Greetings from the Left Coast. God, I hate it when I'm right about negative stuff like this. The bits were barely dry on the monitor from my last post when Russ Mitchell, on CBS's "The Early Show" yesterday morning, said, "There are signs that investors fear the economy may be headed toward a recession. Investors remain nervous about the subprime mortgage crisis and the credit crunch." Then, on last night's NBC Nightly News, Brian Williams reported that Winnebago is expecting to report its first drop in orders in the last six years, wrapping up with, "Over the last three decades of U.S. history, every time orders for mobile homes have dropped, the economy has suffered a downturn soon after." Wow! Who'd have thought that sales of motor homes would be a better leading economic indicator than the ones the Federal Reserve is tracking? This was just a day after CNBC's Erin Burnett told Brian Williams that, "Consumer spending accounts for more than two-thirds of the U.S. economy's growth. And if consumers really start to pull back, that is what will turn us from the r-word of resilience to the r-word of recession." According to the Business & Media Institute, network broadcasts have run 29 stories in the last month that featured that "r-word."
Let's be very clear about something. There's a precise definition of what constitutes a recession. It's not when the rate of growth slows down, which is what the Fed is actually predicting for 2008. It's not when people feel nervous or worried about the future. When a country's Gross Domestic Product declines in two consecutive calendar quarters, that's a recession. You don't have to guess whether we're in one.
Here's another thought for you to ponder. Our economy runs in cycles of expansion and contraction. It always has, regardless of which political party was in power. If you want to see what they've looked like, take a look at THIS. Over the last sixty years or so, the average peak to peak interval has been about five and a half years. However, the last two cycles have been abnormally long by historical standards - lasting closer to ten years, with the actual contraction periods being relatively short. That suggests that maybe were actually getting a little smarter about managing the economy, and that maybe Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush were actually onto something with this tax cut thing.
One more thing in closing. When I was an electronic technician (many years ago) I learned about this thing called "hysteresis." This is derived from an ancient Greek word that means "lagging behind." Here are a couple of examples from everyday life: the coldest days of winter actually come several weeks after the shortest day of the year, and the hottest days of summer likewise come several weeks after the longest day of the year. That's hysteresis. Next time you're adjusting the thermostat of your furnace, turn it up until the furnace comes on. Then turn it down until the furnace turns off. You'll find that you have to go past the point where it turned on before it will turn off. When you turn it back up, you'll have to go past the point where it turned off before it will turn back on. That's hysteresis.
Well, guess what? Hysteresis affects economic cycles, too. The country was already sliding into recession when Bill Clinton left office and let Bush inherit the problem. If Al Gore had won, we would still have had the recession. Then, on top of the contraction that was already taking place, 9/11 came along and smacked us upside the head. George Bush should have won an economics prize for reacting fast enough to put policies in place - including those tax cuts - that pulled us out of that slump that fast. What should really worry you is this: if the Democrats do take the White House, and do get rid of the tax cuts, and do all of the fiscally irresponsible things that Democrats have historically done, the damage probably won't show up right away. It could take a couple of years. And when it does show up, it will be too late to stop the slide from happening - we could do all the right things, and it will still take time to get things going again. Hysteresis. Remember the word.
Thanks for listening...
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Monday, November 26, 2007
A Couple of Predictions
I've been looking in my Campaign Crystal Ball, and I have a couple of predictions for you:
1. Over the next year, we'll hear a lot about "tax cuts for the rich" as the Democrats continue to stoke the fires of class warfare for political gain.
Here's the reality: In 1980, 48% of total Federal Income Tax receipts came from the top 10% of income earners. In 2004, that same top 10% paid 71% of the Income Tax. In 1980, the top 5% of income earners paid 35% of all Income Taxes collected. In 2004, the top 5% paid 58% of all Income Taxes collected. (That's over half, for the math-challenged.) In 1980, the top 1% of income earners paid 17% of the Income Tax. In 2004, they paid 37%. (Those tax burden increases are with the "Bush tax cuts." Imagine what will happen if they're allowed to expire!) At the same time, in 2006, it is estimated that 41% of all Americans paid no Federal Income Tax whatsoever!
Lest you think that all of those people are simply too poor to pay any tax, let me remind you that only 12.7% of households fell below the federal poverty level. So there are a lot of families out there who are not "poor," but they still aren't paying any Income Tax, while well over half of the tax burden fell on the top 5% of income earners. Oh, and in case you're thinking that the top 5% must be made up of really wealthy people, any household that made over $157,176 is in that top 5%. Let me say that one more time, so we're perfectly clear: Households who made over $157,176 in annual income paid 58% of all Federal Income Tax. Households who made over $300,000 in annual income paid 37% of all Federal Income Tax.
So, to those Democrats who continually hammer home the point that the "Republican tax cuts" will disproportionately favor the wealthy, I'd just like to say, "DUH!" Of course they do! It would be mathematically impossible for any meaningful tax cuts to not disproportionately favor the wealthy, because the wealthy pay a disproportionate amount of the tax! But let me also remind you that these same wealthy individuals create most of the jobs in this country. If we let them keep more of their money, they'll invest more of it and create more jobs. That's why the "Bush tax cuts" have been so effective at stoking the country's economic engine over the last seven years.
But they'll never tell you that. They will continue the drum beat that (sadly) has worked for them in the past: "Republicans = fat cats who favor the rich at the expense of the little guy." They think we're too stupid to figure it out for ourselves. I find that incredibly disrespectful, and it's another reason why I won't vote for a Democrat. You want my vote? Don't insult my intelligence.
