The Noble Pundit

A Man Who Understands His Job

Thank the Lord for men like Tony Blair. In a recent discussion of a House of Commons vote last week, Blair basically told everyone (last two paragrpahs) that he is a leader and that if they don't like his policies that there are mechanisms for removing him.

During the Clinton years, I didn't really care for Tony Blair. He seemed to me to be weak and bumbling. After the election of GW, however, Blair seemed to find his voice and strength. He became a leader while GW was still fighting chads. When GW needed to a strong friend and ally, Blair was there. After 9/11, Blair was our most outspoken and most articulate ally.

If things don't start happening soon, Blair is likely to lose the support of the House of Commons. It would be a shame, because while he has not been a lapdog of the US (as many have accused him of being), he has been a true friend and a true guardian of the special Anglo-American bond. He has disagreed with us on many issues. He has taken actions that have frustrated us to no end. But when we went to the mat, he was there to help pick us up.

Tony Blair is a man to whom the US owes a debt. We need to do everything reasonable within our power to make sure that he doesn't pay the ultimate political price because of our taking too long. Tony understands the importance of being right over being popular. Let's make sure that he has a chance to be right, before he's gone.

More US Espionage

I guess somewhere along the way I got the wrong idea about espionage. I was always taught that is was a neccessary evil. We didn't really want to do it, but we had to in order to protect our interests.

But now I am being set straight in my ways. First the Guardian tells us that the US is unfairly spying on members of the UN Security Council (with quotes from members of European intelligence agencies about how we're going about it). Now, I find this article on CNN.com where the North Koreans are accusing us of making espionage overfilghts using our U-2s, EP-3s and RC-135s. How dare we take such action!

Obviously the US is violating world opinion against US espionage activities (it's still ok for eveyone else). The President and his Cabinet, espeically Condolezza Rice, had better be careful. After all, European intelligence could steal some damning documents and prove once and for all that we were spying to gain an advantage.

I believe that the next great denouncement from the world will come when they discover that our army uses real bullets, not just blanks like in the movies.

Allies, Enemies and Friends

I’ve been asked (ok, I asked myself – but I’m still somebody, right?) in light of what has happened today, for the wars in Iraq and against terrorism who are our allies, who are our friends and who are our enemies.

As I see it, it boils down roughly like this:

Allies: Britian, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, India, Israel, Eastern Europe, the Gang of Eight and now Pakistan (turning over that al-Qaeda guy pushed them onto this list)

Friends: Kuwait, Qatar, Mexico, China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey

Enemies: France, Germany, Syria, Iran, Belgium and the usual terrorist suspects.

A few friends deserve special mention. China and Russia are against us in the war in Iraq, for now, but both have been excellent partners in the war on terrorism. Also their stands against the war in Iraq are based on other reasons than blatant anti-Americanism. Both nations are open to dialogue and are acting in rational, if disagreeable to us, manners.

The Arab nations on the Friends list (excepting Turkey) are there mainly for there actions or non-obstructions of the coming conflict in Iraq. Kuwait and Qatar are pretty decent friends, although they have a ways to go before they get to the Allies list. Saudi Arabia and Egypt are right on the edge of falling to the Enemies list.

And Turkey. I really liked Turkey before today and I still like them. But their vote nearly plummeted them from being a pretty strong ally to being one of our enemies. There are in the Friends list by the thinnest of threads. I think the reports of them chanting in the streets “We are all Iraqis……” really doesn’t sit quite right with me. Sounds too much like a replay of the Palestinians after 9/11.

This list is simply my view of where a few nations rank in my mind. What are your views on where everyone stacks up?

Flash! The US Uses Espionage

Oh my God! The horror! The UK’s Guardian newspaper is now reporting that the US is spying on other members of the UN Security Council. The fact that other members of the Security Council are spying on us seems to be irrelevant (though it is mentioned in an oblique sort of way).

The whole purpose of espionage is to provide a nation with information that could be useful in decision making. Every single country in the world is involved in espionage. It should come as absolutely no surprise to anyone that we are looking for an advantage in applying pressure to other governments to see our point of view. The more we know about what pressures they’re susceptible to, the easier our job of convincing them becomes.

As far as I see it, the only revelation here is that we may not be spying to hard on the British.

The article loses some of its self righteous indignation when in the last paragraph it says:

The operation appears to have been spotted by rival organizations in Europe. “The Americans are being very purposeful about this,” said a source at a European intelligence agency when asked about the US surveillance efforts.

For the Europeans to make a statement like that, they would also have to be engaged in espionage, mainly directed at us. Seems a little like complaining that the cop was wrong when he sped to catch you. That argument doesn’t actually hold much water, does it?

The Guardian, being a left wing rag, also prints reports of complaints about US “hostility” recently, including threats to aid packages. First off, a foreign paper has no right to complain about our spending decisions. If we want to give money to third world countries, that’s our right; if we want to give that money back to Americans and tell the third world countries to go jump in a lake, that’s our right also. We have the money, we have the economic choice to make and we have to weigh the opportunity costs associated with every possible decision. And secondly, the situation with Turkey has really blown it for the rest of the world. We will now be looking at a whole lot more stick and very little carrot. Trying the more carrot, less stick didn’t work; doesn’t make sense to try it again.

Spying is part of international diplomacy. Like it or not, we will do everything we can to gain an advantage in negotiations. Yes, I’ve argued that America should hold itself to a higher standard than we ask of the rest of the world, but that doesn’t mean we have to take stupid actions just because someone doesn’t like what we do. We have our interests to protect. If you don’t like it, too bad.

Turkey Made A Turkey Of A Decision

OK, so I blew it. I obviously thought the Turks would be able to find a way to act in their own self interest. Instead they chose the easy way out and made the popular, but not neccessarily right, decision.

Steven Den Beste and Charles Johnson are both correct in there assessments that this decision will have far reaching consequences and unconsidered consequences for the Turkish people. In a few years, they will look back and rue this decision.

I still like Turkey. It took guts to bring this motion up in the face of substantial public opposition. It also proves that democracy can work in the Middle East, even when we don't agree with the decisions. The Turkish parliment has spoken, and we need to respect that and work through proper channels if we want to attempt to change the decision.

The war is still going to happen, even without Turkish involvement. This great democratic stand is going to be costly for Turkey. Their economy is still going to suffer that effects of war. Their supply of oil is now in serious jeopardy of being interrupted. And when the shooting starts, there won't be an Americans on the ground to protect Turkey or to protect those northern oil fields.

Of more consequence to the Turks however is what American reaction will be should there be another economic meltdown in Turkey, as there was in 2001. Back then, we really bailed them out of the consequences of poor decision making. We, the US, unilaterally pumped billions of dollars into support the Turkish Lira. If the lira comes under pressure again, the Turks will find out that the French and Germans simply don't have the neccessary capacity or willingness to help and they will also find that a pissed off US has a long memory.

