Afghanistan: Withdraw Rapidly and Completely

December 13, 2009 · Posted in Foreign Policy · Comment

Ron Paul’s great statement before the Foreign Affairs Committee in the House, December 10, 2009:

Mr. Speaker thank you for holding these important hearings on US policy in Afghanistan. I would like to welcome the witnesses, Ambassador Karl W. Eikenberry and General Stanley A. McChrystal, and thank them for appearing before this Committee.

I have serious concerns, however, about the president’s decision to add some 30,000 troops and an as yet undisclosed number of civilian personnel to escalate our Afghan operation. This “surge” will bring US troop levels to approximately those of the Soviets when they occupied Afghanistan with disastrous result back in the 1980s. I fear the US military occupation of Afghanistan may end up similarly unsuccessful.

In late 1986 Soviet armed forces commander, Marshal Sergei Akhromeev, told then-Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev, “Military actions in Afghanistan will soon be seven years old. There is no single piece of land in this country which has not been occupied by a Soviet soldier. Nonetheless, the majority of the territory remains in the hands of rebels.” Soon Gorbachev began the Soviet withdrawal from its Afghan misadventure. Thousands were dead on both sides, yet the occupation failed to produce a stable national Afghan government.

Eight years into our own war in Afghanistan the Soviet commander’s words ring eerily familiar. Part of the problem stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation. It is our presence as occupiers that feeds the insurgency. As would be the case if we were invaded and occupied, diverse groups have put aside their disagreements to unify against foreign occupation. Adding more US troops will only assist those who recruit fighters to attack our soldiers and who use the US occupation to convince villages to side with the Taliban.

Proponents of the president’s Afghanistan escalation cite the successful “surge” in Iraq as evidence that this second surge will have similar results. I fear they might be correct about the similar result, but I dispute the success propaganda about Iraq. In fact, the violence in Iraq only temporarily subsided with the completion of the ethnic cleansing of Shi’ites from Sunni neighborhoods and vice versa — and all neighborhoods of Christians. Those Sunni fighters who remained were easily turned against the foreign al-Qaeda presence when offered US money and weapons. We are increasingly seeing this “success” breaking down: sectarian violence is flaring up and this time the various groups are better armed with US-provided weapons. Similarly, the insurgents paid by the US to stop their attacks are increasingly restive now that the Iraqi government is no longer paying bribes on a regular basis. So I am skeptical about reports on the success of the Iraqi surge.

Likewise, we are told that we have to “win” in Afghanistan so that al-Qaeda cannot use Afghan territory to plan further attacks against the US. We need to remember that the attack on the United States on September 11, 2001 was, according to the 9/11 Commission Report, largely planned in the United States (and Germany) by terrorists who were in our country legally. According to the logic of those who endorse military action against Afghanistan because al-Qaeda was physically present, one could argue in favor of US airstrikes against several US states and Germany! It makes no sense. The Taliban allowed al-Qaeda to remain in Afghanistan because both had been engaged, with US assistance, in the insurgency against the Soviet occupation.

Nevertheless, the president’s National Security Advisor, Gen. James Jones, USMC (Ret.), said in a recent interview that less than 100 al-Qaeda remain in Afghanistan and that the chance they would reconstitute a significant presence there was slim. Are we to believe that 30,000 more troops are needed to defeat 100 al-Qaeda fighters? I fear that there will be increasing pressure for the US to invade Pakistan, to where many Taliban and al-Qaeda have escaped. Already CIA drone attacks on Pakistan have destabilized that country and have killed scores of innocents, producing strong anti-American feelings and calls for revenge. I do not see how that contributes to our national security.

The president’s top advisor for Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard Holbrooke, said recently, “I would say this about defining success in Afghanistan and Pakistan. In the simplest sense, the Supreme Court test for another issue, we’ll know it when we see it.” That does not inspire much confidence.

Supporters of this surge argue that we must train an Afghan national army to take over and strengthen the rule and authority of Kabul. But experts have noted that the ranks of the Afghan national army are increasingly being filled by the Tajik minority at the expense of the Pashtun plurality. US diplomat Matthew Hoh, who resigned as Senior Civilian Representative for the U.S. Government in Zabul Province, noted in his resignation letter that he “fail[s] to see the value or the worth in continued U.S. casualties or expenditures of resources in support of the Afghan government in what is, truly, a 35-year old civil war.” Mr. Hoh went on to write that “[L]ike the Soviets, we continue to secure and bolster a failing state, while encouraging an ideology and system of government unknown and unwanted by [the Afghan] people.”

