30
Nov
Lashkar-e-Taiba sells itself as “The Army of the Good”. Using that moniker, they advocate fundamentalist Islam rule. Azam Amir Kasab is apparently a member of “The Army of the Good”. Now, this is how the “The Army of the Good” spreads its word for the “Religion of Peace”:
It’s kinda blurry, but that’s a rifle he’s carrying. He’s walking around a hotel in Mumbai, India, randomly shooting tourists. Now, I’m not sure about you, but I just don’t buy the “army of the good” rhetoric. Or for that matter, the “religion of peace” one either. Innocent people are being killed all over the planet in the name of “the religion of peace” while all the other members of “the religion of peace sit idly by and let them prepare. Often times, assisting them. This is not a situation of a hand full of rogue religious zealots going full throttle crazy, it’s systematic, it’s world wide, it’s organized. Many times, it’s supported by the host country’s government. Mankind can not advance under these circumstances. If they had their way, we’d be living in the Dark Ages, again.
Now, where this becomes an issue in the United States is two-fold. First of all, we’ve dealt with the likes of “The Army of the Good”. It was ugly. We let our guard down and we’re still paying for the price for that. We will for a while.
Second, President-elect Barack Obama soothed his primary critics during the election cycle by stating flat-out that he would go into Pakistan to find Osama Bin Laden. What this presents is a problem. First of all, Pakistan is our ally. One of the very few fundamentalist Islam nations to do so. Our primary supporter in Pakistan is no longer in office. So, to say the relationship is probably tenuous is pushing it. They like our money a lot. But, I’m guessing at this point that’s about it. US troops have gone accross the border into Pakistan trying to quell problems in Iraq. This has not been received too well. To get to the root of the problem, we’d have to go WAY into Pakistan. At that point, I can pretty well assume our alliance will be no more. Is Obama willing to do that? Are the people that supported Obama primarily under the promise of getting us out of war, in Iraq, willing to support him starting another war in Pakistan when they haven’t attacked the US? The politics of starting a conflict with Pakistan are exactly the same as they were starting the conflict with Iraq. Only, I would assume, Pakistan is a much more dangerous situation than Iraq was in 2003. Pakistan has a very fractured military whereas Iraq was ruled with an iron thumb. When Hussein was driven from power, the Iraqi army disintegrated. I don’t see that happening in Pakistan. Even if it does, the many very heavily armed and isolated terrorist cells will be a small war for each and every one of them. Given all that, the promise of getting Bin Laden by simply invading Pakistan is flawed. When the troops do begin conflict with Pakistan, he will be long gone again.
So, the Obama reason for entering Pakistan doesn’t hold water. Would we do it to support India? I would hope so. But, it would have to be at India’s request and lead. This war on “radical” Muslim terrorist groups is not something one single country can deal with. They’re all over the planet, heavily armed, and in some cases represent the government of the country they’re in. This would have to be a concerted effort by many governments ready to deal with the consequences for a long time.
And quite frankly, given the fact how many people have forgotten, or just don’t care, about 9/11 any more in the US, I’m not sure we’ve got what it takes to deal with the consequences for more than a couple of years. If Obama does initialize a conflict with Pakistan, will Keith Olbermann demand he be impeached? Is Obama willing to put up with his most ardent supporters attacking him?
My gut instinct right now is we’ve done all we can do in Iraq and Afghanistan. We need to focus on the instability inside Pakistan. It’s too big of an issue to be ignored under the auspices of being our “ally”. They’ve got an unstable government, huge terrorist cells, and the nuclear bomb. It’s more than evident that the Pakistani government can not control their own country. It’s questionable whether they can control their own government. Iran has been rushing to be the first fundamentalist country to posses the bomb. I’d argue Pakistan beat them to the punch. Whether politically, militarily, or financially, Pakistan needs to be dealt with in a very stern way. The carnage in Mumbai may be Obama’s first test. I can expect the Indian government will demand retribution against Pakistan. How Obama reacts to this could very well determine his future for the next four years as 9/11 did for Bush, whether he likes it or not. There is no pretty option here. There is no way he can sweet talk this away. It will be hard choices probably forcing the US to ally with either India or Pakistan. Walking the fence is probably not an option any more.
Bush assured a conflict with Iraq when he was a candidate for office. Two years laters people claimed they had been “lied” to. No one was lied to. They simply didn’t listen. Obama pretty much promised a war with Pakistan. Were people listening?