I hope that the Turks are smart enough to stay out of northern Iraq. Turkish officials have publically stated their respect for the existing borders of Iraq. Shold they mess around with the Kurds in northern Iraq, they may find themselves staring at a pissed off American steamroller in a few short weeks. The Turks have blown this decision and have acted against their own self-interest. They would be wise to not do so again, as we probably won't be so kind if they decide to take unilateral action in northern Iraq.

Or Maybe Not........

Gees! I leave the house to go to a school fair with our middle child and reports have the Turks on board for the war; I come back and they've nullified the approval. I really wish they'd make up their minds already!

Actually, as I said in my earlier post, the fact that the opposition went through proper channels and had the measure declared unconstitutional is a blessing. It further proves the point that the Muslim culture and democracy are not mutually exclusive.

In the short term, this has got to put a kink in our war planning. I believe it was Geraldo Rivera on Hannity & Colmes the other night who said that today was being looked at as a go/no-go day. Which means that this delay may close a northern front in the war.

Longer term, I think that this bodes well as it cements Turkey as a model of stability if not consistency in the Middle East.

The Turks Come Through

I said it a few days ago, when push comes to shove, the Turks would prove their friendship once again. CNN.com is reporting that the Turks have agreed to allow US troops.

It was a close vote and one of some contention among the members of the Turkish parliament. But it appears that the deal is done.

Hopefully those waiting in the wings to form a new government in Iraq were taking notes. The Turks had a spirited debate and quite a bit of dissention on the issue. But they handled like a democracy. There weren’t any threats of a military coup or a religious uprising if one side didn’t win. Just a good hard fought debate with a fair vote at the end. The opposition has not completely accepted the results of the vote, but their fighting their case through the proper channels. Turkey has proven, once again, that a Muslim nation can have a successful representative government.

Up the slippery slope

Diplomacy is sometimes described as the art of being able to make distinctions. I have heard some anti-war activists asking the question “So if we attack Iraq, is Iran next? Or North Korea? Are we now going to invade every country with which we have a disagreement?” The answer lies in the distinctions made by diplomacy.

Just because we invade and conquer Iraq does not mean that we are required to invade Iran. We can draw a number of distinctions between Iran and Iraq. The biggest that I see is the current level of malevolence towards the West in general and the US in particular. Over the last few years it has felt like the theocracy in Iran was starting to weaken. We can probably effect a regime change in Iran without the need for a military intervention. Simply showing them that we are willing to take action when necessary and their seeing the improvements in the lives of ordinary Iraqis should help to begin a revolution of change. It may not be a bloodless revolution, but the Iranian people are ready. And unlike Iraq, they already have some basic rights, as witnessed by the occasional Pro-American demonstrations, which will make the revolution much easier to plan and effect. The theocrats in Iran don’t like the US, but the Iranian people by and large do like us and our freedoms. When the time and opportunity come, the Iranian people will take it upon themselves to destroy the cowardly theocracy.

Our anti-war friends also often make the argument that since North Korea already has the Bomb, we should invade them first as it is a more dangerous situation. I agree that the situation is potentially more dangerous, but in actuality we probably don’t have much to directly fear from the North Koreans. Yes the North Koreans have been taking advantage of our preoccupation with the Iraq situation to engage in some pretty loud saber rattling. But, there are only two reasons for a nation to engage in saber rattling. The first is as a serious warning. This form of saber rattling is generally short term-measuring in number of days or weeks. The other form of saber rattling is what you do when you have nothing else and you’re simply trying to bluff someone into believing that you’re going to do something you’re not capable of. The North Koreans realize that the are on the verge of an economic collapse caused by a lack of energy. So they’re threatening us with a war they cannot fight or win. Sure they may be able to wipe out a city or two with nukes, but they know that they don’t have the fuel needed to fight a real war. They will absolutely lose from an inability to move. Their leadership will go on trial for various crimes and communism will once again lose to the decadent capitalists. The North Koreans’ whole point is to bluff us into providing them with the oil needed to avoid collapse. It is their only hope of avoiding or putting off the inevitable. If we simply exercise patience and restraint in dealing with the North Koreans they will fall due to their own poor choices. We don’t need to invade, we just need to keep troops in the area to call their bluff. The North Koreans don’t want war and we know it.

And for the third question, no, we won’t invade everyone we disagree with. Otherwise we’d be marching on Paris and Berlin – again. The issue with Iraq is not a “disagreement.” It is about a dictator who has been repeatedly lying about weapons of mass destruction. It is about a dictator so ruthless that he will kill his own people. Its about protecting people of every nation from the evil whims of a man with no concern for any human life, save his own. It’s about doing what’s right. This isn’t a disagreement, this is a battle in the war to protect our way of life.

Every situation we encounter in world is different and needs to be analyzed two ways: in isolation and in light of what else is happening in the world. There are quite a few anti-war people who don't want to take the time to do a proper anaylsis. They want a one size fits all answer to every situation in the world. There isn't one, which is where the art of diplomacy and its distinctions comes into play.

Ignorance and Information

I’ve been following the coming UN resolutions and debates with some interest lately. I now view the situation not as a referendum on war with Iraq, but as an attempt by the UN in general, and Old Europe specifically, to establish sovereignty over the US. Old Europe has neglected its military for years and now wants to steal the US military capacity under the guise of preserving “peace in our time” and the need to follow world public opinion.

Something that many in politics and in the media are afraid to admit is that public opinion is more often shaped by ignorance than it is by an informed population. This isn’t to take the elitist view that the masses are ignorant, I just simply want to point out a basic fallacy of human nature. Until we understand the gravity of a situation, we tend to minimalize its importance.

Before September 11, nobody, except some hardcore hawks, was really all too concerned with Iraq or terrorism. Yeah, it was a problem, but we, as a nation, were ignorant of just how severe a problem terrorism actually was. But, then we gained the firsthand knowledge we needed to become informed and we quickly analyzed the situation, developed a plan and acted.

As we began analyzing the new situation we found ourselves in, we started to look at the traits of our new enemy. No concern for human life, a willingness to lie and deceive for evil ends and leadership by maniacal dictators were just some of the traits we started to use in examining the rest of the world. We quickly found three nations, outside of Afganistan, in which these traits we blatantly obvious: Iran, Iraq and North Korea. Are there other nations where these traits exist? Probably. But since we are ignorant of them, we continue to move along as though there is no big problem outside of Axis of Evil.

Much of the rest of the world has not had to go through the period of analysis and education that we have. As a result, they are for the most part still working under the old paradigm of ignorance. Since our actions and intentions in Iraq are based on the new paradigm under which we operate, we are viewed as aggressive simplistic cowboys. In time, the rest of the world will move from blissful ignorance to being properly informed. At that point, they will come to realize that the US was right, Saddam did harbor evil and his heart and needed to go. In the meantime we need to dismiss the neo-appeasers and exercise our national sovereignty. We are the last remaining superpower in the world. Sometimes the burden of leadership means having to take unpopular actions that are the right thing to do. One of our virtues is being able to make the right decision even when it is viewed by the public or world as the wrong thing to do. History will judge us on the results. I have no question it will be a favorable assessment.

