A Reason To Care

One would think that by now, given all the statistics that have been compiled and predictions that have been made on the subject, Washington politicians would have realized that Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and Welfare reform is an issue that needs to be brought to the forefront and dealt with immediately. Sadly, of course, they haven't, and our oversized, bloated federal programs remain on track to create a fiscal catastrophe in the not-so-distant future.

Thankfully (or rather, frighteningly), we have evidence of what will happen if we continue down this path towards Democratic Socialism. The evidence, of course, is Europe. We have the high unemployment rates in France and Germany, the horrors of Britain's National Health Service, and the stagnated growth rates in Scandinavia, all of which, understandably, should warn us of the perils of Democratic Socialism. Even more frightening than the consequences of such programs, however, are the solutions that one must implement if one refuses to downsize or privatize these massive programs in the face of a rapidly ageing population. The obvious one is to increase the tax burden on the young and force them to finance the handsome pensions of their parents' and grandparents' generations; and in Britain, that's exactly what they've decided to do.
This article, from The Times, reports a shocking new statistic: that British college graduates could lose up to one-half of their starting salary to taxation. What a terribly large amount of money to have removed from one's paycheck to help finance government welfare programs - but, unfortunately, this is what has to happen in Britain. With declining birthrates, increased spending on welfare programs, and increasing longevity, increasing taxes on the young is one of the few ways to make the numbers work. The reason is simple; one of the most profitable taxes, from a government perspective, is the income tax - and old people don't work! So, youngsters will begin to see less and less of their paychecks if the system is to be maintained.

There is, of course, another downside to this that any good supply-sider will have already recognized; and that is that drastic tax increases on your workers' paychecks translates into less disposable income. This, in turn, means that people will be less likely to spend money and contribute to the overall economy. In other words, as President Reagan proved, higher income taxes means less overall economic productivity and an all-around, weaker economy.

And that brings me back to the United States, a country where we still have the pleasure of deciding whether we want our future to be like Britain's (or France's, or Sweden's....) or if we want it to be, well, as American as it's always been.

It's hard to talk about things like privatizing Social Security; or to tell our Senior citizens that they just might have to endure a benefit cut; hell, these days it's becoming hard to simply oppose, outright, all forms of socialized medicine; but at the end of the day, these are the things that we need to talk about - and must do. Especially considering that the alternative is figuring out how to distribute a massive tax burden.

Because Power Is Fun - And Profitable!

Surprise, surprise. It seems that one of Myrtle Beach's State Senators, Luke Rankin, who has dedicated himself to opposing workers' comp reform in the S.C. State Legislature, just so happens to be making a bundle from workers' comp-related litigation fees at his law firm! Gosh, it's no wonder he's not too fond of workers' comp reform; I suppose I'd probably be the same way if I was making $659,200 over a 3 year period ('04-'06) off the stuff.

Of course, I already knew that Senator Rankin was a self-serving kindda guy - he is, afterall, the man who switched from the Democratic to the Republican Party right before the 2004 elections, not because he had an ideological change of heart, but because he wanted to hold on to as much power as he possible could. Indeed, after a few other Democratic-to-Republican defections following the 2000 elections, the results of which had left the State Senate evenly split, the Republicans had gained control of the S.C Senate, and it had become clear that in the 2004 elections, for the 1st time since Reconstruction, the Republican Party was going to win a legitimate majority. And ol' Luke wasn't about to be left in the Minority.

The sad thing is, he may not be done with these kind of stunts; as he is one of 4 Republican State Senators who, having just switched to the Republican Party after 2000, it's rumored will happily switch back to his original party if the 2008 Elections go the Democrat's way.

A man of principle, that one. Too bad the principle is himself.

Cold War Redux

You know, you'd think that, since Putin's whole gig revolves around trumping up the awesomeness that is Russia, he wouldn't exactly be quick to bring up one of their more humiliating foreign policy episodes of the past half-century; but he's welcome to make Cuban Missile Crisis analogies if he wants to.