2. Expect the "R" word to be seen and spoken early and often. No, not that one. I mean "Recession." You can expect the Democrats to be the prophets of gloom and doom, and you can expect the mainstream media to parrot the line. It's already started. To the surprise of the gloom-and-doomers, retail sales over Thanksgiving weekend were actually up somewhere between 5% and 8% (depending on whose figures you want to use) compared to the levels a year ago. But the spin has already started: Overall sales are up, but individuals are spending less. They're also increasingly shopping at Wal-Mart instead of Macy's. They've shot their wad and sales will nosedive in the coming weeks. If there's any negative economic news to be found, you'll hear it.
Here's the reality: The national unemployment rate in October, 2007, stood at 4.7%. Most economists agree that anything below 5% is, for all practical purposes, full employment, because of the number of people who are unemployable, and the fact that there will always be a certain number of people who are between jobs. Our economy has been so strong that we've been able to absorb astronomical increases in gasoline prices, and the softening of home sales, and we still created 160,000 new jobs in October. All in the middle of a war! But still we are starting to hear the media ask, "are we headed for a recession?"
There's an interesting phenomonon in the country today: when asked, most people will tell you that they're doing pretty well economically. But they'll also say that they're concerned about the overall economy and where the country is headed. Heck, how could they not be, with the constant drumbeat of negativity? And it's only going to get louder between now and next November. As we've observed previously, the news out of Iraq is starting to get good enough that even the New York Times can no longer ignore it. If it continues to improve, by next summer the Democrats will be desperate for an issue that can make the American people forget how badly wrong they were on the war issue. That issue will be the economy. No matter how good things really are, you will be told that we are on the brink of an economic disaster from which only Hillary (or whoever beats her for the nomination) can save us. Count on it.
It's not bad enough that they have to root for the country's defeat in Iraq, now they're rooting for a recession. Sheesh. Anyway, thanks for listening...and remember what I said when you see it happening over the coming months...
1. Over the next year, we'll hear a lot about "tax cuts for the rich" as the Democrats continue to stoke the fires of class warfare for political gain.
Here's the reality: In 1980, 48% of total Federal Income Tax receipts came from the top 10% of income earners. In 2004, that same top 10% paid 71% of the Income Tax. In 1980, the top 5% of income earners paid 35% of all Income Taxes collected. In 2004, the top 5% paid 58% of all Income Taxes collected. (That's over half, for the math-challenged.) In 1980, the top 1% of income earners paid 17% of the Income Tax. In 2004, they paid 37%. (Those tax burden increases are with the "Bush tax cuts." Imagine what will happen if they're allowed to expire!) At the same time, in 2006, it is estimated that 41% of all Americans paid no Federal Income Tax whatsoever!
Lest you think that all of those people are simply too poor to pay any tax, let me remind you that only 12.7% of households fell below the federal poverty level. So there are a lot of families out there who are not "poor," but they still aren't paying any Income Tax, while well over half of the tax burden fell on the top 5% of income earners. Oh, and in case you're thinking that the top 5% must be made up of really wealthy people, any household that made over $157,176 is in that top 5%. Let me say that one more time, so we're perfectly clear: Households who made over $157,176 in annual income paid 58% of all Federal Income Tax. Households who made over $300,000 in annual income paid 37% of all Federal Income Tax.
So, to those Democrats who continually hammer home the point that the "Republican tax cuts" will disproportionately favor the wealthy, I'd just like to say, "DUH!" Of course they do! It would be mathematically impossible for any meaningful tax cuts to not disproportionately favor the wealthy, because the wealthy pay a disproportionate amount of the tax! But let me also remind you that these same wealthy individuals create most of the jobs in this country. If we let them keep more of their money, they'll invest more of it and create more jobs. That's why the "Bush tax cuts" have been so effective at stoking the country's economic engine over the last seven years.
But they'll never tell you that. They will continue the drum beat that (sadly) has worked for them in the past: "Republicans = fat cats who favor the rich at the expense of the little guy." They think we're too stupid to figure it out for ourselves. I find that incredibly disrespectful, and it's another reason why I won't vote for a Democrat. You want my vote? Don't insult my intelligence.
2. Expect the "R" word to be seen and spoken early and often. No, not that one. I mean "Recession." You can expect the Democrats to be the prophets of gloom and doom, and you can expect the mainstream media to parrot the line. It's already started. To the surprise of the gloom-and-doomers, retail sales over Thanksgiving weekend were actually up somewhere between 5% and 8% (depending on whose figures you want to use) compared to the levels a year ago. But the spin has already started: Overall sales are up, but individuals are spending less. They're also increasingly shopping at Wal-Mart instead of Macy's. They've shot their wad and sales will nosedive in the coming weeks. If there's any negative economic news to be found, you'll hear it.
Here's the reality: The national unemployment rate in October, 2007, stood at 4.7%. Most economists agree that anything below 5% is, for all practical purposes, full employment, because of the number of people who are unemployable, and the fact that there will always be a certain number of people who are between jobs. Our economy has been so strong that we've been able to absorb astronomical increases in gasoline prices, and the softening of home sales, and we still created 160,000 new jobs in October. All in the middle of a war! But still we are starting to hear the media ask, "are we headed for a recession?"
There's an interesting phenomonon in the country today: when asked, most people will tell you that they're doing pretty well economically. But they'll also say that they're concerned about the overall economy and where the country is headed. Heck, how could they not be, with the constant drumbeat of negativity? And it's only going to get louder between now and next November. As we've observed previously, the news out of Iraq is starting to get good enough that even the New York Times can no longer ignore it. If it continues to improve, by next summer the Democrats will be desperate for an issue that can make the American people forget how badly wrong they were on the war issue. That issue will be the economy. No matter how good things really are, you will be told that we are on the brink of an economic disaster from which only Hillary (or whoever beats her for the nomination) can save us. Count on it.
It's not bad enough that they have to root for the country's defeat in Iraq, now they're rooting for a recession. Sheesh. Anyway, thanks for listening...and remember what I said when you see it happening over the coming months...
