“Those who can give up essential liberty, to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Benjamin Franklin, to the Pennsylvania Assembly in 1755. There have been attributions of this sentiment by various people over the centuries, but Franklin’s is the one most quoted.
I could stand it no longer so I have decided to weigh in with my own exegetic thoughts on the U.S. airports security screening brouhaha. As one could surmise from the foregoing quote, I am more than adumbrating that I am not in favor of what the TSA (Transportation Safety Administration) is doing to that portion of the American public who fly on commercial airlines. In fact I find these procedures of full body scans and intrusive body pat-downs highly offensive. Paralogistical bureaucrats asseverate, ipse dixit, the necessity of these outrageous practices which is so highly predictable: It is solely to make the flying public as safe as is possible. What offal! I would wager that the overriding concern of the TSA and the rest of the Obama administration, and Obama, himself, in case an Islamic terrorist blows up an airplane in mid-flight, is to claim they did everything humanly possible to thwart it. But did they? As has been stated myriad times, the Israelis have the best airport security system in the world. So what do they do? They profile. The passenger list is scrutinized before the flight to attempt to identify any potential terrorist; certain passengers are questioned; and all are observed to spot any nervous or peculiar behavior. Particular attention is paid to young Middle Eastern, Eastern, or North African looking types (after all where are these Islamic terrorists from, Muslim countries or Scandinavian countries?). Isn’t that profiling? Absolutely, and we should be doing the same thing, except political correctness is so rampant in this country that we put ourselves at risk and endure humiliating procedures just to avoid contravening it.
Amendment IV to the United States Constitution says, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…..” Is what the TSA doing to the American flying public in violation of their constitutional right not to be subjected to unreasonable searches? I believe most of these flying passengers and certainly the airline flight crews would agree. If this issue would ever reach the U.S. Supreme Court, how it would be ruled on is problematic.
Far more liberals than conservatives do not object to the governmental enhanced airport screening techniques now being used. Many of those same liberals opposed every method used by the Bush administration to interdict the terrorist acts of the Islamic extremists including warrantless wire taps, rendition, and enhanced interrogations of known terrorists, especially, horror of horrors, water-boarding all of three high profile Islamic terrorist chiefs. The claim was always that the civil rights of these people were being violated by an overweening government. Yet with the civil and privacy rights of ordinary Americans now being violated by enhanced airport screening, these liberals have no problem with it. Let’s see, do you suppose that what is now being done by the Obama administration rather than the Bush administration has anything to do with the attitude of liberals?
A recent poll showed that 50% of the American public thinks the intrusive body pat-downs go too far and 48% do not think so. Who are these benighted 48%? In his play A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Act III, scene II, Shakespeare wrote “What fools these mortals be.” The label fits those idiots perfectly. The poll also said that by a 2:1 ratio they were not troubled by the full body scans. In fairness to the American public I believe it highly likely that if only the flying public were polled the outcome would be considerably different in favor of more opposition to an overly intrusive government. As far as the non-flying American public is concerned when and in what society have the Plebeians ever been introspective or critically thoughtful?
Do these enhanced airport security methods actually make people in airplanes safer as the TSA and liberals who have no problem with an overbearing government claim? Ask yourself: How many terrorists have been apprehended with these “safety” procedures? The answer is zero, none, nada. The would-be “shoe bomber” was foiled by other passengers and the failed “underwear bomber” by his own ineptness after they were already on an airplane. The upshot was airline passengers were required to remove their shoes for inspection and have their underwear searched. It is always the same with these bumbling and fatuous government employees in their inchoate and always reactive, but never proactive response to the tactics of Islamic terrorists. If these Islamic Jihads start making buses and trains in the USA their targets of attacks will the federal government then expand their current “security” protocols in airports to bus and train stations? By what violation of apodictic reasoning could anyone doubt that the proven unimaginative and obtuse government bureaucrats would react any differently to that situation than they have to past threats? N’est-ce pas?
There was a Drudge Report headline that stated: The Terrorists Have Won. That may be a bit premature, but given the reaction of the U.S. government to the attempts (unsuccessfully) since 9/11 by Islamic terrorists to perpetrate acts of terrorism against the United States and given the cravenly acceptance by so many of the American people to these government actions then the direction in this war with terrorists is definitive. The airport so-called “security” methods which are gross intrusions of the civil and privacy rights of American citizens do not demonstrably make anyone any safer. It clearly is not necessary for these Islamic fanatics to success in their quest to bring down the West in general and the United States in particular by killing and maiming hundreds or thousands of people with violent acts. Once they have cowed a sufficient number of people such that the will to resist is gone and their spirits crushed, then the Islamic terrorists have indeed won. With the American public surrendering their liberty for a little perceived safety to an increasingly expansive government is to lose the first battle in the war with Islamic terrorists. If this trend continues can there be little doubt that the war will be eventually lost one step at a time?
Friday, November 26, 2010
Saturday, July 17, 2010
PERCEIVED INCIVILITY IN POLITICS AND THE TRUE PERIL OF THE USA-57
Let me contribute a few cautionary comments from my perspective of decades of observing the contemporary scene and being a student of history that one need not fear for our country because of perceived incivility in the body politic today. The history of politics in our country is replete with more personal attacks, vitriolic discourse, and shameless slanders since the founding of the Republic than what takes place today. Two of the Founding Fathers, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were political allies and personnel friends in the revolutionary days and during the George Washington presidency. In the contest to succeed Washington, Adams and Jefferson became bitter enemies accusing each other of particularly unflattering calumnies and down right falsehoods. Fortunately, Abigail Adams, the accomplished and intellectually gifted wife of John Adams, had been a good friend of Jefferson and her persistence in trying to reconcile the pair finally allowed the two former friends, turned enemies, to resolve their differences during the last 17 years of their lives, after their political careers were over. Thus were created and preserved many priceless letters exchanged between them in those 17 years. As a matter of historical note they both died (Adams was 7½ years older than Jefferson) on the same day; the 50th anniversary of the founding of the Republic.
