Good-bye Afghanistan

It is looking increasingly like we will be completely pulling all our military from Afghanistan at the “end of the year.” Obama wanted to keep some 10,000 soldiers there for continued training of the Afghan forces. Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai, who we have paid an astounding amount of US dollars from the CIA “black” funds, doesn’t want the extended help.

Due to term limits, Karzai is due to be replaced after the April elections, and all of the candidates hoping to replace him have expressed the desire to keep some US training forces in-country for an unspecified time. Well, why should Karzai care? His bribe money will quit coming in after the election.

For a reason that I am at a complete loss to fathom, this guy is being vindictive against his major benefactor, the United States. Until the US took action in Afghanistan in 2001, Karzai was taking refuge in Pakistan.

The most dangerous faction within the country, the Taliban, refuse to recognize the Karzai government as legitimate, and won’t even negotiate a reconciliation deal. So what does he do? He empties the jails setting known Taliban fighters and terrorists loose on the Afghan public.

When the Russians left the country, the Taliban took over in a new reign of terror. Under Taliban rule, Afghanistan was terrorized by fanatical 7th century Muslim thugs trying their worst to suppress the 21^st century world. Under the Karzai government, and with the help of NATO countries, the Afghans may have seen some advancement, but they are still a heavily tribal oriented population. Since 2001, the NATO troops have been playing a deadly game of Whack-A-Mole with the Taliban. We clear them out of one area only to see them infiltrate another area that was previously cleared out. How long will it be before the Taliban take over and force the country back to the seventh century life once all NATO troops leave?

And what of Hamid Karzai when we are gone? Will he quietly retire to an Afghan country estate to live a life of leisure and go on the lecture circuit? Not likely. If he remains in Afghanistan, he would probably be publicly stoned in one of the Kabul sport arenas. Or maybe the Taliban might merely lop off his head.

No, with the riches he has undoubtedly squirreled away – at our expense – he will likely flee to some villa in a country where he can live protected from fatwas (death sentences) of the new ruling Taliban mullahs.

What will become of the Afghan people? They will probably return to a life where music and dancing are strictly forbidden, where only boys can attend school – and then only to learn to memorize the Quran. A life where female rape victims are stoned to death in public arenas; all women must wear head-to-toe burquas, and can only go out in public accompanied by a male family member; where young girls are bartered to old men as wives, and beatings are expected and as common as smoking cigarettes. Of course, wife beating is never prosecuted, because it is never reported. If a woman reported a beating, she would be tried and severely punished for disobeying her husband.

In this bizarre world of Taliban rule a woman dare not get sick. Women can only be examined by female doctors, and of course, girls and women are forbidden from being schooled. So, who are these female doctors? What training could they possibly have?

Then what about the barbers? These poor souls will have to find another line of work. Under Taliban rule, it is a sin to shave or cut one’s hair – and sins are dealt with very harshly.

Despite all efforts to instill democracy in the country, Afghanistan is determined to remain stuck in the past. It is a tribal land ruled by mullahs and tribal leaders. It has been that way for centuries. Even Alexander the Great couldn’t change it. It is also a land where the chief domestic product is Opium, despite drugs being strictly forbidden by Islam. 

Okay, just what do we care? Pulling our troops out will save precious American lives. Besides, we have trained the Afghan Army, what could possibly go wrong? Just because many of the troops we have trained wind up turning their weapons on the trainers, does that mean they won’t fight their fellow Muslim fanatics? In a land where mullahs wield far more power than politicians, why would anyone think that would mean trouble when the “infidel” troops leave?

In Vietnam, despite some iffy agreements with Hanoi, we essentially turned-tail and left the South Vietnamese people to the whims of the North Vietnam Army. Today there are no two Vietnams. The communists easily overran the South Vietnamese Army and wrought havoc on the people in the south.

Are we prepared to see the same disastrous consequences when we pull out of Afghanistan? We were relieved when we pulled out of Iraq, but hardly a week goes by without hearing about another bombing and sectarian violence in that country.