Thursday, November 22, 2007
A National Day of Thanksgiving
Greetings from the Left Coast! Holy smoke, I can't believe it's been two weeks since my last entry! Just when I think things can't possibly get busier, they do.
No political rants today. Somehow it doesn't seem appropriate. Maybe I'll get back to that tomorrow. For now, as I sit here in front of my computer looking out the window (Hugo Montenegro had it right - the bluest skies you've ever seen are in Seattle), I just feel profoundly thankful for many, many things.
We are blessed, as no other nation that has ever existed on the face of this planet has been blessed. And, in turn, the world has been blessed through us, regardless of what some may say. When natural disasters strike around the world, who do people turn to for help? The good old USA...and we always give it - in amounts far greater than any other nation. (Not, by the way, just in total dollars, but pretty much any way you want to measure it.) Foreign aid? We hand it out by the billions, even to countries who continually turn and bite the hand that feeds them. Technological innovations, advances in medical science, advances in food production, I could go on and on about the things that we have shared with the world - things that exist because of our system of government that encourages innovation and investment. We are not perfect, but reaching for that goal is part of that indefinable thing called "The American Spirit," and it has led to a nation composed, for the most part, of good and decent people with a generous nature who care about helping others.
Let us be truly thankful, and may God continue to bless the United States of America. Thanks for listening.
No political rants today. Somehow it doesn't seem appropriate. Maybe I'll get back to that tomorrow. For now, as I sit here in front of my computer looking out the window (Hugo Montenegro had it right - the bluest skies you've ever seen are in Seattle), I just feel profoundly thankful for many, many things.
- I am thankful that I live in the United States of America. No country that has ever existed in the history of man has ever been blessed with such abundance, and in turn given as much back to the world, as this one.
- I am thankful that I was blessed with parents who raised me in a Christian home, and imparted to me spiritual values that have always served as my foundation.
- I am thankful for my beautiful wife of 22 years. She is a source of strength to me as well as my best friend, and I love her with all my heart.
- I am thankful that, between us, we managed to raise five children who have all turned out to be responsible adults, three of them now with children of their own.
- I am thankful that we are both blessed with good health, and the opportunity to work at building businesses around things that we love doing.
- Despite the many difficulties of our time, I am thankful to be living now. The technology that enhances our lives was the stuff of science fiction not that long ago. And speaking of technology...
- I am thankful for the gift of sight. Just over six months ago, after having worn corrective lenses since the fourth grade, I went from not being able to read the big "E" to near-perfect vision. The procedure took about 15 minutes, and was done with small pulses of light. I still find this concept to be wonderful in the literal sense of the word.
The year that is drawing towards its close, has been filled with the blessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies. To these bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the source from which they come, others have been added, which are of so extraordinary a nature, that they cannot fail to penetrate and soften even the heart which is habitually insensible to the ever watchful providence of Almighty God. In the midst of a civil war of unequalled magnitude and severity, which has sometimes seemed to foreign States to invite and to provoke their aggression, peace has been preserved with all nations, order has been maintained, the laws have been respected and obeyed, and harmony has prevailed everywhere except in the theatre of military conflict...Needful diversions of wealth and of strength from the fields of peaceful industry to the national defence, have not arrested the plough, the shuttle, or the ship...and the country, rejoicing in the consciousness of augmented strength and vigor, is permitted to expect continuance of years with large increase of freedom.
No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God...It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently and gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and voice by the whole American People. I do therefore invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next, as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens. And I recommend to them that while offering up the ascriptions justly due to Him for such singular deliverances and blessings, they do also, with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience, commend to his tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife in which we are unavoidably engaged, and fervently implore the interposition of the Almighty Hand to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore it as soon as may be consistent with the Divine purposes to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquillity and Union.
We are blessed, as no other nation that has ever existed on the face of this planet has been blessed. And, in turn, the world has been blessed through us, regardless of what some may say. When natural disasters strike around the world, who do people turn to for help? The good old USA...and we always give it - in amounts far greater than any other nation. (Not, by the way, just in total dollars, but pretty much any way you want to measure it.) Foreign aid? We hand it out by the billions, even to countries who continually turn and bite the hand that feeds them. Technological innovations, advances in medical science, advances in food production, I could go on and on about the things that we have shared with the world - things that exist because of our system of government that encourages innovation and investment. We are not perfect, but reaching for that goal is part of that indefinable thing called "The American Spirit," and it has led to a nation composed, for the most part, of good and decent people with a generous nature who care about helping others.
Let us be truly thankful, and may God continue to bless the United States of America. Thanks for listening.
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Cause and Effect?
Greetings from the Left Coast! Some amazing stories moved over the news wires today. Here's one from the New York Times : "Militant Group Is Out of Baghdad, U.S. Says." The lead paragraph goes on to say, "American forces have routed Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, the Iraqi militant network, from every neighborhood of Baghdad, a top American general said today, allowing American troops involved in the 'surge' to depart as planned."
Did you catch that? Al Qaeda has been kicked out of every neighborhood in Baghdad! Did you get that, Senator Harry "This war is lost" Reid? Murders in Baghdad are down 80% from their peak, and attacks involving improvised bombs are down 70%! This was such great news that the New York Times ran the story on....page A-19. I looked all through the Everett Herald this morning, the story wasn't there. I searched the Web sites of The Seattle Times and The Seattle Post-Intelligencer. The story wasn't there, either.
In related news, Iraqi refugees are starting to come home. The Iraqi government says that 46,030 people crossed the borders in October alone. This story was carried by the Everett Herald this morning, on page 4. I was able to find it (somewhat to my surprise) on The Seattle P-I's Web site, but couldn't find it on The Seattle Times' Web site nor on the New York Times' Web site.
