Free Speech is becoming an Endangered Species in Communist Vietnam

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 1st, 2013

Week in Review

The American left has been critical of free speech that they don’t agree with.  Nancy Pelosi has stated she would like to bring back the Fairness Doctrine (aka the Hush Rush Bill).  Forcing radio stations who carried conservative talk shows like the Rush Limbaugh show to carry equal programming of the opposite viewpoint.  For try as they might liberals have no Rush Limbaugh of their own.  So if they can’t beat them they would like a law to encourage broadcasters to drop these conservative talk shows.  As they probably would if they were forced to carry an equal amount of programming of the opposite viewpoint.  For it would be easier just not to carry controversial programming.

And then there’s net neutrality.  Which is kind of like the Fairness Doctrine for the Internet.  But more complex.  And more murky.  The left likes the idea of enforcing net neutrality.  Especially if they could shut down conservative websites they didn’t like.  For that would make it harder to fund raise.  And you wouldn’t have to use the IRS to illegally impede conservative fundraising.  Like they did with Tea Party groups in the 2012 election.  Getting caught in that was just a pain in the ass for the Democrats.  And they would love to be able to do the same thing without anyone throwing the Rule of Law in their face.

The rollout of Obamacare was not all that great.  And the White House didn’t like what they were hearing in the media.  So they called in their friends in the liberal media.  And said you’re killing us.  Please don’t say these things anymore.  And, instead, say these talking points.  Lie for us.  Just help us get these idiots (the people losing their health insurance because of Obamacare) off of our backs.  It was an ‘off the record’ meeting so we don’t know exactly what they said.  But this was probably the gist.  A return to that recurring theme of theirs.  Trying to censor bad things being said about them.  Using these sneaky ways because they just can’t do this (see Vietnam: Criticize government on social media and go to jail by Dara Kerr posted 11/29/2013 on CNET).

 Vietnam is joining the ranks of Iran, Saudi Arabia, and China, as being known as a country that censors its citizens on social media.

The government introduced a new law this week that fines people $4,740 for posting comments critical of the government on social-networking sites like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, according to Reuters. Some people could also face extensive prison terms.

While the law is unclear about what kind of speech sparks government censorship, it does say that “propaganda against the state” and “reactionary ideology” would elicit fines.

Vietnam’s communist government has increasingly censored its citizens’ free speech over the past few years. According to Reuters, arrests and convictions for criticizing the government online have skyrocketed the last four years…

In a recent Global Transparency Report, Google said that it has seen an alarming incidence in government requests to gather information on their citizens. Some of the top offending countries in Google’s report include the US, India, and Germany.

You know the Obama administration would love to do this.  You should at least not be surprised if they did.  For they are spying on us.  And collecting information on us.  Using the IRS to silence the opposition.  Lying to us, telling us a YouTube video killed our ambassador and three other Americans in Benghazi.  Something they are tired hearing about.  And no doubt envy Iran, Saudi Arabia, and China for being able to do what they want to do but can’t.  Having the power to take away our free speech.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Vietnamese Coffee Industry suffers because Communist Vietnam puts People before Profits

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 17th, 2013

Week in Review

The American left wants more government intervention into the free market.  Because they hate and don’t trust corporations.  Because they are motivated by profit.  Even putting profits before people.  Whereas government puts people before profits.  So everything is better when government intervenes.  Which is why the left loved Hugo Chávez in Venezuela.  They love Cuba.  They loved the former Soviet Union.  Because they were all socialist utopias.  Where they put people before profits.  Of course, people are robbing women of their hair in Venezuelan streets.  Cubans have risked their lives crossing the ocean to reach Florida on just about anything that floats.  And the Soviet Union is no more.  Because they couldn’t provide for their people.  Despite putting their people before profits.

Another communist country the left likes is Vietnam.  Especially since the communists got the Americans to give up and go home.  Vietnam is still communist.  But like China they add a sprinkling of capitalism to the communist stew.  A sort of state-capitalism.  Capitalism with the heavy hand of the government involved.  The way the American left likes it.  And how are things there?  Well, they are having quite the problem in their coffee industry (see Crippling debts brew a coffee crisis in Vietnam by Nguyen Phuong Linh, Ho Binh Minh and Lewa Pardomuan posted 8/15/2013 on The Globe and Mail).

But its coffee industry is now in crisis, plagued by tax evasion, mismanagement, insolvency, high interest rates and a credit squeeze. Many coffee operators are trapped with crippling debt and banks are reluctant to lend them more money.

Vietnam’s credit crunch is blamed largely on state-owned enterprises that borrowed big during the economic boom of the past decade and squandered cash on failed investments, which has left banks crippled by one of Asia’s highest bad-debt ratios…

Few coffee exporters are willing to talk about their financial problems. In communist Vietnam, people are often reluctant to speak publicly about politics and business, especially to foreign media…

Vietnam’s 2013-2014 coffee crop is forecast to be a bumper harvest, around 17 million to 29.5 million 60-kg bags, based on a Reuters poll. This will add to a global oversupply and pressure coffee prices which have lost about 10 per cent since October…

A government assessment of the coffee industry paints a bleak picture. The value of non-performing loans or debts in the sector likely to go unpaid stands at 8 trillion dong ($379-million), or 60 per cent of all coffee industry loans, said a July circular signed by the Deputy Agriculture Minister Vu Van Tam…

Unscrupulous middlemen have also played a part in the crisis, cheating exporters by selling them weighted coffee bags and inferior beans which are difficult to sell or fetch lower prices.

“What I found out is the market there is quite dirty. Middlemen often sell poor beans to exporters. They even put metal bolts in the bags to outweigh them,” said Joyce Liu, an investment analyst at Phillip Futures in Singapore.

You don’t have middlemen putting bolts into bags to make them heavier in free market capitalism.  For any inferior product in a free market doesn’t remain long in a free market.  As people will simply stop buying an inferior product.  And it could take years for a company to rebuild its tarnished image.  If they ever can.  This is what happens when you put profits before people.  People win.

So who caused the credit crunch?  State-owned enterprises.  As people in government are horrible at business.  For if they were good at it they would be in it.  But they’re not so they regulate it.  Or run a state-owned business.  Not because of their business acumen.  But because they had friends in higher places in government than anyone else.

Loans are important in any agricultural business.  Because all of your expenses come long before you can sell anything.  So they take on big debts at the beginning of the season.  That they plan on repaying after the harvest.  As long as prices don’t fall because there is a bumper crop.  But if they do they may not be able to earn enough to repay their bank loans.  Which is why 60% of all coffee industry loans will likely go unpaid.  And why bankers don’t want to loan them any more money.  Or charge a really high interest rate when they do.  For if a banker knows that every other loan he or she writes will never be repaid it makes a banker very reluctant to loan any money.  And what they do loan has to have such high interest rates to cover the loans that are never paid back.

This is why governments should not interfere with free markets.  For when they do they just make everything worse.  Because they’re just not good at it.  Unlike oppressing their people.  That they’re very good at.  Which is why people are “reluctant to speak publicly about politics and business, especially to foreign media.”  Something unheard of in free market economies.  But quite common in these socialist utopias.  Yet the left still favors them over free market capitalism.  Go figure.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The EU won’t sell their Lethal Drugs for Vietnamese Executions

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 4th, 2012

Week in Review

Capital punishment is a contentious issue.  Some people enthusiastically support it.  While others vehemently oppose it.  While others do both (see Vietnam says it’s unable to execute its criminals because EU refusing to export lethal drugs by Associated Press posted 11/1/2012 on The Washington Post).

Vietnam says it can’t execute its hundreds of death row criminals because the European Union is refusing to export the lethal drugs used in the executions…

Vice Chairman of the National Assembly Huynh Ngoc Son was quoted as saying the EU is trying to pressure Vietnam to give up capital punishment.

The EU doesn’t want Vietnam to execute people.  Presumably for humanitarian reasons.  Yet they make the drugs that states use to execute people.  Which isn’t very humane.  So they are both for and against capital punishment.  Interesting.