So maybe you don’t really care what happens to the Afghan people. Why should we care? They are clear on the other side of the globe? But then, Bin Laden’s Al Qaida was headquartered and trained on the other side of the world. That includes the terrorists that flew hijacked airliners into the World Trade Center in New York. Are we setting the stage for a re-run of that tragic event?

Well gee, I’m sure our esteemed commander-in-chief knows what he is doing. After all, he gave us that widely popular health-care institution. What could go wrong?

Taxes: The Elephant in The Room

I took my dog Chelsie to the veterinarian the other day. She was certain nothing good would happen in that place. As the technician literally dragged her into the back, Chelsie left a nice mess on the floor for the staff to clean up.

That’s kind of the way I feel every year when I get my taxes done. Going to the tax accountant’s office, I just know nothing good will happen in there. And while I don’t usually leave a mess for the staff to clean up, I feel I could.

Taxes, we are told, are a necessary evil. Fairness dictates that those receiving the benefits of our government must pay for the services. While the government prints our money, it appears they really don’t have any of their own other than what they take from the citizens. It is a strange relationship, and frankly, one I have yet to understand.

The wealth of ours and most other nations used to be backed by gold. The Gold Reserve Act of 1934 nationalized all of the gold held in banks and forced them to surrender it to the US Treasury. We are told, it was all held in Fort Knox, Kentucky. In 1976, we officially went off the gold standard and our currency is now “fiat”. Although the gold is assumed to still be in Fort Knox, it is now a moot point. Today there are no nations with monetary standards backed by gold.

Our nation’s wealth is presumably set at whatever value it will trade for on the international market. Somewhere in the calculation, the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and a host of other factors probably play a part in the valuation too. Like I said, I don’t profess to understand economics. I’m beginning to wonder if anyone truly does.

The point that really confuses me is why we must pay taxes. The US Treasury prints money that then goes into circulation. This paper money represents the wealth of the nation. Our government then borrows boatloads of money from other nations to pay its bills. The borrowed money is backed by the promise of revenues from taxing the citizenry.

Wouldn’t it be simpler to just take what is needed to run the country directly from the printer where it is manufactured? This would take the same amount of money out of circulation that the government would otherwise get from taxes. I suppose the idea is too simple. Or maybe our government enjoys seeing us mess the floor when being dragged to the accountant’s office each year.

Each election year, we hear the politicians make noises about “tax reform”. The taxes levied are intended to cover items in that year’s budget that was hashed out in the House and Senate – plus the national debt. While the debate on tax reform is merely aimed at how the budget number will be divided among the citizens, the real reform needs to take place in the budget.

For some reason cutting big-ticket items -- like military spending, NASA, social services and “entitlements” – seem to provoke the greatest debate. In the end, cuts made to these items usually don’t amount to much. If the politicians would bother going through the budget with a fine-tooth comb, they would find myriads of items that … well, just don’t make sense. Here is a sampling of items I found on Commercial Observer (commercialobserver.com):

• The government spends about $100 million every four years to subsidize parties at the political conventions.
• Last year, $120 million was paid to dead federal employees.
• The government spent $2.6 million to encourage Chinese prostitutes to drink more responsibly.
• A total of $146 million was paid for federal employees to upgrade their flights to business class.
• The U.S. government spent $27 million to teach Moroccans how to design and make pottery in 2012.
• The National Institute of Health recently gave $666,905 to a group of researchers that is conducting a study on the benefits of watching reruns on television.
• The National Institute of Health also spent $592,527 on a study that sought to figure out once and for all why chimpanzees throw poop.
• The U.S. Air Force Office of Scientific Research spent $300,000 on a study that concluded the first bird on Earth probably had black feathers.

There is much more, but this sampling just shows how much of the budget – and our money – is being funneled to projects and services that have absolutely no benefit to the tax paying citizens of this country. Have you yearned to know why chimps throw poop or the color of feathers on the first bird? Well, you are paying for the answers, like it or not. I somehow doubt that drunk Chinese prostitutes acting like bimbos is a serious national interest. It’s certainly nothing worth sacrificing my beer money for.

