." I have news for you Mr. Gramm, it may be quite true that we are a nation of whiners, but we most certainly are in a recession and your public apologists have no clue. Officialdom's statistics on economic activity, employment, consumer and wholesale inflation, etc, etc, etc, are a mendacious heap of steaming caca bearing no resemblance to reality.
And here's some news for you Senator (Keating Five) McCain, short of yet another rigged election, you are going to get your clock cleaned come November, because I suspect that you, like your erstwhile campaign advisor, are deluded regarding the actual state of the economy. And more importantly where your prospects for election are concerned, America knows it.
And here's some news for you Senator (Keating Five) McCain, short of yet another rigged election, you are going to get your clock cleaned come November, because I suspect that you, like your erstwhile campaign advisor, are deluded regarding the actual state of the economy. And more importantly where your prospects for election are concerned, America knows it.
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
A Fearless Prediction! Divided In Two Parts.
Predictions are easy to make, usually fun, and most of the time come with very little risk to whomever is making the predictions. The following is one prediction that I hope and trust you will find interesting, even provocative.
Sometime in the next decade or two, the United States will come under threat of disunion. By disunion, I mean that, some area, some region of the country will come under such duress and suffer such discontent that the idea of initiating separation from the rest of the nation will take root and grow. It seems almost inconceivable and outlandish in prospect, and may in fact turn out to have no merit as a bit of prognostication, but bear in mind that all large empires have ultimately disintegrated. Rome, The Ottoman Empire, Ancient Islam, The British Empire, and more recently, The Soviet Union, have all, as they say, bitten the dust. Why should the United States, which has already had one tumultuous Civil War that very nearly sundered the nation, be an exception?
As I consider the fate of our empire, it strikes me that those empires that lasted the longest are those that came into being early in the history of human civilization. I posit that consolidating and controlling vast expanses of territory and ruling over diverse peoples was, while never an easy matter, more attainable then than now. And while I realize that the matter of how empires rise and rule is undoubtedly complex, my sense is that among other advantages empires have over their weaker adversaries, such as greater organization, leadership in technology is crucial. Certainly the U.S. has had a technological advantage for generations, and may still, but for the purposes of maintaining an empire, I wonder if our tech lead, such as it is, has become, among many other reasons, too thin for the maintenance of empire.
Clearly mismanagement of finances and ill chosen conflicts are writ large in the history of empires that fail, and it would seem that the U.S. is by no means exempt from such pitfalls. In fact, my view, my thesis is that U.S. financial and martial mistakes are of such magnitude that the very core of the American empire, the lower 48 states, will be at risk. The wherewithal of government plays an enormous role in government's ability to maintain authority over the citizenry. When central government becomes increasingly incapable of responding to crisis, man made and natural, the populace has little incentive to feel, let alone act, as if they are part of something greater than themselves.
The response of the federal government to hurricane Katrina, widely seen to have been profoundly inadequate, is instructive. Local governments almost certainly failed in their missions as catastrophically as the federal government did in theirs, but in the minds of most Americans, the greatest and most damning failure was, understandably, that of The Executive Branch of the federal government. Going forward, for a variety of reasons, such as climate change, disasters like Katrina stand to increase in number and intensify in severity. And as communities around the nation suffer from even more trying conditions, an over taxed federal government will have little in the way to offer in response. Equally, as per the legacy of The War on Terror, it is not unreasonable to expect the federal government to respond to growing social chaos with ever more repressive measures that will do nothing but inflame discontent and drive the citizenry towards separation, or if you prefer, independence from the rest of the nation.
Sometime in the next decade or two, the United States will come under threat of disunion. By disunion, I mean that, some area, some region of the country will come under such duress and suffer such discontent that the idea of initiating separation from the rest of the nation will take root and grow. It seems almost inconceivable and outlandish in prospect, and may in fact turn out to have no merit as a bit of prognostication, but bear in mind that all large empires have ultimately disintegrated. Rome, The Ottoman Empire, Ancient Islam, The British Empire, and more recently, The Soviet Union, have all, as they say, bitten the dust. Why should the United States, which has already had one tumultuous Civil War that very nearly sundered the nation, be an exception?