Finally, the London Times reported today that senior Shia and Sunni religious leaders in Iraq are preparing to sign a "fatwa against violence." A fatwa is a religious ruling that devout Muslims consider to be equal to statutory law. Nothing like this has ever happened before. A quick Internet search didn't turn up any U.S. newspapers reporting this story.
Meanwhile, the Audit Bureau of Circulations released circulation numbers for more than 700 daily newspapers for the six-month period ending September 2007. The New York Times was down 4.51% for the daily edition, and 7.59% for the Sunday edition. Washington Post, daily down 3.2%, and Sunday down 3.9%. Boston Globe down 6.6% and 6.5%, respectively. Denver Post and Rocky Mountain News both down more than 10%. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch down 4.18%. The Seattle Times and the P-I, believe it or not, actually gained slightly - 1.2% and 1.1%, respectively. The Tacoma News Tribune, which itself was down 3.9%, credited the Times and P-I gains to readership they picked up when the King County Journal ceased publication this past January.
Many people don't see any correlation between these stories. The newspapers themselves certainly don't. In the face of steady circulation declines year after year, they blame on-line news sources, new media, radio talk shows, everything but their own editorial bias. I'm not sure that anything short of the total collapse of several major daily newspapers will wake them up (if even that does). I submit that an awful lot of Americans are simply tired of the newspapers' obvious agendas, as illustrated by the stories above. The New York Times ran 32 consecutive page one stories about Abu Ghraib. Front page, 32 days in a row. But they bury good news about Iraq on page 19 or don't cover it at all.
Did you catch that? Al Qaeda has been kicked out of every neighborhood in Baghdad! Did you get that, Senator Harry "This war is lost" Reid? Murders in Baghdad are down 80% from their peak, and attacks involving improvised bombs are down 70%! This was such great news that the New York Times ran the story on....page A-19. I looked all through the Everett Herald this morning, the story wasn't there. I searched the Web sites of The Seattle Times and The Seattle Post-Intelligencer. The story wasn't there, either.
In related news, Iraqi refugees are starting to come home. The Iraqi government says that 46,030 people crossed the borders in October alone. This story was carried by the Everett Herald this morning, on page 4. I was able to find it (somewhat to my surprise) on The Seattle P-I's Web site, but couldn't find it on The Seattle Times' Web site nor on the New York Times' Web site.
Finally, the London Times reported today that senior Shia and Sunni religious leaders in Iraq are preparing to sign a "fatwa against violence." A fatwa is a religious ruling that devout Muslims consider to be equal to statutory law. Nothing like this has ever happened before. A quick Internet search didn't turn up any U.S. newspapers reporting this story.
Meanwhile, the Audit Bureau of Circulations released circulation numbers for more than 700 daily newspapers for the six-month period ending September 2007. The New York Times was down 4.51% for the daily edition, and 7.59% for the Sunday edition. Washington Post, daily down 3.2%, and Sunday down 3.9%. Boston Globe down 6.6% and 6.5%, respectively. Denver Post and Rocky Mountain News both down more than 10%. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch down 4.18%. The Seattle Times and the P-I, believe it or not, actually gained slightly - 1.2% and 1.1%, respectively. The Tacoma News Tribune, which itself was down 3.9%, credited the Times and P-I gains to readership they picked up when the King County Journal ceased publication this past January.
Many people don't see any correlation between these stories. The newspapers themselves certainly don't. In the face of steady circulation declines year after year, they blame on-line news sources, new media, radio talk shows, everything but their own editorial bias. I'm not sure that anything short of the total collapse of several major daily newspapers will wake them up (if even that does). I submit that an awful lot of Americans are simply tired of the newspapers' obvious agendas, as illustrated by the stories above. The New York Times ran 32 consecutive page one stories about Abu Ghraib. Front page, 32 days in a row. But they bury good news about Iraq on page 19 or don't cover it at all.
I used to be a Seattle Times subscriber. I cancelled my subscription for exactly those reasons. I was tired of the way editorial bias kept affecting what news was covered and how it was covered, and I was tired of the overt hostility to religion in general and Christianity in particular. Don't believe me on the hostility angle? I'll give you two movie titles: The Last Temptation of Christ, and The Passion of the Christ. Go search the archives and refresh your memories on how those two movies were covered.
It's nice to see that a lot of other Americans are doing what I did and voting with their wallets. That's the best way to effect change in a capitalist system. So keep up the good work, folks, I want to see those circulation numbers keep going in the right direction - down!
Thanks for listening.
Monday, November 5, 2007
The Lighter Side of Jihad
Greetings from the Left Coast! Warning: This is another one of those politically incorrect posts, this time mixed liberally with irreverence and sarcasm. Still with me? Cool.
I typically don't find the global struggle against Islamofascism to be a laughing matter, but this item on eWeek.com had me shaking my head in bemusement (which is not quite the same thing as amusement, but close, in this case).
According to an Israeli on-line military intelligence magazine, counter-terror sources picked up Internet traffic indicating that Al Qaeda was planning a Distributed Denial of Service ("DDoS") attack on November 11 against 15 targeted Web sites, and would expand their "e-Jihad" activities until "hundreds of thousands of Islamist hackers are in action against untold numbers of anti-Muslim sites."
The line in the article that got me was this one: "They offer would-be martyrs, who for one reason or another are unable to fight in the field, to fulfill their jihad obligations on the Net. These virtual martyrs are assured of the same thrill and sense of elation as a jihadi on the 'battlefield.'"
I hardly know where to begin with this. First of all, I'm not all that worried. The phrase "hundreds of thousands of Islamic hackers" strikes me as an oxymoron. It seems to me that the members of any fundamentalist religion have a built-in handicap when it comes to matching cyber-wits with good old porn-surfing, Canadian-bacon-pizza-eating, Diet-Coke-drinking Western cybergeeks. And by the time the terrorists spend enough time on the Internet to be able to effectively launch this kind of attack, there's a good chance that they'll be Westernized to the point that their religious zeal will be, shall we say, blunted to some extent. Mere religious zeal doesn't come close to the intensity of a non-stop 48-hour Twinkie and Diet Coke fueled massively multiplayer fantasy role-playing binge.