Then there is our “Black” money that doesn’t even show up on the budget. Money, like the bags of hundred dollar bills dropped off on Hamid Karzai’s desk each month. Then look at the billions handed out for “good will” to countries that don’t even like us (e.g. Pakistan, Afghanistan, Egypt, etc.).

Individually, these items don’t look like much. If you divide each item singly by our 260 million taxpayers, it comes to pennies apiece. But when you start adding a million here and a million there, then throw in a billion or two, it can add up to real money.

Yep, death and taxes are unavoidable in life. I guess we are not meant to understand either, but we don’t have to like it.

The Toothless Lion

The lion is called “King of the Jungle” partly because of its regal appearance but mostly because if you poke him, you will be eaten. It is indeed very dangerous to mess with a healthy lion.

Following WWII, America has been seen as a militarily strong nation – the lion in the jungle, if you will. Until WWII, our military experienced sharp drawn-downs in the aftermath of military action. Conscription was the primary means to build up enough manpower to wage a war. When confrontations were realized, soldiers often found themselves not armed with sufficient modern weapons or even trained in tactics applicable to the situation. Following the Revolutionary war, there was heated debate on whether there should even be a standing army.

Until the end of the Vietnam war, we always seemed to be fighting a current war with the past war equipment and tactics. Today, warfare has evolved to be a very complex matter involving high-tech and expensive weapons, situation and environment specific tactics, and intense situation specific training. We no longer stand rank-and-file in front of each other on a battlefield and charge in a conflict where the outcome is more a matter of attrition than tactics (also known as linear warfare). Today we have un-manned drones that make surgical strikes to take out individual targets and bunker-busting guided bombs.

Unfortunately, the one constant in our military strength remains politics. In our country, the “Hawks” believe we should have a strong, well trained and equipped military at all times, while the “Doves” would rather eliminate the military or reduce it to a part-time national guard force with minimal weapons.

Bill Clinton drew down the military and closed bases. Some of this action may have made sense at the time, but may also have been shortsighted on his part in light of what transpired in the aftermath of 9/11. The reality, however, is that we could not have fought a war in Afghanistan with the weapons and tactics used in Vietnam.

Despite the initial quick success with airpower in removing the Taliban and Al Qaida fighters, along with their administration, from Afghanistan, we eventually had to put “boots on the ground” in an attempt to keep them out. This presented yet another challenge. The full-time forces had been drawn down to inadequate numbers. A decision had to be made to either re-institute the draft or use Reserve and National Guard troops. Suddenly, Guard troops were no longer guaranteed a worst-case scenario of working in times of national disasters and riots. Dentists, lawyers, and grocery clerks were now outfitted with loaded weapons and sent half a world away to fight a war in repeated deployments. They were no longer “weekend warriors”.

Somewhere deep in the Pentagon there is a group of war-wise military leaders that is supposed to be able to predict where and how the next war or wars will be fought. Since there are always dozens of armed conflicts going on at any time, I’m pretty sure they aren’t saying we won’t be involved. Why, then has Obama’s Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel decided to draw down the military to pre-WWII levels?

North Korea has over a million men in a standing army, and more than eight million reserves. China has some 2.25 million people under arms and another 7.5 million in reserve. Even Iran keeps some 500, 000 troops active and can muster an additional 2 million for duty. Hagel wants to put our active troop level at 440,000.

Granted, we no longer line up across from each other and fire weapons until the last man standing wins. But our secDef also wants to scrap perfectly good and serviceable weapons systems and not fund new or replacement weapons.

One of the targets for elimination is the venerable A-10 aka. The Warthog. This weapon system – calling it an airplane is like calling Niagara Falls a faucet leak – is literally a cannon with an airframe built around it. Originally intended for use in the steep river gorges of Vietnam where other jets flew too fast to make effective surgical strikes, it proved invaluable in both Iraq wars as a highly successful tank killer.

Today, soldiers on the ground are equipped with the M4 rifle. This is a re-hashed version of the Vietnam-era M16. Troops have been reduced to – at their own expense – buying aftermarket parts to make the rifle work reliably. Of course, the weapon of choice for our enemies and potential enemies is the low-cost ultra-reliable AK47. It too dates to the Vietnam-era but has been proven to be reliable under almost any adverse condition – dirt, mud, ice, or underwater. While there are currently many far better weapons than the M4 available, the search for a replacement has been scrapped.