Of course, in one very distinct way, the current situation to which Mr. Putin refers, the U.S's attempts to install a missile defense shield in Poland and the Czech Republic, is quite different; namely in that Russia deployed actual missiles to Cuba, not a shield to protect against the launch of such missiles. Their's was an act of aggression, ours is one of defense.

Nevertheless, there is one important similarity here - one which Putin either has not understood or not thought through.

The reason that Khrushev lost the Cuban Missile Crisis was because he bluffed, and President Kennedy called him on it; and, naturally, when they then had to lay down their cards Kennedy had the better hand. Of course, in the 40+ years since 1962, the gap between the Russian and American hands has only grown - as we have a much greater advantage over Russia now than we ever did during the Cold War.

Which means that if President Bush were to simply call Mr. Putin's bluff, Putin would be screwed; and surely he's not foolish enough to think of President Bush as the 'backing down' type. (If he did, he would certainly be one of few.) So unless Putin's counting on Congressional liberals and U.N/E.U political 'elites' to intervene on his behalf (which, given their recent history, he very well may be), something tells me this isn't one of his better moments.

Hopefully, the Bush Administration will recognize this, and plow ahead in its negotiations with Poland and the Czech Republic on the installation of the Missile Defense shield. Why? Because, after nearly 100 years of having to deal with German expansionism and Soviet communism, not to mention the U.S turning it's back on them after WWII, the Poles and Czechs deserve our military support.

And after all, Russian autocrats become tiresome rather quickly.

Maine Gives SexEd A Makeover

Ah, the strange things that can happen when your Moral Compass goes batshit and just starts spinning in all sorts of.....crazy directions.

Please, feel free to give that article a second read folks, because I can assure you that allowing birth-control pills to be given out in Middle Schools is one you haven't heard before.

Clearly it's in the best interest of our society to encourage little 11 year-olds to run around and have sex, Right? Especially when, assuming the parents have o.k'ed their child's treatment by the school Nurse, the parents of the kids don't have to be notified that their Middle-school-aged daughters are receiving birth-control.

Fun, no?

Oh wait, better question: given that the legal Age of Consent in Maine is 16, doesn't that mean that these School Board Members and Schools are aiding and abetting in Statutory Rape?

Oh, the joys of Modern Society....

***Update 10/26***

It seems that the answer to my above question is, indeed, 'yes' - giving birth control to someone underage is illegal; and the Cumberland County DA has stepped in to, ahem, remind these idiots at the Middle School that they have to report anyone having sex who is underage. I was, however, wrong on one point, as it seems that the legal age of consent in Maine may be 14 and not 16. Either way, there are still kids as young as 11 in the school in question....

Why Does He Even Bother?

This article brings to mind that ol' story about President Bush and the Pope.

You know, the one where the two men are riding down the Potomac in a boat with several other diplomats and such, when the Pontiff's white hat thing blows off into the river. President Bush then calmly climbs over the side of the boat, walks across the top of the water to retrieve the hat, then walks back and hands it to the Pope. The headline in the media the next day: "Bush Can't Swim!!!"

Seriously, the number of civilian and Military deaths in Iraq is going down, so what do these brilliant reporters decide to write a story about? Why, how these declining casualty rates have negatively affected the funeral businesses in Iraq!

Spin that war coverage, baby - spin that shit like your life depends on it!

Come to think of it, it's no wonder most people in this country are opposed to The War - when you get media coverage as crappy as this, it's hard to be a fan.

As Painful As Pulling Teeth

Ah, the wonders of Socialized Health Care, they just never stop coming:

"[In the U.K,] large numbers of people are going without dental treatment and some even report extracting their own teeth because they cannot find an NHS dentist in their area"

Gosh that sounds like fun, having to pull my own teeth out because I can't find a dentist - hey wait a minute, I guess this means you really do get free health care under socialized medicine!! I mean, you're certainly not going to pay yourself for doing your own Dental Work.