After Dien Bien Phu (where the Viet Minh massacred the French) you’d think the French would be all for selling lethal drugs to Vietnam.  While on the other hand, if they harbor no ill will to the current generation for what happened more than a generation ago you’d think they would respect the sovereignty of Vietnam.  Choosing not to interfere in their domestic policies.  And sell these lethal drugs to Vietnam.

They could probably buy these drugs from the United States.  For they use these drugs in capital punishment there.  But perhaps relations haven’t normalized enough yet for that to happen.  America’s involvement in Vietnam was a bitter one.  As they were winning.  Until the college protesters and Walter Cronkite defeated them from within.  Allowing the Vietnamese to turn to a Fabian strategy.  Staying in the war long enough until they made the US grow weary and quit.  Much like the Americans did to the British during the Revolutionary War.  But that was then.  More than a generation ago.  And the Vietnamese and the Americans are normalizing relations.  So they could probably buy these lethal drugs from the United States.  But if they’re talking about making their own drugs it doesn’t look like they’ve gone to the United States.  Or the US already said “no.”

Perhaps it’s just collective guilt with outside involvement in Indochina.  Who knows?  It just seems strange that a manufacturer of lethal drugs refuses to sell what they manufacture.   Which kind of defeats the purpose of making those drugs.


Tags: , , ,

2012 Endorsements: JFK and Ronald Reagan

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 31st, 2012

2012 Election

JFK did all the Democrat things to Stimulate the Economy out of Recession but none of it Worked

John Fitzgerald Kennedy (JFK) was a Cold War warrior.  Not to mention a World War II combat veteran.  He warned Nikita Khrushchev that any Soviet interference with U.S. access to West Berlin (located behind the Iron Curtain in East Germany) would be an act of war.  Which meant a nuclear war with the USSR.  The Soviets responded by building the Berlin Wall between East and West Berlin.  Blocking free passage between East and West.  JFK authorized the Bay of Pigs Invasion to topple the Soviet-backed Castro government in Cuba.  The invasion failed for the lack of air support.  Castro feared another US invasion.  Shortly thereafter the Soviets installed intermediate-range ballistic missiles in Cuba.  To counter US missiles placed in Turkey.  Once discovered JFK ordered a quarantine of Cuba.  A US naval blockade.  Leading to the Cuban Missile Crisis.  And the closest the US and the USSR ever came to all out nuclear war.  Khrushchev and JFK finally resolved the crisis.  Khrushchev agreed to remove their missiles with a public US guarantee that they would never invade Cuba.  And a private promise to remove those US missiles from Turkey.

JFK sent the Special Forces to South Vietnam to stem the spread of communism in Southeast Asia.  He also initiated the coup that toppled the government of Ngo Dinh Diem (though he did not call for his assassination).  Leading to America’s long involvement in the Vietnam War.  And Kennedy’s Secretary of Defense helped make all of this military action possible.  Robert McNamara.  One of the ‘Whiz Kids’ who helped to rebuild the Ford Motor Company.  And he ran the Department of Defense like he ran Ford.  By the numbers.  He made it more efficient.  Saving a lot of money from the existing budget.  While JFK added an additional $8 billion (about $58 billion in 2011 dollars) of defense spending.  Paying for a lot of the weapons a Cold War warrior needed.  However, he was still concerned about the size of the deficit.  So JFK also included some domestic spending cuts to help offset the increases in defense spending.  But it wasn’t enough.  He had a deficit.  Worse, he had a recession.

JFK did all the Democrat things to stimulate the economy out of recession.  Typical Keynesian economics stuff.  Government spending.  And keeping interest rates artificially low.  But it wasn’t working.  One of the problems was that Keynesian stimulus just doesn’t work.  But another problem was the baby boom following the war.  Who grew up and were looking for jobs in the Sixties.  That just weren’t there.  He needed some really solid economic growth to create those jobs.  And for that he turned to supply-side economics.  What we would later call Reaganomics.  He created a more business-friendly environment.  He offered businesses tax credits for investments in new machinery and equipment.  He accelerated depreciation schedules, allowing businesses to expense their assets more quickly.  Which encouraged investment into new assets.  And he proposed tax cuts on both business AND personal income.  It worked.  Unleashing an economic boom that lasted until 1966.

When Reagan entered Office he did what JFK did and created a Business-Friendly Environment

Ronald Reagan was a Cold War warrior.  While President Carter pursued a policy of detente with the Soviet Union Reagan’s policy was more in keeping with JFK’s policy.  He called the Soviet Union the Evil Empire and pursued a goal of destroying it.  And like Kennedy he built up a strong military.  Reagan invaded Grenada when hard-line communists overthrew a moderate socialist government.  While there were Cuban construction workers and military personnel building a 10,000 foot reinforced runway.  Which would be handy for the Soviets to use in their Central American activities.  Which Reagan also opposed in Nicaragua.  As he helped the Mujahideen resist the Soviets in Afghanistan.  Reagan revived the Carter-canceled B-1 Lancer bomber program.  He introduced the MX intercontinental ballistic missile program.  And when the Soviets deployed SS-20 intermediate-range ballistic missiles Reagan deployed Pershing medium-range ballistic missiles in West Germany.  Then he took it up a notch and introduced a strategic ballistic missiles defense system.  The Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI).  When Reagan gave a speech at the Berlin Wall’s Brandenburg Gate with Mikhail Gorbachev in attendance he said, “General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization, come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!”

The Soviets couldn’t keep up with the spending as their command economy was a mess.  It was a different story in America.  In fact, it was Morning in America.  Not only did the Americans spend the Soviets to the brink of collapse they did that in what those on the Left call the Decade of Greed.  Because economic times were so good there was excessive materialistic consumption.  So while the Soviets stood in line for soap and toilet paper the Americans enjoyed Sony Walkmans, CD players, VCRs, new cars, big houses and all the delicious food you could eat.  Americans had a weight problem.  While the Soviets had a malnutrition problem.  The Soviet Union would collapse about 3 years after Reagan left office.  George H. W. Bush, Reagan’s vice president, having the honor to be in office at the end of the Soviet Union.

Like JFK Reagan also had a recession.  As he entered office following the disaster of the Carter presidency.  Carter did all of the Keynesian stuff like JFK.  Using inflation to try to end unemployment.  Which only gave the nation high inflation and high unemployment.  Stagflation.  And malaise.  But unlike JFK Carter refused to try something different when it didn’t work.  When Reagan entered office, though, he did what JFK did.  He created a business-friendly environment.  That included tax cuts.  Tax cuts that stimulated economic activity.  So much economic activity that federal tax receipts went up even though tax rates went down.  So Reagan’s deficits weren’t a revenue problem.  They were a spending problem.  Much like they are today.  Much like they always are.

If JFK and Ronald Reagan were Alive Today they would likely Endorse the Republican Candidates Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan

The attacks on 9/11 didn’t just happen.  It was the last in a chain of events.  There was the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing.  The New York City Landmark Bomb Plot (1993).  The Khobar Towers Bombing (1996).  The United States Embassy Bombings (1998).  The Millennium Attack Plots (2000).  The USS Cole Bombing (2000).  Then 9/11.  Until 9/11 we treated all of these events as criminal offences.  Not acts of war.  While Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda acted from the start as if they were fighting a war.  Not breaking the law.  President Obama is also reluctant to call these radical Islamist attacks war.  When a radical Muslim in the US Army killed fellow soldiers on an Army base because of America’s ‘crimes against Islam’ the president called that workplace violence.  And when an American ambassador asked for additional security in Benghazi someone in the Obama administration denied the request because President Obama had killed Osama bin Laden.  And defeated al Qaeda.  Having to beef up security to defend against a growing al Qaeda presence, though, would have gone against that narrative of defeating al Qaeda.

The current so-called economic recovery is about the weakest on record.  Despite doing the normal Keynesian things to revive the economy.  Including an almost trillion dollar stimulus package.  Leading to record deficits.  Money the government had to borrow.  Borrowing which required an increase in the official debt ceiling.  This excessive debt and government spending cause the first downgrade of US sovereign debt.  All of this to fix the economy.  Only the economy is not fixed.  And the people who can’t find a full time job holds steady at 14.7% (U-6 unemployment rate).

