Sunday, March 26, 2017

Sunday morning music, inspired by my latest book


Great news!  My second Western novel is almost ready for publication.  Expect to see it within the next week to ten days, if all goes well.  Here's the proposed cover.




I'll have more to say about it in a few days.

Because it's a Western, here are five Western-themed or -inspired songs to set the mood.














And finally, because the book is set in the Rocky Mountains of Colorado and New Mexico from beginning to end:





Have a great Sunday!

Peter

Saturday, March 25, 2017

My wrist hurts just looking at this picture . . .


Received via e-mail from Jim H., this picture of a home-made shotgun pistol (a typical 'zip gun') found in the Dominican Republic.




My wrist is already aching, in sympathy with whoever tries to fire that thing!




Peter

The real issue in healthcare reform is neither Obamacare nor Trumpcare


Amid all the shouting and tumult over the defeat of "Trumpcare" in Congress, it's worth remembering that this is basically all political posturing.  Both sides of the debate are ignoring the real issue.

As Karl Denninger has pointed out:

Last fiscal year the Federal Government spent $1.417 trillion on Medicare and Medicaid, 9.3% more than the $1.297 trillion it spent the previous year. Last year was not an aberration; it was in fact very close to the historical expansion rate from the 1990s forward.  Spending has almost quadrupled on these programs since FY 1998.  Total outlays in 1998 were $1.651 trillion of which Medicare and Medicaid comprised 23%. Last fiscal year 37% of all fiscal expenditures were made on these two programs.  The ACA (Obamacare), for all of its warts, only managed to dampen that rate of expansion in spending for two years, after which it returned to trend.  At this rate of spending expansion within the next four years the government will attempt to spend $2.02 trillion on these two programs combined which will blow an approximately $600 billion additional hole, per year, in the deficit.  That will not be able to be financed since if you ignore this issue it will be clear that within 10 years the government would try to spend $3.4 trillion per year on the same two programs -- an utter impossibility under any rational expectation for economic expansion.  The impact on private health spending has been even larger on a percentage-of-increase basis due to the blatant cost-shifting that is well-documented in myriad reports and is responsible for a large portion of the stunting of economic progress in America that has occurred over the previous two decades.

. . .

We either admit to what we've been doing and stop the scam or it will overtake the economy and our ability to pay -- both in the government and otherwise, within the next 4-5 years.

We either stop it now or it destroys the economy, asset prices and the nation.

This isn't politics.  It's math.

The facts are what they are.  Demonstrating them is easy and irrefutable.

There's more at the link.

I'm unmoved by assertions of ideological purity.  I note with cynicism that the chairman of the so-called "Freedom Caucus", Rep. Mark Meadows, derived much of his election-year support from the health care industry, so he's hardly a disinterested party.

The health care industry is in this to make as much money as it can out of the pockets of ordinary Americans.  That's the only reason the current mess exists.  As many commentators have pointed out, Obamacare "enriches only the health insurance giants and their shareholders".  Its official name, the 'Affordable' Care Act, is a joke.  (As an interesting exercise, look at how much input the health care industry had when the act was being written.  The link leads to a very left-wing, progressive-oriented article, by the way - it's hardly conservative fear-mongering.)

I'm glad so-called "Trumpcare" did not pass.  It would have done nothing to fix this problem.  It would merely have stuck a few more fingers into a massively leaking dike.  Obamacare is a catastrophe.  It needs to go away - regardless of screams of outrage that it will leave this, or that, or the other many millions of Americans without healthcare coverage.  If those Americans stay with Obamacare, or Medicaid, or any other bureaucratically and politically approved form of coverage, they're going to find it worthless anyway, because this country will be so bankrupt it won't be able to afford to pay for it.

Obamacare is an abomination.  Trumpcare would have been the same.  Let's get rid of both of them, and return to sanity in healthcare - fiscal and otherwise.  We're already going broke as a nation.  If it isn't fixed, healthcare will merely bankrupt us faster.

Peter

Friday, March 24, 2017

More about the Smith & Wesson Model 3 revolver


My first blog post this morning, about a unique Smith & Wesson Model 3 revolver I found in the Panhandle-Plains Historical Museum a couple of weeks ago, has attracted a fair amount of attention.  Several e-mails have asked for more information about the gun, particularly because its widespread use in the 'Wild West' isn't as well known as its Colt Single Action Army rival (popularly known as the 'Peacemaker').

You can read more about the revolver at the links I provided in this morning's post.  Here's a video evaluation by YouTube user Hickock45, in which he demonstrates how it's loaded and fired, and goes into more detail about its features.





In my next Western novel, 'Rocky Mountain Retribution', due out in a month or two, you'll be able to read a lot more about these revolvers, and their greatest advantage over all competing weapons of the 1870's.  The only reason they didn't vastly outsell Colt's Peacemaker was that so many tens of thousands of the S&W revolvers were shipped to Russia and other overseas customers, instead of being sold locally.

Peter

Not a good day to be riding a motorcycle . . .




Ouch!




Peter

A fascinating piece of firearms history


Readers may remember that, a couple of weeks ago, Miss D., Old NFO and myself went up to Amarillo in the Texas Panhandle, where we met Alma Boykin and spent a couple of days doing research for future books.  One of the places we visited was the Panhandle-Plains Historical Museum, which has an outstanding firearms collection.  Thanks to their generously cooperative curator, we were able to spend a couple of hours examining that part of their collection that isn't on display, which contains some real historical rarities.

I was fascinated by one example of Smith & Wesson's Model 3 revolver, which looked as if it had started life as a second variation Russian model.  These were ordered by the Russian government for its army, chambered for the .44 Russian cartridge, progenitor of the later .44 Special and .44 Magnum rounds.  Most were manufactured in 1873.  A limited number were sold on the US civilian market as well.  Here's what the original second variation Russian model looked like.  The picture is courtesy of Mr. G. W. Leiper, whose Web site 'Russian Revolvers' offers encyclopedic coverage of that very interesting subject.  Recommended reading for firearms enthusiasts.  (Click all images for a larger view.)




The revolver in the Panhandle-Plains Museum has been extensively modified from its original configuration.  I'll show it to you first, then discuss what's been done to it.




This must have been somebody's cherished possession, because the amount of work put into it far exceeds whatever its monetary value may have been.  For a start, the 'hump' on the backstrap of the grips has been ground or filed down until it's almost round, much like the original 'American' variant of the Model 3 (scroll down at the link for photographs) or the first variation Russian Model 3's.  The spur on the trigger guard has also been expertly removed.

Next, the six chambers and the barrel have been reamed out and filled with inserts in .22 caliber.  I suspect that the unknown gunsmith may have turned down on a lathe the outside of a .22 rifle barrel, cut lengths off it to suit, and then sleeved the original barrel and chambers with it.  The chambers would then have been bored out to take the rimfire cartridges, and a new extractor star fitted, to eject the much smaller rounds.  Here's the back of the cylinder, showing the sleeves.  (The white-gloved fingers holding the gun are mine!  Old NFO took the pictures, for which my grateful thanks.)