Second, would someone please explain to me what a "virtual martyr" is? Unless "first-person shooter" computer games have become way more realistic than they were the last time I played Duke Nukem, it's hard for me to imagine that sitting at a computer is going to quite match the "thrill and sense of elation" of, say, setting off your suicide vest in a restaurant full of women and children, being in a firefight with a highly-motivated U.S. Special Forces team, or facing the business end of a Cobra gunship. So if you can't actually die doing it, who decides when the point of martyrdom has been reached, and what are the criteria? And exactly what reward does a virtual martyr receive? A year's membership to 72virgins.com?
There are a lot of things in the world that I do worry about. I worry about terrorists smuggling bombs across our open borders. I worry about what Iran would do with nuclear weapons if they had them. I worry about what really happened to Saddam's WMDs. I worry about what will happen with Pakistan's nuclear stockpile if Musharraf is deposed by Islamic fundamentalists. I worry about what would happen if Iraq became a terrorist-run state. I worry about the people in this country who are too stupid, or too blinded by partisanship, to realize that we should be worried about these things. I don't worry much about "Bin Laden's cyber legions." Maybe I'm wrong, but if there's one place where the West's technical superiority should triumph it's in the area of technical superiority. I'll bet on our geeks to out-hack their geeks any day. You want cyber-war? Bring it on!
Thanks for listening.
I typically don't find the global struggle against Islamofascism to be a laughing matter, but this item on eWeek.com had me shaking my head in bemusement (which is not quite the same thing as amusement, but close, in this case).
According to an Israeli on-line military intelligence magazine, counter-terror sources picked up Internet traffic indicating that Al Qaeda was planning a Distributed Denial of Service ("DDoS") attack on November 11 against 15 targeted Web sites, and would expand their "e-Jihad" activities until "hundreds of thousands of Islamist hackers are in action against untold numbers of anti-Muslim sites."
The line in the article that got me was this one: "They offer would-be martyrs, who for one reason or another are unable to fight in the field, to fulfill their jihad obligations on the Net. These virtual martyrs are assured of the same thrill and sense of elation as a jihadi on the 'battlefield.'"
I hardly know where to begin with this. First of all, I'm not all that worried. The phrase "hundreds of thousands of Islamic hackers" strikes me as an oxymoron. It seems to me that the members of any fundamentalist religion have a built-in handicap when it comes to matching cyber-wits with good old porn-surfing, Canadian-bacon-pizza-eating, Diet-Coke-drinking Western cybergeeks. And by the time the terrorists spend enough time on the Internet to be able to effectively launch this kind of attack, there's a good chance that they'll be Westernized to the point that their religious zeal will be, shall we say, blunted to some extent. Mere religious zeal doesn't come close to the intensity of a non-stop 48-hour Twinkie and Diet Coke fueled massively multiplayer fantasy role-playing binge.
Second, would someone please explain to me what a "virtual martyr" is? Unless "first-person shooter" computer games have become way more realistic than they were the last time I played Duke Nukem, it's hard for me to imagine that sitting at a computer is going to quite match the "thrill and sense of elation" of, say, setting off your suicide vest in a restaurant full of women and children, being in a firefight with a highly-motivated U.S. Special Forces team, or facing the business end of a Cobra gunship. So if you can't actually die doing it, who decides when the point of martyrdom has been reached, and what are the criteria? And exactly what reward does a virtual martyr receive? A year's membership to 72virgins.com?
There are a lot of things in the world that I do worry about. I worry about terrorists smuggling bombs across our open borders. I worry about what Iran would do with nuclear weapons if they had them. I worry about what really happened to Saddam's WMDs. I worry about what will happen with Pakistan's nuclear stockpile if Musharraf is deposed by Islamic fundamentalists. I worry about what would happen if Iraq became a terrorist-run state. I worry about the people in this country who are too stupid, or too blinded by partisanship, to realize that we should be worried about these things. I don't worry much about "Bin Laden's cyber legions." Maybe I'm wrong, but if there's one place where the West's technical superiority should triumph it's in the area of technical superiority. I'll bet on our geeks to out-hack their geeks any day. You want cyber-war? Bring it on!
Thanks for listening.
Sunday, November 4, 2007
The Friend of My Enemy is My Enemy
Greetings from the Left Coast - and a warning: Today's entry will be Politically Incorrect.
Something in the morning paper caught my eye, for a couple of reasons. Seems that Ayman Zawahiri, considered to be the #2 guy in Al Qaeda these days, has released an audio recording in which he is threatening attacks against Libya. (Search on "Zawahiri + Libya" and you'll find a number of takes on the story.) Libya? Isn't Libya a predominantly Muslim country? And weren't they a sponsor of international terrorism not that long ago? Yes, and yes. You may remember Pan Am Flight 103, which was blown up in flight over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988, killing all 270 people aboard. After years of denying any responsibility for it, Libya ultimately admitted responsibility and reached a $2.7 billion settlement with the families of the victims. And that's just the highest-profile example of the things Lybia has been involved with.
But an interesting thing happened after Operation Iraqi Freedom took out Saddam Hussein. Suddenly, Moammar Kadafi decided that maybe it wasn't a healthy thing to be associated with terrorism. So in August of 2003, Libya formally renounced terrorism in a letter to the UN Security Council. In 2004, Libya announced that it was unilaterally dismantling its WMD programs. In May of 2006, the U.S. State Department formally rescinded Libya's designation as a state sponsor of terrorism, and shortly thereafter restored full diplomatic relations.