I have always opposed nation-building as unconstitutional and ineffective. Afghanistan is no different. Without a real strategy in Afghanistan, without a vision of what victory will look like, we are left with the empty rhetoric of the last administration that “when the Afghan people stand up, the US will stand down.” I am afraid the only solution to the Afghanistan quagmire is a rapid and complete US withdrawal from that country and the region. We cannot afford to maintain this empire and our occupation of these foreign lands is not making us any safer. It is time to leave Afghanistan.

Tags: afghanistan, ron paul, war

Human Rights & Anarchism

December 13, 2009 · Posted in Philosophy · Comment

A lot is being talked about rights. But what is a right? I have written about it before in Ethics, Human Nature, and Government:

A right is defined as a defensible claim to an object, meaning a claim that, if necessary for the preservation and development of mankind, may be defended violently.

But this statement still doesn’t clarify where rights come from. Who determines which creature has defensible claims to what? Thus it is crucial to understand that rights are inextricably linked to and the outcome of a process of reasoning. This is precisely the process I applied in the article I referenced above.

If you haven’t read it yet, do so, because I will not delve into the details here. I will just say that the concept of rights is derived from the assumption that humans have a certain nature and that a part of this nature is the desire to live and the desire to remove uneasiness every step of the way. Part of this nature is also the innate capability to let reason guide one’s actions, as opposed to instincts. Thus it immediately follows that when we talk of rights we always implicitly refer to human rights. We’re not talking about the rights of a cow, a bird or a fish.

If humans did not have a desire to live or to improve their well being every step of the way, the concept of rights would be completely irrelevant. But then, if humans did not have a desire to live I would not be sitting here and writing stuff. I’d have no business doing so. Nor would you be reading this and maybe posting comments on it. You’d have no business in doing so. Thus the desire to live rises to the status of an irrefutable axiom.

But to delimit the scope of human rights requires consistency. If one agrees that he has a right to his body and his property it immediately follows that all other humans do as well. It also follows that if he thinks he may for whatever reason infringe upon someone’s rights, he may rightfully become subject to defensive violence.

Thus a peaceful and just society is only possible if everyone’s rights are respected and exercised when needed. This is by no means to say that all humans are saints. The concept of human rights does not assume that in any way. Quite the opposite: Talking about rights would be completely futile and vain if it weren’t for people who infringe upon them. To state that one has a right to something always implies the threat of defensive violence, were one to become a victim of aggression.

It is also not to say that our current system is in any way designed in a way so as to respect our rights. Again, quite the contrary: A system that involves a government is by definition one that allows a certain group of people to perform aggression and theft on a periodical basis and with complete impunity, meaning without the subjects exercising their rights. It is impossible to institutionalize a system that protects everyone’s rights if the institution entrusted with this task by definition violates them.

There is only one system that establishes the framework that will one day enable all humans to exercise their rights to the fullest extent possible. This system is of course and by definition the system of anarchism.

Tags: anarchism, Government, human rights, rights

Reason is the Enemy

December 12, 2009 · Posted in Philosophy · Comment

Reason is the enemy of the spin doctors of our age. Reason requires thought. Thought requires intelligence. The less intelligent someone is, the less reasonable the decisions he makes.

This is the fate of those who fall for the spin doctors of our age; for the people who tell us that aggression is justifiable; the people who cry about global warming; the people who tell you their health care plan will make a difference; the people who send 30,000 more hitmen to Afghanistan to kill more people and get killed by more … and, yes, the people who thought it made sense to invade Iraq …

… the people who voted for Bush and Obama.

The people who take your money and give it to their Wall St. buddies; the people who think prosperity can be conjured up out of a printing press; the people who have been wrong on every single thing they said in the past … and will continue to be wrong on every thing they say in future.

This is the fate of Democracy today; a bunch of misguided souls, thinking they know when they don’t, thinking they voted for change when they didn’t, thinking they thought when they didn’t.