The barrel is only 5" long, down from the original 7".  This is often referred to as the "Wells Fargo conversion", as that company bought a large number of Smith & Wesson Model 3 revolvers from US Army surplus stocks (usually the later Schofield variation), and cut down the barrels to issue to its stagecoach drivers and guards.  There are a great many forgeries in circulation, probably more than there were original Wells Fargo conversions, making positive identification difficult.  This may not have been a Wells Fargo revolver at all, of course;  any gunsmith could have cut down the barrel, re-crowned it, and remounted the front sight.

The engraving covers the surface of the firearm, but it's not as even or as high-quality as factory-engraved guns I've seen.  I suspect that either a gunsmith or artisan added it later, or perhaps the owner of the gun tried to do it himself.  I suppose we'll never know.  At any rate, the gun has also been nickel-plated, common in the days of blackpowder rounds, as nickel resisted the corrosive powder salts better than blued steel.  I suspect this gun was not originally nickel-plated, because the plating has filled up the letters and engraving to a certain extent.

Another interesting modification is the repaired hammer.  At some point, I suspect the gun was dropped and the hammer spur broken off.  Someone has formed a new hammer spur out of a piece of steel, ground and/or filed to approximately the same pattern as a standard S&W Model 3, but not exactly identical, as one can see if one compares it to an original hammer.  A dovetail was then cut into the broken hammer, and the new spur inserted and (probably) pinned and soldered into place.  Here's a close-up photograph of the repair.




The repair must have been made after the gun was nickel-plated, because the replacement hammer spur is still in blued steel.

I can't help but wonder what was so special about this gun, to make someone spend a great deal of time, energy and money converting it like this, and preserving it.  Was it carried by an Old West lawman or outlaw, whose descendants wanted to hold on to the memories it carried for them?  Why would someone have gone to all the trouble and expense of sleeving the barrel and chambers for a different caliber, and engraving and plating the gun, and repairing the hammer, when the cost of those repairs and restorations would have paid for not just one, but several new guns?  Who did the work, and when, and where?

If only this gun could talk . . . I reckon it would have a lot of stories to tell!

Peter

Thursday, March 23, 2017

Addicted to entitlement programs


Dennis Prager makes the point that entitlement programs are even more addictive, in their own way, than drugs.

All addictions — whether to drugs, alcohol, gambling, sex or cigarettes — are very hard to escape.

There is one addiction, however, that may be more difficult than any other to escape, in part because it is not even regarded as an addiction. It is entitlements addiction, the addiction to getting something for nothing.

One indication as to the power of entitlements addiction is the fact that while great numbers of people have voluntarily given up drugs, alcohol, gambling, etc. — almost always at great pain — few give up an addiction to entitlements. For the majority of able-bodied people who get cash payments, food stamps, subsidized housing, free or subsidized health insurance, and other welfare benefits, the thought of giving up any one of those and beginning to pay for them with their own earned money is as hard as giving up alcohol is for an alcoholic.

Politicians know this, which is why it is close to impossible to ever reduce entitlements. And, of course, the left knows this, which is why the left almost always wins a debate over entitlements. Every American who is the beneficiary of an entitlement backs them, and many who are not beneficiaries of entitlements would like to be.

Aside from ideology, this is why the left constantly seeks to increase entitlements. The more people receiving government benefits, the more people vote left.

There's more at the link.  Recommended reading.

Entitlement programs have another, less commonly considered benefit;  they create thousands of jobs, all of which can be filled with those who support the politicians who enact the programs.  Just look at the size of the bureaucracies needed to administer Social Security, Medicare, food stamps and other welfare programs.  All those jobs depend on entitlements.  Take away the entitlements, and those reliable voters will be out of work - and their votes will no longer be reliable.

If you wanted to know why the vast majority of federal government employees think and vote Democrat, that's a pretty good indicator, right there.  Which party supports the constant expansion of government, and the creation of more and more government jobs - at taxpayer expense?

Makes you think, doesn't it?

Peter

Property: Follow the money (or the lack thereof)


A couple of days ago, I posted an article titled 'The Washington bubble continues to ignore fiscal reality'.  In it, I pointed out:

I already know that every dollar in my pocket today buys about half - sometimes less than half - of what it did in the year 2000.  I can go out right now, and go shopping, and compare what I get for my money today with what I got for it seventeen years ago.  Forget the "official" rate of inflation, and look at actual expenditure.  You'll find the same thing I do - your money today is worth less than half what it was then.  What's going to happen if that continues, and gets worse?

One of the things that's going to happen - is already happening, in fact - is that fewer and fewer people are able to afford to buy their own homes.

Fifty-two of the 100 largest U.S. cities were majority-renter in 2015, according to U.S. Census Bureau data ... Twenty-one of those cities have shifted to renter-domination since 2009. These include such hot housing markets as Denver and San Diego and lukewarm locales, such as Detroit and Baltimore, better known for vacant homes than residential development ... A 2015 report from the Urban Institute predicted that rentership would keep rising through 2030, thanks to demographic trends that include aging baby boomers who downsize into rentals.

. . .

Most low-income families don’t rent by choice, said Nela Richardson, chief economist at Redfin. And plenty of higher-income households rent because they can’t afford to buy. “We don’t have enough affordable supply in either rental or for-sale markets,” said Richardson, adding that cities interested in promoting renter-friendly policies can rethink their zoning policies to encourage more construction.

There's more at the link.

Housing prices are a problem, to be sure, but it's not so much the supply side that's preventing home ownership.  It's that average disposable incomes have declined in purchasing power.  As I said in my earlier article, the money in your pocket buys about half - sometimes less than half - of what it bought in 2000.  Your income hasn't doubled in that period, unless you're exceptionally fortunate.  Since housing costs have to come out of the same money every month that feeds and clothes your family, you simply have less money available to buy a house.  Q.E.D.

Miss D. and I faced this dilemma two years ago.  We wanted to buy a house of our own, but were price-restricted in Nashville, TN, where we lived at the time.  We were in the fortunate position of being able to move anywhere we chose, and we had good friends in a smaller Texas town, so we changed states.  By doing so, we were able to buy a relatively modern three-bedroom house, in very good condition, for approximately half what the same house would have cost us in a similar suburb in Nashville.  What's more, we deliberately bought a smaller home, one we could afford to pay off in a maximum of fifteen years, and took out a mortgage loan for that long only.  God willing, we'll pay it off in less than ten years, because we're making that a priority.  If we succeed in doing so, we'll instantly boost our disposable income - or, to look at it another way, we'll drastically reduce the disposable income we need to pay our bills every month.  It'll take a lot of financial pressure off us.

I know we're very lucky to have been in a position to do that.  Many people today aren't.  I fear that home ownership will become a pipe dream for them, just as it is for many people living in cities where housing prices are so high they're out of reach for most middle-class couples.  (It's not just US cities, either:  Australia is another good example.)

Another factor is that, with stock and bond market jitters as high as they are, many investors have turned to property as a "safe haven" for their funds.  Consider these headlines:

This institutional, investor-driven wave of purchases has actually prevented housing prices from dropping as far as they should have, following the 2007-08 collapse of the housing market.  That's all very well for investors . . . but it means many people like you and I, already struggling with declining personal purchasing power, can no longer afford the housing they want to buy.  They're reduced to renting it from the investors, instead, sometimes at a monthly cost equal to or even greater than what they might otherwise pay on a mortgage.  (Miss D. and I are paying about the same every month to service our home loan as we were paying to rent a much smaller duplex in Nashville.)