But hey, at least this dental shortage has spawned some of that good ol' creativity:

"Some of the respondents show considerable ingenuity. 'Filled own teeth - clove oil and Polyfilla,' said one in Essex. Another fixed a crown with Superglue and a third used a screwdriver to scrape off plaque."

There's some crafty ol' chaps still left in Britain, yes sir; and good thing too, because I can't say I really expect their MPs to do anything about it - anything that will work, at least.

Indeed, one Liberal Democrat spokesman, quoted in the article, noted that "this survey shows the system is at breaking point." Really?!? Maybe it's just me, but if you have a system that's been around for 8 years (as this one has) that's supposed to provide Universal Dental Care, and people are still having to pull their own teeth, the system ain't at a 'breaking point' - it's already busted.

Moreover, the solution of the London politicians, whether Liberal Democrat, Labour, or even Tory, will be to 'reform' the program - you know, make some changes so that the NHS will 'work better' and 'be more responsive to peoples' needs,' and all those other tried and true slogans politicians use. But none of the reforms they can propose will work.

Why? Because, ultimately, the problem isn't a kink in the system - it's the system itself.

Say What Now?

Reason number 234,125,906,866 that Hillary Clinton shouldn't be President, via a FOX article about candidate screw-ups on the campaign trail:

...and in South Carolina, where the H is silent in Horry Country, the names matter. Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who mastered most of the names during her husband's campaigns, goofed by calling the state's coastal area "the lowlands" rather than the preferred "Lowcountry."

Bitch. Seriously, the lowlands?? What, does she think I live in Holland or something? Please, it's the South Carolina Lowcountry, plain an' simple.

'Course, Hillary ain't the only one that's screwed up on the S.C campaign trail. Fred Thompson thought the man in the Governors Mansion was Mark Sandford, as opposed to the real guy who's there - Mark Sanford.

And John McCain left one crowd quite puzzled when he told them that, despite his conversion from the Episcopalian Church to the Baptist Church, he "didn't find it necessary" to be Baptized into his new Church - and this to a crowd composed entirely of not just Baptists, but Southern Baptists. I'm guessing he didn't win any converts with that one.

In addition to amusing anecdotes about candidate screw-ups, FOX also offers some sage advice to candidates for future trials along the campaign trail:

...don't assume food comes ready to eat, as candidates in South Carolina have done. In that state, political barbecue means roasted pig and hands-on messiness. "You peel shrimp and shuck oysters," said Romney political consultant Warren Tompkins. More than 20 years later, some remember when Walter Mondale didn't peel and got more than a mouthful.

Yes indeed, all visitors to S.C would do well to realize that, sometimes, the seafood ain't exactly 'cooked to order.' Although we do understand that eating the shrimp's shell is acceptable in some parts of the world - but imitating the French probably ain't a winning campaign strategy in the Lowcountry.

"We Are In A War"

Earlier today, with limited pomp, circumstance, and media attention, Marine General Peter Pace left his post as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Before riding off into the sunset, however, General Pace had some parting words for his and, by extension, the War's critics.

"I just want everyone to understand that this dialogue is not about 'Can we vote our way out of a war.' We have an enemy who has declared war on us. We are in a war. They want to stop us from living the way we want to live our lives. So the dialogue is not about 'Are we in a war' but how and where and when to best fight that war to preserve our freedom and to preserve our way of life and to do so with the least damage to our own society and the least damage to those who we're fighting against so we can put the pieces back together on the end of this. We will prevail. There's no doubt about that."

The emphasis was added to highlight the most important point, one which many on the anti-war side continually fail to grasp, and that is this: no one has ever defeated an Islamic Jihad by running away. Politicians in the United States, including the President, are fond of downplaying the influence of religion on Iraq, Afghanistan, and the larger, so-called, War on Terror - but they do so at their own peril. The label of 'Terror' is a misnomer, as we are not out to eliminate the threat of terrorism; indeed, to do so would be an impossibility. Given this, I have long thought that this war should be called either the 'War on Islamic Fascism,' or, in more 'PC' terms, the 'War on Islamic Fundamentalism.'