Yes, intelligence does require thought; thought requires reason … reason is the human tool of survival, what would we be without it?

Who is out seeking to destroy our tool of survival, to issue our death sentence. It is, unfortunately, the spin doctors of our age, messing with your minds.

Don’t let them do it! THINK! Use your brain! Question things you are being told before accepting them at face value. Educate yourself about Ethics, Human Nature, and Government.

For intelligence requires thought. Thought requires reason. And the spin doctors of our age are the enemy of reason … don’t let them succeed. Think for yourself and fight for truth. Because as long as you don’t, nothing will change …

Tags: Politics, reason

100 + 1 Examples of “Stimulus” Waste – Obama Job Approval At All Time Low

December 10, 2009 · Posted in Government · 2 Comments

Mish has a sampling of some stimulus projects, all of them trying to outdo each other in their uselessness – a schoolbook example of what happens when the government gets to spend billions:

1. “Almost Empty” Mall Awarded Energy Grant ($5 million)
The Department of Energy has announced an award for up to $5 million6 to install a geothermal energy system capable of heating an ―almost empty‖ mall in Oak Ridge, Tennessee.

2. Renovations for Federal Building as Expensive as New Building ($133 million)
Taxpayers in Oregon may be surprised to learn that the largest stimulus project in their state is not a new road or bridge, but a $133 million makeover for the federal building in downtown Portland. The money will go toward ―greening the Edith Green/Wendell Wyatt Federal Building in the hope of making it a model for energy efficient government offices in the Northwest. That said, for $133 million some may wonder why they did not simply tear it down and start over.

Agency officials expect to construct a type of vegetative skin—made of plants—on the exterior of the building, to help with heating and cooling costs.

In 2007, a new federal building was constructed in downtown San Francisco with similar state-of-the-art energy efficiency features for $144 million—nearly the same cost to merely renovate the Portland Federal Building. Both buildings are eighteen stories tall, built with energy efficient technologies, and house federal agency offices. The major difference is that the San Francisco building is much larger, with an additional 100,000 usable square feet in comparison with its counterpart in Portland.

3. DTV Advertising Agency Generates Three Jobs ($5.9 million)
An advertising agency that ultimately reported little job creation received a multi-million dollar contract to help the government overcome a poorly managed transition to digital television, only to report three jobs created.

4. Research to Develop Supersonic Corporate Jets ($4.7 Million)
Lockheed Martin will receive a total of more than $21 million in federal money—with $4.7 million funded through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act—from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to advance research for supersonic jet travel. High ticket costs, fuel-guzzling and the infamous sonic ―boom helped doom commercial supersonic travel in the past; the last Concorde jet flew in 2003.

5. Water Pipeline to a Money-Losing Golf Course ($2.2 million)
A $2.2 million stimulus grant will help pay for new pipes to pump recycled water to the Sharp Park Golf Course in San Francisco, California. Unfortunately, the golf course may not exist for much longer. The City Council is considering closing the public course over concerns for the California red-legged frog and the San Francisco garter snake that live in the area.

7. Program to Control Home Appliances From a Remote Location ($787,250)
Fifty homes on Martha‘s Vineyard in Massachusetts will participate in a test program to allow an outside party to control their energy use, ―Big Brother style. The initiative will allow participating households to purchase discounted appliances from General Electric (GE) that are capable of communicating with – and being controlled by – an off-site computer system.

20. Repaved Georgia Road . . . Getting Repaved Again ($88,000)
Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) contractors are using stimulus funds to repave a busy street in Atlanta—part of which was repaved just two years ago. Rebecca Serna, a local bicyclist, noted that the existing road is ―pretty much the smoothest ride in town right now, adding about the new project, ―I don‘t know if it‘s necessary, but it‘s nice.

23. Studying the Icelandic Arctic Environment in the Viking Age ($94,902)
The University of Massachusetts-Boston received an almost $95,000 stimulus grant to ―count pollen grains collected from farms in Iceland and allowed researchers to continue studying the role the arctic environment played in the evolution of civic life during the Viking Age.