The housing market is going to remain very difficult for the average American until such time as our purchasing power is restored . . . and the odds are against that for the foreseeable future.  Batten down the hatches, hold on to what you've got, and don't buy property at inflated prices, is all I can suggest.  It's going to be a long and bumpy ride.

Peter

The London terror attack: same old, same old


I'm getting very fed up with the stupidity of the mainstream media when it comes to terrorist attacks such as that in London yesterday.  From the screams of alarm in the headlines, you'd think this was something new, unprecedented, a mortal threat to our society.  It's not, of course.  It's merely the latest incident in a long, long parade of them, and there will be many more in future.  Welcome to the reality of fundamentalist terrorism.  It's here to stay.

Another thing about the mainstream media:  why is it that so many of them have some sort of mental or moral block about using the word "terror" or "terrorist"?  For example, consider these headlines gathered at about 4 p.m. (local time) yesterday:

ABC News:  "Suspect shot dead after killing 4, injuring 40 in London"

The Atlantic:  "London Attack: What We Know"

Boston Globe:  "At least 5 dead in London attack, including assailant, and 20 injured"

CBS News:  "5 dead in car rampage, knife attack in London"

Chicago Tribune:  " 5 dead in London vehicle and knife attack, including police officer, attacker; 40 hurt"

CNN:  "London attack: Four killed in British Parliament carnage"

By that time it was as plain as the nose on your face that this was a terrorist attack.  Other media outlets were (correctly) labeling it as such . . . but not those mainstream media "big names".  Their politically correct policies prevent them from calling a spade, a spade, until it's been confirmed by a dozen independent "authorities" that it is, in fact, a human-powered earth-moving implement - and even then, they'd prefer to call it the latter, rather than use the simple, direct term for it.

As for what it means for you and I:  I've said it all before, as have many other commenters.  The advice applies to not just terrorist incidents, but any criminal threat.  Some of my previous articles include (but are not limited to):



All the suggestions and recommendations I made in those articles apply in the wake of the London attack, too.  As I said:  same old, same old.  We'll be reading similar headlines again in the not too distant future, I'm sure - and the same advice will apply yet again.

Be ready for this.  Terrorism is nothing new, and it'll be with us for a long, long time to come.  I daresay our children's children will be fighting it, too.

Peter

Wednesday, March 22, 2017

Globular warming - the real deal


Fellow blogger Borepatch has written an excellent summation of the science behind global warming - the real science, not the fake stuff so many are peddling.

If you're in any doubt about this stuff, or need the information to discredit rumors and scare-mongering, it's a good article to have in your arsenal.  Recommended reading.

Peter

Don't just trim it - kill it!


The Federalist suggests a way for President Trump to deal with the bloated, overgrown bureaucracy of the federal government.

The presidential transition directory, known as the Plum Book, lists more than 4,000 politically appointed positions for a new administration to fill during its term (or terms). Those political appointees are supposed to go into the various departments of government and implement the new president’s agenda. But they leave when the president leaves, and in the case of conservatives, their meager reforms usually go with them.

It’s time for Republicans to have a reality check: do you really think that fewer than 5,000 appointees can win against 2.8 million federal government employees who have a vested interest in absolutely nothing changing? Maybe, if an administration had 20 years, but it doesn’t. It has four, maybe if they’re lucky eight, years, and as history has shown us, the odds of any party getting three straight terms of a single party in the White House are fairly slim. We have already seen bureaucrats at the Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Justice, and State Department not only promise, but also begin to resist any reforms from the Trump administration.

But it’s worse than simply having millions of federal government employees trying to outlast a Republican administration. The overwhelming majority of those federal employees who donated to a presidential campaign, more than 95 percent, gave money to Hillary Clinton. Ninety-nine percent of contributions from State Department employees went to Clinton in the 2016 elections. You can be sure they aren’t excited to be working for Trump.

. . .

If Trump wants to devolve power out of DC, he has to shut departments down. Take the Department of Energy and put the nuclear weapons management under Department of Defense (or even Commerce, as Reagan wanted, to keep nuclear protection in civilian hands), split energy issues between Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and Interior, then shut its doors. Roll any necessary parts of Department of Education into Labor and send other responsibilities back to the states, then shut its doors.

Once departments are shut down, bulldoze the buildings to the ground. Shatter them, plow them under, then build beautiful parks, Liberty Parks, over where the departments used to stand. Trump should also then consider “farming” some departments out to states, further breaking the leviathan apart.

. . .

President Trump and the GOP have a chance to conserve the original principles of the country, that government is limited to protect the rights of the people, not provide them everything they want or need. If Trump can change the rules, he’ll change history.

There's more at the link.

I can't argue with any of that.  The federal bureaucracy has grown to the point where it's essentially self-supporting and self-governing, illustrating the truth of Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy.

In any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people:

First, there will be those who are devoted to the goals of the organization. Examples are dedicated classroom teachers in an educational bureaucracy, many of the engineers and launch technicians and scientists at NASA, even some agricultural scientists and advisors in the former Soviet Union collective farming administration.

Secondly, there will be those dedicated to the organization itself. Examples are many of the administrators in the education system, many professors of education, many teachers union officials, much of the NASA headquarters staff, etc.

The Iron Law states that in every case the second group will gain and keep control of the organization. It will write the rules, and control promotions within the organization.

The only way to break that iron control of the federal bureaucracy is to get rid of it - controllers, bureaucrats, the lot.  Obviously, we can't do that to the whole thing;  but a few sacrificial departments, cut to ribbons and then destroyed entirely, will do much to concentrate the minds of those who remain.  Hopefully, they'll be reminded that they are public servants, not public masters.

Peter

The Two Fairies


Clint Smith of Thunder Ranch has another amusing and instructional video on shooting fast, and/or straight, to defend yourself.  PROFANITY ALERT:  Clint's a former Marine, and speaks like one, but he's very much to the point.





Clint has spoken of a third kind of fairy in the past, as those of us who trained under him at Thunder Ranch's previous premises in Texas will recall:

"If pointing an empty gun at your opponent makes him duck, you may live for an extra two seconds - and who knows? I may find another gun, the bad guy may give up, or the ammo fairy may drop me a magazine."




Peter

Is the "Deep State" at war with itself?


Charles Hugh Smith argues that it is.

I have long suggested that the tectonic plates of the Deep State are shifting as the ruling consensus has eroded. Some elements of the Deep State--what I call the progressive wing, which is (ironically to some) anchored in the military services-- now view the neocon-CIA (Security State)-Wall Street elements as profoundly dangerous to America's long-term interests, both domestically and globally.

I have suggested that this "rogue Deep State" quietly aided Donald Trump (by subtly undermining Hillary Clinton's campaign) as the last best chance to save the nation from the neocon's over-reach that the Establishment's Wall Street-funded leadership (Bush, Clinton, Obama, et al.) has overseen--including granting the CIA and its allies virtually unlimited powers unhindered by any effective oversight.

This profound split in the Deep State has now broken into open warfare. The first salvo was the absurd propaganda campaign led by Establishment mouthpieces The New York Times and The Washington Post claiming Russian agents had "hacked" the U.S. election to favor Trump.