That, of course, is what has Zawahiri all twisted up. By improving relations with the "Washington crusaders," Kadafi has become an "enemy of Islam." Abu Laith al Libi, a Libyan Al Qaeda commander who is busy in Afghanistan at the moment, added that Kadafi "is turning Libya into another crusader base."
This is, for all intents and purposes, equivalent to calling for a death sentence upon Kadafi. According to the Sahih al-Bukhari , one of the six major Sunni Hadith collections (the Hadith are oral traditions recounting events in the life of the prophet Muhammad), the prophet was pretty straightforward about people who didn't keep the faith: "Whover changed his Islamic religion, then kill him." And the Qur'an states, "But whoever of you recants and dies an unbeliever, his works shall come to nothing in this world and the next, and they are the companions of the fire for ever." (Qur'an 2:217)
Now, I'm sure that Kadafi considers himself to still be a true believer, but this wouldn't be the first time that Muslims have killed other Muslims whom they believed were not sufficiently militant, or who "betrayed" Islam by aiding someone whom the party of the first part considered to be an enemy. Many have wondered why the citizens of Iraq haven't risen up and helped us throw Al Qaeda out. It's pretty simple: Until the recent troop surge, we would clean up a neighborhood, then when we moved on, the terrorists would come back. If you were a simple shopkeeper or tradesman, and you helped the U.S., the chances were pretty good that you were going to die a gruesome death for it. Even Iraqi leaders who have pretty good security of their own have been targeted, and sometimes killed, for their cooperation: e.g., Abdul-Sattar Abu Risha, the Sunni Muslim tribal leader who was killed by a bomb on September 14, 2007, 10 days after meeting President Bush in Anbar Province. The fact is that most Iraqis have no confidence that we're not going to just pull up and leave, and they're not yet willing to bet their lives that we won't - particularly when there are so many voices in this country, including those among our political leadership, who want us to do just that.
It's just not easy to be a moderate Muslim. To be sure, the majority of Muslims are not eager to take up the banner of Jihad, but they don't seem particuarly eager to condemn it, either...because it's downright dangerous to do so. The problem is succinctly stated by Ibn Warraq: "There are moderate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate." (Note that "Ibn Warraq" is a pen name - an alias under which the author writes, for the obvious reason that he himself would be a target if his true identity was known.) The Qur'an says what it says. The prophet Muhammad said what he said. And there has never been a repudiation of the militant principles upon which the religion was founded. Quite the contrary, in fact.
Kamal Nawash, a leader of American moderate Muslims, said in an August, 2004, interview that 50% of Muslims worldwide supported the jihad. Bernard Haykel, an associate professor of Islamic studies at New York University, stated during a New York trial in 2005 that "There are a billion plus Muslims in the Arab world, 90 percent of whom support Hamas." A 2004 survey conducted by Pew Research Center in Pakistan revealed that 65% favored Osama bin Laden, 47% believed that Palestinian suicide attacks on Israelis were justified, and 46% believed that attacks on Westerners in Iraq were justified.
Consider the words of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini:
The problem faced by moderate Muslims is that there are, as Khomeini said, hundreds of passages that Islamic terrorists can point to as justification for their actions. That makes it difficult for the moderates to sell their point of view, because if someone actually goes back to the Qur'an and the Hadiths, and reads what they say, they'll find that they say pretty much what Khomeini, and hundreds of other fundamentalist clerics around the world, claim that they say. Unfortunately, those who point out this structural problem within Islam are quick to be labled "Islamophobes," criticized for "hate speech," and accused of stirring up anti-Muslim prejudice and intolerance. This makes it well-nigh impossible to have the kinds of honest and open conversations about these issues that are essential if they are ever going to be resolved peacefully.
I don't claim to know the answer to how this problem can be resolved. But I'm pretty sure that the answer is not to stick our collective heads in the sand and pretend, for fear of offending someone, that the problem doesn't exist. To make the world better, we must first have a clear understanding of how things really are, not just how we want them to be. To that end, I highly recommend, as additional reading material, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (And The Crusades) by Robert Spencer, available at a bookstore near you, or through the link I helpfully provided.
Thanks for listening.
Something in the morning paper caught my eye, for a couple of reasons. Seems that Ayman Zawahiri, considered to be the #2 guy in Al Qaeda these days, has released an audio recording in which he is threatening attacks against Libya. (Search on "Zawahiri + Libya" and you'll find a number of takes on the story.) Libya? Isn't Libya a predominantly Muslim country? And weren't they a sponsor of international terrorism not that long ago? Yes, and yes. You may remember Pan Am Flight 103, which was blown up in flight over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988, killing all 270 people aboard. After years of denying any responsibility for it, Libya ultimately admitted responsibility and reached a $2.7 billion settlement with the families of the victims. And that's just the highest-profile example of the things Lybia has been involved with.
But an interesting thing happened after Operation Iraqi Freedom took out Saddam Hussein. Suddenly, Moammar Kadafi decided that maybe it wasn't a healthy thing to be associated with terrorism. So in August of 2003, Libya formally renounced terrorism in a letter to the UN Security Council. In 2004, Libya announced that it was unilaterally dismantling its WMD programs. In May of 2006, the U.S. State Department formally rescinded Libya's designation as a state sponsor of terrorism, and shortly thereafter restored full diplomatic relations.
That, of course, is what has Zawahiri all twisted up. By improving relations with the "Washington crusaders," Kadafi has become an "enemy of Islam." Abu Laith al Libi, a Libyan Al Qaeda commander who is busy in Afghanistan at the moment, added that Kadafi "is turning Libya into another crusader base."