I cannot dispute that there could be better oversight of spending by the Armed Services, and old-boy networks, nepotism, and outright corruption probably still exist in military procurement. We can’t afford to emasculate our military might. A toothless lion is vulnerable to attacks from smaller and much weaker creatures. It will eventually die of starvation or be consumed by hyenas.

A Mind from Nowhere to Nowhere

These unseasonably warm days can leave a fella parched. So, I stepped into an unfamiliar bar for just a quick one. Just as I got settled in with a nice cold draft, the guy on the stool next to me decided to comment on something that came on the corner television. “Bullet train! With all the gun carnage these days, that’s just what we need – more bullets.”

Surely, I must have heard this guy wrong. “What was that?” I inquired.

“The Bullet Train. They just said on TV that it’s coming to California.” He said, “Don’t these shooters have enough bullets without bringing in another train load?”

All right, he’s a little mixed up. “The Bullet train is a train that goes something like 150 miles per hour.” I said.

“Geez, these nuts can’t get their bullets fast enough?”

Now I am bewildered. “Did you vote in the 2008 election?” I asked.

“Sure, I voted for Obama … and again for him in 2012.” He said proudly.

“What about the propositions? Do you remember prop 1A, also known as the California High-speed Rail proposition?”

“I don’t even look at those propositions. I only vote for the President. The other stuff on the ballot isn’t very interesting so I ignore it. Sometimes, I might even vote for some of the other Democrats, though.”

“Wow! How do you decide which ‘other’ Democrats to vote for?” I had to ask.

“Easy. I watch MSNBC. If they talk about a Democrat, he’s worth a vote.”

Trying not to visibly shake my head, I said, “Do you have any idea how the government works?”

“That’s a stupid question. Of course I do. The President runs everything. He tells all the states what to do.”

Given the way the Obama administration is shaping up, that might be a hard point to dispute, even though that is not what the US Constitution or State Constitution says.

It was time to get this conversation back on-track. “Okay, let’s get back to the Bullet Train,” I said.

“The Bullet train is not a train full of bullets. It’s a super fast commuter train that will supposedly run from San Francisco to LA. A $9.9 billion bond issue to raise money for the line was voted on in 2008. The referendum passed by a 52.7% margin. The original cost estimate when the proposition appeared on the ballot was $33 billion, but it has now mushroomed to $91.5 billion for full completion of the 800-mile line.

“During the lifetime of this boondoggle, our illustrious Governor, Jerry Brown – a Democrat – has insisted on pushing this train down he throats of Californians. The controversy is enormous, including the massive cost increase, route selection, use of existing – low speed – tracks, and phasing of the project that lead to calling it the ‘train from nowhere to nowhere.’”

A look of amazement crossed his face, and I mistook it for understanding. “No bullets?” He asked.

“No! They are not carrying bullets on the bullet train.” I said.

“Good,” He said. “The Democrats don’t like bullets.”

“Are you married?” I asked.

“Going on five years.” He said.

There goes the gene pool. I thought to myself.

“Congratulations, “ I said, and left with half a glass of beer standing on the bar. I just lost my taste for it.

Olympics: Synchronized Yawning

 Did you get to see much of the Olympics? Maybe I’m just getting to be an old grouch, but the winter Olympics just don’t seem to be as exciting as I remember in years past. Okay, for you youngsters who can’t remember anything before the ‘80s, I’m talking about games in the ‘50s and ‘60s. Even clips of games before then seemed more … special.

In my mind, sports should be tests of strength and endurance – things the Greeks thought useful competitions—who could throw a spear furthest or run fastest for the longest distance, who could take another man down, who could shoot straightest for the farthest distance. Sure, these were more militaristic than Basketball, but they proved the physical and mental value of the contestants in activities that really counted in those days.

I’m sorry, but ice dancing just doesn’t fit my idea of a sport. Disney on Ice just doesn’t generate the same excitement as hockey. Snowboarding – skateboarding on snow – may be fun for the snowboarder, but of what real-life use are all the twisting and turning and other antics?