So if JFK and Ronald Reagan were alive today who would they support in the 2012 election?  Who would a couple of Cold War warriors who risked nuclear war to protect the United States support?  These practitioners of supply-side economics who brought their economies out of recession to record economic growth?  Probably not the candidates foolishly hanging on to failed Keynesian policies despite a real unemployment rate of 14.7%.  Or the ones refusing to accept that we are still being targeted and killed by al Qaeda and other radical Islamist elements in the ongoing War on Terror.  No.  If JFK and Ronald Reagan were alive today they would likely endorse the Republican candidates Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

JFK, Tax Cuts, Vietnam, LBJ, Great Society, Hippies, Race Riots, Keynesian Spending, Nixon, Carter and Ronald Reagan

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 21st, 2012

History 101

Ronald Reagan would follow the Kennedy Example of Cutting Taxes to Grow the Economy

In 1961 West German Chancellor Ludwig Erhard gave John F. Kennedy (JFK) some good advice.  During JFK’s visit he told him not to make the same mistake the British had.  He told Kennedy NOT to follow their policy of high taxation.  Because it killed economic activity.  And economic growth.  England was suffering from her bad tax policy.  He urged the American president not to make the same mistake.

JFK heeded Erhard’s advice.  And cut tax rates.  This did not please liberals in his Democrat Party.  Who were all Keynesians.  And believed in large government interventions into the private sector.  Funded by large government expenditures.  Which in the Keynesian world you got in one of three ways.  Tax, borrow or print money.  You did not cut tax rates.  Which was blasphemous in Keynesian doctrine.  You never, ever, cut tax rates.  But Kennedy did.  Arguing that “an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenue to balance the budget—just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits.”

A message Ronald Reagan would give time and again some 20 years later.  And would follow the Kennedy example of cutting taxes to grow the economy.  Generating more tax revenue without having to cut spending.  The result of JFK’s ‘trickle-down’ economics were impressive.  He cut the top marginal tax rate from 91% to 70%.  And cut the 20% rate to 14% at the other end of the scale.  What did people do with these tax savings?  They saved.  And invested.  Savings rose from an annual growth rate of 2% to 9%.  Business investment from 2% to 8%.  New jobs grew at a rate of 100%.  And unemployment fell by one third.  With GDP rising some 40% in two years.  And despite cutting tax rates tax revenue rose.  The booming economy generating more tax revenue even at the lower rates.  Even more than the Keynesians said Kennedy was going to cost the government with his tax cuts.

The Social Upheavals of the Sixties, the Race Riots and his Unpopular Vietnam War all took their Toll on LBJ

Liberals love JFK.  But for none of these reasons.  They prefer to wax poetically about his fight to end economic and racial injustice.  Which were in reality low on his priority list.  Addressing civil rights only after trouble was escalating in the south.  But that’s the Left’s cherished memory of him.  And of Camelot.  The American royal family.  They don’t talk about JFK’s trickle-down economics.  His Bay of Pigs fiasco (the plan to oust Fidel Castro from Cuba that he withdrew support from after it met difficulty on the beaches).  His Cuban missile crisis (near nuclear war with the Soviet Union) which his indecision at the Bay of Pigs may have invited.   Or his war in Vietnam.  No.  They stay silent on the best part of his presidency.  As well as the worst parts.  And focus instead on the fairy tale that was Camelot.  Ignoring completely his excellent economic policies and the strong economy they gave us.  And all that tax revenue that poured into the treasury.  Yes, they may have liked having that money.  But they didn’t have to like how it got there.

Following JFK’s assassination Lyndon Baines Johnson (LBJ) ascended to the presidency.  An old school politician that knew how to make deals to advance legislation.  And boy did he.  He declared unconditional war on poverty.  And unleashed the Great Society to spend America out of poverty.  Keynesian to the core.  Pure demand-side economics.  Give poor people money which they will use to buy consumer goods.  That Keynesian consumption that was so crucial to a healthy economy.  So Johnson made good use of all that tax revenue JFK created with his tax cuts.  And LBJ’s Great Society consumed enormous amounts of that tax revenue.  As did JFK’s Vietnam War.  Now LBJ’s war.  Which LBJ escalated.  Government expenditures exploded during the Johnson administration.  And the spending obligations he put into place were only going to escalate future expenditures.  Oh, and we were also trying to land a man on the moon during this time.  All during a time when the world was changing.  When a bunch of filthy hippies began to protest anything that didn’t somehow gratify them (their rallying cry was sex, drugs and rock & roll).  And racial tensions simmered to the boiling point in our crowded cities.

The social upheavals of the Sixties.  The race riots.  The unpopular war on our living room televisions.  They all took their toll on LBJ.  The race riots especially hurt him as he had spent so much money on ending economic and racial injustice.  On a televised address he told the nation that he was through being the president.  He wasn’t going to run for another term.  And he wouldn’t accept a nomination for a second term.  He basically thanked an ungrateful nation.  And planned for his retirement.  Leaving a fiscal mess for the next president.  As well as a mess in Vietnam.  And the job for cleaning up these messes fell to Richard Milhous Nixon.

When Nixon entered the Presidency all those Spending Obligations of the Great Society were Coming Due

Nixon had a lot of liberal tendencies.  He was actually a member of the NAACP since 1950.  Long before JFK or LBJ talked of civil rights.  He believed in New Deal economics.  Of the good government could do.  He was also an environmentalist.  Giving us the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  And giving us emissions standards for our cars.  He gave us the Occupational and Safety Health Administration (OSHA).  And a flurry of other regulations.  Not what you would expect from a Republican these days.  Of course, few probably know this.  But they probably do know about Watergate.  At least the word ‘Watergate’.  Which was pretty tame by today’s standards.  Spying on the political opposition.  Then lying about it.

When Nixon entered the presidency all those spending obligations of the Great Society were coming due.  The cost of LBJ’s Great Society really hit the Nixon administration hard.  Enormous amounts of money were flowing out to poor people (so they could spend it and buy consumer goods).  To the war in Vietnam.  To the Cold War.  To the space program.  To the enlarged federal government.  Government spending was going off the chart.  But it wasn’t having the affect on the economy the Keynesians said it would.  They were taxing, borrowing and printing money like good little Keynesians.  But they were devaluing the dollar in the process.  And igniting inflation.  Worse, the U.S. dollar was the reserve currency of the world.  Foreign nations pegged their currency to the U.S. dollar.  The U.S. pegged the dollar to gold.  As the Americans devalued the dollar, though, the foreign countries traded their dollars for gold.  Gold began to fly out of the country.  So Nixon did what any responsible Keynesian would do.  Instead of playing by the rules of the game he changed the rules.  And decoupled the dollar from gold.  The Nixon Shock.  Ushering in the era of unfettered Keynesian economics.  Deficit spending.  Growing debt.  High inflation.  High unemployment.  Stagflation.  And malaise.

Jimmy Carter would see the worse of LBJ’s Great Society.  As it left his economy in a mess.  Despite all of that government spending.  And Carter suffered because he, too, was a Keynesian.  He believed in that GDP formula where GDP equaled the sum of consumption, investment, government expenditures and net exports (exports – Imports).  And the formula clearly states that the way to increase GDP (and increase the number of jobs) was to increase government spending to give money to people so they could buy consumer goods (increasing government spending and consumption in the formula).  It was simple arithmetic.  But the formula left out about half of all economic activity.  The intermediate business spending that takes place before any consumer goods enter our stores.  Think of things consumers don’t buy.  Like railroad track, blast furnaces, construction front-end loaders, etc.  Economic activity that JFK encouraged with his tax cuts.  As Ronald Reagan did so, too, some 20 years later.  Which is why the JFK and the Reagan economies were far better than any Keynesian administration.