This fact-free propaganda campaign failed--having no evidence didn't work quite as well as the NYT and Wapo expected-- and so the propaganda machine launched the second salvo, accusing Trump of being a Russian patsy.

The evidence for this claim was equally laughable, and that campaign has only made the Establishment, its propaganda mouthpieces and the neocon Deep State look desperate and foolish on the global and domestic stages.

The desperate neocon Deep State and its Democratic Party allies went to absurd lengths to undermine Trump via the "Boris and Natasha" strategy of accusing Trump of collaborating with the Evil Russkies, even going so far as to briefly exhume former President G.W. Bush from deep-freeze to make a fool of himself, saying the Trump-Evil Russkies connection should be "investigated."

Now the rogue elements have launched a counterstrike--Vault 7.

. . .

Vault 7 is not just political theater--it highlights the core questions facing the nation: what is left to defend if civil liberties and democratically elected oversight have been reduced to Potemkin-village travesties?

If there are no limits on CIA powers and surveillance, then what is left of civil liberties and democracy? Answer: nothing.

The battle raging in the Deep State isn't just a bureaucratic battle--it's a war for the soul, identity and direction of the nation. Citizens who define America's interests as civil liberties and democracy should be deeply troubled by the Establishment's surrender of these in favor of a National Security State with essentially no limits.

There's more at the link.

That's not a bad summation of the situation, IMHO.  My yardstick is always that openness encourages honesty;  secrecy encourages - or, at least, conceals - dishonesty.  That applies in almost any area of life, from relationships, through finances, through politics.  If it's out in the open, where it can be seen, weighed, assessed, examined, tested, evaluated, it's unlikely to pose a serious threat.  If it's not, then all sorts of things can go on in secret that shouldn't be happening.

I've used this approach a lot when it comes to counseling couples.  As a retired pastor, you'll understand that I base this on Scripture.  The first letter of St. John notes:

This is the message which we have heard from Him and declare to you, that God is light and in Him is no darkness at all.  If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth.  But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin.

That last sentence above is the recipe for success in relationships - and note that it's a logical progression, a sequence of events.  We first "walk in light" - i.e. in honesty, openness and communication.  If we get that right, the second step follows;  we "have fellowship with one another" - implying that if we don't do the first, we won't achieve the second.  Finally, if we get both of those steps right, the third step follows;  we are in a position to be cleansed from sin - meaning that if we don't get the foundational steps right, we can't be cleansed of sin, probably because we can't even recognize it well enough to confess it!

That's a very simple lesson, but it works almost every time (in my experience) on the personal level.  If we scale it up to our national political level, it works pretty well too.  Of course, there are legitimate national secrets that should be safeguarded, for the good of the nation and the security of its citizens.  However, those things are - or should be - relatively small in comparison to the whole of the body politic.  If excessive secrecy or secretiveness becomes a way of life, the body politic gets screwed by those who do so.  (Who can forget Nancy Pelosi's infamous comment, "We have to pass the [health care] bill so that you can find out what’s in it"?  Well, they did pass it - and boy, did we find out!  Look how Obamacare has screwed us, ever since!)

The argument over the massive, seemingly ever-expanding 'security state' is basically one over civil rights, civil liberties, and personal freedom.  I, for one, believe the 'security state' is largely ineffectual, a rogue bureaucracy out of control, trying to arrogate ever greater power and authority to itself while ignoring the constitution.  I think Mr. Smith has the right of it.  It has to be stopped.  One hopes the dissent within the 'Deep State' will go at least some way towards doing that . . . but it can't do it all.  The American people have to stand up for themselves as well.  If they don't, if they just let this sort of thing slide, then the faceless bureaucrats of the 'Deep State' will win.  That would lead to an Orwellian nightmare.

Peter

Tuesday, March 21, 2017

Heh - European bureaucrat edition


It seems even European Union bureaucrats can have a sense of humor - of a sort.  This adaptation of a Tintin cartoon has appeared on notice-boards at EU headquarters in Brussels:




It's an adaptation of this original:




Why is it, do you suppose, that a drunken, out-of-control Captain Haddock seems such an appropriate avatar for European Union bureaucrats, drunk on power?

Peter

The problem of raising expectations . . .


. . . is that, if you don't fulfil them, people are going to be disappointed.  Very.  Glenn Greenwald (the left-leaning journalist who helped publicize the Snowden revelations) makes the point.

The principal problem for Democrats is that so many media figures and online charlatans are personally benefiting from feeding the base increasingly unhinged, fact-free conspiracies ... that there are now millions of partisan soldiers absolutely convinced of a Trump/Russia conspiracy for which, at least as of now, there is no evidence. And they are all waiting for the day, which they regard as inevitable and imminent, when this theory will be proven and Trump will be removed.

Key Democratic officials are clearly worried about the expectations that have been purposely stoked and are now trying to tamp them down. Many of them have tried to signal that the beliefs the base has been led to adopt have no basis in reason or evidence.

The latest official to throw cold water on the MSNBC-led circus is President Obama’s former acting CIA chief Michael Morell ... on Wednesday night, Morell appeared at an intelligence community forum to “cast doubt” on “allegations that members of the Trump campaign colluded with Russia.” “On the question of the Trump campaign conspiring with the Russians here, there is smoke, but there is no fire at all,” he said, adding, “There’s no little campfire, there’s no little candle, there’s no spark. And there’s a lot of people looking for it.”

. . .

Morell’s comments echo the categorical remarks by Obama’s top national security official, James Clapper, who told Meet the Press last week that during the time he was Obama’s DNI, he saw no evidence to support claims of a Trump/Russia conspiracy. “We had no evidence of such collusion,” Clapper stated unequivocally. Unlike Morell, who left his official CIA position in 2013 but remains very integrated into the intelligence community, Clapper was Obama’s DNI until just seven weeks ago, leaving on January 20.

Perhaps most revealing of all are the Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee — charged with investigating these matters — who recently told BuzzFeed how petrified they are of what the Democratic base will do if they do not find evidence of collusion, as they now suspect will likely be the case.

. . .

What makes all of this most significant is that officials like Clapper and Morell are trained disinformation agents; Clapper in particular has proven he will lie to advance his interests. Yet even with all the incentive to do so, they are refusing to claim there is evidence of such collusion; in fact, they are expressly urging people to stop thinking it exists. As even the law recognizes, statements that otherwise lack credibility become more believable when they are ones made “against interest.” 

There's more at the link.  Recommended reading.

This dilemma isn't limited to Democrats, of course.  Republicans have a number of similar issues;  for example, alleged wire-taps of Trump Tower, or the repeal of Obamacare (long promised to the party's base but now being resisted by those who want to replace it, rather than merely get rid of it).  In every case, vociferous arguments are made to get the base aroused and involved;  but if those arguments don't result in action, or produce an unsatisfactory result, the base is going to get angry.  Very angry.

There's a reason for the old proverb, "Let sleeping dogs lie".  I suspect some politicians and their surrogates are about to be reminded of it.

Peter

The Washington bubble continues to ignore fiscal reality


The most depressing thing about the partisan political gridlock in Washington D.C. at present isn't the one-upmanship being practiced by both parties against each other.  It isn't the competing policies and positions.  It isn't the posturing for the news media, or the intolerance of others' opinions, or the openly voiced contempt so many politicians display towards each other.