In 1856, leading up to the Civil War, antislavery Sen. Charles Sumner of Massachusetts made an intemperate speech on the floor of the Senate criticizing proslavery Sen. Andrew Butler of South Carolina. Three days later Rep. Preston Brooks of South Carolina, a relative of Butler, walked up to Sumner who was seated at his desk in the Senate chamber and beat him with his cane so severely that Sumner was absence from the Senate for three years while recovering. The people of South Carolina sent Brooks dozens of canes to replace the one he had broken while he was pummeling Sumner. For weeks afterwards many of the senators and representatives carried pistols and knives on them while they were in the Senate or House chambers and in their offices. Still think there is relatively gross incivility in politics today?
Even, along with George Washington, our most respected, admired, and honorable president, Abraham Lincoln, was not above nasty politics in his youth as a politician in Illinois. As people were wont to do at that time, Lincoln anonymously wrote a scathing, not to say slanderous, parody in the local newspaper of one of his political opponents. Lincoln was soon discovered to be the author and his opponent challenged him to a duel. Friends of both of them interceded so that the dispute was settled without the antagonists resorting to shooting at each other – fortunately, else the country might have been deprived of one of its greatest presidents.
Historians have well documented that during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, what was called the era of “yellow” journalism, newspapers and politicians put forth the most outrageous and villainous descriptions of their opponents than anything that could be imagined today.
Audrey, a little advice from an old codger who has seen it all. If you use an example to illustrate a finer point make sure the example has validity. Other than former respected civil rights activist and now Representative in the House, John Lewis (D-GA) who allegedly said he heard the “N” word used against him by the Tea Party protestors in Washington D.C. there is no evidence that it occurred. Lewis would not go on any TV network, not Fox News or the other left leaning networks, and repeat that claim. Lewis himself had used over the top and therefore uncivil criticism during the presidential campaign, calling John McCain and Sarah Palin segregationists and comparing them to George Wallace. Prior to that Lewis was the first major House member to call for the impeachment of George W. Bush.
A website owner and conservative Jew, Andrew Breitbart, was suspicious of the claim that Tea Party participants had used foul or racist language toward black members of congress so he offered a $10,000 reward to anyone who could produce any camera cell phone recording or other evidence that it happened. He had no takers so he increased the amount to $100,000 and is still waiting. Given how ubiquitous camera cell phones are now (just consider what happened to the owner of the Dallas Cowboys, Jerry Jones. If you have not heard the story this past week I could relate it to you) one would think that someone would have recorded it. Also not one of the dozens and dozens of Capital Police has said they heard anything untoward directed toward black members of congress. I am just saying be sure your “facts” can not be reasonably disputed by someone like me.
There are always fringe people in any group and the current government protestors are no exception. These yahoos go beyond acceptable bounds and Bill Clinton was right to point this out a couple of days ago. However, if one is to be a moral arbitrator, then it is imperative to be consistent in this position. Where was Clinton a few years ago when some of the anti Iraq and Afghanistan wars protestors were calling George W. Bush a murderer, liking him to Hitler, and displaying signs with crosshairs on the forehead of a picture of Bush? It is necessary to be fair and consistent when impugning the character and motives of others in order to avoid the appellation of hypocrite.
Is there a reason to be concerned about the course of our country today? Yes there is, but it is not about incivility in politics – it has to do with the economic well being of the country. The vast majority of the protestors today are deeply concerned about the explosive growth of and expansion of the power of the federal government and the burgeoning, seemingly out of control, federal dept. The cause of the rapidly increasing dept is bipartisan and the solution to this grave problem will have to be bipartisan also.
During the first five years of the Bill Clinton administration the federal government ran what by now seem like exceedingly small budget deficits and during his last three years and the first year of the Bush administration (thanks to the Clinton and congress policies) there were budget surpluses. In the entire eight year Clinton administration there was a modest $700 billion increase in the national dept, which, because of the growth in the GDP (gross domestic product), actually caused the debt to became a smaller percentage in relation to the GDP. Whatever the moral failings of Bill Clinton and his under emphasis on the Islamic Terrorist threat during his presidency, there is no denying that the Clinton administration was fiscally conservative and responsible.
For the eight years of the Bush administration the national dept increased by circa $5 trillion, from $5½ to $10½ trillion. Much of this debt increase was due to the unfunded wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the increase in the subsidies of the Medicare/Medicaid prescription drug program. In my opinion this was highly irresponsible because if wars are worth fighting and federal subsidies worth granting then they are worth paying for by either cutting other federal expenditures or raising taxes or both.
In the 21 months of the current presidential administration the national debt increased by $3 trillion, from $10 1/2 to $13 1/2 trillion. A severe financial crises and recession were inherited, true enough, yet instead of sensibly concentrating on improving the economy, lowering unemployment, and trying to control the rapidly increasing national debt, the Obama administration zeroed in on healthcare reform as its primary program.
The debt and its projected growth over the next ten years are unsustainable and if not reversed will do irreversible damage to our economy and society. As of Oct. 2007 the national dept has increased an average of $4.16 billion per day! This explains why the idea of a VAT (Value Added Tax) which means that in every step of the manufacturing or production of goods a tax is added. The concept of going to a VAT in this country is now starting to be bandied about by both liberals and conservatives, but for political reasons will not be proposed before the November bi-year elections. There is simply not enough money available from raising income taxes on the rich to have a significant impact on the dept. As it is, according to the latest figures from the IRS, 47% of the bottom income group of USA households does not pay federal income taxes. In fact the lowest 40% of income households actually receive subsidies from the federal government each year to the tune of $70 billion. The top 1% of income earners (making $390,000 or more per year) pay about the same amount of federal income tax ($450 billion) as the lowest 95% (making $150,000 per year or less). The top 50% of wage earners pay 97% of all federal income tax leaving the bottom 50% paying only 3%. Thus the only realistic alternative of raising significant amounts of revenue for the federal government is the VAT which will be paid by everyone. The estimate is that every 1% of VAT in this country would generate about $100 billion in revenues. Therefore a 10% VAT would mean one trillion dollars for the government coffers. That is quite a temptation for politicians.
The European nations pay for their welfare programs with income taxes and a VAT. In Western Europe the top income tax rate varies from 40% to 54% with the average being 48% and the VAT varying from 16% to 25% with the average being 20%. In Eastern Europe the top income tax rate ranges from 10% to 45% with the average being 22½% and the VAT from 15% to 23% with an average of 19%. Do we really want to go down the road to European socialism?