Even after more than a decade of unfettered Keynesian spending consumption was only 34% of all economic activity in 1982.  Even though official GDP figures reported it at 65%.  Why the discrepancy?  Intermediate business spending.  The stages of production before consumer goods.  Coming in at 54% of real economic activity in 1982.  Which is why the tax-cut policies of JFK and Ronald Reagan worked.  And the spending policies of JBJ, Nixon and Carter didn’t.  Trickle-down works.  Because it creates jobs.  And those lower tax rates generate higher tax revenues because more people are working and paying taxes.  All things a Keynesian wants.  But they will reject them because they resulted from the ‘wrong’ policies.  Because Keynesians want to tax, borrow and print.  Regardless of their effect on the economy.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

American Revolution, Vietnam, Civil War, Guerilla War, Fabian Strategy, Jackson, Arnold, Lafayette, Clinton, Cornwallis and Yorktown

Posted by PITHOCRATES - June 21st, 2012

Politics 101

In a Civil War where the Enemy was Everywhere and Holding Cities meant little the Only Way to Win was to Kill the Opposing Army

The American Revolutionary War was a lot like the Vietnam War.  Both involved a people on one side of the conflict torn apart by civil war.  Both were bloody.  Both involved a military superpower fighting on the far side of an ocean.  Both involved the French (the French role in Vietnam was in the decade which preceded the American’s two decades).  In both conflicts the French suffered politically at home and profited little for the blood and treasure they invested after the war.  In both the underdog used a Fabian strategy where they avoided major battles for their winning strategy was simply not to lose.  So they fought to extend the war to make it more costly (in both treasure and politics) for the other side to keep fighting.  Both involved poor military planning where decisions were based more on politics than military necessity.  In both the Americans and French were on the same side.  During the American Revolution they were both on the winning side.  In Vietnam they were both on the losing side (though the French stopped fighting before the Americans began fighting).  And, of course, both were wars contesting overseas colonies.

The fighting was cruel in Vietnam.  Especially against the civilians.  As the opposing sides fought through villages people suffered if they had shown the ‘wrong’ loyalties when the other side had controlled the village.  The North Vietnamese Army and the Viet Cong (the guerilla insurgents in South Vietnam) did some nasty things.  As did the South Vietnamese American allies.  Even some Americans did some nasty things.  There were few innocents.  Though the Americans were probably more innocent than most.  For when they did something nasty it became public.  Eventually.  And the Americans punished those responsible.

Both sides used killing as the primary strategy.  The Americans introduced the body count.  Measuring the success in military operations in the number of enemy dead.  The Viet Cong conscripted anyone who could fight.  Removing most young men from villages in areas they controlled.  Or they killed anyone who could fight against them.  Both sides tried to kill as many of the other as possible because in a civil war where the enemy was everywhere and holding cities and hills meant little the only way to win was to kill the opposing army.  So they couldn’t fight you anymore.

Neither the Patriots nor the Tories could claim the Moral High Ground in the Deep South

General George Washington quickly adopted a Fabian strategy in the American Revolutionary War because he had no choice.  He was fighting the world’s sole superpower.  And when the war broke out the Americans had no army or navy.  So until they did they fought a guerilla war.  Especially in the south.  Where Patriot partisans controlled the country.  And Tories loyal to the British held the cities.  And manned posts in the interior.  Under the command of British General Cornwallis.  Who reported to General Clinton comfortably ensconced in New York City.  Waiting for General Washington to launch an assault on New York.  Which would never come.

The civil war in the south was about as ugly as civil wars get.  And the ugly stuff was American on American ugliness.  Patriot against Tory.  The British charged that the partisans were killing innocents and neutrals.  And the Americans claimed the Tories were doing the same.  Neither side could really claim the moral high ground.  A young Andrew Jackson (hero of the Battle of New Orleans in the War of 1812 and America’s seventh president) even said, “In the long run, I am afraid the Whigs [the Patriots] did not lose many points in the game of hanging, shooting and flogging.” 

It was a merciless guerilla war in the South.  And they did kill wholesale.  Because that’s the only way to win a civil war.  You kill fighting men until there are not enough of them left to fight back.  And the fighting was not always honorable.  The British captured Jackson in a Waxhaw meetinghouse.  When a body of Tories dressed as locals advanced ahead of a body of Redcoats.  The trick worked.  They captured eleven.  And a British officer gave Jackson scars that would leave him a lasting hatred of the British for the rest of his life.  The officer demanded that Jackson clean his boots.  Jackson claimed he was a prisoner of war.  And that the British officer should treat him as such.  The officer saw him as a partisan traitor.  And brought his sword down on Jackson’s head for his insolence.  Jackson tried to shield his head with his left hand, leaving two deep scars.  One on his head.  The other on his hand.

The Grand Battle George Washington longed for was before him at Yorktown 

The changing fortunes of war in the South often changed the fighting spirit of those fighting the war.  On both sides.  British deserters joined the American lines.  And American deserters joined the British lines.  The Americans serving in the Continental Army were still hungry, thirsty and half-naked.  The Battle of Eutaw Springs was the last big battle in the Deep South.  And it almost ended in a route of the British.  Had not the hungry, thirsty and half-naked Americans stop their pursuit when they entered the abandoned British camp.  As they enjoyed the spoils of war the British returned.  And another 3 hours of bloody fighting continued.  In the sweltering heat of the Deep South.  By the time it was over the Americans lost.  The American casualties were just over 500 (about 25% of their force).  The British lost over 800 (about 40% of their force).  A costly victory for the British.  Despite this loss the Americans were in control of the lower south.

Up until this point Virginia had seen little of the ravages of war.  Lucky for them as Virginian governor Thomas Jefferson, though a brilliant thinker, was a pretty poor wartime governor.  Washington urged him to prepare some defenses.  But he didn’t.  General Cornwallis urged General Clinton to abandon New York and conquer Virginia.  An action he believed would win the war.  Clinton refused for awhile.  But finally agreed to send a force under America’s greatest traitor.  Benedict Arnold.  A new brigadier general in the British Army.  Who landed unopposed in Virginia.  And moved at will.  Tarleton’s cavalry came up from the south to join Arnold.  Entered Charlottesville.  Captured members of the Virginia legislature with Jefferson just escaping in the nick of time.  With the addition of British reinforcements in Virginia Washington sent a force under Lafayette to Virginia to help with their defenses.  A perfect storm was gathering for the British in Virginia.

Cornwallis himself entered Virginia.  And futilely gave chase to Lafayette.  Cornwallis wanted Clinton to commit a major force to the conquest of Virginia.  Clinton wanted the few thousand troops he sent to Virginia returned to New York.  Clinton ordered Cornwallis to hold a position on the Chesapeake with his reduced force.  Cornwallis thought that order was stupid and ordered a withdrawal of his own forces.  Clinton countermanded that order.  Insisting that he pick a place and defend it.  Cornwallis picked Yorktown.  With his back to the sea.  And hopefully the British fleet.  While he moved towards Yorktown the hunter became the hunted.  Lafayette harassed him all the way.  Worse, the French were also on their way.  And the French fleet would engage the British fleet and defeat them.  And a French force would join Washington who came down from New York.  Finally able to abandon his Fabian strategy.  The grand battle he longed for was before him at Yorktown.  Cornwallis was trapped.  And would surrender his Army.

With the surrender of a second British army the initiative went to the Americans.  To continue the war would cost far more British blood and treasure.  But that price was too high.  The British wanted out.  Conceding that the Americans were indeed independent of British rule.  The delaying Fabian strategy, though costly, had worked.  As they would again in another American war.  Where the Americans instead would be fighting on foreign land.  In a place called Vietnam.  Only the Americans would suffer the same fate the British did in the American Revolutionary War.  As a Fabian strategy can be a very effective strategy.  As long as time is on your side.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Price Inflation has led to Wage Inflation in the Eastern Manufacturing Cities in China

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 25th, 2011

Week in Review

Inflation has arrived in China.  Wages are going up.  Increasing the cost of their manufactured goods.  And the cost of living (see China province raises minimum wage by 23% posted 12/22/2011 on the BBC).

Sichuan province in southwest China has increased the minimum wage sharply to try and attract workers amid a rapidly rising cost of living.

Sichuan raised the minimum monthly wage by 23.4% starting on 1 January, state news agency Xinhua said on Thursday…

Severe labour shortages in Chinese cities have prompted wage rises in many provinces this year and last.