It's the avoidance of reality.

There is one single issue confronting the USA today that dwarfs all others.  Unless and until it is solved, all other issues will be essentially sideshows, because this one issue can bring them all down and destroy them all in a heartbeat.

That issue is our national debt - federal, state, local, corporate and private.

Consider:
  1. At the time of writing, according to the US Treasury, the federal government debt - money it's borrowed to pay for its programs and policies, but not yet repaid - stands at $19,846,009,616,285.34.
  2. At the time of writing, according to the National Debt Clock, the total debt of the fifty US states - what state governments have borrowed to pay for their programs and policies - amounts to $1,206,071,409,000.
  3. At the time of writing, according to the National Debt Clock, the total debt of US cities and towns - what local governments have borrowed to pay for their programs and policies - amounts to $1,925,789,975,000.
  4. At the time of writing, according to the National Debt Clock, total US debt - which "includes Household, Business, State and Local Governments, Financial Institutions, and the Federal Government" - amounts to $68,392,662,000,000.  That averages out to over $210,000 per citizen.  That's what every single one of us - you and I - owes, per capita, to repay this sum.
  5. It's not just government or commercial debt that's the problem.  At the time of writing, according to the National Debt Clock, total personal debt in the USA - which "includes all personal obligations:  Mortgage Debt and (Consumer Debt), which includes Car Loans and short term revolving Credit Card Debt" - amounts to $18,204,074,000,000.  That averages out to over $56,000 per citizen.

Let those numbers sink in for a moment.  The big ones are in trillions of dollars.  That's a big 'T'.  Add to them the unfunded liabilities of the US government.  "Unfunded" means that there is currently no money available to pay for these future financial commitments.  At the time of writing, according to the National Debt Clock, total US unfunded liability - including "Social Security, Medicare Parts A, B and D, Federal Debt held by the Public, plus Federal Employee and Veteran Benefits" - amounts to approximately $105,513,454,000,000.  That averages out to over $879,000 per taxpayer.

What's more, every one of those numbers is increasing, second by second, minute by minute, hour by hour, day by day.  Go to the National Debt Clock and watch the numbers grow.

It doesn't matter what policies, proposals, budgets, etc. are worked out in Washington if they don't begin by taking into account this fiscal disaster in the making.  It's all very well for President Trump to say he wants an additional $54 billion in defense spending, which he'll pay for by cutting other federal expenditure by the same amount.  That's chump change.  The real problem is the federal government debt as a whole, which is approximately 367 times greater than the proposed increase in defense spending.  Unless the latter is addressed, it will eventually swamp any and all federal programs.  It's simply unsustainable.

We've spoken of this problem many times before, so I won't go into all the sad, sordid details yet again.  Suffice it to say that if we had to pay a realistic rate of interest on our national debt, instead of the artificially low rates imposed by the Federal Reserve through its monetary policy, our current annual budget would be simply wiped out by interest costs.  Non-discretionary spending would be entirely consumed by interest on our national debt, and entitlement programs - including Social Security and Medicare - would be next on the list.  There would be no alternative.  It's all very well to say that "We paid into Social Security, and we want our money back!"  The money is gone.  There is no such thing as a Social Security trust fund.  That money was invested in US government bonds, and spent by previous generations of politicians.  All that's left is a handful of IOU's, payable by the US government - which will be bankrupt by the time it has to pay them.

There are only four ways in which this situation can be resolved.
  1. We can stagger along, ignoring the problem, until it overwhelms us during the next financial crisis, and all our government programs collapse into bankruptcy.
  2. We can "print money" to pay for all the programs we want - but that will destabilize and undermine the US dollar, and inflation will rapidly erode its purchasing power until it's no more than a shadow of what it is now.  The latter is, of course, already no more than a shadow of what it was, thanks to past inflation and other factors, as this graphic illustrates, courtesy of visual.ly.  (Click the image for a larger view.)


    This is how we've been coping with the situation up until now. I fear we'll continue to do so, because no-one in authority appears to be willing to consider any other alternative.
  3. We can declare bankruptcy;  effectively, refuse to honor our debts (i.e. US Treasury bonds and other instruments that have been sold to other countries, corporations and individual investors to fund our national debt).  However, this would utterly trash the USA's credit rating, and result in other nations refusing to extend credit to us for trade and other purposes.
  4. We can cut our coat according to our cloth;  in other words, set aside money in our annual budget to pay down the debt, and use what's left over to fund government programs we can actually afford.  This is the fiscally responsible thing to do, just as most families must do in similar circumstances, but it's the least likely to happen.  That's because politicians have made promises to the American people that they can no longer afford to keep;  but, if they break those promises, they'll be voted out of office by their aggrieved electorate.  Rather than risk that, they'll 'kick the can down the road', hoping they'll be out of office by the time someone else has to deal with it.

As Peggy Noonan noted in a 2005 article:

Do people fear the wheels are coming off the trolley? Is this fear widespread? A few weeks ago I was reading Christopher Lawford's lovely, candid and affectionate remembrance of growing up in a particular time and place with a particular family, the Kennedys, circa roughly 1950-2000. It's called "Symptoms of Withdrawal". At the end he quotes his Uncle Teddy. Christopher, Ted Kennedy and a few family members had gathered one night and were having a drink in Mr. Lawford's mother's apartment in Manhattan. Teddy was expansive. If he hadn't gone into politics he would have been an opera singer, he told them, and visited small Italian villages and had pasta every day for lunch. "Singing at la Scala in front of three thousand people throwing flowers at you. Then going out for dinner and having more pasta." Everyone was laughing. Then, writes Mr. Lawford, Teddy "took a long, slow gulp of his vodka and tonic, thought for a moment, and changed tack. 'I'm glad I'm not going to be around when you guys are my age.' I asked him why, and he said, 'Because when you guys are my age, the whole thing is going to fall apart.' "

Mr. Lawford continued, "The statement hung there, suspended in the realm of 'maybe we shouldn't go there.' Nobody wanted to touch it. After a few moments of heavy silence, my uncle moved on."

Lawford thought his uncle might be referring to their family--that it might "fall apart." But reading, one gets the strong impression Teddy Kennedy was not talking about his family but about . . . the whole ball of wax, the impossible nature of everything, the realities so daunting it seems the very system is off the tracks.

There's more at the link.

I continue to fear that, thanks to the fecklessness of our politicians and the refusal of US voters to elect better ones, "the whole thing is going to fall apart," just as Teddy Kennedy suggested.  I don't believe anyone in Washington can see a practical, feasible way out of this mess.  There are undoubtedly those who recognize the danger - President Trump not least among them - but their hands are tied by the far greater number of politicians who are living for the moment, not for the future, and who won't dare do anything constructive for the long term for fear that their careers will suffer in the short term.

Keep your eye on the fiscal ball.  It's almost lost its ability to bounce.  When that finally happens, we're all going to feel it.  I already know that every dollar in my pocket today buys about half - sometimes less than half - of what it did in the year 2000.  I can go out right now, and go shopping, and compare what I get for my money today with what I got for it seventeen years ago.  Forget the "official" rate of inflation, and look at actual expenditure.  You'll find the same thing I do - your money today is worth less than half what it was then.  What's going to happen if that continues, and gets worse?

