Smarter Than Thou!

THE ENEMY IS US

     THERE is an interesting aspect to the “torture debate,” which I wish to comment on, and insightfully so.  By this I mean the various opinions at what should be done, and how, to the prisoners of (not quite a) war captured over there in Asia.  This debate involves whether these guys should be given any legal rights.  

     The Liberals tend to argue that they should be given every legal protection, up to everything “owed” to American citizens.  They also tend to argue that the reason for this position is that anything else is not in keeping with the “American character.”  Usually, they add something like “we” (i.e. Americans) have such a value system that that such full legal protection is mandated. 

      Really?  How can anyone determine what is consistent with THE American character?  Americans killed Indians, sometimes without just cause.  Americans stole about one third of the country from Mexico.  Americans stole Cuba from Spain, for no good reason.  America sustained legal slavery for quite a time.  On the other hand, of course, America has done a lot of good things.  For example, it has provided unmatched economic opportunity, and a lot of personal freedom, to many.  And, for a long time, it kept women from voting. 

      My point is that, like every other nation, America has done lots of good things as well as many bad things.  So which parts of its history are used to identify what is in keeping with American-ism?  If only the better parts are used, and the rest considered aberrations, then America would be Heaven on Earth, and its citizens would be angels. 

       But then if only the good actions of a human are counted then even Badass Obama would be considered to be no worse than Charles Manson.  

Be a true American, or a false one (if this is what you want), by subscribing to the A&E. 

 

WHAT'S THE MATTER WITH KIDS THESE DAYS?

    RECENTLY I heard, on a radio talk show, a frequent topic.  Apparently a high school class had misbehaved on prom night.  The commentator and his staff asked themselves the standard questions about “kids these days.”  And part of was “Why are parents doing a better job?”

      First, let me posit that, maybe, things really are not worse, than ever.  Maybe parents are involved, as always, and the increased media attention simply gives the wrong impression.  Certainly the over reaction of parents (e.g. attacking little league coaches) indicates overly involved parents.  However, I believe that the consensus is that parents are less active, and children suffer as a result.  And the next result is a deterioration of the behavior of youth. 

      I offer a reason why.  When standards, anywhere, are lowered, most people will work less hard.  When the passing grade is lowered to 60 from 70, students will study less.  Not only will the marginal students study less, but also the best students can now achieve a high(er) grade with less effort.  This may not be universal, but, I believe, most people will accept the temptation to reduce their “work load.”     

     The weakening of family bonds is a cost of abortion.  Back in the old days unwanted pregnancies meant doing the honorable thing, which meant marriage and acceptance of the situation.  Now, people are quite satisfied with themselves if they do not kill their own children.  “Pro-life” groups routinely praise women simply because they did not commit murder.  They ignore that they are sinful fornicators.  

      The standards are now so low that merely allowing the child to be born is probably, in the minds of many parents, all that is owed to the child.  Abortion has more costs than are normally acknowledged. 

      The A&E has only one cost, namely $30 per year.  Subscribe before Obama makes it illegal to do so. 

 

OBAMA... SUPER SMART PATRIOT?

     THE issue, this time, is the prisoner of war, namely how they should be treated.  My impression is that, no matter what else happens, these guys will be well treated, maybe even released, by Bam-Bam’s decrees.  So, how can such a policy be anything but detrimental to the nation? 

      I posit, as a theory, the following.  The enemies, having access to the Mass Media, will now be convinced that, should they surrender, they should fear nothing and expect much.  This will incline them to surrender, or at least not to be suicidal.  Less fanatical fighters should reduce the number of US casualties they inflict. 

       However, in my theory, there is more.  What if the many, or most, of the prisoners are not “officially” retained by the US?  Suppose that they are hidden somewhere else, where they are "mistreated."  The Media induced them to expect comfort and now they are tortured and/or isolated.  They are now not conditioned for such conditions.  The chances of them breaking, and thus giving useful information, are now increased.  The entire program would be a cunning and clever one of misinformation and misdirection.  

       How likely is this?  I would not offer odds.  But maybe, like in the movies, there is a shadow government which does things without the knowledge of the president.  I hope so.  I don’t trust that guy.  Maybe we do not have to.  

Be super smart, and subscribe to the A&E.  

 

A BODING EXPERIENCE

     AT first I thought that the news was terrible.  But then I analyzed it from another point of view.  I refer to the “bond issue” and the Obama administration.  A commercial bond is a contract between a corporation and an investor.  The bond holder has a legal---and absolute---claim to the assets of the company.  Even if the company can not pay others bond holder gets paid off first.  He has an unqualified legal claim, so that the company MUST sell off what it owns (things like buildings, chairs, etc) to the bond holders before it tries to pay off its “regular” debts. 

      The Chrysler arrangement reversed this.  Somehow two courts, including the Supreme Court, said that this legal contract, honored and upheld by courts for over 200 years, is now, well, “inoperative.”  This IS the end of the world.  Legal contracts can no longer be enforced in courts, if they do not please Bam-Bam.  It is like Tony Soprano has taken over the country.  There is not even the hint of real legality in this matter.  And this is why I saw it as so bad… at first. 

       Now consider this.  What can people do with their money, after the government takes its share?  Unless they hide it in the back yard, they can only can either invest it or spend it.  Now, because of the rulings, investment contracts are not protected by law.  People would now be idiots to buy bonds.  So, especially as they know that inflation is coming, they are going to spend their money.  And this is what the Bam-Bam stimulus is intended to achieve:  namely lots and lots of spending.

        Of course such a demand based stimulus will not work.  However, at least Bam-Bam is being consistent in his policies.  But then so is Tony Soprano.    

AS PAUL HARVEY WOULD SAY...

     THE late Paul Harvey would say, when introducing a bit of unpleasantness, “Just so you do not run out of things to worry about…”  I judge that this introduction is appropriate here.  Be prepared, or do not read further. 

      In essence, or at least so it seems, the Feds now “own” and will run General Motors, and, probably Chrysler.  I propose that the feds do NOT want successes, but, instead, will “work” for continuing failures.  They will demand that the companies produce cars which will not be purchased by the public.  Thus, the companies will never recover, and will need an endless supply of government money.

      Why?  This policy would create a huge new “welfare” class.  These workers would feel as if they were actually employed.  However, they would actually be on the federal welfare roll.  Thus they would vote overwhelmingly to keep this subsidy, and their “jobs,” by voting for Bam-Bam, again, and again, and again.  His potential political opponents could only offer poverty and unemployment, as alternatives.  Or, even if they promise to continue the free money, the voters will not trust them, as they trust Obama.  He has bought their souls with taxpayer money. 

      This is much like what happened in the later stages of the Roman Empire.  The soldiers got their regular pay, even if they did no fighting.  However, when it was the emperor’s birthday, or when a new emperor too office, there was an “extra” payday.  So the army saw an advantage in killing off the current emperor and installing new ones.  In this case the voters---and there will be more than auto workers on the list---will want to keep the current emperor forever. 

       As ancient history shows, a republic is an easy thing to destroy.  People will often vote it out of existence.  

       In case you want to know what more things you should worry about, subscribe to the A&E, for $40 Obama dollars per year.