I expect that even though Obama has a loaded domestic agenda, his agenda is going to be interrupted by an expensive and politically challenging conflict in Pakistan. I hope I’m wrong.
We’ve seen a lot of ramifications this year from what initially was the collapsing housing market. The crisis at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac spilled over to the private financial sector, with ramifications continuing even of today. That credit crisis spilled over to the auto market, which is leading to an employment crisis. Things are just bad all over it seems. The words recession and depression get tossed around a lot these days. The Bush Administration, with an assist from the incoming Obama Administration, have thrown everything including the kitchen sink at the mess. Although somewhat mitigating the mess, it just doesn’t seem to want to go away yet. A lot of people have argued the pro’s and cons of bailouts or not. Depending on the circumstances, I’ve been for some, and against others. We have developed a perverted mess of the public financing markets over the years by socializing the financial sector. Those not feeding off the socialized model seem to be thriving while those that pushed paper and high risk loans seem to be collapsing. What this is all boiling down to is, to put it rather simply in my own opinion, is that the government, in a panic, is sticking their finger in a huge dike. I have touched on the issue here a few times in the past in regards to other issues. The problem is not that traditional US citizens, and indeed the world, are less willing to take risks and borrow money. The problem is that those traditional consumers are thinning out. The United States is an aging country right now. The US is 10% older, on agerage, than it was in 1990. Scarier, the Baby Boomers are just now getting ready to hit retirement en masse. Now, the big issue this raises is the fact that older people are less likely to spend money on things than younger people. They’re not looking for larger houses. They’re not looking for the latest Wii, Nintendo, or XBox. They’re not terribly concerned for the most with the latest gadgets. Most, although I might be a little bit out of the norm, are not buying for their kids. They are for the most part settling in, minimizing expenses, and not consuming at nearly the level of younger adults. Additionally, they are hoarding cash to buffer their retirement. A recession is defined as a contraction phase of the business cycle, or “a period of reduced economic activity”. Economic definitions don’t take into account of why the economy reduces. In this case, although we’re just on the cusp, I think it’s going to reduce simply because we’re living longer and cranking out fewer kids. Businesses that adjust to the newer economic reality will surivive, those that don’t, will be reduced in revenues whether they adjust or not. Now, I don’t think this is going to be some huge earthquake like event. It will be slow over a period of decades. However, most businesses and governments project a continued growth over a period of time. I don’t see that happening in a projectible manner. Service needs will change, product demands will change. Those that prepare will be fine. Those that don’t, won’t.
Given all that, I think the Obama team needs to start telling people that a new economic environment is coming and this phase we’re going through now is the ramifications of us not preparing for it. Promising a return to normal probably isn’t a good idea right now.
The most screwed up political issue of the Bush administration will be returning I imagine very shortly for the Obama administration. First, I want to make sure people understand where I’m coming from:
- The “Bush ban on stem cells” originally was passed in 1999. Bush wasn’t president, Bill Clinton was. This was a complete ban on all embryonic stem cell research. Nothing was allowed. Nada. This is the ban that people are so opposed to. However, they have pretty much successfully laid the blame squarely on George HW Bush’s head. In my opinion, it is this completley politically driven agenda that has hurt the issue more than anything else. Bush had no reason to deal with the issue outside of his moral concerns with human embryonic stem cell research. He was in a lose-lose situation. If he continued the ban, those that wanted the research would still blame him for something he did not initiate. If he lifted the ban, conservatives would have eaten him alive.
- On August 9, 2001, President Bush addressed the issue of the stem cell ban. He initiated the first federal funding into embryonic stem cell research. However, he left a large part of the Clinton ban intact. Because of this, opponents of the ban called it the “Bush ban on stem cell research”. He never got any credit for initiating the first ever funded research, he only got criticism for not opening the door wide open to any type of embryonic research. In my opinion, because of the continued misguided and purely politically driven politicization of the issue, Bush never addressed the issue again.
- In 2006, using stem cell research as a political issue, the Democrats regained control of the House and Senate. In a political gut check, the Republicans sponsored legislation in the Senate to expand stem cell research. It passed the Senate with primary opposition coming from the Democrats. The critics became quiet. The issue became moot. It never made it out of Nancy Pelosi’s Congress. One of the driving issues of the 2006 Democrat take-over of Congress was forgotten immediately after they took over, and none of the people who shouted the loudest about the issue for five years said a word once they realized they had been duped by the Democrats.