It's going to be very, very painful, folks.  That's the reality we're all facing.  I can only hope and pray we'll be able to withstand the pain, and survive it, and come out on the other side of this crisis with renewed hope for the future.

Peter

Monday, March 20, 2017

China's economy - caught in a debt trap?


As part of a wider analysis of Chinese-North Korean relations, Strategy Page looks at the impact of debt on China's economy.  It appears to be a far larger danger at present than military pressure from other states.

The most urgent threats to the government are economic. This is mainly about too much debt and how much of that debt is uncollectable (“bad” debt). To make matters worse Chinese banks are suspected of using the same deceptive banking methods (trying to repackage bad debt as good debt) that brought on the 2008 financial crises in the United States. That economic crisis went worldwide and the Chinese government was forced to use a lot of debt to keep the economy moving. But if too much of that debt is bad there is increased risk of an economic crises that would halt economic growth and take years to fix.

The government has made this worse by allowing economic data reporting to be “adjusted” to suit the needs of local (provincial) officials. That was bad enough (and is now being fixed) but during several decades of rapid economic growth this flawed data allowed the state owned banks (which still dominate the economy) to lend too much money. Thus debt in China keeps rising. It went from 254 percent of GDP (nearly three times what it was before 2008) in 2015 to 277 percent in 2016 and unless the government can develop some solutions it will be over 300 percent by the end of the decade.

What makes this pile of debt trap so toxic is that, much, if not most of this debt consists of loans that the borrower cannot repay, or not repay in a timely fashion. This is reflected in the rising (54 percent more in 2016) incidence of bankruptcy. The government would prefer to avoid the bankruptcy process because it is embarrassing, turns bad debt into losses and exposes details of how the bad debt mess works.

The growing bad debt problem, more than the South China Sea dispute, is what keeps Chinese leaders up at night. GDP growth is slowing, it was down to 6.7 percent in 2016 and the new American government is openly discussing economic retaliation against China. That is scarier than the American military because it can be more safely used by the Americans and the Chinese government refuses to discuss this vulnerability for obvious reasons. It is believed that nearly $600 billion worth of these loans are uncollectable. Chinese banks are trying to avoid writing off these bad loans (which hurts bank profits and puts some of them out of business). Many banks are repackaging the bad loans in an attempt to sell them off for far more than they are worth. Chinese banks call these new items WMPs (wealth management products) and assure buyers they are legitimate but offer these bond-like securities with much higher interest rates than other corporate or bank bonds.

There's more at the link.

China certainly faces huge problems in its relations with North Korea, and with other nations involved in that problem;  but if its economy hits a brick wall, all the others will pale into insignificance.  The question is, will China deal with its economic problems responsibly?  Or will it try to mobilize public opinion against an alleged external threat, such as the USA, to divert attention from them?  In the past, it's chosen the latter option too often for comfort.

Peter

About that Hawaii judgment against President Trump's executive order . . .


According to The Astute Bloggers, US District Court judge Derrick K. Watson had lunch on March 15th, in Hawaii, with former President Obama.  Their rendezvous was documented in a photograph on the restaurant's Facebook page.




Later that same afternoon, Judge Watson ruled against President Trump's latest executive order concerning immigration.

I'm not saying that former President Obama had anything to do with Judge Watson's ruling . . . but we can't rule that out, can we?  Their meeting appears to have been at least as ill-advised as the notorious encounter between former President Clinton and the Attorney-General last year, of which a CBS reporter said that "the appearance of impropriety is just stunning".

Under the circumstances, their lunch date was, at the very least, breathtakingly poor judgment on the part of both the former President and the Judge.  It certainly appears to contravene Hawaii's Revised Code of Judicial Conduct, and therefore calls into question the propriety of Judge Watson's ruling.  He should, at the very least, have recused himself from the case, in the light of his meeting with the former President.  At worst, the situation might even be construed as an impeachable offense by the judge.

Why has the mainstream media not picked up this story?

Peter

The real danger of very large airliners


I knew that wake turbulence could pose a hazard to aircraft in their approach to airports before landing.  However, courtesy of a link over at Earthbound Misfit's place, I was surprised to learn that it's also a danger during flight along air corridors.  The Aviation Herald reports:

The business jet, a ... Challenger 604 ... performing flight MHV-604 from Male (Maldives) to Abu Dhabi (United Arab Emirates) with 9 people on board, was enroute over the Arabian Sea when an Airbus A380-800 was observed by the crew passing 1000 feet above. After passing underneath the A380 at about 08:40Z the crew lost control of the aircraft as result of wake turbulence from the A380 and was able to regain control of the aircraft only after losing about 10,000 feet. The airframe experienced very high G-Loads during the upset, a number of occupants received injuries during the upset. After the crew managed to stabilize the aircraft the crew decided to divert to Muscat (Oman), entered Omani Airspace at 14:10L (10:10Z) declaring emergency and reporting injuries on board and continued for a landing in Muscat at 15:14L (11:14Z) without further incident. A number of occupants were taken to a hospital, one occupant was reported with serious injuries. The aircraft received damage beyond repair and was written off.

. . .

According to information The Aviation Herald received on March 4th 2017 the CL-604 ... encountered wake turbulence sending the aircraft in uncontrolled roll turning the aircraft around at least 3 times (possibly even 5 times), both engines flamed out, the Ram Air Turbine could not deploy possibly as result of G-forces and structural stress, the aircraft lost about 10,000 feet until the crew was able to recover the aircraft exercising raw muscle force, restart the engines and divert to Muscat.

There's much more information at the link.

What's more, the article lists at least six other encounters where wake turbulence affected (and sometimes damaged) other aircraft.  A seventh was reported by the pilot of a Boeing 777 over the Atlantic in 2013, again caused by an Airbus A380, the largest airliner in service today.  The two aircraft were much further apart, so the effect was less (and much less damaging), but it was still enough to be alarming.

I trotted into the first-class galley. As I began to pour, the airplane experienced a rapid succession of intense turbulence. We began a pronounced roll to the left. The very pleasant and seasoned flight attendant I had engaged in conversation grabbed the nearest stationary piece of galley equipment for support. Her smile was replaced by a wide-eyed expression.

The seatbelt sign soon illuminated. Within moments, the intercom phone chimed. The flight attendant reached for the handset. My copilot was calling. He was commanding all flight attendants to be seated. Imagine that.

By the sharpness of the bumps and the definitive bank of the airplane, I had a good idea that we had not encountered your garden-variety clear-air turbulence. I stumbled my way to the interphone and called my copilot, indicating an urgent desire to return to the cockpit.

I hopped back into the left seat only to be greeted by another bout of turbulence. Suspecting foul play, I glanced at the traffic symbol on the TCAS display. Sure enough, another airplane cruised directly ahead of us at FL 400. I immediately pushed the heading select button on the eyebrow of the glareshield and turned us 30 degrees to the right.

In spectacular fashion, I watched as a wispy spiraling circle rocketed back toward us. It was a wingtip vortex. Never in my career had I actually seen one in its entirety at cruise altitude. The vortex once again appeared, buffeting the airplane. I instructed my copilot to ask Gander Center for an immediate altitude change to FL 400. I pressed the vertical-speed button on the glareshield eyebrow and rotated the dial to a 500 fpm rate of climb. I wasn’t going to wait for the next encounter. Within moments, another wispy spiral sped its way back toward our position. Only this time, we missed its wrath.