Our military stands ready to visit Hell upon those that want to harm us. The US, if nothing else, is pragmatic. Unlike our allies in Old Europe, we understand that the world has not moved into a postmodern utopia where military might is unnecessary. Old Europe might not believe that we are pragmatic (that whole paradigm shift thing again), but they are starting to understand the importance of a strong military. They have begun the process of analyzation that we went through after 9/11. They’re processing it much more slowly than we did but they’re coming to the same conclusions. Which is why they are attempting to co-opt our military power through the UN. They know that they will need us to defend them, but they’re too proud of their postmodernism to admit they might have been wrong. History will not be as kind to them.

George Soros - not a policy expert

George Soros was a pretty good currency trader. He is not, however, someone who should be sticking his nose into the realm of foreign policy decisions. The Pittsburgh Post Gazette recently had a somewhat poorly edited article out there about Mr. Soros that I’d like to take a deeper look at.

It starts out by laying the background information about the speech. Almost immediately the quote comes up:

“Soros said the Bush administration had a ‘visceral aversion to
international cooperation’ which is why it is willing to ignore world
opinion in its rush to wage war with Iraq.”

I guess twelve years, 17 (soon to be 18) UN resolutions and numerous warnings- not to mention a pretty broad coalition is a sign of “visceral aversion to international cooperation.”

“Those who are not with us, are against us……..”

I think it was that if you are not with us you are with the terrorists, a small but significant change in meaning for the statement.

“This is an imperialist vision in which the US leads and the rest of
the world follows.”

If only those French and Germans would stick to their scripts, we’d be so much better off.

Rumsfeld and Ashcroft have “an exaggerated view of their own
righteousness”

Rumsfeld is just happy that chicks dig him and Ashcroft is still ticked about that losing to a dead guy thing.

“His solution, Soros said, is for the Bush administration to live by
the same rules it seeks to impose on the rest of the world.”

And what would those be? Honesty? Respect? Standing for principal? What are these mysterious rules that we obviously know nothing about? Can someone clue me in?

From there the article starts into disjointed rambling about all kinds of useless information, including a two paragraph blurb about Paul O’Neill that makes you wonder if the writer was trying to slam Mr. O’Neill, or if he was trying to paint him as a friendly buffoon.

The article then continues to talk about the massive losses Mr. Soros suffered in the Russian debt default and with other poor investment choices. But in a nice twist of irony, Soros compared what he feels are the Bush policy failures with his own investing success. If success is getting crushed in a massive debt default, let Bush make every mistake he can! Until then, Mr. Soros needs to stick to talking about investing.

If only I could write like this....

Have I ever mentioned how much I enjoy reading the essays of Victor Davis Hanson? If not, consider this your notification.

The essay he posted today about the repetition of history was absolutely wonderful to read. I enjoy drawing parallels between previous historical events and what is happening today, but Mr. Hanson has taken it to a new level. In all my considerations of the parallels of the WWII era to today, I never would have thought of Tariq Aziz as the modern day Ribbentrop. But Mr. Hanson draws many parallels that I probably never would have considered.

If you haven’t read the essay, go do it and then read his past essays. Even when you disagree with him, it never feels like wasted time.

Unfair Exploitation

My girlfriend will be so thrilled. The war has, at least temporarily, claimed its first television casualty, a new reality show, Around the World in 80 Dates. Since she hates “reality TV” even more than I do, I’m sure she’ll be jumping for joy at the news.

I wonder if the producers realize just how insensitive they really are. They said that they were going to delay the show even through they did not “pass through Iraqi airspace or probably anywhere within 1000 miles of Iraq.” That’s very noble of them to not put their people at risk, but that tells me they don’t think much of Middle Eastern women. Otherwise they’d be planning to head over to the region. Don’t they know that Middle Eastern women are out to prove that they can “hook up” with the best bimbos in the world? These women need to proved that they can be exploited by Western TV just like their male family members are exploited by the region’s theocratic thugocracies.

I want to see someone protesting the unfair lack of exploitation of Middle Eastern women. Cut the "war for oil" stuff and protest something worthwhile, the equal and unabridged right to be a TV bimbo.

Good Commercial for why we fight

I like this commercial. It is a great visual aid for one of the multitude of reasons that we will fight the war against Saddam and why it is important to do so.

The commercial was produced by KVI 750 AM in Seattle. They are requesting donations to help to air the spot as much as possible.

War for Oil Price Relief?

I recently saw an article talking about how oil was about to hit $40 per barrel. The US economy cannot survive for very long if it stays at that kind of price level. Unfortunately, I fear that we have reached a point where the timing of the commencement of hostilities will be dictated by the need to provide price relief in the oil markets. While the war still won’t be about the oil (it’s more about liberation of an oppressed people and a pre-emptive defense of the American way of life), this will give the appeasement wackos there war for oil ammunition for the next round of the longer term battle.

I don’t believe that the US (or our allies) are intended to go into Iraq and take over the oil fields for the purpose of pumping massive quantities of oil for our SUVs. We may temporarily appropriate some of the oil revenues to offset some of the costs of occupation and rebuilding, but ultimately the Iraqis will benefit from the oil revenues.

But that still leaves the question of how a war will reduce the price of oil if the US doesn’t take the oil fields as the spoils of war. It’s actually pretty simple. The price of oil, like every other commodity, is priced based on two factors: the intrinsic value and the risk premium. Oil’s intrinsic, or real, value seems to be right around $14-$15 a barrel. We know this because when the world is calm and the oil supplies are safe and stable, oil tends to bottom out around $16-$18 a barrel. In a peaceful environment, the risk premium is mainly related to the chance of a ship sinking or a pipeline leaking or the very remote risk of a sudden war at that time.

In a turbulent time like today, the risk of oil supplies being interrupted greatly increases. The real value of oil hasn’t gone up – it’s still around $14-$15 a barrel – but the risks have. As a result, the oil importers are willing to pay much much more than intrinsic value to ensure that they will get a shipment that allows them to keep their refineries open and their people employed.

What worries me is that if we back down right now and say “Oops. Sorry. Just kidding, go ahead and keep on ignoring the UN and keep on oppressing your people” we will permanently raise the risk premium on imported oil. The long term risk premium is now around $2-$4 a barrel. To give in now, would embolden the maniacal dictators of the region and would great increase the chances of an interruption in the supplies of oil. As a result the risk premium would rise in relation to the perceived new risks in the oil market.