An example of the role prices play in supply and demand.  Life is good in the Eastern manufacturing cities.  So good that there is a lot of economic activity.  And prices are rising to allocate scarce resources that have alternative uses.  Even labor.  But inflation isn’t always good.  Higher prices eventually will lower sales as people can’t afford to buy as much as they once did.  And those cheap exports become not so cheap.  Which means those factories eventually will cut back on production.  As a recession settles in to readjust those prices.

Rising wages have prompted analysts to predict that China, previously known for its low cost of labour, could lose its edge as a manufacturing hub.

Manufacturers could look to countries such as Vietnam, Bangladesh and Cambodia where wages are still low.

However, Chinese authorities have been trying to boost domestic consumption and be less export dependent, and a rise in wages will encourage spending.

Before China it was Mexico.  Remember that great sucking sound as all those American jobs went to Mexico?  Mexico was chopping in high cotton for awhile.  Until they heard that great sucking sound as their jobs went to China.  And now China may hear it next.  As some of their jobs go to Vietnam, Bangladesh and Cambodia.  Who will lament one day the loss of their jobs to some other low-wage country.

This is economics.  And consumerism.  Consumers are always looking to get the most value for their money.  So manufacturers are always trying to undercut the competition to give these consumers what they want.  Good for consumers.  But not good for countries whose poor get a taste of the good life.  And don’t want to be poor anymore.  Thus raising the cost of production.  And eliminating their low-cost advantage.  At least for their export markets.

Eventually all emerging economies will be emerging no more.  And the low-cost advantage will not be attained the easy way.  With cheap labor.  For these once emerging economies will go to the next step in their economic development.  Capital investment in plant and equipment.  To lower their cost of production through economies of sales.  By doing more with less people.  With people leaving the low-skill assembly jobs in massive factories.  And instead design, build, run and maintain the equipment that replaces them at their old jobs.

Socialists and communists (as well as Big Labor) say this is a bad thing.  Replacing people with machines.  Even though they help to relieve chronic labor shortages that labor just can’t meet.  Lowering the cost of living for everyone.  And increasing the standard of living for everyone.  It’s happened everywhere through history.  And it now appears to be happening in China.  Which should ultimately be a good thing for the Chinese.  Especially for the masses who don’t live and work in the Eastern manufacturing cities.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Libyan War is the First Battleground in the New War to End Human Suffering

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 3rd, 2011

Men and Women join the Military to Guard this county and our Way of Life

No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country.  He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country.  In case you don’t recognize these lines they’re from Patton.  In that opening speech George C. Scott gives in front of that giant American flag.  This is the sad reality of war.  People die.  And it’s not only the bad guys.  Often they’re our teenagers.  Our young men and women.  Who answer the call of duty.  Knowing they may die.  For it’s in the job description.  And in the Code of the U.S. Fighting Force:

I am an American fighting in the forces which guard my country and our way of life. I am prepared to give my life in their defense.

That’s why people join the military.  To risk their life guarding this county.  And our way of life.  This is the contract they signed on to.  Not humanitarian missions guarding other people and their way of life.  It’s one thing making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country.  But it’s a whole other thing making the ultimate sacrifice just so another people can have a better life.  While your family is left with only memories. And a flag that draped a coffin. 

The Many Roads to War

Vietnam was yet another chapter in the Cold War to block Soviet Expansion.  Before Vietnam we were pretty successful.  We checked them in Berlin.  Greece.  Turkey.  Iran.  Failed in China.  Held the line on the Korean peninsula.  In Cuba (where we prevented the Soviets from placing their nuclear weapons there).  And tried again in South Vietnam.  And failed.  JFK was a Cold War warrior.  That’s why he went into Vietnam.  To check Soviet Expansion.  Our enemy in the Cold War.  Who was always trying to undermine our country and way of life.  People may not remember this, but Vietnam was a popular war before it was unpopular.  Because we lived in fear of the Soviet Union.  And their mushroom cloud.

Much of the world’s oil flows from the Persian Gulf region.  You stop that oil exportation and the world stops.  Remember the oil crisis of 1973?  We would dream of times as good as those should a Middle East dictator shut down that oil flow.  That’s why we threw Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait in the Gulf War.  To stop him from controlling all of that oil.  We went into Afghanistan to topple the Taliban who was giving sanctuary to al Qaeda.  For we had traced the 9/11 attacks back to Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan.

The Iraq War is a little more complicated.  Hussein had repeatedly violated the terms of the ceasefire ending the Gulf War.  He was a threat to the region.  And the Saudis were very reluctant to shut down the terrorist financing in Saudi Arabia lest the Wahhabi rise up and overthrow their kingdom.  Long story short, our Iraqi invasion forced their hand.  Because they feared Iranian hegemony in the Middle East more than the Wahhabi.  Say what you want about the Saudis, but they walk a fine line between helping us and maintaining Arab peace.  All the while not playing politics with their oil.  You can’t really ask for more in a friend and ally.

Now Libya?  Whatever happened in Libya would not have changed life in America.  It was not a national security interest.  It was to the Europeans who bought Libyan oil.  And those nations that may face an influx of refugees hitting their shores.  But there was no U.S. interest for Americans to die for.  It’s a purely humanitarian mission.  Sure, the slaughter of innocents is bad.  And we have a big and powerful military.  But the men and women who sign up to serve pledge to give their life to guard this county.  And our way of life.  Not theirs.  It’s a heavy burden to send men and women into harm’s way.  Especially when some may make that ultimate sacrifice.  But when families understand why their loved ones died, they can find some solace that at least their loss served a higher purpose.  But that ‘why’ in Libya is not going to assuage much of their grief.  Should there be grief.

So why Libya?  It doesn’t make any sense from a national security standpoint.  From a military standpoint.  A diplomatic standpoint.  It’s very confusing.  Why, we don’t even know who the people are that we’re helping.  It would appear that emotion, not logic, got us into Libya.

Women bring Distinctive Life Experiences to Politics

There’s a big push to get more women into government.  For they bring something to the office a man doesn’t (see For a woman to reach the White House, the 2012 elections will be key by Debbie Walsh and Kathy Kleeman posted 4/1/2011 on The Washington Post).

This isn’t just about numbers, though. Women bring distinctive life experiences to politics, and research shows that female officeholders change both the policy agenda and the governing process. Whether the issue is equal access to credit (Bella Abzug) or education (Patsy Mink), family and medical leave (Marge Roukema), or inclusion of women in medical research (Pat Schroeder and Olympia Snowe), female lawmakers have long been recognized as powerful voices on behalf of women, children and families…

Eager for more female candidates, including some who don’t fit the traditional patterns, we’re working on the 2012 Project — a national, nonpartisan CAWP campaign in collaboration with California political strategist Mary Hughes to increase the number of women in federal and state legislative offices. Our goal is to identify and engage accomplished women 45 and older to run for office, women who already have established careers and reduced family responsibilities. We are especially seeking women from fields and industries underrepresented in elective offices, including finance, science, technology, energy and health care.

So they’re trying to find women who also happen to have these qualities to serve in government.  It would seem better to find people with these qualities who happen to be women.  Because it sounds like we’re trying to find the best qualified women.  Instead of the best qualified.  I wonder what Margaret Thatcher thinks of this.  I mean, she was a great leader.  Not just the best woman they could find to be prime minister.

A Woman with “Distinctive Life Experiences” advises Obama to go to War in Libya

There are some women already in politics.  One in particular has quite a powerful position in the Obama administration.  A confidant and adviser to the president.  Well learned and scholarly.  Wrote a book.  Which won her a Pulitzer Prize.  So she’s quite accomplished.  And people should fear her abroad.  Because she likes to send the military on lethal humanitarian missions.  And she’s going places (see Samantha Power to be the next Secretary of State? by Cathy Hayes posted 4/2/2011 on IrishCentral). 

A flattering New York Times profile has increased speculation that Samantha Power, the Dublin-born aide to President Obama, could be his next Secretary of State or National Security Adviser.

She has been the main architect, along with Hillary Clinton, of the Libya policy and has an increasing influence in the White House inner circle.