And what happened to the Biathlon? Was it broadcast? Skiing and shooting, now that is a useful event.

Maybe Bode Miller could out ski Franz Klamer, but when Klamer was on the slopes, the crowd went wild. Today we hear more about the politics and behind the scenes hijinks of athletes than the actual competition.

No matter what the Olympic Committee President says, politics are a major issue in the competition. If they were serious about being non-political, they would not announce the nationality of contestants. This time we even have sexual orientation foisted on us as an issue. When did this become a sport? Although things could get interesting in Sochi, where restrooms have twin commodes and unisex restrooms.

There are fifteen categories for the winter  “sports” and forty-one summer categories. But how can synchronized swimming, artistic gymnastics, and rhythmic gymnastics be even remotely considered a sport? Maybe they could add Swan Lake and the Nutcracker as Olympic events.

Many of the Olympic “sporting events” exclude countries because the seasons (winter and summer) aren’t universally the same. Jamaica made news when they sent a bobsled team one year. But where are the Jamaican snowboarders skiers. And don’t look for a Siberian synchronized swim team. Did you see the Saudi ice dancers? Neither did I.

There are many sports, popular in a number of countries, which the Olympic committee has skipped. How about including calf roping, bull riding, or American Football?

Maybe the running of the bulls could liven up the Olympics. Gold medals could go to the person watching the last bull go by without being gored or trampled. How about bull fighting? Gold could go either to a bull or a fighter which ever leaves the arena alive and not critically injured. They could save big on silver and bronze medals.

Formula racing is bound to be more exciting than ice dancing or curling. To add real excitement, though, they could even race the cars on an ice rink.

Imagine the excitement an event combining javelin throwing and, say, 1000-yard sprint would generate. Combining shot-put throwing with shot-put catching would sure open eyes.

Unfortunately, any new events will be more on the order of synchronized basket weaving, and combined paint drying and political discourse.

Gun-grabbers: 1, Citizens: 0

 Politicians – mostly in “Blue” states – are desperate to impress their left-leaning constituents with their  “tough-as-nails” stance on gun violence. And in California they are well on their way toward winning the thinly disguised goal to altogether eliminate privately owned firearms.

For years, they have been chipping away at the second amendment rights of Californians through asinine legislation on ammunition and firearms with little or no affect on the crime rate regarding violence in which a gun is involved. Each year, it seems that each legislative session would not be complete without a massive number of bills restricting gun ownership and use.

It looks like this state’s gun-grabbers have finally hit the jackpot with the microstamping law. Every new weapon sold in the California is now required to have a laser-etched serial number engraved on the firing pin and breach.

The idea is that when the firing pin hits the primer it will leave an impression of the serial number on the primer of the spent cartridge. In Addition, the force of the cartridge against the breach (bolt or breach block) will leave an additional serial number impression on the edge of the cartridge.

So now you have easily identifiable rounds left at a crime scene. Ain’t technology great?

Sturm Ruger and Smith and Wesson don’t seem to think so. They have ceased all sales in California. That’s right folks; of all the hoops and hurdles being forced on gun makers, microstamping was one too many. The gun-grabbers have obtained their real objective  of forcing gun sales out of the state – at least for two of the high-quality brands of weapons.

Neither Ruger nor Smith and Wesson have ever made what could be remotely considered “Saturday night specials.”

Apparently, it makes no difference to the misguided lawmakers that their over-the-top law won’t work. They got the result they were after from two manufacturers and others are sure to follow the exodus.

Reason and logic have always been in short supply in Sacramento. Here are some of the things our not-so-astute lawmakers might have overlooked:

Topping the list is that Law Enforcement weapons are exempt from microstamping. This is absurd from two standpoints. First, how will cartridges from legally exempt weapons be recognized from those fired from weapons bought before the law went into effect? Second, now manufacturers are forced to make a civilian model and a police model just to sell in California.

If we discount the not-insignificant cost of laser etching firing pins and breaches, the concept falls flat on its face when you realize how easy it is to defeat the stamping. Due to the very small size of the etch, it would be easier to grind off the mictostamps than it is to remove the serial number from a gun’s frame.