As I consider the fate of our empire, it strikes me that those empires that lasted the longest are those that came into being early in the history of human civilization. I posit that consolidating and controlling vast expanses of territory and ruling over diverse peoples was, while never an easy matter, more attainable then than now. And while I realize that the matter of how empires rise and rule is undoubtedly complex, my sense is that among other advantages empires have over their weaker adversaries, such as greater organization, leadership in technology is crucial. Certainly the U.S. has had a technological advantage for generations, and may still, but for the purposes of maintaining an empire, I wonder if our tech lead, such as it is, has become, among many other reasons, too thin for the maintenance of empire.
Clearly mismanagement of finances and ill chosen conflicts are writ large in the history of empires that fail, and it would seem that the U.S. is by no means exempt from such pitfalls. In fact, my view, my thesis is that U.S. financial and martial mistakes are of such magnitude that the very core of the American empire, the lower 48 states, will be at risk. The wherewithal of government plays an enormous role in government's ability to maintain authority over the citizenry. When central government becomes increasingly incapable of responding to crisis, man made and natural, the populace has little incentive to feel, let alone act, as if they are part of something greater than themselves.
The response of the federal government to hurricane Katrina, widely seen to have been profoundly inadequate, is instructive. Local governments almost certainly failed in their missions as catastrophically as the federal government did in theirs, but in the minds of most Americans, the greatest and most damning failure was, understandably, that of The Executive Branch of the federal government. Going forward, for a variety of reasons, such as climate change, disasters like Katrina stand to increase in number and intensify in severity. And as communities around the nation suffer from even more trying conditions, an over taxed federal government will have little in the way to offer in response. Equally, as per the legacy of The War on Terror, it is not unreasonable to expect the federal government to respond to growing social chaos with ever more repressive measures that will do nothing but inflame discontent and drive the citizenry towards separation, or if you prefer, independence from the rest of the nation.
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Some Very Good News!
Occasionally, decisions are reversed, and I am very happy to report that the Bureau of Land Management's decision to stop
processing permits for solar projects on public land was so unpopular and elicited such protest that the BLM has rescinded their earlier decision.
processing permits for solar projects on public land was so unpopular and elicited such protest that the BLM has rescinded their earlier decision.
Monday, June 30, 2008
More Drilling: An idiotic idea squared.
To all those folks out there who are still blowing masses of hot air to the effect that if only the PTB had somehow paved the way for more drilling over the years we wouldn't be in this mess, I say, "GET A GRIP!" And stop blaming green groups for things like The Bureau of Land Management's decision to cease accepting applications for solar projects. Are you folks that stupid or just that dishonest that you can't acknowledge that the road to the BLMs decision traces back to the The Commander in Chief, not the greens. Yeah, that's right, the government already allows a ton of drilling, and mining, and clear cutting on federal lands, but it must have been those pesky greens that stood in the way of placing some relatively benign solar panels in the desert.
On the larger question of should we or should we have not drilled for oil, no we should not have drilled and gouged out the earth at every bleeping opportunity over the last ten or twenty years because it's a false economy. The fossil fuel age is over and needs to be over, but then if you are in denial regarding man's enormous contribution to climate change, and/or if you think Peak Oil is a hoax, then, in addition to being terminally thick, you can not be convinced of the profound illogic in the idea that more gouging and drilling was/is the way forward.
On the larger question of should we or should we have not drilled for oil, no we should not have drilled and gouged out the earth at every bleeping opportunity over the last ten or twenty years because it's a false economy. The fossil fuel age is over and needs to be over, but then if you are in denial regarding man's enormous contribution to climate change, and/or if you think Peak Oil is a hoax, then, in addition to being terminally thick, you can not be convinced of the profound illogic in the idea that more gouging and drilling was/is the way forward.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
I Say It Here....
The article at the link came out a few days after my last post abut Obama looking more and more like a purveyor of the same old same old.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/06/24/obamas_virtues_aside_its_politics_as_usual/
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/06/24/obamas_virtues_aside_its_politics_as_usual/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)