In the United States the top federal income rate is currently 35%. When the so called Bush tax cuts expire at the end of 2010 the top income tax rate will go back to 39.6%. What is a comparable tax in this country to the European VAT is the state and local sales tax. In Plano it is 8¼%, not quite at the 20% European level. If a VAT were enacted here it would be added to, not replace, the sales tax.
Is there any justification for the USA to have a VAT to help bring down our dangerously high and rapidly increasing national dept? I think yes – with several caveats. (1.) It should not be enacted until our economy and unemployment level have shown clear signs of improvement. (2.) It should be a temporary tax of “X” years where “X” is just long enough to have a measurable and significant impact on lowering our debt. (3.) It should expire after “X” years with a 2/3 majority in both houses of congress required to extend it. (4.) Congress has to enact legislation, signed by the president, for major reductions in government spending including the military and entitlement programs (Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid) as well as pork barrel spending so favored by the rascals in congress (Is it any wonder that congress has a 50 year high disapproval rating of 75% to 80%?).
I may be overly optimistic, but I believe when the ever increasing national financial peril of our country is at last appreciated by a large majority of the voters then our elected representatives will finally act to correct this dire situation. Not this year perhaps; still the way the national dept is mushrooming, not so far in the future that it will be too late to save this great nation.
In 1856, leading up to the Civil War, antislavery Sen. Charles Sumner of Massachusetts made an intemperate speech on the floor of the Senate criticizing proslavery Sen. Andrew Butler of South Carolina. Three days later Rep. Preston Brooks of South Carolina, a relative of Butler, walked up to Sumner who was seated at his desk in the Senate chamber and beat him with his cane so severely that Sumner was absence from the Senate for three years while recovering. The people of South Carolina sent Brooks dozens of canes to replace the one he had broken while he was pummeling Sumner. For weeks afterwards many of the senators and representatives carried pistols and knives on them while they were in the Senate or House chambers and in their offices. Still think there is relatively gross incivility in politics today?
Even, along with George Washington, our most respected, admired, and honorable president, Abraham Lincoln, was not above nasty politics in his youth as a politician in Illinois. As people were wont to do at that time, Lincoln anonymously wrote a scathing, not to say slanderous, parody in the local newspaper of one of his political opponents. Lincoln was soon discovered to be the author and his opponent challenged him to a duel. Friends of both of them interceded so that the dispute was settled without the antagonists resorting to shooting at each other – fortunately, else the country might have been deprived of one of its greatest presidents.
Historians have well documented that during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, what was called the era of “yellow” journalism, newspapers and politicians put forth the most outrageous and villainous descriptions of their opponents than anything that could be imagined today.
Audrey, a little advice from an old codger who has seen it all. If you use an example to illustrate a finer point make sure the example has validity. Other than former respected civil rights activist and now Representative in the House, John Lewis (D-GA) who allegedly said he heard the “N” word used against him by the Tea Party protestors in Washington D.C. there is no evidence that it occurred. Lewis would not go on any TV network, not Fox News or the other left leaning networks, and repeat that claim. Lewis himself had used over the top and therefore uncivil criticism during the presidential campaign, calling John McCain and Sarah Palin segregationists and comparing them to George Wallace. Prior to that Lewis was the first major House member to call for the impeachment of George W. Bush.
A website owner and conservative Jew, Andrew Breitbart, was suspicious of the claim that Tea Party participants had used foul or racist language toward black members of congress so he offered a $10,000 reward to anyone who could produce any camera cell phone recording or other evidence that it happened. He had no takers so he increased the amount to $100,000 and is still waiting. Given how ubiquitous camera cell phones are now (just consider what happened to the owner of the Dallas Cowboys, Jerry Jones. If you have not heard the story this past week I could relate it to you) one would think that someone would have recorded it. Also not one of the dozens and dozens of Capital Police has said they heard anything untoward directed toward black members of congress. I am just saying be sure your “facts” can not be reasonably disputed by someone like me.
There are always fringe people in any group and the current government protestors are no exception. These yahoos go beyond acceptable bounds and Bill Clinton was right to point this out a couple of days ago. However, if one is to be a moral arbitrator, then it is imperative to be consistent in this position. Where was Clinton a few years ago when some of the anti Iraq and Afghanistan wars protestors were calling George W. Bush a murderer, liking him to Hitler, and displaying signs with crosshairs on the forehead of a picture of Bush? It is necessary to be fair and consistent when impugning the character and motives of others in order to avoid the appellation of hypocrite.
Is there a reason to be concerned about the course of our country today? Yes there is, but it is not about incivility in politics – it has to do with the economic well being of the country. The vast majority of the protestors today are deeply concerned about the explosive growth of and expansion of the power of the federal government and the burgeoning, seemingly out of control, federal dept. The cause of the rapidly increasing dept is bipartisan and the solution to this grave problem will have to be bipartisan also.
During the first five years of the Bill Clinton administration the federal government ran what by now seem like exceedingly small budget deficits and during his last three years and the first year of the Bush administration (thanks to the Clinton and congress policies) there were budget surpluses. In the entire eight year Clinton administration there was a modest $700 billion increase in the national dept, which, because of the growth in the GDP (gross domestic product), actually caused the debt to became a smaller percentage in relation to the GDP. Whatever the moral failings of Bill Clinton and his under emphasis on the Islamic Terrorist threat during his presidency, there is no denying that the Clinton administration was fiscally conservative and responsible.
For the eight years of the Bush administration the national dept increased by circa $5 trillion, from $5½ to $10½ trillion. Much of this debt increase was due to the unfunded wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the increase in the subsidies of the Medicare/Medicaid prescription drug program. In my opinion this was highly irresponsible because if wars are worth fighting and federal subsidies worth granting then they are worth paying for by either cutting other federal expenditures or raising taxes or both.
In the 21 months of the current presidential administration the national debt increased by $3 trillion, from $10 1/2 to $13 1/2 trillion. A severe financial crises and recession were inherited, true enough, yet instead of sensibly concentrating on improving the economy, lowering unemployment, and trying to control the rapidly increasing national debt, the Obama administration zeroed in on healthcare reform as its primary program.