Despite all the efforts of the environmentalists (and as a result of the efforts of the environmentalists), the US is still way too dependent on oil. Our entire transportation system is based on the consistent and cheap supply of oil. Our road vehicles run on gas or diesel, our railroads run on diesel, and our airlines are dependent on a ready supply of avgas. According to the Department of Energy, just over 20% of our national energy production for 1999 was from oil (couldn’t find more update numbers, sorry).

Unfortunately, there is not a quick fix to the situation. The critical area in our information-based economy is to reduce the amount of oil used in the production of electricity. The most efficient way to do this, in my opinion, is to expand our use of nuclear energy. It would be interesting to see if the environmentalists would support a coal plant over a nuke plant. That issue, by itself could become a defining choice in the maturation of the environmentalist movement in the US. I have heard unsubstantiated rumors in the past that the railroads were looking at coal power again, as coal is – supposedly - significantly less expensive than oil, even when oil trades at $20 a barrel. A diversification of power sources in the railroad system can’t hurt as the railroads use copious amounts of diesel fuel. We need to get an reliable automobile powered by a fuel cell out in the dealer showrooms and on the road. The airlines would do well to look for alternative sources of power, but I’m not aware of any out there and I also think that the airlines are going to be supplanted to a large degree by the internet. Airlines derive a huge chuck of their business from business travelers. The internet is taking those travelers away, leaving just the low yield tourist. The airlines are going to have to go through a massive restructuring and as they find ways to cut costs, competition is going to drive the consumption of avgas down.

It is a pity that the efforts of our troops to liberate a people and to protect American values are going to be lost in the rhetoric of “war for oil.” Yes, war will reduce the risk premium on oil prices, but oil isn’t the overriding concern. We need to explore alternative fuel sources and take this argument away from those who are simply anti-American. It’s too bad we haven’t done it already and that we can’t do it in time to get the debate down to facts, not rhetoric.

Who's naive?

On CNN, Lou Dobbs has been interviewing a gentleman, Robert Kagen, who is with the Carnegie Endowment for Peace (I might have the group’s name wrong). He made an interesting comment that I think deserves some deeper examination.

Mr. Kagen stated that France and Germany, due to their previous experiences, have begun to believe that nations should be moving beyond military power. He states that the concept of a non-militaristic world is supported by both the leadership and the citizens of the two countries.

The US is often of accused by other members of the world community of a sort of naïve idealism. As a nation we tend to believe that any problem or issue can be solved through hard work, forthrightness and generosity. I’ll admit that there are times when we are naïve. But we also can adjust to the idea that difficult situations can require difficult decisions to be made. And despite our naivety we don’t back away from making the difficult decisions.

But the French and Germans are showing signs of delusional naivety. And they are trying to force those delusions back on us. To think that a conflict with a belligerent bully can always be solved through dialogue is absurd. There are times when he must be restrained by the use of force. Some people just don’t understand anything except force.

If the French and the Germans want to believe that continued dialogue with Saddam will bring “peace in our time”, they can be my guest. Just get the hell out of the way when the tanks start rolling.

An error at any age

Some people amaze me. You would think that with all the heightened terror alerts and such that someone might remember having put a hand grenade into the laptop bag. The man referred to it as “a stupid middle-aged error.” When we people learn that stupidity is not a reason for breaking the law?

Turkey takes another small step forward

I was just watching “On The Record” with Greta Van Susteren on Fox News. Tonight she was doing an in studio interview with Turkey’s ambassador to the US O. Faruk Logoglu. Greta served up all the appropriate softball questions that you throw up to a dignitary of a nation whose help we need, but she did get in one question of some interest to me. She asked what Turkey’s role was in the coalition and how it was affected by the Kurdish issue.

Mr. Logoglu made all the proper answers about being a partner in the coalition and Turkey wanting to do its part, yada, yada, yada. But then he said – and this was an important statement to me- that the integrity of Iraq’s borders was of great importance not only to Turkey but to the stability of the region. He also said that Turkey would not be entering northern Iraq with any intentions of taking action on the Kurdish issue.

Now I realize that he is a politician without any real policy making power. You have to assume, however, that he is speaking from a position of knowledge (not to do so would put his country in great peril of damaging an important relationship – and he knows it) and that the Turks have basically delinked a resolution of Iraq and a resolution of the Kurdish issue. If he is accurate, this is a big step in the right direction.

Now if he could only get the Turkish parliament to hurry up………..

When is 183 less than 150?

I wish someone could explain the logic the Iraqi’s are using in making their pronouncements about these al-Samoud 2 missiles. First they say the missiles are perfectly legal. Then Tariq Aziz says that it’s not as bad as it sounds. The guidance system is so bad that they can’t even make sure that the missile hits within 20 km of its intended target. Then the missiles are legal again. Then they say they will scrap their stockpile of illegal missiles. Now they want to talk about it for a while.

If this isn’t proof of Saddam’s attempt to circumvent the UN requirements, I don’t know what its going to take. The UN stated a maximum range of 150 km. These missiles can go up to 183 km (they might go the wrong way, but that’s just a minor issue for the Iraqis).

This is a clear violation. No ifs ands or buts about it. We gave them a number, they exceeded it. How will the French, Germans and other Saddam apologists try to convince the world the 183 is less than 150. Or why this violation of a UN mandate is ok (but then I want to know what it will take to make our upcoming violation of a “UN mandate” ok).

Comments and Challenges

Looks like my post about the need for an Arab renaissance has stimulated some pretty good debate. Thank you. I was hoping to put forth ideas that inspired discussion :-)

I wanted to respond to a few of the comments, but I felt that a public response might be more appropriate to help expand on and to clarify some of my thoughts.

Chipper has pointed out, correctly, that most of what I talked about was theoretical big picture stuff and was lacking in the details. This comes mainly from my approach to analyzing a problem. I tend to look at the big picture first and then once I’ve decided on the general direction I need to go, I start hammering out the details. This essay was written just a few hours after having first read Mr. Den Beste’s article. As a result, it has my initial big picture thoughts.

I’ve been thinking about Chipper’s questions since I first read them. As for the military related questions, I honestly don’t know the answer. It may be (and I hope it is) a short occupation, followed by a long term basing commitment – similar to what we have with Germany and Japan. But I honestly don’t know how long a commitment we’re in for or what our exit strategy should be. I assume (I know, stupid thing to do.) that our nation’s leaders have already thought out our exit strategy. If not, they better get working on it!

As for the education, I believe that it has to be approached in a number of different ways. Creating a real education system based on the pursuit of knowledge, not religious truth or a dictator’s pet thoughts, will be the long term key to ensuring stability in the Iraq. Looking shorter term, there are a couple of things that we can do to help expedite Iraq’s move towards the Enlightenment phase. First we need to engage in almost a propaganda campaign to reinforce the concept of basic human rights (no torture, summary executions, fair trials, etc). This may require the military to get involved with surprise inspections of Iraqi jails and law enforcement centers top ensure compliance. Next, I believe that a business and agricultural education program would be extremely beneficial in helping to make Iraq more self-sufficient (which will help with the Arab pride issue). I will also help to diversify their economy beyond just exporting oil and will bring in more hard currency to raise the standard of living in the nation. I’m sure that we will find other educational needs to fill, but we need to make sure that we steer the education towards the pursuit of knowledge above all else.