This is, for all intents and purposes, equivalent to calling for a death sentence upon Kadafi. According to the Sahih al-Bukhari , one of the six major Sunni Hadith collections (the Hadith are oral traditions recounting events in the life of the prophet Muhammad), the prophet was pretty straightforward about people who didn't keep the faith: "Whover changed his Islamic religion, then kill him." And the Qur'an states, "But whoever of you recants and dies an unbeliever, his works shall come to nothing in this world and the next, and they are the companions of the fire for ever." (Qur'an 2:217)
Now, I'm sure that Kadafi considers himself to still be a true believer, but this wouldn't be the first time that Muslims have killed other Muslims whom they believed were not sufficiently militant, or who "betrayed" Islam by aiding someone whom the party of the first part considered to be an enemy. Many have wondered why the citizens of Iraq haven't risen up and helped us throw Al Qaeda out. It's pretty simple: Until the recent troop surge, we would clean up a neighborhood, then when we moved on, the terrorists would come back. If you were a simple shopkeeper or tradesman, and you helped the U.S., the chances were pretty good that you were going to die a gruesome death for it. Even Iraqi leaders who have pretty good security of their own have been targeted, and sometimes killed, for their cooperation: e.g., Abdul-Sattar Abu Risha, the Sunni Muslim tribal leader who was killed by a bomb on September 14, 2007, 10 days after meeting President Bush in Anbar Province. The fact is that most Iraqis have no confidence that we're not going to just pull up and leave, and they're not yet willing to bet their lives that we won't - particularly when there are so many voices in this country, including those among our political leadership, who want us to do just that.
It's just not easy to be a moderate Muslim. To be sure, the majority of Muslims are not eager to take up the banner of Jihad, but they don't seem particuarly eager to condemn it, either...because it's downright dangerous to do so. The problem is succinctly stated by Ibn Warraq: "There are moderate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate." (Note that "Ibn Warraq" is a pen name - an alias under which the author writes, for the obvious reason that he himself would be a target if his true identity was known.) The Qur'an says what it says. The prophet Muhammad said what he said. And there has never been a repudiation of the militant principles upon which the religion was founded. Quite the contrary, in fact.
Kamal Nawash, a leader of American moderate Muslims, said in an August, 2004, interview that 50% of Muslims worldwide supported the jihad. Bernard Haykel, an associate professor of Islamic studies at New York University, stated during a New York trial in 2005 that "There are a billion plus Muslims in the Arab world, 90 percent of whom support Hamas." A 2004 survey conducted by Pew Research Center in Pakistan revealed that 65% favored Osama bin Laden, 47% believed that Palestinian suicide attacks on Israelis were justified, and 46% believed that attacks on Westerners in Iraq were justified.
Consider the words of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini:
"Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured by [the unbelievers]? Islam says: Kill them, put them to the sword and scatter [their armies]...Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for the Holy Warriors! There are hundreds of other psalms and Hadiths urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all this mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim."
The problem faced by moderate Muslims is that there are, as Khomeini said, hundreds of passages that Islamic terrorists can point to as justification for their actions. That makes it difficult for the moderates to sell their point of view, because if someone actually goes back to the Qur'an and the Hadiths, and reads what they say, they'll find that they say pretty much what Khomeini, and hundreds of other fundamentalist clerics around the world, claim that they say. Unfortunately, those who point out this structural problem within Islam are quick to be labled "Islamophobes," criticized for "hate speech," and accused of stirring up anti-Muslim prejudice and intolerance. This makes it well-nigh impossible to have the kinds of honest and open conversations about these issues that are essential if they are ever going to be resolved peacefully.
I don't claim to know the answer to how this problem can be resolved. But I'm pretty sure that the answer is not to stick our collective heads in the sand and pretend, for fear of offending someone, that the problem doesn't exist. To make the world better, we must first have a clear understanding of how things really are, not just how we want them to be. To that end, I highly recommend, as additional reading material, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (And The Crusades) by Robert Spencer, available at a bookstore near you, or through the link I helpfully provided.
Thanks for listening.
Thursday, November 1, 2007
The Passing of an American Hero
Greetings from the Left Coast! It's been a while since we talked...not because nothing's been going on - far from it! - but because I was on a business trip, then busy playing catch-up after I returned from the business trip.
Today's entry is, I believe, a sad commentary on American society in general, and on our educational system and revisionist historians in particular. Retired Brigadier General Paul Tibbets died today at age 92. You may not have heard his name before today, but perhaps you've heard of the airplane he flew on August 6, 1945. It was named the Enola Gay (after his mother), and it was the B-29 that dropped a uranium bomb on Hiroshima.
Now please don't misunderstand me. It wasn't the dropping of the bomb that I referred to as a sad commentary on American society. Here's what I find sad: General Tibbets told family and friends before he died that he did not want a funeral service or a headstone, because he feared a burial site would only give detractors a place to protest. Surely, you say, we haven't come to that, have we? Well, yes, we have.
Consider this quote from Eric Malnic writing in today's L.A. Times: "He never apologized for unleashing the devastating explosive force and insidious nuclear radiation that leveled more than two-thirds of the buildings in Hiroshima and killed at least 80,000 people, and perhaps as many as 127,000." The clear implication here, of course, is that he should have apologized. Takashi Mukai, the head of the Japan Congress Against A- and H-Bombs was quoted in Forbes as saying, "What Mr. Tibbets did should never be forgiven. His actions led to the indiscriminate killing of so many, from the elderly to young children." Now, on one hand, I suppose I can understand that attitude from a Japanese citizen, particularly someone who had a close relative injured at Hiroshima, as Takashi Mukai did...but did he never hear of the Rape of Nanjing? Try cranking that phrase into your Internet search engine, or just go to http://www.centurychina.com/wiihist/njmassac/nmintro.htm, if you have a strong stomach. In the context of World War II, Japan is the last nation that should be pointing fingers at others for indiscriminate killing.