The debt and its projected growth over the next ten years are unsustainable and if not reversed will do irreversible damage to our economy and society. As of Oct. 2007 the national dept has increased an average of $4.16 billion per day! This explains why the idea of a VAT (Value Added Tax) which means that in every step of the manufacturing or production of goods a tax is added. The concept of going to a VAT in this country is now starting to be bandied about by both liberals and conservatives, but for political reasons will not be proposed before the November bi-year elections. There is simply not enough money available from raising income taxes on the rich to have a significant impact on the dept. As it is, according to the latest figures from the IRS, 47% of the bottom income group of USA households does not pay federal income taxes. In fact the lowest 40% of income households actually receive subsidies from the federal government each year to the tune of $70 billion. The top 1% of income earners (making $390,000 or more per year) pay about the same amount of federal income tax ($450 billion) as the lowest 95% (making $150,000 per year or less). The top 50% of wage earners pay 97% of all federal income tax leaving the bottom 50% paying only 3%. Thus the only realistic alternative of raising significant amounts of revenue for the federal government is the VAT which will be paid by everyone. The estimate is that every 1% of VAT in this country would generate about $100 billion in revenues. Therefore a 10% VAT would mean one trillion dollars for the government coffers. That is quite a temptation for politicians.
The European nations pay for their welfare programs with income taxes and a VAT. In Western Europe the top income tax rate varies from 40% to 54% with the average being 48% and the VAT varying from 16% to 25% with the average being 20%. In Eastern Europe the top income tax rate ranges from 10% to 45% with the average being 22½% and the VAT from 15% to 23% with an average of 19%. Do we really want to go down the road to European socialism?
In the United States the top federal income rate is currently 35%. When the so called Bush tax cuts expire at the end of 2010 the top income tax rate will go back to 39.6%. What is a comparable tax in this country to the European VAT is the state and local sales tax. In Plano it is 8¼%, not quite at the 20% European level. If a VAT were enacted here it would be added to, not replace, the sales tax.
Is there any justification for the USA to have a VAT to help bring down our dangerously high and rapidly increasing national dept? I think yes – with several caveats. (1.) It should not be enacted until our economy and unemployment level have shown clear signs of improvement. (2.) It should be a temporary tax of “X” years where “X” is just long enough to have a measurable and significant impact on lowering our debt. (3.) It should expire after “X” years with a 2/3 majority in both houses of congress required to extend it. (4.) Congress has to enact legislation, signed by the president, for major reductions in government spending including the military and entitlement programs (Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid) as well as pork barrel spending so favored by the rascals in congress (Is it any wonder that congress has a 50 year high disapproval rating of 75% to 80%?).
I may be overly optimistic, but I believe when the ever increasing national financial peril of our country is at last appreciated by a large majority of the voters then our elected representatives will finally act to correct this dire situation. Not this year perhaps; still the way the national dept is mushrooming, not so far in the future that it will be too late to save this great nation.
Friday, April 9, 2010
MUSLIMS TAKING OVER EUROPE AND NORTH AMERICA-56
There is a widely circulating video on the internet, titled demographic_problem.wmv, which shows the dire probability of Muslims taking over Europe and North America in a few decades on the basis of population expansion relative to the indigenous Europeans and North Americans.
Demographics is a subject I know something about so I will make this essay as concise and informative as I can. I have written on the subject before in the last third of my blog essay titled Energy (there is a link between population and energy requirements) so you may want to look at that; also one of the best sources around, as I noted in my essay, is the 2004 book Fewer by Ben J. Wattenberg who is recognized as a demographics expert and who has been following and analyzing population trends for the last 40 years or so.
That video is alarmist and extreme and illustrates how selected facts can be used to draw unrealistic, false, and even outrageous conclusions. The video says that action must be taken before it is too late (presumably too late to prevent a takeover of the world by Muslims), but what is the action that is recommended? It is not specified. The video is correct in stating that the replacement rate is 2.1 children per woman; anything less leads to population decline and of course anything more will cause population growth.
Before I start refuting the ominous conclusions of this video I will denote what some of the real concerns are for the coming worldwide and individual country population declines as anyone who is paying attention knows. Just as our Social Security system is now predicted to be in the red in 2010 because fewer and fewer workers are paying into the system and more and more retirees are collecting benefits, the Europeans have greater economic problems because of their even more severely aging population and concomitant falling total fertility rates (TFR). There may well be massive societal dislocations and reordering of priorities and possibly lowering of economic well being, in spite of technology advances, in the coming decades. As I noted in my essay, quoting Wattenberg, the world population will rise from approx. 6 3/4 billion in 2010 to 8 to 9 billion in 2050 and then may drop to between 2 and 3 billion by 2300!
Now let’s discuss the supposed Islamization of Europe and North America in the coming years. The figures for the TFR for several European countries given in the video are as follows with the figures given by Wattenberg in parentheses: Germany 1.3 (1.35); France 1.8 (1.89); Italy 1.2 (1.23); Great Britain 1.6 (1.6); Spain 1.1 (1.15); Greece 1.3 (1.27); and the average of 31 countries in the European Union 1.38 (1.38). As you can see these figures are practically the same so there is no dispute for these data. The claim in the video for an 8.1 TFR for the Muslims in France is highly suspect given the TFR for various Muslim and Arab countries in North Africa (where most of the Muslim emigrants to Europe come from) and in the Middle East as given by Wattenberg: North Africa as a whole 40 years ago had a TFR of 7.1 and now is 3.2 and sinking like a stone and Tunisia is now 2.0. In 40 years Syria went from a TFR of 7.6 to 3.3; Jordan 8.0 to 3.6; Iraq 7.2 to 4.8; Saudi Arabia 7.3 to 4.5; Iran 7.0 to 2.3; and Egypt, the most populous Arab/Muslim country in the world, went from a TFR of 7.1 in 1960-65 to 3.3 in 2004.
The total population of all of the Arab nations in the world is approximately the same as the USA with the world Muslim population being circa 1/6 of the total world population. The non-Arab country with the largest Muslim population in the world is Indonesia at about 230 million and is the fourth most populous nation after China, India, and the USA. The TFR of Indonesia went from 5.7 in 1960-65 to 2.35 in 2001. In addition to Indonesia, the TFR in Turkey, Bangladesh, and Pakistan are falling rapidly although the TFR is Pakistan was one of the world’s highest at 5.08; however it fell one full point from 1990.to 2000.
The oft expressed fear that the Palestinians would overwhelm the Jewish population in numbers is not materializing. The TFR for the Jewish population in Israel was 2.6 in 2002; the Arab women in the Occupied Territories went from 8.0 in 1970 to 7.0 in 1985 and 5.6 in 2002. The trend is favorable to the Jews.