- In 2008, stem cell research again reared its head in the presidential general election. The Obama campaign ran ads stating McCain had interfered with stem cell research. Fact was that McCain had been a huge supporter of stem cell research since 2001. He in fact, was one of those critical of Bush’s limited policy in 2001. To the contrary, Obama had voted not to expand stem cell research in 2007. Oddly enough, media made no mention of this discrepency. Obama won the general election. Based on Obama winning the election, people are immediately assuming Obama will open the door wide open to human embryonic research.
This is where I am going with my opinions after seeing what has happened over the last nine years with this issue. Now, if you take into the fact that a Democrat, Bill Clinton, banned human embryonic research, no Democrat has ever passed legislation expanding funding for stem cell research, and given their opportunities, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama have all voted against expanding stem cell research, I find it very odd that people are assuming the door is wide open now that those people are in control. Sure, they’ve given a lot of lip service, but to this point, it’s all been lies.
Surely I’m missing something somewhere, so kindly fill me in if you wish.
Now, the past record of Livescience and the very vocal media is once the Democrats slam the door on stem cell research, the media immediately drops the entire issue like a hot potato. Michael J. Fox shuts up. Claire McCaskilll shuts up. Rosie O’Donnell blames it on Republicans and conservatives. The girls on The View talk about anything other than stem cell research. None of them can deal with the ugly fact that this issue has been a political toy for liberals for nine years and that is it. The same trick that worked in 2006 worked in 2008. Nothing has been accomplished in that time.
And the most pathetic thing about this entire issue, is most likely, human embryonic stem cells aren’t even needed. Now that blaming everything on Bush is no longer an issue, let’s see how this issue pans out. I’d love to see a major push into stem cell research, the ramifications are huge. However, I’d love even more to see this issue treated with professionalism and respect, something that has not happened to date. If we can’t treat this issue with the respect it demands, I’m not sure we need to be dicking around with human stem cells in the first place. Too many people are willing to use this for political gain. If they’re willing to do that, what would they do if something truly powerful came from this research?
Bottom line, stem cell research has continued unabated during the “ban” that doesn’t truly exist. It is being done in the private sector by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute among others. I trust people like HHMI a lot more than I do the political whims of any candidate for office. I’d prefer the issue be left alone so those people can do their job. The more people use this issue for stirring up emotions, either for political gain or selling advertisements, the more disservice is done to this issue.
While Ford, GM, and Chrysler fly expensive jets to beg for money to keep the UAW happy so that they’ll keep contributing millions to the Democrats from the Big Three’s billion dollar losses, a minor fourth ceased existance this week.
That’s right, the Yugo is no more.
This tiny, ugly, and unreliable car existed for several decades. It was the pride of Yugoslavia. It was the butt of jokes in the US. I got to ride in one I think while I was in college. A girl I knew owned one. During the ride it felt like I was in a Nascar race. Every turn felt like she was dodging oncoming vehicles. Every bump in the road jolted your teeth. I was anxious, nervous, and sometimes very scared. I was quite relieved to get to our destination. She never topped 45 miles per hour. Not once. I don’t think it went that fast. She said she liked it because it was exciting to drive. I believe her. I never needed that type of excitement driving around town so I never got one.
Yugo never sold that many in the US because they could never get their plants efficient enough to meet demand. As demand waned, they just didn’t make as many. Simple supply and demand. Fiat bought Yugo a while back and did nothing to upgrade the car or market it. Demand continued to fade and Fiat finally decided to give up. Now, this is where the lesson for the US Congress and Senate kicks in. To meet the existing demand for the Yugo in Europe, Fiat will be making be manufacturing the Punto. I’m sure this will be a small, cheap, fuel efficient car that mimics the Yugo. The demand for small cars is probably growing right now. The name brand of “Yugo” has been damaged by years of shoddy construction. Fiat will be able to make a new car, new brand, with no baggage, in a much more efficient plant.