Of course that new job may all depend on what happens in Libya.  Will the mission creep?  Will there be boots on the ground?  And coffins returning to Dover Air Force Base?  Or will Qaddafi leave and peacefully transfer power to the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group?  Or al Qaeda?  The Muslim Brotherhood?  Or whoever the rebels are?

…she defended the administration’s decision in establishing a no-fly zone, adding failure to do so would have been “extremely chilling, deadly and indeed a stain on our collective conscience.”

Since she began her career working as a war correspondant in Bosnia at the tender age of 22, Power has believed that nations have a moral obligation to prevent genocide. She can bring life to these ideals from her position of the National Security Council…

Some of her critics say that she could be pushing the U.S. into another Iraq. The conservative blog American Thinker says that Obama has “outsourced foreign policy” to the Dublin woman. She has also drawn the ire of the Israeli lobby for her pro-Palestinian positions.

Another Iraq?  I think another Vietnam may be more appropriate.  Because of the mission creep (from advisors to airpower to boots on the ground).  And the affect on the Johnson‘s presidency.  Made him a one-term president.  Unpopular wars can do that.  Will the Libyan War stay popular?  If so perhaps it can be another Iraq.  If not?  Hello Vietnam.

This is the problem of getting women into politics because they are women.  They bring those “distinctive life experiences to politics.”  Emotions then cloud prudent deliberation.  For it would have been better if someone else had the president’s ear regarding Libya.  Someone who said, yes, the situation in Libya is bad.  But we can’t send young Americans on lethal humanitarian missions where ever there is horrible suffering and crimes against humanity.  Because there is horrible suffering and crimes against humanity everywhere.  We can’t pick and choose.  Play God.  Say these people are worthy of living.  While these people should die.  And we can’t encourage others to rise up because they think we will intervene in their country, too.  We just don’t have the resources.  And we can’t ask our brave men and women to do things they didn’t contract for when they joined the military.  Dying for someone else’s country and way of life.

Instead, it was the softer side of the Obama administration that cringed at the thought of people suffering.  And these women did not hesitate to put our men and women at risk to soothe their anguished souls.  And why not?  These leftist intellectuals hate the military (the Ivy League only recently -and reluctantly- let ROTC back on their campuses with the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, no doubt conflicting them.  They enjoyed all the turmoil this is causing in the military.  But now they can’t use that excuse anymore to keep these people off of their campuses).  They don’t care if these people die.  You want to play war?  Okay.  Go play war in Libya.  Kill for us.  Be useful for the first time in your miserable lives.

The War to end Human Suffering

Now women in power is not necessarily bad.  Margaret Thatcher was a great leader.  I wish there were more of her to go around.  It’s getting women in power just because they’re women that is bad.  Especially when they bring those “distinctive life experiences.”  We can’t afford ‘nurturing mother’ types running our foreign policy.  Nurturers want to help.  Because they can’t bear to see suffering.  We need people who can see beyond the suffering.  Who can get past their emotions. 

The military is not a cold impersonal thing.  It’s our sons and daughters.  Our brothers and sisters.  Our fathers and mothers.  Our husbands and wives.  These are people.  Real people.  And we need to treat them as the precious resources they are.  Yes, some may die completing a mission.  So it is our duty to them to make sure they do not die in vain.  That we never ask them to make the supreme sacrifice just to make someone feel better.  Yes, suffering is bad.  But suffering is not a national security interest.  Oil is.  Stability in the Middle East is.  Sealing our southern border is.  Fighting al Qaeda is.  But suffering in Libya, the Ivory Coast, North Korea, (insert a country where there is suffering here), etc., is not. 

Suffering is bad.  But no reason to send Americans to die in war.  We cannot declare war on human suffering.  Because that’s a war that we can never win.  Like our war on drugs.  It requires changing human nature.  And until we can do that there will always be suffering.  And people using drugs.  We have a much better chance stopping terrorism. 

A war on terror?  Now there’s a war worth fighting.  Because winning that war is in our national security interest.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Obama Going all George W. Bush in the Middle East?

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 19th, 2011

Fighting Wars on the other Side of the World

In 1775, the shooting in the American Revolutionary War began.  The world’s superpower, the British Empire, had planned on taking some arms away from local rebels.  Some shots were exchanged at Lexington and Concord.  And the small British force retreated to Boston.  The rebels harassed the British column the entire way.  The war did not begin well for the British.  And it would end like it began.  Not well.  The British formally recognized the United States of America 8 years later with the signing of the Treaty of Paris in 1783.

The British outclassed the Americans in every way but one.  Lines of communications.  The British lines were some 3,000 miles back to Great Britain.  About a 6 hour flight today.  Then, a couple of months by ship.  By contrast the Americans held the advantage of short, interior lines.  We could ‘hit and run’ and melt back into the surrounding country.  Like we did in 1775 during that British retreat.  As we did throughout the war.  Though General Washington wanted to defeat the British in a decisive battle, he would not get the chance to meet the British in such a battle until 6 long years later at Yorktown.  Unable to win a decisive battle, he did the only thing he could.  Not lose a decisive battle.  The American Revolutionary War was a war of attrition.  The British sued for peace when the cost of continuing the war was greater than the British people were willing to pay.  As wars are wont to be with such long lines of communications.

Military planners have learned this lesson.  You are probably familiar with a more recent war that was similar.  Where a world superpower was involved in a war of attrition half way across the world.  In South Vietnam.  The Americans came into the conflict to support South Vietnam from Communist North Vietnam.  There is no South Vietnam today.  Like the British some 200 years earlier, we won the military engagements but just couldn’t win the war.  When the cost in blood and treasure became too great, we met in Paris, too, to end the war.  We signed the Paris Peace Accords in 1973.  And we learned the British lesson of 1783.

Winning the War is Easier than Winning the Peace

When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, George H. W. Bush assembled an international coalition and threw the Iraqis out of Kuwait.  Operation Desert Storm was an overwhelming victory.  However, Bush was heavily criticized for ‘not finishing the job’ in the Gulf War.  His critics said we should have gone on to Baghdad to remove Hussein from power.  We didn’t.  For a couple of good reasons.  First of all, the coalition included Arab nations.  They only joined to repel Hussein from Kuwait.  Not to remove him from power.  The other reason was that if we toppled Hussein we would own Iraq.  And we would probably end up there for years trying to ‘win the peace’.

Following the Gulf War there were uprisings throughout Iraq.  The world watched hopeful that he would be overthrown by his own people and democracy would break out.  It didn’t.  He suppressed the rebellions brutally.  So brutally that no-fly zones were established in the north over the Kurds and in the south over the Shiite population.  But we didn’t invade.  And he remained a thorn in our side.  And his people suffered.

After 9/11, the US invaded Afghanistan.  Then Iraq.  The official reason was his weapons of mass destruction that he never documented destroyed.  He had used chemical weapons against the Iranians.  And the Kurds.  Being a ‘supporter’ of terrorism there was worry he might provide these weapons to a terrorist.  So there was that reason.  The other reason was a little more convoluted.  Osama bin Laden was a Wahhabi Sunni.  He had ties in Saudi Arabia.  And there was a large Wahhabi population in Saudi Arabia providing funding to al Qaeda.  The Saudis were reluctant to shut down this funding for fear of a rebellion by the Wahhabis against the House of Saud.  But there was one thing that worried them more than the Wahhabis.  Shiite Iran.  By invading Iraq we forced their hand.  They had a vested interest in seeing us succeed in Iraq.  And in our war against al Qaeda.  We made progress against al Qaeda and their Taliban hosts in Afghanistan.  And the Saudi started to shut down their funding.  The Iraq War was a success.  But the one drawback was that we now owned Iraq.  And winning the peace was nowhere as easy as winning the war.  As George W. Bush learned.

Obama Commits Military Force in Libya

The US has some very important friends in the Middle East and North Africa.  Among these are Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain.  To name a few.  These are nations with Sunni populations and/or Sunni governments unfriendly to Iran.  Egypt made peace with Israel and kept the Suez Canal open for international trade for decades.  Saudi Arabia peacefully coexists with its neighbors and is the largest oil exporter in the world.  Except for the oil embargo of 1973, they have maintained the flow of that oil at market prices to Western economies.  The US Navy’s 5th Fleet is headquartered in Bahrain.