A few years ago lawyer Alan Dershowitz and columnist Richard Cohen were lamenting that 1/3 and an increasing ratio of young Jews in the United States were marrying outside their religion. They were concerned that Jewish people in the USA were losing their culture and something needed to be done about it. Wattenberg’s comment was “Yah, and good luck with that.” In democracies, people, especially young people, are going to do what they want to do.
To quote Wattenberg: “The Catholic Rule is broken and so too is the Muslim rule. It would be remarkable if it were not so as it has happened everywhere else. Joseph Chamie, Director of the UN Population Division (UNPD) puts it this way: “There was the Industrial Revolution. There was the Information Age. Now there is the Demographic Revolution.” In his PhD dissertation in 1976 and his 1981 book, Religion and Fertility Chamie clearly predicted just what has happened.” This was in stark contrast to the inchoate and chimerical, ipse dixit, population predictions made by Paul Ehrlich in his 1968 book, The Population Bomb (see my blog essay Fools, Frauds, and Fakes).
Again quoting Wattenberg: “People are people; sooner or later Catholics behave like Protestants; and Muslims like Christians.” Some people react emotionally to what they perceive as alarming situations. As for me, I prefer to act rationally and be guided by what the data reveal.
Demographics is a subject I know something about so I will make this essay as concise and informative as I can. I have written on the subject before in the last third of my blog essay titled Energy (there is a link between population and energy requirements) so you may want to look at that; also one of the best sources around, as I noted in my essay, is the 2004 book Fewer by Ben J. Wattenberg who is recognized as a demographics expert and who has been following and analyzing population trends for the last 40 years or so.
That video is alarmist and extreme and illustrates how selected facts can be used to draw unrealistic, false, and even outrageous conclusions. The video says that action must be taken before it is too late (presumably too late to prevent a takeover of the world by Muslims), but what is the action that is recommended? It is not specified. The video is correct in stating that the replacement rate is 2.1 children per woman; anything less leads to population decline and of course anything more will cause population growth.
Before I start refuting the ominous conclusions of this video I will denote what some of the real concerns are for the coming worldwide and individual country population declines as anyone who is paying attention knows. Just as our Social Security system is now predicted to be in the red in 2010 because fewer and fewer workers are paying into the system and more and more retirees are collecting benefits, the Europeans have greater economic problems because of their even more severely aging population and concomitant falling total fertility rates (TFR). There may well be massive societal dislocations and reordering of priorities and possibly lowering of economic well being, in spite of technology advances, in the coming decades. As I noted in my essay, quoting Wattenberg, the world population will rise from approx. 6 3/4 billion in 2010 to 8 to 9 billion in 2050 and then may drop to between 2 and 3 billion by 2300!
Now let’s discuss the supposed Islamization of Europe and North America in the coming years. The figures for the TFR for several European countries given in the video are as follows with the figures given by Wattenberg in parentheses: Germany 1.3 (1.35); France 1.8 (1.89); Italy 1.2 (1.23); Great Britain 1.6 (1.6); Spain 1.1 (1.15); Greece 1.3 (1.27); and the average of 31 countries in the European Union 1.38 (1.38). As you can see these figures are practically the same so there is no dispute for these data. The claim in the video for an 8.1 TFR for the Muslims in France is highly suspect given the TFR for various Muslim and Arab countries in North Africa (where most of the Muslim emigrants to Europe come from) and in the Middle East as given by Wattenberg: North Africa as a whole 40 years ago had a TFR of 7.1 and now is 3.2 and sinking like a stone and Tunisia is now 2.0. In 40 years Syria went from a TFR of 7.6 to 3.3; Jordan 8.0 to 3.6; Iraq 7.2 to 4.8; Saudi Arabia 7.3 to 4.5; Iran 7.0 to 2.3; and Egypt, the most populous Arab/Muslim country in the world, went from a TFR of 7.1 in 1960-65 to 3.3 in 2004.
The total population of all of the Arab nations in the world is approximately the same as the USA with the world Muslim population being circa 1/6 of the total world population. The non-Arab country with the largest Muslim population in the world is Indonesia at about 230 million and is the fourth most populous nation after China, India, and the USA. The TFR of Indonesia went from 5.7 in 1960-65 to 2.35 in 2001. In addition to Indonesia, the TFR in Turkey, Bangladesh, and Pakistan are falling rapidly although the TFR is Pakistan was one of the world’s highest at 5.08; however it fell one full point from 1990.to 2000.
The oft expressed fear that the Palestinians would overwhelm the Jewish population in numbers is not materializing. The TFR for the Jewish population in Israel was 2.6 in 2002; the Arab women in the Occupied Territories went from 8.0 in 1970 to 7.0 in 1985 and 5.6 in 2002. The trend is favorable to the Jews.
A few years ago lawyer Alan Dershowitz and columnist Richard Cohen were lamenting that 1/3 and an increasing ratio of young Jews in the United States were marrying outside their religion. They were concerned that Jewish people in the USA were losing their culture and something needed to be done about it. Wattenberg’s comment was “Yah, and good luck with that.” In democracies, people, especially young people, are going to do what they want to do.
To quote Wattenberg: “The Catholic Rule is broken and so too is the Muslim rule. It would be remarkable if it were not so as it has happened everywhere else. Joseph Chamie, Director of the UN Population Division (UNPD) puts it this way: “There was the Industrial Revolution. There was the Information Age. Now there is the Demographic Revolution.” In his PhD dissertation in 1976 and his 1981 book, Religion and Fertility Chamie clearly predicted just what has happened.” This was in stark contrast to the inchoate and chimerical, ipse dixit, population predictions made by Paul Ehrlich in his 1968 book, The Population Bomb (see my blog essay Fools, Frauds, and Fakes).
Again quoting Wattenberg: “People are people; sooner or later Catholics behave like Protestants; and Muslims like Christians.” Some people react emotionally to what they perceive as alarming situations. As for me, I prefer to act rationally and be guided by what the data reveal.