Do people really think just because Ford, GM, or Chrysler is not making the vehicle that the demand for new cars will go away? It’s not a question of meeting demand, it’s a question of who meets that demand. If all of the Big Three survive, and start producing cars that meet demand, then they’ll be just fine. If not, someone else will. Hopefully that someone else will be domestic as well. That’s why I don’t think anything Congress does now will affect the long term situation of the Big Three. The only choice Congress has right now is to prolong Detroit’s demise unless the Big Three are willing to adapt, or save some cash for better use.
20
Nov
Well, after demanding change for two solid years, and getting a LOT of people to buy into his change, Obama’s “change” is starting to take shape. This is what it is possibly looking like now that Obama’s had a couple of weeks to vet the changelings he wants spearheading his change.
Janet Napolitano. You remember her possibly from the Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas fiasco. It was Janet’s job to make Anita Hill look good. She failed. She went back to Arizona and became governor. She’s possibly the next Attorney General.
Henry Waxman. Possibly the ugliest Congressman to ever live. His main claim to fame over the last eight years has been asking for every living Republican to be investigated for breathing. People mostly ignored him. For that, he IS the new Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
Tom Daschle. Former Senator who lost his seat for no real reason. He’s probably going to be in charge of Health and Human Service.
Eric Holder. His main claim to fame was advising Bill Clinton to pardon Marc Rich. For that, he will probably be the next Attorney General.
Rahm Emanual. Has been the primary attack dog and devout Democrat in Congress for a while. For that, he will become Chief of Staff.
Robert Gates. Not much change there. For now, he’s probably keeping the same position he’s had. Secretary of Defense.
And of course, the new Secretary of State looks a lot like the former First Lady. She’s been in DC since 1993.
There’s your change to believe in so far.
Nuff said!
20
Nov
This is getting comical to me. Harry Reid postponed a automaker bailout vote. This has apparently spooked the United Auto Workers. Where it gets comical is this part:
Alan Mulally, the CEO of Ford Motor Co., said the company had sufficient cash reserves to make it through 2009.
But:
But United Auto Workers union president Ron Gettelfinger said a bankruptcy could spawn others.
Which others? GM’s got problems, they’ve stated that. Ford thinks they can hold on for a year. That only leaves Chrysler. Trying to figure out Chrysler’s financial situation is practically impossible due to how they’re owned. So, bottom line, we know for sure one out of three is in trouble. Ron Gettelfinger must be sure that the bailout baby of 1979 is the “other”. If that’s the case, going bankrupt every thirty years is a sure sign that maybe we’ve got one too many ineffecient major auto makers. That’s what the market’s saying. What Ron’s saying is we just need to blindly give them cash in a major way right now even though they are not necessarily saying they need it. Sound crazy? It’s not. The UAW has agreed to pick up a bunch of employee benefits that would otherwise be on the automakers’ books in a year or so. So, the stakes are big. If one of those Big 3 goes down, UAW will be paying benefits for all their retirees without any revenues from their previous employer. Losing one out of three doesn’t mean squat to you or me. It would be devestating to the auto unions.
Personally, I’m 100% behind the private sector and letting the market place dictate the most efficient business practices. The problem is not that we don’t need three automakers, we probably need more. The problem is that various interests have so perverted the domestic auto industry it can not operate efficiently. Therefore, other non-perverted businesses are able to operate more efficiently and are killing off the perverted dinosaurs. People argue about Japan and Europe subsidizing their industries. That’s not an issue. The sheer size and economic base of the United States overwhelms Europe and Japan. If the domestic makers were producing efficient vehicles for a market determined price, they’d be killing Japan and Europe. However, they’re not. Others are trying to. If we get the bloated and perverted union possessed Big 3 out of the way, I feel those newer, more contemporary companies will thrive.
Rather than making combustion engines, transmissions, and all the multitude of parts it takes to build a traditional car, the people losing their jobs in Detroit and elsewhere will be making state of the art vehicles that are pretty much disposable and very efficiently and cheaply built. Sounds a lot like the most successful US car of all time to me, the Model-T. Which, of course, was built before the unions took over. Coincidence? I think not.
In 1979 the US government bailed out Chrysler. It was a resounding success as Chrysler restructured, cranked out new and innovative vehicles, and paid back the loan in four years.
In 2008, Chrysler, GM, and Ford are back at the begging table for another bailout.
In 1979 I was a teenager more interested in babes than parsing federal politics. In 2008, I wish I was more interested in babes than federal politics. That’s not the only thing that’s different this time.