33. Study on “Hookup” Behavior of Female College Coeds ($219,000)
The National Institute of Health (NIH) is using stimulus funds to pay for a year-long $219,000 study to follow female college students for a year to determine whether young women are more likely to ―hookup — the college equivalent of casual sex — after drinking

35. Study of Wildflowers in a Ghost Town ($448,995)
A few dilapidated buildings are largely what remains in Gothic, Colorado, a ghost town that is also home to the Rocky Mountain Biological Laboratory. Over the next five years, however, Gothic will host a $448,995 National Science Foundation study by Dr. David Inouye on the impact of climate change on the town‘s wildflowers.

38. Recovering Crab Pots Lost At Sea ($700,000)
A $700,000 grant will pay for 48 people to help Oregon crabbers recover crab pots they have lost at sea. The two-year project expects to yield 2,000 lost pots a year. Oregon crabbers reportedly lose an estimated 15,000 crab pots a year. The effort will use 10 boats, planes, and a telephone hotline for people to phone in crab pot sightings. If all 4,000 pots are recovered as expected, the grantees will spend an average of $175 per crab pot, though John‘s Sporting Goods in nearby Everett, Washington sells new crab pots online for as little as $19.95.

50. Arizona Ants Work While Some Arizonans Remain Unemployed ($950,000)
Two major universities in the state are receiving a combined $950,000 to examine the division of labor in ant colonies. Arizona State University was awarded $500,000 in stimulus funding by the National Science Foundation, while the University of Arizona will receive $450,000.

51. Study On Why Young Men Do Not Like Condoms ($221,355)
Indiana University professors received $221,355 in economic stimulus funds to study why young men do not like to wear condoms.

56. Homeland Security Funds Assist Boat Tours of Alcatraz ($50,783)
A ferry service that once contracted for the federal government will receive over $50,000 in stimulus homeland security grants, despite no longer doing any work for the government.

60. Town of 838 to Renovate Old Hotel into a Welcome Center ($300,000)
Tourism may not be booming in Crofton, Kentucky (population 838),267 but the town has received $300,000 in stimulus funds to convert an abandoned downtown hotel into a visitors‘ center.

79. Money for Lighthouse Repairs on Uninhabited Island (Nearly $1.5 million)
Located on a barrier island accessible only by water, Monomoy National Wildlife Refuge on Cape Cod, Massachusetts, is an area that has been empty for decades. However, the Department of the Interior will spend nearly $1.5 million in federal stimulus funds to fix the lighthouse and other facilities on the Refuge. The project will restore the lighthouse, living quarters and an oil shed.

I would like to submit one more. The irony couldn’t be more rampant. Right after the $787 billion spending bill was passed, the administration launched www.recovery.gov. “Recovery.gov is the U.S. government’s official website providing easy access to data related to Recovery Act spending and allows for the reporting of potential fraud, waste, and abuse.” After a few months the administration decided to redesign this site … and awarded an $18 million contract to SmartTronix, a company that supported House Majority Leader Hoyer’s campaign:

ABC reports this morning that the Maryland firm Smartronix has won what seems like an enormous $18 million contract to re-design the Recovery.gov website. Approximately $9.5 million would be spent by January in order to make “Recovery 2.0″ out of the site that is supposed to track the spending of federal stimulus funds in detail.

Smartronix, a medium-sized Maryland-based firm (over 500 employees) founded in 1995, boasts a large number of government clients, mostly military. The company appears to have just one important political connection: according to FEC records, Smartronix president, Mohammed Javaid, vice president Alan Parris, and partner John Parris have together given $19,000 to House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D) since 1999. There is no record of a Smartronix employee contributing to any other federal politician.

UPDATE: Smartronix got $260 million in other federal contracts

Smartronix has received more than $260 million in federal contracts since the year 2000, with the top awarding agencies being the U.S. Navy, Federal Technology Service, U.S. Air Force, U.S. Minerals Management Service, and the Office of Policy, Management and Budget (not clear which department or agency issued this contract), according to USASpending.gov.

Nearly $180 million of the contracts awarded to Smartronix during the period 2000-2009 were awarded on less-than-competitive basis, including $21 million for non-competitive awards. Another $33 million was awarded in competitive processes in which Smartronix was the sole bidder.

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air has more details on Smartronix government contract awards. — Update by Mark Tapscott.

Want a comparison?