Sunday, February 7, 2010
THE USA MILITARY-55
This essay is not an anti USA military screed; rather it is an analytical and dispassionate conspectus of the current USA military encompassing its philosophy, budget, and the worldwide distribution of its personnel. The truly anti-military far left loons may agree with what I am initially espousing, but wait – they will violently (as only they can) oppugn my wrap-up. You may not accept my thesis completely; that is your prerogative. Still, I shall endeavor to make my case as logically and persuasively as I am capable of.
My premise is simple: I believe the United States of America should not be the world’s policeman and yet that is what we essentially are. There may have been justification in some people’s minds, although not in mine, that the USA needed to fill that role during the Cold War. During this War on Terrorism we should certainly co-operate with other willing nations to oppose and thwart the Islamic fanatics who want to kill us. On the other hand, I don’t think the United States would be abrogating any moral imperative by not shouldering the burden of large scale military action against the client states of the terrorists as we are now doing in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The nominal USA military budget is $664 billion of which $534 billion is the base budget. This represents 40% of all of military spending in the world. Total military spending for fiscal year 2010 will be between $880 billion and $1.03 trillion. In 2005 the military budget was 4.06% of GDP; the low in recent years was 1999-2001 where the figure was 3.0% of GDP. The high occurred during WWII in 1944 at 37.8% and during the Vietnam War in 1968 it was 9.4%.
There are 1,454,000 active duty people in the USA military and 848,000 in the military reserve. Only China has a larger standing active military, but their military expenditures are 1/9 of ours. That represents considerably lower pay and more modest benefits for their soldiers as well as a mere fraction of the complex military hardware developed and manufactured by the United States.
There are 820 USA military installations in 135 countries around the world. These vary from small scale observer sites manned by a couple dozen or fewer people to huge military army, navy, or air force bases with tens of thousands of soldiers, sailors, or air force personnel. The USA has 142,000 soldiers in Iraq; 56,000 in Germany; 40,000+ and increasing in Afghanistan; 33,000 in Japan; 28,500 in South Korea; 9700 in Italy and Great Britain. By geographic area these figures breakdown as follows: 85,000 in Europe; 78,500 in North Africa, the Near East, & South Asia; 70,000 in East Asia & the Pacific; and 2000 in the Western Hemisphere (excluding the USA).
A partial list of the countries that the United States has military personnel in is as follows: Aruba, Australia, Bahamas, Bahrain, Canada, Denmark, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, Ghana, Greenland, Hong Kong, Iceland (one can never tell when hostilities are going to break out in Iceland requiring intervention by USA troops), Kyrgyzstan, Norway, Oman, Qatar, Saint Helena, Senegal, Singapore, Uganda, UAE, US Virgin Islands. How on earth can the citizens of the countries, possessions, or principalities other than the 135 the USA protects, sleep peacefully at night?
Never in the history of the world, not during the time of Alexander the Great, the Roman Empire, the reign of the Mongols, the Mayans, or the Ottoman Empire has one entity spread its military might to more places on earth as the USA has currently done. It is not for conquest or subjugation of other peoples that the USA has done this. It was done with the best intentions. However, never let us forget what the “Road to Hell” is paved with. It is time, nay it is past time, the USA, however well meaning, solely occupies and protects its own land. Few other countries merit or, in fact, even desire we do this for them.
If we are to greatly curtail our overseas military, then how are we to protect ourselves? Here is what we should not do: give captured terrorists the same rights USA citizens get in civilian courts; so restrict our intelligence community that they can not monitor our ubiquitous enemies; impede communications between our domestic and foreign intelligence agencies.
What we should do is spend enough money and attract sufficient talent to ensure that we are in the forefront of nuclear weapon and delivery technology so that potential enemies such as Iran, North Korea, possibly Pakistan, and whomever are sufficiently deterred from even thinking of attacking us without the fear of themselves being completely destroyed by our retaliatory might. Let the nations who would appease the terrorists go down the path of nuclear disarmament. The modern “Better Red than Dead” crowd would be horrified and appalled by my assertion in this paragraph – so be it. I am for protecting this country from all enemies, foreign and domestic.
To accomplish this transformation of pulling in and reducing our military from around the world would take time, even a decade or longer, as a matter of simple logistics, treaty agreements, and so not to unnecessarily disrupt our economic equilibrium. What is the chance that this will be done? Likely in this decade, as the cliché goes, slim to none. Yet, done it must be, if only for economic reasons. As a people we are economically impelled to put Social Security and Medicare /Medicaid on a sound financial footing else the country will sink under unsustainable debt. There are several ways to do it: cut benefits, increase the fees for both the beneficiaries and working contributors, and increase medical services efficiencies by instituting tort reform and allowing interstate health insurance coverage. Likewise our military expense must share the cost reductions of Social Security and our health service. The voting public will insist upon it.
My premise is simple: I believe the United States of America should not be the world’s policeman and yet that is what we essentially are. There may have been justification in some people’s minds, although not in mine, that the USA needed to fill that role during the Cold War. During this War on Terrorism we should certainly co-operate with other willing nations to oppose and thwart the Islamic fanatics who want to kill us. On the other hand, I don’t think the United States would be abrogating any moral imperative by not shouldering the burden of large scale military action against the client states of the terrorists as we are now doing in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The nominal USA military budget is $664 billion of which $534 billion is the base budget. This represents 40% of all of military spending in the world. Total military spending for fiscal year 2010 will be between $880 billion and $1.03 trillion. In 2005 the military budget was 4.06% of GDP; the low in recent years was 1999-2001 where the figure was 3.0% of GDP. The high occurred during WWII in 1944 at 37.8% and during the Vietnam War in 1968 it was 9.4%.
There are 1,454,000 active duty people in the USA military and 848,000 in the military reserve. Only China has a larger standing active military, but their military expenditures are 1/9 of ours. That represents considerably lower pay and more modest benefits for their soldiers as well as a mere fraction of the complex military hardware developed and manufactured by the United States.
There are 820 USA military installations in 135 countries around the world. These vary from small scale observer sites manned by a couple dozen or fewer people to huge military army, navy, or air force bases with tens of thousands of soldiers, sailors, or air force personnel. The USA has 142,000 soldiers in Iraq; 56,000 in Germany; 40,000+ and increasing in Afghanistan; 33,000 in Japan; 28,500 in South Korea; 9700 in Italy and Great Britain. By geographic area these figures breakdown as follows: 85,000 in Europe; 78,500 in North Africa, the Near East, & South Asia; 70,000 in East Asia & the Pacific; and 2000 in the Western Hemisphere (excluding the USA).