Again, more at the link.

I think the passengers and crew of that business jet over the Indian Ocean were extremely lucky to survive the encounter, considering that their aircraft was less than one-twentieth the size and mass of the huge A380.  The difference between them in wake vortex strength and duration is so great as to be almost unimaginable.  I'm surprised this incident hasn't been more widely reported.  It's a hazard confronting almost every aircraft in the sky, so I'd imagine every pilot would be interested in learning how to minimize such dangers.

Aviation Herald concludes its article with the draft of a proposed EASA safety bulletin, advocating greater vertical and horizontal separation between aircraft on air routes.  I hope they promulgate it soon!




Peter

Sunday, March 19, 2017

Sunday morning music


Here are a couple of songs from a Newfoundland folk group, Figgy Duff.  They only put out five albums during their time together, but their music remains as haunting as ever.  I chose both of these from their album 'After the Tempest'.

First, the opening number, 'Honor, Riches', which segues into a dance, 'Breakwater Boys Breakdown'.





Next, a lovely ballad, 'A Sailor Courted a Farmer's Daughter'.





I highly recommend Figgy Duff to lovers of folk and folk-rock music.  You'll find a lot of their songs on YouTube, and all their recordings are available on Amazon.com.

Peter

Saturday, March 18, 2017

"Peter Rabbit, Tank Killer"


Yesterday I mentioned a tongue-in-cheek article analyzing the military lessons that can be learned from Kenneth Grahame's children's novel, 'The Wind in the Willows'.  A couple of e-mailed comments noted that someone had produced a 'spoof' version of a Beatrix Potter story about Peter Rabbit, linking it with the novels of Sven Hassel.  The story was titled 'Peter Rabbit, Tank Killer'.  Here's a brief excerpt.

    One day, Peter's mother said, "I am going to market to sell my mittens.
    "You may all play in the wood if you wish but, Peter, you and your naughty cousin Benjamin Bunny are not to antagonise Mr McGregor nor blow up any Panzer tanks today."
    And with that, she left in a swish-swosh-swish of rustling skirts.
    But oh! That Peter was a a naughty rabbit!
    No sooner had his mother left than he dressed for combat and hopped down to the end of the lane to rendezvous with his cousin Benjamin.
    As the two young rabbits exchanged their fulsome greetings, they suddenly became aware of a mighty a-clinking and a-clanking coming up the road!
    Their little hearts all a-flutter, they peered judiciously around the corner.
    And what do you think the two naughty young rabbits saw when they peeped out?
    Mr McGregor in a Mk II Tiger tank with traversable 88mm howitzer and two forward mounted 7.62mm machine guns!

There's more at the link, including illustrations patterned after the originals.  Great fun!

(For readers who may not have heard of him, the late Sven Hassel was denounced as a fraud over his claims of service in the German armed forces during World War II.  Nevertheless, his novels remained popular for many years.)

Peter

Why do "tiny houses" cost so much?


I noted a news report that an Oregon county was offering incentives for homeowners to let the county build so-called "tiny houses" in their back yards, and rent them out to the homeless.  The price quoted for the first "tiny houses" was $75,000 apiece.

I find it impossible to understand that figure.  After all, mobile homes are often much bigger, yet they're much cheaper, and frequently include appliances as well.  A single-wide mobile home typically costs $35,000-$40,000, including all related costs (e.g. moving it to your site, connections, etc.), while a double-wide can be twice as much.  Older models on clearance, or used mobile homes in good condition, typically sell for half to two-thirds of the cost of new ones.

There's also the cost of travel trailers.  They can be very expensive, but basic models are relatively low-cost, even at retail prices - certainly in line with, or even below, the cost of mobile homes.  While some travel trailers are flimsily built and won't last long in continuous service, others are sturdy enough to be adopted as permanent homes by so-called "fulltimers".  I also know, from personal experience after Hurricane Katrina in 2005, that so-called FEMA trailers, widely used in disaster zones around the USA, can be bought used, in good to excellent condition, at prices ranging from $10,000 to $20,000 retail (and often half that at wholesale).  Whatever their origin, travel trailers are as large as or larger than most "tiny houses", and can be parked anywhere there are power, water and sewage connections.

So, how do "tiny house" manufacturers justify charging such an exorbitant price for such a small structure?  Can anyone explain?  Has anyone built one, or had one built, so that they can tell us at first hand why these things cost so much?

Peter

Friday, March 17, 2017

Illegal aliens as "the only way to defeat Trump"


Salon has published an eye-opening article addressing the issue of illegal aliens from a very sympathetic, left-wing, liberal perspective.  The author has given us a road-map for how progressives want to use civil rights as a wedge to influence the immigration debate.  Here's a brief excerpt from his very long article.  Bold, underlined text is my emphasis.

Immigration is and always has been a civil matter; it is not a crime to be present without authorization. We have in essence two sets of laws, one for immigrants, who do not have the rights of defendants when charged with “crimes,” and one for everyone else. The only solution to this anomaly is to cease treating immigration violations as crimes and to completely end detention for immigration. If an immigrant commits a crime, he or she should be prosecuted under normal laws, as a criminal defendant not as a “criminal alien.”

Ultimately, the only solution is to reduce the complexities, to end the web of regulations and exceptions — which, just as in corporate law, favor the powerful at the expense of the weak — and to finally shed immigration laws altogether.

Immigration should become a purely voluntary affair, no different than filing taxes. We trust citizens to do that, reporting millions of dollars in income. So why can’t we trust people to report their status and file for changes based on equities they have built in our community? As soon as a person steps on our soil, he or she should have full constitutional rights, so as to not be subject to exploitation. Why can’t we visualize immigration without government regulation?

. . .

Migration is a human right. A person anywhere in the world has the right to migrate, just as there is a right to free speech or association. In fact, most other rights follow from the right to migrate. If governments are allowed to lock up people behind walls, then it’s only a matter of time before other rights will dissipate, too. If we do not recognize migration as an inviolable human right, and if we do not give up the idea of the wall, we are bound to lose human rights for all of us.

American citizenship, by having become associated with the hypernationalist project, will at first look enviable and untouchable, but ultimately will be so cheapened as to be worth nothing. For the courts, as they face the Trump assault, the challenge is clear: Do away with the plenary power doctrine and extend full constitutional rights to immigrants. Rights should depend on personhood not citizenship, as some of our best legal minds have recognized throughout our history.

One thing that would strongly push the country in the opposite direction than the one Trump intends is for individual states, particularly progressive states in the West or Northeast, to pass laws as favorable to immigrants as the ones in Arizona, Georgia and Alabama have been unfavorable. What if, say, California were to pass legislation extending full human rights to all people present in the state? That would set up a historic confrontation, bringing out all the anomalies in our inhuman immigration regime for due public consideration. “Sanctuary” would become a constructive, constitutional, universal concept, not a purely reactive one against police powers.

. . .

We deserve to be here because we have a human right to be, just as we accepted this in the centuries preceding racist federal bureaucracies. We are here because we are humans, not because of our utility toward someone else’s comfort.