UPDATE III: USASPENDING.GOV much cheaper

Although the short timeline of the Recovery 2.0 project may render the comparison unfair, the site will be vastly more expensive than USASpending.gov, whose purpose is similar. The USA Spending site, which came about as a result of transparency legislation written by then-Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., tracks federal contract spending by state, zip code, and Congressional District, as well as by contractor and type of award. It also gives details down to the transaction level for contracts made in every year since 2000.

The software package for USASpending.gov was purchased from a non-profit budget watchdog group, OMB Watch, for just $600,000.

I am from this business, so I can tell you that $18 million for redesigning one website to track something like this is a complete and utter outrage. Heck, I know of venture funded businesses that were happy about an $18 million investment that could carry them over a few years.

But all of this is of course completely expectable and the people are at fault for applauding Obama for pushing this rip off at the time it was being discussed. Back then I wrote:

Obama is gambling with the future of his administration. If he doesn’t deliver true change, things will get worse and worse. If he shoves this bill down the throats of the American people, it will be him and Democrats in Congress who will have to share the blame. This bill was never his bill. It was the Congressional Democrats’ bill, led by Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. Now Obama has made it his bill. All the scandals, wasteful projects and corruption that will be uncovered under the projects funded by it will be associated with him.

… I hope people are paying attention …

Barack Obama’s presidential job approval rating is 47% in the latest Gallup Poll Daily tracking update, a new low for his administration to date. His approval rating has been below 50% for much of the time since mid-November, but briefly rose to 52% last week after he announced his new Afghanistan policy.

… maybe they are :)

Tags: stimulus, waste

Connecticut Senate Race – Schiff Already Beats Dodd in Latest Poll

December 9, 2009 · Posted in Politics · Comment

Very encouraging news from the Schiff campaign:

Memo

To: Peter Schiff Supporters

From: Peter Schiff Campaign Team

Re: Latest Rasmussen Poll: Peter Schiff BEATING Senator Chris Dodd

In the midst of your holiday preparations, we wanted to share with you the early Christmas present delivered today to the Peter Schiff for US Senate campaign.

A new Rasmussen poll has anti-tax candidate Peter Schiff AHEAD of Chris Dodd. This is an early Christmas gift for the Peter Schiff campaign. Before we could email our campaign pollster for his analysis, he had already emailed us, “Rasmussen Poll: EXCELLENT NUMBERS!” “These numbers are striking considering the campaign is still in our initial stages, and we are still beating Dodd,” he explained.

Our campaign is energized by these numbers, especially when you put them in context:

Dodd’s a five-term US Senator.

Our campaign hasn’t even started yet. (We launch our campaign headquarters next week.)

Most Connecticut voters don’t yet know Peter and haven’t heard his story.

In 2006, people ignored Peter when he warned about the impending financial crisis. He was about the only person in the country to speak up and speak out against Wall Street’s unsound financial practices. Most importantly, he spoke out when it was the right thing to do, not when it was politically expedient. Now that irresponsible spending has moved from Wall Street to Washington, we need Peter Schiff’s insight and principles in the US Senate.

Connecticut Republicans know that Washington’s spending binges have consequences. Nearly 95% of Connecticut Republicans are worried that Obama’s socialized medicine will lead to bigger deficits. Well over 85% of Republicans are worried that the federal government’s spending binge will lead to middle-class tax increases.

And they’re right! That’s why we need a proven tax fighter like Peter Schiff in the Senate. No one doubts that Peter will be the most vocal tax fighter in Connecticut history. When Connecticut Republicans start to hear about Peter’s record- when they learn that he is the only candidate who can be trusted to fight government spending and tax increases, they will be committed Schiff voters.

One final note: there is a lot of talk out of Washington about the need for “a million-dollar advertising campaign” like the one we are seeing from one of Peter’s opponents. If these poll numbers prove one thing, it’s that: Throwing money at a problem won’t move your poll numbers any more than it will solve the financial crisis.

Tags: 2010 senate race, connecticut, peter schiff, peter schiff for senate

Ron Paul vs the Fed

December 2, 2009 · Posted in Politics · Comment

… Mr. Bernanke, any response?