A partial list of the countries that the United States has military personnel in is as follows: Aruba, Australia, Bahamas, Bahrain, Canada, Denmark, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, Ghana, Greenland, Hong Kong, Iceland (one can never tell when hostilities are going to break out in Iceland requiring intervention by USA troops), Kyrgyzstan, Norway, Oman, Qatar, Saint Helena, Senegal, Singapore, Uganda, UAE, US Virgin Islands. How on earth can the citizens of the countries, possessions, or principalities other than the 135 the USA protects, sleep peacefully at night?
Never in the history of the world, not during the time of Alexander the Great, the Roman Empire, the reign of the Mongols, the Mayans, or the Ottoman Empire has one entity spread its military might to more places on earth as the USA has currently done. It is not for conquest or subjugation of other peoples that the USA has done this. It was done with the best intentions. However, never let us forget what the “Road to Hell” is paved with. It is time, nay it is past time, the USA, however well meaning, solely occupies and protects its own land. Few other countries merit or, in fact, even desire we do this for them.
If we are to greatly curtail our overseas military, then how are we to protect ourselves? Here is what we should not do: give captured terrorists the same rights USA citizens get in civilian courts; so restrict our intelligence community that they can not monitor our ubiquitous enemies; impede communications between our domestic and foreign intelligence agencies.
What we should do is spend enough money and attract sufficient talent to ensure that we are in the forefront of nuclear weapon and delivery technology so that potential enemies such as Iran, North Korea, possibly Pakistan, and whomever are sufficiently deterred from even thinking of attacking us without the fear of themselves being completely destroyed by our retaliatory might. Let the nations who would appease the terrorists go down the path of nuclear disarmament. The modern “Better Red than Dead” crowd would be horrified and appalled by my assertion in this paragraph – so be it. I am for protecting this country from all enemies, foreign and domestic.
To accomplish this transformation of pulling in and reducing our military from around the world would take time, even a decade or longer, as a matter of simple logistics, treaty agreements, and so not to unnecessarily disrupt our economic equilibrium. What is the chance that this will be done? Likely in this decade, as the cliché goes, slim to none. Yet, done it must be, if only for economic reasons. As a people we are economically impelled to put Social Security and Medicare /Medicaid on a sound financial footing else the country will sink under unsustainable debt. There are several ways to do it: cut benefits, increase the fees for both the beneficiaries and working contributors, and increase medical services efficiencies by instituting tort reform and allowing interstate health insurance coverage. Likewise our military expense must share the cost reductions of Social Security and our health service. The voting public will insist upon it.
THE COPENHAGEN CONFERENCE – THE SUPREME IRONY-54
Before launching into the crux of this essay, let me settle a small point of pronunciation. Is the capital of Denmark pronounced Copenhāgen, with a long “a” or a short “a” as in Copenhăgen? The answer depends on whether one uses the American pronunciation or the Danish, and actually all of Europe, pronunciation. Columnist Charles Krauthammer brought up a rather picky point by scolding Barack Obama for using the European pronunciation of Copenhăgen when speaking to an American audience. Krauthammer asked if Obama would be telling us that he would be stopping in Paris (pronounced Părē) and Deutschland on the way home.
President Obama had to make a hurried departure from the Global Warming Conference in Copenhagen back to Washington D.C. because of the heavy snowfall which was accurately predicted for much of the Northeastern Coast. On RAI News (the Italian Worldwide TV Network) on 12/20/09, the headlines on the weather segment of the broadcast were: “Il Posto Piu Freddo d’Italia”(The coldest place in Italy); “Gelo Nord & Centro d’Italia”(Icy conditions in Northern & Central Italy”; “Tutta Europa Sotto la Neve” (All of Europe is under snow); “Washington, Nevicata Record” (Record snowfall for Washington D.C.). An added benefit of reading my essays is being given the opportunity of learning esoteric words or, as in this case, foreign phrases.
And of course the cold and snowy weather in Europe did not exempt Denmark. During a snafu for several hundred journalists waiting in a queue to enter the conference hall some conference official was handing out sandwiches and coffee to the waiting journalists. One of the journalists shouted out “I don’t want food, I want heavy socks, I am freezing my a** off!” We all know that during adversity, journalists are far less likely than normal people to suffer in silence.
This two-week Brummagem and paralogistic Global Warming Conference was attended by representatives from 120 or so countries. In order for these people to get to Copenhagen there were 1200 limos and 140 private aeroplanes used. In fact there was insufficient space for all of these aeroplanes in the Copenhagen airports so some pilots had to fly to neighboring countries and wait there until it was time to return to Copenhagen to pick up their passengers. A rather large carbon footprint was left for this event I would say, but then these crapulous G.W. enthusiasts never have worried about their own carbon pollution high jinks.
After all of this expenditure of money, time, energy, and pollution was anything of substance accomplished? The straight up answer is no and for valid and logical reasons. No country, industrialized or becoming so, wants to cripple its economy. China, India, Brazil, the European countries, and the United States, hopefully (although with the current administration I am not so sure), will not commit economic suicide just to appease the G.W. mob. By the way, the majority of the protestors at this conference are the same motley gang of hoodlums who protest at G-8 and G-20 meetings. They are self-avowed Communists and Marxists who are parasites living off the unearned fruits of capitalism. What a revolting and contemptible lot they are.
I have addressed the Global Warming issue in three previous blog essays (Global Warming; Global Cooling or Warming – Which the Heaven or Hell is it?; Beer Consumption & Other Little Ice Age Phenomena) so I will confine myself here to just a few ancillary remarks.
Is global warming occurring and is it anthropoidally caused? The answer to the first part is that it depends upon what time period you mean. From the late 1970’s to the late 1990’s there was perceptible global warming after cooling in the 1960’s to middle to late 1970’s such that the mainstream news media were all atwitter about how there appeared to be another Little Ice Age in the making. In the past 10 years there has not been any worldwide warming. This, by itself, does not prove anything – there could be CO² warming going on which is temporarily being overtaken by certain cooling factors.