These nations aren’t perfect.  Saudi women can’t drive a car, for example.  But they’re stalwart US allies.  One of these nations was pretty progressive as well as being a staunch US friend.  Egypt.  Egyptian women were about the freest in the Middle East, second only to Tunisia.  Egypt and Tunisia, though, were suffering economically.  Had high unemployment.  And a Muslim opposition unhappy with their ‘Western’ ways.  The largest organized opposition group is the Muslim Brotherhood.  And they can be best described as being more simpatico with Iran.  When Egypt had their uprising, the Obama administration called it a democracy uprising and called for Hosni Mubarak to give up power.  Without considering who would step into that power void.  Which did not go over well with Mubarak.  Or the Saudis.

Now Libya is burning.  Qaddafi is attacking his own people.  The US dithered for weeks.  While the Libyans cried for help.  Even other Arab nations cried for our help.  But we did nothing.  Even though Qaddafi is not a US friend.  And was a sponsor of terrorism.  As the carnage mounted, though, someone took action.  The French of all people (see U.S. Missiles Strike Libyan Air-Defense Targets by David Kirkpatrick, Steven Erlanger and Elisabeth Bumiller posted 3/19/2011 The New York Times).

American and European forces began a broad campaign of strikes against the government of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi on Saturday, unleashing warplanes and missiles in a military intervention on a scale not seen in the Arab world since the Iraq war…

The campaign began with French warplane missions even before the end of an emergency summit meeting in Paris, where leaders, reacting to news that Colonel Qaddafi’s forces were attacking the rebel capital city of Benghazi on Saturday morning despite international demands for a cease-fire, said they had no choice but to act to defend Libyan civilians and opposition forces.

France has a Muslim problem.  They had some riots a few years back in some Paris Muslim suburbs.  Where young Muslims were unemployed.  Unhappy.  And not all that willing to assimilate into French culture.  Though they want to live in France.  So there’s been tensions between the French and their Muslim population.  So it says a lot that France was on point in this attack on a Muslim country.  Yes, at this time the international community, including some Arab states, approve of this action.  But you play with fire whenever you attack a Muslim country.  Especially if they have oil.  And Libya has oil.  In fact, it’s some of the finest oil in the Middle East.  A low-sulfur sweet crude.

When the international community was coming together against him, Qaddafi was defiant.  Warned us to stay out of their internal affairs.

“Libya is not yours. Libya is for all Libyans,” he wrote in one letter, read to the news media by a spokesman. “This is injustice, it is clear aggression, and it is uncalculated risk for its consequences on the Mediterranean and Europe.

“You will regret it if you take a step toward intervening in our internal affairs.”

Colonel Qaddafi addressed President Obama as “our son,” in a letter jarring for its familiarity. “I have said to you before that even if Libya and the United States enter into war, God forbid, you will always remain my son and I have all the love for you as a son, and I do not want your image to change with me,” he wrote. “We are confronting Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, nothing more. What would you do if you found them controlling American cities with the power of weapons? Tell me how would you behave so that I could follow your example?”

Could this be why the Obama administration was so reluctant to act?  Because of a father-son relationship between Obama and Qaddafi?  You gotta admit this is a strange thing for Qaddafi to say.  Makes you wonder just what was the extent of Obama’s apology tour in the Middle East.  One thing for sure, it will give fuel to those who think Obama is a Muslim.  I mean, it just doesn’t help when the bad guy calls you a son.

Regret?  We should take that threat seriously.  After some military encounters with Libyan losses in the Gulf of Sidra Qaddafi retaliated with the bombing of a German disco frequented by US troops.  When we discovered his connection to that bombing we bombed Tripoli.  In retaliation for that bombing he had a bomb smuggled aboard a 747.  Pan Am Flight 103.  Brought down on Lockerbie, Scotland.  So he has a history of getting even.  Which we need to be on guard for.

Obama now Owns Libya

So it’s war.  Missiles are flying.  People are dying (see Libya: British forces launch missile attacks on Gaddafi by Colin Freeman, in Benghazi and Sean Rayment posted 3/20/2011 on the UK’s Telegraph).

Explosions were reported at an airport east of Tripoli as a British Trafalgar Class submarine and US Navy ships and submarines stationed off Libya fired 110 Tomahawk missiles at 20 targets in what one source described as a “night of carnage”.

The missiles targeted Libyan command and control centres, radar installations and surface-to-air missile sites. Libyan officials said the attacks were “barbaric” and causing civilian casualties…

British sources and Pentagon officials said Nato would undertake a “battle damage assessment” of Libya’s military during daylight hours and would decide whether to continue with further attacks.

Sources at the Elysée Palace said Britain, France and the United States had assumed the “leadership” of the coalition in early talks between the Prime Minister, Mr Sarkozy and Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State. The “extremely purposeful conclusion” of the early talks was endorsed by the full meeting, where speakers included Ban Ki-Moon, the United Nations secretary general.

Well, President Obama has his third war.  Pretty impressive for a guy that said he would get us out of Iraq (he didn’t).  That he would fully prosecute the Afghanistan War to victory (he hasn’t).  And he wouldn’t nation-build like his predecessor.  George W. Bush.  He now may.  There’s no way Qaddafi can withstand the military force now aligned against him.  So he will lose.  But what then?  Who will fill that power vacuum?  In an already unstable and changing Middle East?  He can say what he wants about Iraq and Afghanistan, but it’s different with Libya.  This happened on his watch.  And he now owns it.  It will be up to him to win the peace.  Or lose it.

Those naval operations against Libya will be based out of Bahrain.  I sure hope he doesn’t encourage any more ‘democracy’ uprisings while we’re using that base for combat operations.  It would be a shame to lose that base during the middle of these operations.  And by a shame I mean a complete and utter disaster.  Because that would greatly extend our lines of communications.  And history has shown what that can do in war.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

LESSONS LEARNED #47: “Liberals crave attention because that’s what narcissists do.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 6th, 2011

Walter Cronkite Turns the Tet Offensive Victory into Defeat

Walter Cronkite didn’t have a clue about combat in Vietnam.  The Tet Offensive was a disaster for the Viet Cong.  But you wouldn’t know that listening to Cronkite.  The war was now unwinnable.  And he said this after the biggest military defeat the North suffered.  (The north were the bad guys).

The plan was to cause a general uprising throughout South Vietnam to overthrow the South Vietnamese government everywhere.  It failed.  We killed senior and experienced soldiers in the Viet Cong wholesale.  And the Viet Cong ceased to exist as an effective army.  From Tet forward they would only use hit and run ambush attacks.  A Fabian strategy.  Like Washington did during the American Revolution.  When he, too, was up against a military superpower.

The key to using the strategy of Roman general Quintus Fabius Maximus is simple.  But costly.  You got to be willing to endure a lot of hardship for a long time.  This means a lot of your soldiers will die.  And your people will suffer for the want of the basic necessities of life.  It’s a war of attrition.  You just have to be willing to sacrifice a whole lot.  By extending the war indefinitely, you make the war more costly than your enemy is willing to endure.  When they reach the breaking point, they quit.  And you win.  It’s an effective strategy.  But, like I said, costly.  They tend to be long wars.  The American Revolution lasted 8 years.  Vietnam lasted some 10 years (America’s combat operations).

Imagine a World where there are no Possessions

There was division in the North Vietnamese government.  There was Soviet influence.  Chinese influence.  And Vietnamese resentment of outside influence.  First it was the Japanese.  Then the French.  Then the Americans.  And now the Soviets and Chinese.  Luckily for us, big combat won out as a strategy.  Hence the Tet Offensive.  And utter failure.  When some were ready to sue for peace, Walter Cronkite threw them a lifeline.

The liberal left holds up this period of history as a time when they changed the world.  When young people participated in the national debate.  Well, they did.  And really [deleted expletive] things up.  These young heard a few things from some radical college professors and thought they knew everything.  But they were still a bunch of ignorant hippies.  Ignorant hippies, that is, with Walter Cronkite now on their side.  The counterculture was in full swing.  These kids attacked everything American.  Supported communist leaders (Che Guevara, Mao Tse-tung, Fidel Castro, etc.) and tried to start a communist revolution in America.  Really.  Imagine a world where there are no possessions.  Power to the people.  That was John Lennon pining for a communist utopia.  Our enemies couldn’t ask for anything more.  Cronkite and these kids emasculated America.  And we would pay dearly for it in blood and treasure.