Chipper also asked what kind of government we should put in place and Mr. Wells pointed out, quite correctly I believe, that forcing an American style democracy on Iraq would be a bad idea. I think that we need to set up certain parameters (representative government, secular, respectful of minority groups, etc.) but within those parameters, let the Iraqi people decide what kind of system to put in place. Maybe they’ll decide that they want an American democracy. Maybe they’ll decide to set up a parliamentary system like most of Europe has. Maybe they’ll want a strong executive; maybe they’ll want a strong legislative branch. Those are decisions that the Iraqi people need to make, not the US. Mr. Wells is correct in his assessment that if we go in and force a government on Iraq we will breed extremely deep resentment, which will put us in a worse off position for trying- right now the resentment is only superficial. Caution and cooperation should be the key words in helping to establish the post-war Iraqi government.

Mr. Wells also brings up the potential cost of Turkish participation. As I stated in an earlier post, I believe that the Turks are good allies for us. Their request for money doesn’t really bother me all too much. But if they’re demanding free reign over the Kurds in Turkey and northern Iraq as part of their price – it is too much. Part of the reason we are stating for going to war is humanitarian – we want to liberate the Iraqi people from a repressive regime. If we sell out the Kurds to Turkey, given Turkey’s past record with them, it would give our enemies ammunition that we were hypocritical. We rescue one people from bondage only to allow another to be put under the boot. It is possible for an ethnic group to be divided across a national border, without there being the need for revolution (look at Mexicans on both sides of the US-Mexican border). The key is respect for the views of the group and a fairly open border that allows the group to satisfy its social needs.

I really appreciate the responses I’ve gotten so far. They’ve forced me to think through my position in more detail and have also taught me some new things. Keep the comments and challenges coming!

Is Saddam About To Raise The South Again?

Dang! Thought I was going to get to bed, but I got sidetracked by Glenn Reynolds. He had a link to a very interesting essay by Donald Sensing about America’s two different approaches to war Wilsonianism and Jacksonianism.

I guess I had never realized just how deep the Southern approach to life runs through me. Both of my parents are from up north and you would think that their influence would have tempered any of the Southern traits that I might have picked up, but no. That whole pride and honor and respect stuff still gets in the way of decision making.

I really didn’t care too terribly much about this mess with Iraq, until they released that 12,000 page garbage “report”. Sure, before that I was concerned about Iraq, but it was certainly not in the forefront of my mind. But that report……it just struck me as very disrespectful for the Iraqi government to waste 12,000 pages lying to us. They must have taken us for fools to send us that much BS. Logically, I knew that the report was going to be full of lies long before it was ever sent. But the gut reaction to them actually sending that trash………It was so Southern; so Jacksonian. All of the sudden, I went from not really paying too much attention to the Iraq situation to it being something that I try to follow very closely. And once I was satisfied that we had proven our case, I have been on board 100% ever since.

Mr. Sensing believes that the war in Iraq will be a “Northern” war. He’s probably right. I think that we will probably approach it from with a rational and restrained plan. I just think that have got to be many more people like me who are just flat out pissed about being disrespected. I’m guessing that one little boo-boo by Saddam and he’s going to be dealing with the righteous might and fury of the Jacksonian US military. If so, God (or Allah) help him, ’cause nothing on this Earth can.

Can't stay on 13 overnight!

My last post on the need for an Arabian Renaissance was post number 13. While I would love to sit here and write about more stuff (I'm still trying to figure out what and how I want to write about American Airlines considering Chapter 11), it's nearly 11:30 and I have to get some sleep before I'm late for that work stuff tomorrow. But the superstitous part of me can't stay with 13 posts, so here's #14. Now it's safe to go to bed.

An Arab Renaissance?

I have always enjoyed reading Steven Den Beste’s USS Clueless site as he always seems to have some kind of a post that makes me think. Today is no exception. Mr. Den Beste has posted a rather lengthy dissertation on the overall war between the west and the Muslim culture.

Overall, I agree with his assessment of the situation. He is accurate in almost every respect, but as I read the article each time (I read it three times) something just wasn’t sitting quite right. At first I thought I didn’t agree with the idea that the Muslim culture was diseased. I think of more as being poisoned but the nutcase zealots in power. Diseased to me indicates that there is an outside influence (possible even just fate) that has brought about a situation, whereas poisoned would be more accurate as the Islamofacists are basically killing the Muslim culture and replacing it with a culture of Jihad. But as I kept reading it over and over, I realized that Mr. Den Beste was essentially saying that the culture was in dire straights without actually pointing the figure of blame onto anyone as to why the culture was ill.

Then it hit me. I believe that there is a fairly strong parallel between Europe in the Middle Ages and the Islamic cultures now. Both could be viewed as technologically backward, militaristic, religious fanatics under pressure from an outside culture (in medieval Europe it was the Byzantines/Ottomans, today it is the US). But just as the pressure was mounting from the East, Europe experienced the Renaissance and quickly caught up to and overtook its Eastern counterpart. The Renaissance really saved Western culture from a precipitous fall from grace. We were about to implode under the weight of hypocrisy, feudalism and backwardness.

The conversion in the West from idiocy to intelligence took a few hundred years (roughly from 1450-1700) during which we discarded poor beliefs and adopted new ones. Every previous civilization of note (Greek, Roman, Egyptian, etc.) all collapsed because they could not go through the self-examination necessary for a cultural rebirth. Europe was the first to do so, which meant much trial and error and a slow process.

Mr. Den Beste offered Japan as an example of how a military occupation can help to bring about positive change in a nation without actually forcing them to convert to another belief system. He is absolutely correct in his assessment that Japan would not have come as far as it has without US intervention. But I would submit that Japan had actually begun its Renaissance in the 1850’s after Commodore Perry opened it to the West. Japan was well on it’s way at the time of WWII; the American occupation just helped to speed up the end of the Japanese Renaissance and brought the nation into the same era of thought as the rest of the world (human rights, importance of international commerce, value of strong manufacturing base, and so on). We basically turned the nation of Japan back over to the Japanese just as they made the transition from Renaissance to Enlightenment.

I would argue that a simple military occupation in Iraq would be doomed to failure. The Muslim culture still seems to be stuck in its own version of the Dark Ages. As a culture the West is getting better at helping nations through the Dark Ages/Renaissance/Enlightenment transitions. Japan took just under 100 years; Russia was even less (Czar to Communism to Representative government with individual freedoms). If we want to be successful in our quest to neutralize the threat of Arab failure, we need to concentrate on bringing the culture through it’s own Renaissance.