The second part of the question is a decided yes. As I have stated previously (somewhere) Pittsburg, PA used to be known as the “Smokey City” due to all of the pollution from steel mills, but not anymore owing to anti-pollution devises and greatly reduced steel making. Los Angles had more pollution 30/40 years ago than now largely from automobile emissions which were greatly reduced over the intervening years. The topography (LA sits in a bowl) and wind patterns made the Los Angles area particularly susceptible to man-made pollution. London had fewer hours of sunshine 100 years ago and more, than now because of all the coal that was burned in factories and homes at that time.
Therefore if anthropoidic activity can influence weather and cause significant pollution locally, then surely more widespread pollution could conceivably affect weather on a broader worldwide scale. Having said that, the question, and a multi-trillion dollar question it is, is what is the evidence that man-made pollution is causing the globe to warm to increasing and dangerous levels to the detriment of the earth’s inhabitants? Given the myriad periods, on long term (1000’s of years), intermediate term (100’s of years), and short term (10’s of years) where mother earth (Gaia) has alternately been hotter and colder long before humans had initiated the industrial age or in fact were even around, what logical reasons are there to definitively assert that any current warming (especially since the end of The Little Ice Age, circa 1850) is caused by perfidious and unkind mankind?
Before committing to an international policy where the industrialized nations of the world cripple their economies, therefore retrograding to past decades the economic wellbeing of their citizens, and transfer 100’s of billions of dollars annually to third world nations, especially the so called kleptocracies, this whole subject of climate change needs to be thoroughly, honestly, and objective discussed and debated. Unfortunately the Global Warming “True Believers” clearly have no desire to engage in an exchange of data and discuss this singularly important question, as the infamously leaked East Anglia e-mails and previous refusal of Global Warming energumen such as Al Gore, Michael Mann, James Hansen, et al to debate the issue show.
President Obama had to make a hurried departure from the Global Warming Conference in Copenhagen back to Washington D.C. because of the heavy snowfall which was accurately predicted for much of the Northeastern Coast. On RAI News (the Italian Worldwide TV Network) on 12/20/09, the headlines on the weather segment of the broadcast were: “Il Posto Piu Freddo d’Italia”(The coldest place in Italy); “Gelo Nord & Centro d’Italia”(Icy conditions in Northern & Central Italy”; “Tutta Europa Sotto la Neve” (All of Europe is under snow); “Washington, Nevicata Record” (Record snowfall for Washington D.C.). An added benefit of reading my essays is being given the opportunity of learning esoteric words or, as in this case, foreign phrases.
And of course the cold and snowy weather in Europe did not exempt Denmark. During a snafu for several hundred journalists waiting in a queue to enter the conference hall some conference official was handing out sandwiches and coffee to the waiting journalists. One of the journalists shouted out “I don’t want food, I want heavy socks, I am freezing my a** off!” We all know that during adversity, journalists are far less likely than normal people to suffer in silence.
This two-week Brummagem and paralogistic Global Warming Conference was attended by representatives from 120 or so countries. In order for these people to get to Copenhagen there were 1200 limos and 140 private aeroplanes used. In fact there was insufficient space for all of these aeroplanes in the Copenhagen airports so some pilots had to fly to neighboring countries and wait there until it was time to return to Copenhagen to pick up their passengers. A rather large carbon footprint was left for this event I would say, but then these crapulous G.W. enthusiasts never have worried about their own carbon pollution high jinks.
After all of this expenditure of money, time, energy, and pollution was anything of substance accomplished? The straight up answer is no and for valid and logical reasons. No country, industrialized or becoming so, wants to cripple its economy. China, India, Brazil, the European countries, and the United States, hopefully (although with the current administration I am not so sure), will not commit economic suicide just to appease the G.W. mob. By the way, the majority of the protestors at this conference are the same motley gang of hoodlums who protest at G-8 and G-20 meetings. They are self-avowed Communists and Marxists who are parasites living off the unearned fruits of capitalism. What a revolting and contemptible lot they are.
I have addressed the Global Warming issue in three previous blog essays (Global Warming; Global Cooling or Warming – Which the Heaven or Hell is it?; Beer Consumption & Other Little Ice Age Phenomena) so I will confine myself here to just a few ancillary remarks.
Is global warming occurring and is it anthropoidally caused? The answer to the first part is that it depends upon what time period you mean. From the late 1970’s to the late 1990’s there was perceptible global warming after cooling in the 1960’s to middle to late 1970’s such that the mainstream news media were all atwitter about how there appeared to be another Little Ice Age in the making. In the past 10 years there has not been any worldwide warming. This, by itself, does not prove anything – there could be CO² warming going on which is temporarily being overtaken by certain cooling factors.
The second part of the question is a decided yes. As I have stated previously (somewhere) Pittsburg, PA used to be known as the “Smokey City” due to all of the pollution from steel mills, but not anymore owing to anti-pollution devises and greatly reduced steel making. Los Angles had more pollution 30/40 years ago than now largely from automobile emissions which were greatly reduced over the intervening years. The topography (LA sits in a bowl) and wind patterns made the Los Angles area particularly susceptible to man-made pollution. London had fewer hours of sunshine 100 years ago and more, than now because of all the coal that was burned in factories and homes at that time.
Therefore if anthropoidic activity can influence weather and cause significant pollution locally, then surely more widespread pollution could conceivably affect weather on a broader worldwide scale. Having said that, the question, and a multi-trillion dollar question it is, is what is the evidence that man-made pollution is causing the globe to warm to increasing and dangerous levels to the detriment of the earth’s inhabitants? Given the myriad periods, on long term (1000’s of years), intermediate term (100’s of years), and short term (10’s of years) where mother earth (Gaia) has alternately been hotter and colder long before humans had initiated the industrial age or in fact were even around, what logical reasons are there to definitively assert that any current warming (especially since the end of The Little Ice Age, circa 1850) is caused by perfidious and unkind mankind?
Before committing to an international policy where the industrialized nations of the world cripple their economies, therefore retrograding to past decades the economic wellbeing of their citizens, and transfer 100’s of billions of dollars annually to third world nations, especially the so called kleptocracies, this whole subject of climate change needs to be thoroughly, honestly, and objective discussed and debated. Unfortunately the Global Warming “True Believers” clearly have no desire to engage in an exchange of data and discuss this singularly important question, as the infamously leaked East Anglia e-mails and previous refusal of Global Warming energumen such as Al Gore, Michael Mann, James Hansen, et al to debate the issue show.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