I doubt that very many of you have been given this historical context in school, but World War II was brutal beyond the understanding of most people who are alive in America today. It was total war - and the cold, hard truth about war is that the only goal of war that makes any sense is to destroy your enemy's ability to wage war against you as expiditiously as possible. The faster and more efficiently you can do that, the more lives are saved on both sides of the conflict.
Hiroshima wasn't targeted at random, it happened to be the headquarters of the Japanese Second Army and the Chungoku Regional Army, and the Army Marine Headquarters was located at the nearby port of Ujina. It had large depots of military supplies, and was a key center for shipping. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiroshima.) Likewise, the main industry of Nagasaki, on which the world's first plutonium bomb was dropped three days later, was ship-building. Specifically, the ships used by the Japanese Navy.
Today's entry is, I believe, a sad commentary on American society in general, and on our educational system and revisionist historians in particular. Retired Brigadier General Paul Tibbets died today at age 92. You may not have heard his name before today, but perhaps you've heard of the airplane he flew on August 6, 1945. It was named the Enola Gay (after his mother), and it was the B-29 that dropped a uranium bomb on Hiroshima.
Now please don't misunderstand me. It wasn't the dropping of the bomb that I referred to as a sad commentary on American society. Here's what I find sad: General Tibbets told family and friends before he died that he did not want a funeral service or a headstone, because he feared a burial site would only give detractors a place to protest. Surely, you say, we haven't come to that, have we? Well, yes, we have.
Consider this quote from Eric Malnic writing in today's L.A. Times: "He never apologized for unleashing the devastating explosive force and insidious nuclear radiation that leveled more than two-thirds of the buildings in Hiroshima and killed at least 80,000 people, and perhaps as many as 127,000." The clear implication here, of course, is that he should have apologized. Takashi Mukai, the head of the Japan Congress Against A- and H-Bombs was quoted in Forbes as saying, "What Mr. Tibbets did should never be forgiven. His actions led to the indiscriminate killing of so many, from the elderly to young children." Now, on one hand, I suppose I can understand that attitude from a Japanese citizen, particularly someone who had a close relative injured at Hiroshima, as Takashi Mukai did...but did he never hear of the Rape of Nanjing? Try cranking that phrase into your Internet search engine, or just go to http://www.centurychina.com/wiihist/njmassac/nmintro.htm, if you have a strong stomach. In the context of World War II, Japan is the last nation that should be pointing fingers at others for indiscriminate killing.
I doubt that very many of you have been given this historical context in school, but World War II was brutal beyond the understanding of most people who are alive in America today. It was total war - and the cold, hard truth about war is that the only goal of war that makes any sense is to destroy your enemy's ability to wage war against you as expiditiously as possible. The faster and more efficiently you can do that, the more lives are saved on both sides of the conflict.
Hiroshima wasn't targeted at random, it happened to be the headquarters of the Japanese Second Army and the Chungoku Regional Army, and the Army Marine Headquarters was located at the nearby port of Ujina. It had large depots of military supplies, and was a key center for shipping. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiroshima.) Likewise, the main industry of Nagasaki, on which the world's first plutonium bomb was dropped three days later, was ship-building. Specifically, the ships used by the Japanese Navy.
Nor was the large-scale bombing of industrial centers unusual in WWII. The German bombing of Stalingrad killed 40,000 people. At least 30,000 died in London over the course of the war. 25,000 - 30,000 people were killed in the Allied bombing of Dresden. 80,000 - 100,000 people had been killed in the conventional bombing of Tokyo just a few months before General Tibbets' mission. And I could go on and on. No one had precision-guided smart bombs or cruise missiles in 1945.
In August of 1945, preparations were underway in Okinawa for Operation Downfall - the invasion of the Japanese homeland. Estimates of the cost of conquering Japan that were made by military strategists at the time ranged from 1.2 million to 4 million American casualties, and 5 to 10 million Japanese casualties. Indeed, the Japanese defensive strategy was to attempt to raise the cost of invasion to a point where the Allies would negotiate an armistice rather than pay that cost. By contrast, the combined casualty count from Hiroshima and Nagasaki was somewhere between 275,000 and 300,000, depending on whose estimates you believe. So, taking the high end of that estimate against the low end of the invasion estimates, the math is pretty clear: the two nuclear bombings that ended the war resulted in roughly 5% as many casualties as the most conservative estimates had we not dropped the bombs and proceeded with a conventional invasion. Any clear-thinking, intellectually honest person should be able to see that it was the right decision at the time.
Here's something else to consider as well: had there been a conventional invasion, the Soviet Union would have been part of it. And when it was over, we would probably have had a "North Japan" to go along with North Korea and East Germany. Think for a moment how different our world would be today if that had come to pass!
Here's some of what General Tibbets has had to say over the years: “I was anxious to do it...I wanted to do everything that I could to subdue Japan...I have been convinced that we saved more lives than we took. It would have been morally wrong if we’d have had that weapon and not used it and let a million more people die.” And, on another occasion, "I viewed my mission as one to save lives. I didn’t bomb Pearl Harbor. I didn’t start the war, but I was going to finish it.” And, "You've got to take stock and assess the situation at that time. We were at war...You use anything at your disposal."
Former U.S. Senator John Glenn, who also knows a thing or two about war, has defended Tibbets, and has pointed to the number of lives that were saved by bringing the war to a swift ending. He is quoted in the Forbes article as saying, "It wasn't his decision. It was a presidential decision, and he was an officer that carried out his duty. It's a horrible weapon, but war is pretty horrible, too."
"I sleep clearly every night," General Tibbets said in a 1975 interview. May you sleep in peace now, General. And please accept my thanks, on behalf of the untold thousands of Americans alive today who would have never been born had their fathers died in Operation Downfall, for doing your duty on that August morning in 1945. And may I also express my profound regret that our collective memory has become so distorted that you must rest in anonymity rather than in the place of honor that you deserve.
Thanks for listening.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