The Islamic/Arab culture is not diseased in the manner Mr. Den Beste theorized; it is diseased but it is also in need of a rebirth. The role of the West in general, and the US in particular, should not be that of an unrelenting surgeon attempting to transplant good ideas in place of bad ideas. We instead need to take on more of a mid-wife role - coaching and cajoling the patient through the process of giving rebirth to itself. Some surgery is obviously necessary, as evidenced by the hemorrhaging cancer Saddam, but overall we just have a violently ill patient that doesn’t know it’s pregnant. Let’s make sure that we administer the proper medication of education as soon as possible of we suture the wounds of the cancer removal; we need to make sure we nurture and inoculate the patient, not just temporarily save it only to see it killed by another cancer.

Blinding Flash of the Obvious - II

Oh, those observant French! In a BFO (blinding flash of the obvious) moment, the French Prime Minister has declared that war would split the international community! He also declared that it would be illegitimate.

I wonder if anyone has ever told the good prime minister that war always involves two nations (even when one is just the French throwing their hands in the air). By definition there would have to be a split it the international community for a war to occur. And the nation that is attacked will always declare the was to be an illegitimate infringement on their internal affairs. I don’t think that there is a nation in the world that would accept an attack on it as legal.

I wonder if the next pronouncement will be something along the lines of the fact that the Iraqi desert has sand in it. Where we would be without the help of allies like this?

Another Blinding Flash of the Obvious

Sitting here reading through the various news items this morning while waiting for the phone call to start my unemployment hearing and I came across an article talking about how the Bush administration wants to reduce the number of people taking advantage of the free/reduced school lunch program. My position is that if the family doesn't qualify, they don't qualify. The rules are in place for a reason. The administration is simple talking about having some sort of a verification mechanism. Maybe even something like if you get food stamps, you automatically qualify for free lunch. For people truly in need, this would make life even easier.

But advocates for the poor are opposed to the idea. Why? Because "advocates for the poor accuse the department of inflating the number of ineligibles to come up with new criteria that will result in removing children from the program." OK, the administration was claiming 27% of the recipients of free or reduced lunches didn't qualify. Others have said that that number is too high, but they agree that the problem is significant. No one propsed new criteria, only verification of the existing information that is collected.

Nobody has disagreed that too many unqualified kids are getting a free or reduced lunch. The idea of verification is to reduce the amount of money spent unnecessarily (maybe as much as $1.8 billion last year). The only way to reduce that amount is to remove the families that don't qualify. It looks like the advocate quoted above has realized that verification would weed out unqualified families and they believe that to be absolutely wrong as it would reduce the number of familes in the program.

I love it when the socialists screw up the redistribution of wealth. Hasn't anybody told them that your supposed to steal from rich to give to the poor if you're a socialist? Only the lawyers are supposed to steal from the rich to give to other rich.

Trying to pop the weasel

There are rumors floating around out there that we are pressuring the French to not veto a new UN resolution. If this is true it is wrong.

We keep insisting that no one else can dictate our foreign policy to us. Similarly we should not be able to dictate foreign policy to any one else. Hypocrisy is not good policy.

If the French choose to veto a new resolution, there is nothing to say that we can't ignore it, just as they have ignored the breaches of 1441 (not my favorite document to begin with, but again it's that hypocrisy thing).

We need to let the French, Germans and others decide whose side they want to be on. If it is ours, we need to welcome them, even if we are wary of them. If they want to protect the enemy, we just need to make sure that we treat them accordingly. If their anti-war stance is principled and canbe logically defended with fact , then we need to respect them for their opinion. If they're trying to cover something up or have ulterior motives..........well, all bets should be off then.

And if they actually defend Saddam, then they probably shouldn't be friends of ours anyways.

1441 was wrong

I support the coming war in Iraq. I believe that Saddam presents a clear and present danger, not only to the US but also to the entire civilized world. I just have a little problem with the process we used to arrive at the conclusion.

The US Constitution provides for due process. The burden of proof in any trial is always on the prosecution. We do this to prevent forcing a defendant to try to prove a negative. By forcing the state to investigate the issue and to prove the truth we help to ensure a fair and accurate hearing (This of course all assumes that everyone involved acts in a completely ethical manner and performs their job flawlessly. Since the system is run by humans that isn’t always the case, so we have an appeals process to right wrongs.).

UN Security Council Resolution 1441 runs completely counter to that idea of fairness. In 1441, the UN required Iraq to prove that it did not have weapons of mass destruction (prove a negative). Because of the always fluid situation, it could be argued that the data provided as the proof of WMD non-existence is out of date and therefore Iraq is in material breach (after all they could build more weapons after the report was delivered).

Colin Powell rectified this mistake during his presentation to the UN Security Council. The information he provided is sufficient and damning enough, in my mind, to prove the US position that Saddam is enough of a threat to risk sending troops into harms way. The prosecuter proved the case despite the resolution requiring Iraq to disprove it.

When we go to war, we should not use a material breach of 1441 as the basis for our decision. Many will argue that 1441 is sufficient as it was written by an international body to enforce an international decision. I think that that is a crock. One of the great virtues of the US is our willingness to hold ourselves to a higher standard than the rest of the world expects of us or themselves. 1441 puts an undue burden on Iraq. It doesn’t meet the standards of US justice and should therefore be unacceptable to us for making a war decision.

Our war decision should be based on factual, solid, reliable evidence. What Powell presented at the UN meets that standard. If the government is not willing to go to war based on what has been presented, they need to present more evidence or need to do more investigating. We can let our friends and allies take shelter in supporting us due to a violation of 1441 (which there have been real, documented breaches of the resolution), but we need to hold ourselves to the higher standard.

If we’re going to send our military into combat to defend our way of life, we owe it to them to live that way of life. Period.

UPDATE: Looks like Steven Den Beste has gotten a link to an article that makes a similar argument, but with a very different conclusion. I believe that Mr. Den Beste is correct in arguing that the innocent until proven guilty concept is unworkable in international politics, but I also think that the preponderance of the evidence is an acceptable standard. The US has met the preponderance standard. I'm not thrilled with the prospect of an upcoming war, but we have a legitimate reason for going and the alternative would really, really suck.

Mr. Saddam?

Another question that came up was why is it that Saddam is always referred to by just his first name? Nobody ever says "Well George W. said this today" or "Tony said that today" or "Jacques got in the American's way by"......well, you get the point. What makes Saddam so special that he gets first name treatment from everyone?

Maybe someone in my vast throngs of readership can provide the answer.

Another JudeoChristian Plot!

It was pointed out to me today that the pronunciation of Saddam Hussein's name has changed recently. Previously it had been "Sa-Dam" or "Sa-Dom", but always as a two syllable word.