There's much more at the link.  It's heavy going, because it's full of left-wing liberal shibboleths, but it outlines the way these people think, so it does have value from the perspective of "know your enemy".

Let's look more closely at the points I underlined.

  • Immigration is and always has been a civil matter; it is not a crime to be present without authorization. - Nonsense!  Of course it's a crime!  It's a violation of US law.  By definition, to violate the law makes one a law-breaker:  a.k.a. a criminal.  The logic is straightforward, but the author is choosing to ignore it because he disagrees with the law(s) concerned.
  • Immigration should become a purely voluntary affair, no different than filing taxes. - Given how much cheating takes place concerning taxes (which is why we have a bloated, gargantuan IRS bureaucracy to fight the cheaters), it doesn't give me any great confidence that immigration will meet with any less disregard for the law.
  • Migration is a human right. - Bull!  Human rights have varied according to our understanding over the centuries.  The Universal Declaration of Human Rights does not mention 'migration' as one of them.  Modern progressives (funded by such paragons of virtue as George Soros) want to add it to the list, but there's no real, definitive reason why it should be there - just wishful thinking.  As has been pointed out more than once, if your "right" requires someone else to pay for it, it's not a "right" as such, but an imposition.  Also, there are differences between individual rights and collective rights.  Your individual right may run headlong into my individual right - as in, why should I pay for your healthcare?  Collective rights are an attempt to answer such arguments, by asserting that some rights are so important that the community assumes the collective burden of paying for them (as in, say, welfare, or food stamps, or subsidized education).  However, should the community also assume the burden of paying for those rights for those who are not legally members of that community (e.g. illegal aliens)?  My answer is an emphatic NO!  Progressives, needless to say, will disagree.
  • In fact, most other rights follow from the right to migrate. - Again, bull!  Many human rights were identified and codified long before anyone thought of a "right to migrate".  This statement is blatant propaganda, and blatantly false.  In what way does your right to life follow from your right to migrate?  It should rather be the other way around, in that, if you can't survive where you are, there should be some way to help you do so - either by bringing what you need to you, or allowing you to flee to an area where what you need is available.  That doesn't necessarily imply migration, either.  Status as a refugee is usually temporary, and does not entitle one to settle permanently in a new area.  Almost always, one will be required to go back whence one came as soon as circumstances permit.
  • Rights should depend on personhood not citizenship - That is already the case, as recognized in the UDHR.  However, rights within a nation's borders are subject to the authority of that nation's government (which is required, as part of customary international law, to recognize and support them). That government applies those rights to its citizens, and those who are legally present.  It is under no obligation to extend them to those who are not legally present.  The latter are, by definition, criminals (see the first point above);  and, like other criminals who are US citizens, they are subject to the forfeiture (temporary or permanent) of some or all of their civil and human rights (e.g. the right to vote, the right of freedom of movement or association, etc.).  They may expect humane treatment, but only insofar as their criminal status merits it.  That's the way it is, for our citizens as well as illegal aliens.
  • “Sanctuary” would become a constructive, constitutional, universal concept, not a purely reactive one against police powers. - The word 'sanctuary' has a defined meaning.  It is not a place where one may flout the law with impunity;  it's a place where, after having flouted the law, one seeks refuge.  The sanctuary itself is not a place where one may continue to flout the law! - yet, by definition, that's what 'sanctuary cities' offer;  a place where illegal aliens may continue their illegal activities, without fear of the consequences.  Sorry.  That's illogical, and makes no sense whatsoever.  It's got nothing to do with what 'sanctuary' is supposed to be.
  • We deserve to be here because we have a human right to be - see the third point above.  No, illegal aliens do not have a human right to be here.  They may ask to be granted that right.  They may not demand it as a right in and of itself, merely because they are human beings.

This article illustrates precisely why progressive activists around the country are so wound up about President Trump's moves to enforce the immigration authority of the United States government against those who flout it.  Its headline also says a great deal:


Everyone’s wrong on immigration:
Open borders are the only way to defeat Trump
and build a better world


That's it, right there.  Immigration is merely a tool in the progressive toolbox, another way to defeat Trump and change the world into what they want it to be.  It's a means of applying pressure.  It's not an end in itself, as far as they're concerned;  it's a means to an end.

These people are insane.  Flatly insane.  They'll gleefully admit anyone and everyone to this country, in the name of human rights, despite the known and demonstrable risks to the safety and security of every one of us, and the intolerable burdens illegal immigration puts upon our economy, and upon every taxpayer, and upon every American who wants a job, but can't get one, because an illegal alien is taking it from him at a lower wage than the American would accept.

Illegal immigration is a clear and present danger to the safety, security and economic well-being of America and all Americans.  It must be stopped.  Period.  The views of the author of the above article demonstrate precisely why that's so important.  They must not be allowed to prevail.

Peter

Military education - with tongue firmly in cheek


I was amused to read an analysis of the classic children's novel 'The Wind in the Willows' as a military exercise.




I'm sure many overseas readers are familiar with the book by Kenneth Grahame, and the justly famous illustrations drawn for it by Arthur Rackham (as shown on the cover image above).  US readers may not be as familiar with the book, but it's well worth reading, even as an adult.  It's not a classic for nothing.  I grew up on it, amongst others.

I was therefore very amused to find that The Angry Staff Officer had written an article using 'The Wind in the Willows' as a study in 'small unit actions in warfare'.  Here's how it begins.

That sound? Oh, that’s just the clunking of heads hitting desks, as people react to their beloved childhood book being brought under the scrutiny of the military microscope. But really, we’d be doing an injustice to that mighty asymmetric warfighter, the Badger, if we neglected to share his courageous story with an entirely new generation of military strategists. Wind in the Willows is not a military work by any means. But the Battle for Toad Hall bears noting, because Kenneth Grahame unwittingly factored in some key elements of small unit warfare.

So, if you’ve nothing better to do, let’s begin deconstructing a childhood favorite, shall we?

The situation – if you recall from when your parents read you The Wind in the Willows – is as follows. Two heavily armed factions – the Weasels and the Stoats – have undermined the local power in the region; namely, that of Toad and Toad Hall. While Toad was a fairly unsteady leader – investing at random in items that took his fancy – he remained the rightful leader of the region. The usurping powers were led by the Chief Weasel who used his connections with organized crime to help build an armed force that could overpower Toad Hall. Taking advantage of a time when Toad was absent, the Weasels and Stoats infiltrated the seat of power and established themselves as the new brokers in the region.  The Weasels and Stoats were task organized into a garrison force and a sentry force. The garrison force was powerful, but was reluctant to leave the confines of their new base. It was mainly made up of Weasels. The sentry force consisted of Stoats which patrolled the outer cordon of Toad Hall and kept watch over main avenues of approach. Although originally paramilitary in nature, these two forces adopted militaristic overtones with conventional titles for their time in power. Both forces were heavily armed with rifles, although there was little to show that they had adequate training with them. The actions of the Weasels and Stoats destabilized the area and necessitated the mobilization of a strike force to retake Toad Hall and return the rightful leader to authority.

There's more at the link.

The analysis is a lot of fun for those trained in military small unit actions, and an interesting perspective on a childhood favorite book for those who are not.  Recommended reading.

Peter