Indeed, like it or not, we are in a Religious War. And it is a Religious War because they have defined it as such - and to ignore them would be a disaster. Indeed, as Carl von Clausewitz wrote in the famous, On War:

"The supreme, most far-reaching act of judgment that the statesman and commander have to make is to establish, by that test, the kind of war on which they are embarking; neither mistaking it for, nor trying to turn it into something that is alien to its nature."

Or, in the simpler words of Sun-Tzu's The Art of War; "know thy enemy." I sense a similar warning from General Pace to those in Washington, and throughout the U.S, who wish us to believe that this War is something we can end simply by leaving Iraq.

Now, this war is not a Religious War in the Medieval sense of term, where one religion battled another; but a more modern one, as we find the battle lines drawn not between two religions, but between one religion, Islam, and the Secularists, who oppose its agenda. Of course, Islam fighting a Religious War is nothing new - Islam has been at war with the infidels since Muhammad and his first Muslim converts began attacking Arabic caravans traveling across the Arabian Desert in the 620's. It then continued with a frenzy until, finally, in 732, Charles Martel sent the Islamic warriors into retreat at the Battle of Tours. But Islamic jihad did not vanish - it only rested and regrouped. In 1453, the hordes of Muhammad finally overcame the walls of Constantinople, and with them the Byzantine Empire, thus beginning, yet again, a march of Islamic warriors towards the heart of Europe. As before, they were turned back by Europeans, this time while trying to siege the city of Vienna in 1683. Despite being forced into retreat yet again, the Muslims held on as long as was possible, until the crumbling ruins of the Ottoman Empire were finally destroyed in the First World War.

Then, sometime during the middle of the 20th Century, around the time many Europeans were reeling from their own disastrous experiments with the likes of Fascism and Imperialism, and others about to reel thanks to their experiments with Communism - Islam began to rumble again. Influenced by everything from Nazi ideology to the polarity of the Cold War world, Islam became re-acquainted with its warrior jihad of old; and slowly began to channel this spirit through organizations like Al-Qaeda, ultimately culminating in what should have been an obvious sign to all in the West that a new onslaught of jihad was back, and taking aim at them: the 9/11 attacks.

With that loose framework of the three major 'waves' of Islamic jihad, I now come back to General Pace, and, specifically, the last part of his remarks which I quoted above. Here, in discussing the eventual "end" of this War, he hints at what we are doing differently in this phase of the fight against jihad. In the past, the solution to Islamic jihad has been simply to kill as many Muslims as was feasible, and, eventually, through military strength, beat the jihad back into Arabia and out of your 'world.' As you can see though, setting aside, even, the fact that Arabia is no longer 'out of our world,' this strategy has proven vastly ineffective at preventing future assaults of jihadists. This time, we are attempting to address this problem - and doing so by attempting to reform the Islamic world from within. Just as the Renaissance and the Enlightenment were able to temper and eventually eliminate 'Crusaders' and able to moderate Christianity, we are planning to use similar ideological tools to temper jihadists.

It is, in all respects, a phenomenal and over-whelming task. We are hoping that by instituting Democracy we can not only beat back, this, the third wave of jihad, but also pre-empt a potential fourth wave; although given history, it seems unlikely that the latter might be possible. Yet, one thing is clear; Democracy would be, in most all respects, a death blow for the third wave of jihad. It would not end it, but it would certainly be its Tours. That is the significance of the battle of Iraq in this greater War on Islamic Fascism; and, whether he meant to or not, it is what General Pace hinted at today when he talked about putting the pieces of, not just our society, but their society back together when this War is over. He's hoping that pieces of the Iraq we put back together will be new ones. 'Enlightened' ones, if you will. He's asking people to not give up on this vision, and he's not asking because he feels it's the better choice between continuing the fight in Iraq and ending the War. He's asking because he knows that, if we want to win, in the end, we have no choice.

After all, we are in a War - whether we like it or not.