The key to the 1979 bailout of Chrysler was restructuring employee benefits in such a way it made it a lot more profitable to make a vehicle. So far, the 2008 version, from what I’ve seen, contains no measures to do so. In 1979 Congress held the unions’ feet to the fire and said they would not assist Chrysler unless the workers made concessions as well. I have seen nothing like that this time.
The simple reason the US automakers are in the fix they are in is because they are paying double or more what the foreign automakers are paying within in the US to make a car. I have seen the figure of $73 an hour being average. That folks, is nuts.
What Harry Reid is proposing is extending unemployment benefits and creating an oversight committee to keep an eye on the loans. What’s the point of that? What does that accomplish? The whole country knows what needs to be done, why does Harry need a committee?
Bottom line, this does nothing to reduce the automakers operating costs and make them more efficient. Nothing.
Why do you suppose Harry Reid is so ignorant? I don’t think he’s all that ignorant. I think there’s a totally different reason he’s not going to do the obvious and force the unions to the table to protect the US citizens’ investment in Ford, GM, or Chrysler:
Does it get any clearer than that?
If that doesn’t do it, then look at some headlines from recent elections:
- UAW endorses Barack Obama
- UAW endorses John Kerry
- UAW endorses Al Gore
- UAW endorses Bill Clinton
- UAW endorses Bill Clinton
What do you all think?
Nancy Pelosi had this to say yesterday:
“Our country faces a serious and worsening foreclosure crisis that is affecting millions of Americans. Addressing the underlying problem of home foreclosures, and stopping the continued drop in home values, is essential to restoring confidence in our financial system, freeing up the flow of credit consumers and small businesses, and spurring renewed economic growth.”
Now, I have several issues with this statement.
- Allowing people to stay in homes they are not paying for does nothing to prevent the drop in home values. Increasing the demand for those homes is the only thing that would accomplish that.
- Allowing people to stay in homes they are not paying for guts the financial system. They will be responsible for the outlay for the home while receiving nothing in return.
- Allowing people to stay in homes they are not paying for does nothing to free up the flow of credit. Without the cash flow from the homes, the lenders will have a diminished equity to debt ratio thereby limiting their ability to make more loans.
- Allowing people to stay in homes they are not paying for does nothing to spur renewed economic growth. Most economic growth is financed by banks with loans. If the banks do not have revenues coming in on assets they have loaned out, they do not have the equity to give business loans which are traditionally riskier than home loans.
Barack Obama is now referred to as President-Elect Barack Obama. Soon to be just President Obama. His sudden rise to The White House has not been the story I think most people would aspire to follow. Well, maybe they would, just not me. I’ll ignore his confusing youth of hanging out with terrorists and all the stuff that’s been beat to death in the papers and dwell instead today on what’s not been in the papers much.
In 2004, the Illinois US Senate seat was open. A whole bunch of peeps jumped on it. Twenty-two I think it was. A few distanced themselves at the top very quickly. Most notably on the Democrat side was Blair Hull. That’s when Obama caught his first break by getting the ringing endorsement from this lady:
That’s his main opponent’s soon to be ex-wife. She made Obama’s candidate look like a trailor trash reject. Accusing of an uncontrollable anger and made her fear for the safety of herself and their child. By the time she got done with Blair Hull, he was toast. Obama then cruised to the nomination. In the general, Obama was getting toasted by the Republican, Jack Ryan. Right when Ryan was set to crush Obama, Obama caught another break given by this woman:
Jeri Ryan, the soon to be ex-wife of Jack. She claimed Jack tried to get her to do it with other peeps in a pervy bar in Paris. Imagine that. Jack decided to not run. The opps waited for Mike Ditka to run, but he, I am sure, feared the effect this would have on his marriage, and declined. That left basically Alan Keyes, who was getting kind of strange at this point. And, more importantly, didn’t live in Illinois. It was a cakewalk for Obama.
Once he decided to run for President, the tide turned ugly for the opposition party as they were dealing with, of all things, this:
That, believe it or not, started a snowball effect that sort of fouled the press on the Republicans. So, the Republicans countered with John McCain, who, oddly enough, had been through a rather ugly looking divorce a few years back. The Dems made sure to mention that fact occasionally.
So, it just appears that Obama was either really lucky. Or, even more fearful, brings out something in women that makes them want to destroy their husbands if they appear to get in Obama’s way.
I won’t be getting in his way any time soon.