These liberals got the attention they craved.  And they were so sure they were right.  About everything.  Infallible.  And wanted to tell others what to do.  Well, these hippies did.  They went on to become university professors.  And they’re now teaching our kids.  Vietnam was the turning point.  It’s when the world lost respect for America.  Not for the reason the Left would have you believe, though.  They lost respect for us because it was the first time we tucked up our skirt and ran away from a fight.  Vietnam would forever be the war we gave up on.  Poor JFK.  The hero of PT-109.  His war in Vietnam would not go into the win column.  Because of a bunch of stupid, long-haired, stoned hippies.  He must be spinning in his grave.

Jimmy Carter’s Détente Almost Assured Nuclear Destruction

The Seventies were a bleak decade.  Because these hippies came of age.  Still full of themselves.  Believing they were making the world a better place.  But they were only making it more dangerous.

After our humiliation in Vietnam our enemies saw us as a paper tiger.  Who didn’t have the nerve to stay in the fight.  Or the will to get into a fight.  The world never came closer to ending when the liberals were in power during the Seventies.  The Soviet Union was getting away with murder.  Jimmy Carter was attacking our allies in Central America.  While kissing Soviet and Chinese ass.  He never attacked their human rights violations.  And no one committed more human rights violations.  But he attacked our allies.  Who committed a negligible amount of violations compared to the two big communist powers.

Jimmy Carter’s détente was a joke.  The Soviets had no respect for him.  To them Carter was a strategic opening.  They concluded that Carter wouldn’t launch his nuclear missiles until after the Soviet missiles hit their U.S. targets.  Reagan they feared.  They had no illusions that he would launch his missiles as soon as we detected Soviet missiles inbound to the U.S.  But not Carter.  This changed nuclear doctrine for the Soviets.  They went from Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) to a first-strike doctrine.  Because they were sure they could beat Carter in a nuclear war.  Never before has the world come closer to nuclear annihilation.  And we didn’t even know it at the time.

The Social Sciences were Made for and by Hippies

What the counterculture hippy left did during the Vietnam War extended the war, damaged the prestige of America and almost gave us nuclear annihilation.  And if that wasn’t bad enough (and don’t you think it should be?) they did even more damage domestically.  Successfully humiliating us on the national stage only empowered them.  The hippies of the Sixties became college professors, journalists, movie stars, television stars and politicians in the Seventies.  Now think about this.  What did the hippies do in the Sixties?  Think Woodstock.  Sex, drugs and rock and roll.  These hippies were stoned all of the time while they were in college.  (If you don’t believe me Google Timothy Leary, Haight-Ashbury, flower children, psychedelic rock, counter culture, or any other Sixties icons.)

And these hippies just weren’t smoking pot.  They were doing some hardcore drugs.  The big one was LSD.  A hallucinogen.  It’d really [deleted expletive] you up.  So you know these hippies weren’t studying to be brain surgeons or rocket scientists.  No, those degrees required advanced math.  And studying.  Which they couldn’t do when they were [deleted expletive] up all of the time.  So they took some of those easier degrees.  One of those social sciences.  Like black studies.  Or women’s studies.  Or Native American studies.  Or communications.  Where all you had to do was bitch about white men on your exams and they’d graduate your ass.  Of course, there wasn’t much you could do with these degrees.  Except teach at a college.  And that’s what a lot of these hippies did.  And destroyed generations of kids.

Well, after being on top of the world during the Sixties a little reality settled in during the Seventies.  Some realized they were about as useful as a paperweight.  And they couldn’t stand that.  They believed they were smarter than everyone in their youth.  Now they were realizing they were dumb as posts.  And it’s hard to feel superior to others when you’re dumb as a post.  So you do something about that.  You become active.  In something.  You show off that brain.  That college degree.  You support a cause.  Or go into politics.

Journalists and Celebrities Just want to be Loved

That’s the path a lot of liberals took.  But not all.  Some are too young to have lived through the Sixties.  But their college professors no doubt did.  So they keep the spirit of the Sixties alive.  Though a little lighter on the drugs these days.  Some don’t need mind altering drugs to get high.  Love of self is enough for some.  Which is the drug of choice for a narcissist.  Journalists and politicians in particular love this drug.

Dan Rather appeared to have a personal vendetta against George W. Bush.  He referenced documents on air critical of Bush’s Air Force service before the presidential election.  He said on air that experts at CBS authenticated the documents.  Well, they didn’t.  Worse, they were forgeries.  Rather, who appeared to be envious of Cronkite’s fame, wanted a little fame for himself.  He wanted that big story.  To influence a presidential election.  Instead, he ended his journalism career.

Celebrities are narcissists.  They have great big egos.  And a lot of fame.  But it’s an empty fame.  Most make a living by pretending to be other people.  Or they can sing.  Or look good while just standing still.  It’s nice but eventually they want more.  To be more than a pretty face.  A pretty voice.  A good pretender.  So they flex their minds to show off their all around superiority.  Ted Danson warned us that the oceans would be ‘dead’ in 10 years…20 years ago.  Cher warned that George W. Bush would force all the gays and lesbians into New Jersey should we elect him.  Cameron Diaz said Bush would legalize rape.  (Last I checked he didn’t do either.)  Sean Penn praises Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez while their people suffer some of the worst human rights violations.  Does he do this because he favors human rights violations?  Or is he so smart that he can’t believe he’s ever wrong?  (For the record, Penn doesn’t choose to live in Cuba or Venezuela.  So it would appear that although he speaks out in favor of Marxism over capitalism, he prefers the comforts of capitalism for himself.  So I think it’s fair to conclude that he is at least a hypocrite.)

Elite Intellectuals with an 8th Grade Education

The Vietnam War to liberals was like Christ’s crucifixion to Christians.  It defined them.  Made them.  It was the first inklings of their powers.  And they liked that power. 

They prolonged the war and killed hundreds of thousands more (Americans, Vietnamese, Laotians, Cambodians, etc.).  They had something to protest for almost a decade.  This empowered them and made them feel invincible.  The world was theirs.  They could do anything.  And some did.  Some even became terrorists (e.g., the Weather Underground). 

They were elite intellectuals.  Elite intellectuals with maybe an 8th grade education.  They knew nothing.  But believed they knew everything.  They destroyed a decade.  While their heads were filled with dreams of sugar plum fairies and illusions of grandeur.  Virtually unemployable in the real world, they took these feelings of superiority to our colleges, Hollywood, newspapers and television networks.  Where they lived insulated from the real world.  And continued their destruction.  Craving attention.  Constantly shouting ‘look at me’.  Never caring about the consequences of their actions.

Liberals are not inherently evil.  The destruction they cause is not on purpose.  They’re just a bunch of idiots.  They typically lived isolated from the real world.  In positions that can influence the masses.  And they tend to be charismatic.  Of course, there are exceptions to this rule.  Such as Al Gore.  Who you would find in the dictionary if you looked up ‘not charismatic’.  But he craves that attention more than most.  And is one of the biggest idiots out there.  He still believes in global warming even though those emails leaked from the University of East Anglia showed they were manipulating the global warming data. 

But Al Gore is not an idiot.  Idiots don’t make enough money to buy mansions on the ocean.  But he did.  While warning people about the danger of global warming.  And rising sea levels.  That will flood our seashores.  Like the seashore he just moved to.  You see, even he doesn’t really believe in global warming.  So he’s not an idiot.  He’s just a charlatan.  Praying on the people’s gullibility to make himself a millionaire.  He may not know anything about science, but he’s highly skilled in the arts of fleecing.  While making himself feel important.  Giving himself value (in his own mind).  Stroking that ego while he spends his days just dicking around in his big, empty mansion.  And this is liberalism at its best.  Empty shells of people.  Trying to feel good about themselves.  By pretending to do good for others.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

« Previous Entries