Tags: federal reserve bank, ron paul

US Government Growth 2009

December 2, 2009 · Posted in Government · 6 Comments

The size of government in relation to private sector has grown to 40% in 2009, according to www.gpoaccess.gov estimates.

Below please find a historical chart that shows the growth of the size of government in the US from 1930 on through now. I estimated the numbers of state/municipal expenses prior to 1948, based on the general observable trend back then, applied the GPO’s estimate for 2009 federal expenses, and assumed that state/municipal expenses in 2009 remained at the same level as 2008:

One thing that one can generally take from this: The scope of government intrusion has grown from 7% in 1930 to now over 40%. It is beginning to reach levels that are unprecedented in post war history and only matched during World War 2.

During the Great Depression of 1929, the government already made the mistake of spending more money instead of less. Note the doubling of expenses from 7% in 1930 to 15% in 1933. As we all know, this was the very cause of the immense prolongation of the depression. In particular the war times were hard on the American people, with its 90% income taxes and rationing policies.

The US economy did not get back on its feet until about 18 (!!) years later, partly as a result of a massive winding down of excessive spending and taxes by the federal government, partly of course due to the fact that all the capital in the world flocked from countries in ruins to the only industrialized nation that was still virtually unharmed by bombings, holocausts, nukes, or occupations.

So long as the current path we are on continues, we are bound to repeat the mistakes from the past. Maybe we are even headed for a World War 3? All these mistakes and fallacies could then once again be conveniently obfuscated and masked, voices of reason trampled down by pseudo-patriotic propaganda, precipitating a populace in robotic mode … an army on the march. (”Don’t question your almighty government. The fault is your greediness. It’s the foreigners. It’s the businessmen. It’s the corporations. It’s Al-Quaeda, North Korea, Iran, and everyone else. NOT YOUR GOVERNMENT.”)

One note to all the Krugmans of the world: Just say “Stop” when your prescriptions will have wrecked the world enough and when you’re content with your achievements.

Tags: 2009, government growth, us government growth

The Laws of Obamanomics a.k.a Interventionism

December 2, 2009 · Posted in Interventionism · 1 Comment

The Examiner writes in a book review Obamanomics defined: Big Government in service of Big Business:

The Laws of Obamanomics

Underlying Obamanomics are some basic economic facts and political realities. These are the Four Laws of Obamanomics, paired below with some of the lobbying strategies that exploit these laws.

1) During a legislative debate, whichever business has the best lobbyists is most likely to win the most favorable small print. Similarly, once a bill has passed, the business with the best lawyers and lobbyists will best be able to craft the regulations and learn how to game them. A big business, counting on this fact while lobbying for more government spending or control, is employing The Inside Game.

2) Regulation adds to overhead, and higher overhead crowds out smaller competitors and prevents startups from entering the industry. When corporations, knowing this, lobby for more regulation of their industry, I call this the Overhead Smash.

3) Bigger companies are often saddled by inertia, meaning robust competition is a threat. Adopting regulations that stultify the economy is the equivalent of raising the basketball hoop to twenty feet at half-time: it protects the lead of whichever team is ahead. When Big Business seeks to stultify the economy to hold back smaller competitors, I call it Gumming the Works.

4) Government regulation grants an air of legitimacy to businesses, boosting consumer confidence, often beyond what is warranted. This is The Confidence Game.

While I agree that all these laws do accurately describe the current US economic policy under the current president, I ask: How did those laws differ under Bush, or under Clinton for that matter, or under Bush Sr., or under Reagan??

People have to realize: What is outlined above does not outline some new phenomenon. These are, simply put, the laws of interventionism, the system that has dominated the entire past century. All the problems we are facing today can be traced back to it, all the cures prescribed to fix our problems are just more of very things that caused our problems.

It is a system under which, during all the bogus back and forth, all the talk in the media from left or from right, all the discussions about tax hikes by 4% or by 5%, about whether or not we should send 30,000 or 40,000 hitmen into a foreign country, about whether we should spend $5 billion or $7 billion in yet another foreign aid bill, about whether this or that government institution should oversee banks, or whether centrally decreed interest rates should be .25 or .5 percent, one thing has remained consistent and uncontested by the blind public for decades: the growth of government.

Tags: Interventionism, obama, obamanomics, president obama

« Previous Page