Recently, more and more commentators and world leaders having been calling him "Sadom" - one syllable, which sounds suspciously like Sodom - the evil city that along with Gomorrah was destroyed by God for wickedness.

Could the vast JudeoChristian conspiracy be out to equate Saddam to a people that suffered the wrath of God?

Liberal vs. Conservative Commentators

I had a friend recently comment on my new blog. He said “you’re a Bill O’Reilly”

This friend knows that I watch O'Reilly and Hannity & Colmes. He knows that before the AM radio went out on my car that I used to listen to Neal Boortz and Sean Hannity. But he could never understand why I didn’t particularly like any of them.

It’s kind of funny. My beliefs run more in line with all the conservative names mentioned, but the guy I most like to watch is – Alan Colmes – the self professed liberal who I almost never agree with. But, he actually debates people. He uses logic and fact to back up his positions that he states very reasonably and he will actually make you think about stuff. I love his Tuesday night spars with Bill Bennett. Two men on opposite sides of the political spectrum, who respectfully discuss issues on which they disagree and they are willing to admit when they agree.

I once heard a commentator say that liberals just interrupt, interject and intimidate in debates. It was said that they believed an argument was won by the volume of the voice, not the words it spoke. I’m finding more and more that that is actually the case with the conservative talk show hosts.

O’Reilly recently had a gentleman on who was arguing that hip-hop music was not harmful to American children. I happen to believe that it is harmful, as does O’Reilly, but I was really disappointed in the way O’Reilly attempted to present his argument. He started out well enough, but very quickly degenerated in to demagoguing hip hop music as “mind poison” He interrupted his guest at least three times to “tell” the man how hip hop was “mind poison.” Had Bill stuck to his factual arguments it would have been a wonderful debate. But instead I started to tune it out because of the rhetoric.

Hannity isn’t too bad on his radio program, although he has a tendency to raise his voice to liberal callers and I have heard him hang up on them and follow the call with snide comments. My real problem with Hannity, however lies in his performance on TV. In most shows, he will say at least three times “During the Reagan years” or some variation thereof. Don’t get me wrong, I liked Reagan and am very cognizant and appreciative of the effects of his administration, but he’s been out of office for nearly 14 years. It’s time to move on. We can look back for lessons, but we shouldn’t live there. Hannity sometimes acts like he still lives there. Plus he is way to easy on Republicans that come on the show.

Boortz I think is the best of the radio bunch. He does make you think and he has a sharp mind. Listen to his analysis of the news. He always does an excellent job of highlighting the important stuff. But again, his demeanor with disagreeing callers leaves something to be desired. Boortz is one of the worst for raising his voice, interrupting and hanging up on callers. Makes for good entertainment, but not for good debate.

Conservatives have long derided liberals as being unwilling to debate in a rational manner. There is still some truth to this statement when it comes to national politicians, but that’s only because politicians have staffs to think for them. The conservative commentators need to be careful that they don’t become what they believe the liberals to be.

Allies, New and Old

So our friends the Turks are looking like they will come through for us again (see about 2/3 of the way down on the article). Ever since 9/11 we in the United States have been reassessing who our friends are and are not. And the Turks have been proving themselves to be excellent allies in a time of need.

Some would probably complain that the Turks are taking advantage of our time situation to extract the maximum amount of money from the US. So what? It’s not like the Turks have hidden it from us. They have told us from the get go what the price of using their bases would be. It has always been our option to accept that price or to attempt to negotiate. Turkey is entitled to compensation for the use of their land and for the risks that they are taking by allowing us to attack Iraq from their land. The only question is if they are asking too much for what we are getting. We were the ones to make that decision.

I’ve heard many people say that their upset with the obstructionism of France, Germany, Russia, and recently Turkey. It is frustrating to see our supposed allies standing in the way of our righting a wrong, but the France and Germany are much more annoying than Russia and Turkey.

The Russians, like the Turks, have not made any bones about why they oppose a war in Iraq at this time. Since we know that they share our concern about the WMD in Iraq, but that they are also concerned about their business deals with Iraq, we know how to negotiate with them. I’m guessing that there are high level meetings taking place to ensure continuity of the Russian deals, even after the regime change. I believe that we will get the issues hammered out and the Russians will ultimately not stand in our way.

The French and the Germans, however, are acting like they have something to hide or protect. The Germans, I think, are suffering from a failed government holding power too long. Schroeder should have given it up a while ago. The only thing that works to keep him in power is good old anti-Americanism. He’s just starting to push it far enough to really poison the US/German relationship and to cause long term damage to the German people. The French, I’m afraid, are trying to hide something more sinister. I don’t know what, but it would probably be a good guess to think that they had been supplying Saddam with much of his weapons capabilities. I also believe that Chriac miscalculated and fed the US/French relationship with a little too much hemlock.

I’m not sure that we’ll be able to get another UN resolution passed. But really, we don’t need to. 1441 provided an adequate enough “final warning” from the world and in reality, there is only a cease-fire agreement in place that keeps us from going in. There is no peace treaty; we are technically still at war with Iraq.

Since we started down this road last year, our true friends have been proving themselves. Our allies support us, even though they don’t always agree with us. When Turkey asked for assistance in defending themselves against possible attack, we didn’t debate the need to defend them, we made it happen- even when it involved circumventing an obstructionist. The Turks have reciprocated. They know that their bases are important to us. And ultimately I think that they would have let us use for less money when it came right down to it. But we can’t fault them for trying to extract the maximum concession possible from us. It just made sense for them to try. To our list of traditional allies, we need to add Turkey.

But while we’re re-evaluating nations we need to remove France from our list of allies and at least take Germany off the list of reliable allies. It’s a shame that the nation that gave us Lafayette is proving itself to be simply anti-British. Any opportunity to disrespect the British is a good opportunity to the French. Perhaps one day the French government will mature to the point that they understand that it isn’t always wise to support maniacal, murderous dictators simply because they are also anti-British.

Chapter 7 for United?

Reports are floating around that UAL Corporation, the parent company of United Airlines, is downplaying the possibility that they may have to file for Chapter 7 bankruptcy liquidation in the event of war with Iraq. They say they will cut capacity and staffing while asking the government for more money, instead of filing Chapter 7.

United is one of the great names in aviation history. It owns and operates the “crown jewel” of the first Pan Am- the trans-Pacific routes. It is one of the largest airlines in the world and has one of the most comprehensive route structures in the world. But they have been in Chapter 11 for several months now and they are still having financial troubles.

It would be a shame to see such a name disappear from the skies. But sometimes, great names don’t mean much. If a company is uncompetitive, it needs to liquidate. That is part of what makes our economy work. Well run companies survive and thrive, while weak companies either turn it around or go out of business.

Since deregulation of the airline industry, several of the “sacred cows” of the airline industry, particularly Eastern and Pan Am, have been allowed to wither and die. Should UAL come to the government for more money, the government needs to look at the business plan for the airline. If the airline business plan is weak or not feasible, the government needs to be willing to let the airline die. It is simply part of the maturation of the industry since deregulation.

Another airline liquidation will cause massive upheavals for the traveling public and tough times for the unemployed workers. But that is part of a capitalistic economy. One airline’s failure is another airline’s opportunity. The government should not get into the business of subsidizing failing businesses, no matter how steeped in history the company is.

Europeans against tax cuts?

Interesting revelation that just came out of the recent G-7 meeting that shows just how different the US is from our allies in Europe.

It seems our friends in France and Germany, along with the ECB president Duisenberg and the chair of the “eurogroup” of EU finance ministers, don’t like our plan to cut taxes in the US. The British and Canadians understand our reasoning for cutting taxes (their economies are set up very similarly to ours) and agreed, in essence, with the US position that an occasional deficit is ok.

The first thought that comes to mind is that it is none of the G-7’s business, and certainly not any business of France or Germany given their recent behavior, if we cut taxes. It’s bad enough that the EU (read: France and Germany) is attempting to meddle in our foreign affairs. They have absolutely no right to lecture us on financial matters.

But that leads to the question of why do they feel it is necessary to “assist” us. They’ll almost certainly make the argument that with today’s interrelated economies, it is impossible for one nation to make a change without their being a carry over effect to others. This is all true, but it still leaves open the real reason behind why they fear a US tax cut.

The chair of the “eurogroup” raises the specter of twin deficits – fiscal and balance of payments. He claims that they “may create sustainability risks.” Again, his comment is accurate, but he misses the point. We aren’t trying to run permanent deficits. We are considering running a deficit to stimulate demand. Increased demand across the board should lead to more sales for European companies. You would think that this would be acceptable to the Europeans.

But the Europeans are still concerned. Why? Let’s quickly compare the US economy to the European economies. In the US, the quest of a business is to maximize profits by minimizing expenses. This is usually achieved through economies of scale. Therefore, higher demand from tax cuts and deficit spending would lead to increased profits of US companies and better competitive strength in the world markets. The US economy would then grow out the deficits and life would be good in the US. But it would also prove the failings of the European economies – again.

The socialist model that the Europeans use is based on the idea that the economy exists only to support the social support net. Business profit is subordinated to the concept of wealth redistribution. With the new EU rules preventing the running of deficits, a European tax cut would lead to a reduction in social programs. Not a good situation if you’re a politician looking for re-election. The Europeans instead want to cut interest rates to try to stimulate their economy. But again, the goal is to increase tax revenue, not to increase business profits.

The US Federal Reserve has already cut interest rates about as far as they can realistically go. During the Feds rate cutting process the European Bank refused to follow suit, hoping to attract additional investments through better returns. This is not a bad idea, so long as the Bank doesn’t cripple the economy in the process. However, the European Bank allowed the EU economies to become desperately weak. They are now going to start taking the actions they needed to take a year ago.

The German government is very shaky right now. A swift US victory in the Iraq, combined with a tax cut that benefits the US people would almost certainly be enough to topple the German government, if it doesn’t fall sooner. For the Germans, opposing the US tax cut is a matter of governmental self-preservation.

The French government has a while before the next round of elections. But that would almost certainly put the current French government in a poor position going into a new election cycle. Again a quick victory in Iraq, which proves the French government to be nearly irrelevant in foreign affairs, combined with a US economy gaining strength due to the tax cuts would make the obstructionist government look like a really bad idea. For the French it is also a matter of self-preservation. However, it could also work to Chirac’s advantage if the US recovers enough to pull the French out of their economic malaise.

For the ECB, and to a smaller degree the EU finance ministers, this matter could be a critical juncture in determining the true powers of the ECB. If the ECB manages to pull Europe out of their current trouble, the Bank’s power will be almost as great as that of the US Federal Reserve. However, if the European governments view the situation as US growth pulling Europe up again, the ECB will be greatly weakened in the power it exercises over member nations.

The world economy is interrelated and a tax cut here will certainly have a residual effect on the Europeans. But regardless, the US has to make decisions on what is best for the US. Sometimes, that will mean listening to the Europeans; sometimes it means going our own way. This is a time to go our own way and cut taxes. The growth in the US economy will more than offset the instability that will come with the change in governments in Europe. Perhaps we can even hit the daily double and end up with more friendly governments in France and Germany. But even if we don’t, a tax cut will help to improve the lives of ordinary Americans and is therefore a good thing for the US.

So you want to know about me?

OK. Real quickly let me tell you a little about me and maybe that will answer some of your questions about where my crazy ideas come from.

I’m 29, attached but not hitched, BS in Business Admin from the University of Central Florida, lifelong resident of Florida currently residing in Winter Springs, spent five years working retail, three years with a major airline, and was a stockbroker for three years. I’m currently working as an office/administrative manager for a decent size interior design firm/furniture store in downtown Orlando.

I really started becoming truly cognizant of the world around me during the Reagan years, which has helped to really shape my worldview. Bush 41 wasn’t too bad; Clinton had his good points as well as his downfalls. Dubya is showing a lot of promise, but he still has a lot of work to do to become a great President. I don’t remember too much of Carter and nothing of Ford or Nixon.

Politically, I like the libertarian point of view (small non-intrusive government), but I’m also a realist and understand that a libertarian style government would still have its shortfalls. So I look for candidates that best fit the small government mold and work from there. Every election in that I’ve voted in, it always seems to be a choice of lesser evils. I’ve voted both Republican and Democrat – though I will admit to more Republican choices. It’s always just a matter of who will do best for the country (or will do the least damage) in my opinion.

My interests (and what I will write about most often) tend to be what some people refer to as “odd.” I have a very strong interest in both railroads and airlines. Most of the time, politics aren’t very important to me, but every once in a while I hit a political ranting mood and then it seems like I’m interested only in politics. I really enjoy history and how it can relate to the events we see happening around us today. I even sell ancient coins on my website http://www.cbnoble.com I enjoy reading and discussing our military (Disclaimer: I was never in the military and do not speak from a position of firsthand knowledge. If Sgt. Stryker disagrees with me – believe him.). Foreign affairs can usually hold my attention for a while. Economic issues were more forte for a while – I’m kind of burned out on talking about the US and world economy, but don’t be surprised to see some discussion economic issues. There is certainly more, but I better stop or you’ll never read me again.

Please, please, please give me some feedback. Tell me I wonderful, tell me I suck, tell me you'll never read this site again, just give me something! You can email me at blog(at)cbnoble.com or just leave a comment.

Nobody told me this was work!

Gees! I started this blog early this afternoon with Blogger and immediately decided that I wanted to have the ability to have comments posted. It's taken a couple of hours while I was getting the kids in bed, but I'm now set up with Movable Type. This is a lot like the time I tried to set up an auction script for my website. Well the important thing is that I'm up and running. Now if I can only think of things to write about..................