What happens when a broken firing pin is replaced? Even if the replacement has been microstamped, it is unlikely to match the etching on the breach. Will that be a problem? Will the owner need to re-register the weapon?

And that’s another flaw in the law. Obviously, the original purchaser will need to register the gun – microstamp serial number and all. Additional buyers (second, third, etc.) will need to re-register, but how will they get the microstamp code? What happens if the weapon is stolen or lost and the owner is unaware  it is gone? He could now be charged with a crime he didn’t commit simply because he didn’t know his gun was taken without his knowledge and didn’t report the loss.

Are our lawmakers so inept and naive that they haven’t considered these flaws? Or are they merely sly enough to know that if they impose ridiculous regulations on manufacturers that gun makers will just quit selling in the state?

Today this oppression exists only in California, but you can bet other “Blue” states are taking a hard look at the underhanded tactics used here. The only question is how long will it be before microstamping laws spread across the country. Now that the gun-grabbers have found that they can achieve their goals by imposing economically restricting regulations on gun makers, they are very likely to create even more until there are no more manufacturers left in this country.

Our grandkids will ask, “Grampa, what was the second amendment all about?”

The 50 Years War

 No, I’m not talking about Lyndon Johnson’s war on the Vietnamese people or even the war in Afghanistan, although it seems like it has been at least 50 years long. Time flies when you’re getting shot at.

It was around 50 years ago that Lyndon Johnson declared war on poverty. I remember it well. At the time, I was earning barely enough to put food on the table for my family – wife and three daughters. I didn’t consider us as impoverished, but going to University full-time and working two jobs left me tired and broke. A war on poverty didn’t sound so bad then.

Of course, the devil is always in the details. I soon found out that a rising tide doesn’t always float all boats. Mine must have been stuck in the mud.

Then President Johnson managed to create a HUD sponsored mortgage program for low-income applicants. It was the centerpiece of his war on poverty, intended to give everyone a chance at the American dream of home ownership. It sure gave the home construction industry a shot in the arm.

At that time, I lived in Indiana, just along the south end of Lake Michigan and had to drive through the city of Gary along I-94 to get to school and one of my jobs. Almost overnight the swampy and run-down area on both sides of the Interstate became filled with houses.

In the ‘60s the demographic of Gary was about 70 percent poor Blacks. President Johnson’s HUD program seemed to give nearly all of them a fine new start in the brand new houses along the Interstate. The new developments filled quickly, but within the next couple of years, the area became increasingly depopulated. It wasn’t long until it could easily qualify as a slum.

One day, as I drove by, I noticed heavy equipment leveling the area where just a few years before they had built fine new houses.

If you can remember, the ‘60s was also a time when the civil rights movement provoked huge changes in the racial tenor of the country. When I applied for a HUD mortgage, I was turned down even though I am certain I made more money than many of the people in the Gary housing developments. HUD said I didn’t earn enough to qualify. Really? They might as well have said I wasn’t black enough.

After 50 years, I believe we can declare Mr. Johnson’s war on poverty has fared no better than his war on Vietnam. Both were abject  -- and costly -- failures.

In his recent State of the Union address, Mr. Obama indicated that the middle-class is sinking ever deeper into the region of poverty despite the government’s relentless attempts to regulate and tax the life out of free enterprise. And now the Democrats are certain that raising the minimum wage by phenomenal amounts will pull people out of poverty.

Obviously, you can always tell a socialist, but you can’t tell them much. It looks like they will never learn that by strangling the life force out of business they are merely hastening the departure of the middle-class into poverty. Companies are not philanthropic enterprises created for the sole purpose of providing jobs.

As wages are forcibly increased, businesses will need to make adjustments to maintain their “bottom line.” There are only two ways to accomplish this: reduce the number of employees or raise prices. Either way results in everyone paying more for goods. Eventually, when wages and costs balance out again, those making the new “minimum wage” will find themselves in the hole again.

The best way to win the way on poverty has proven to be through free enterprise. If the politicians want to get serious about winning this war, they need to get out of the business of regulating and taxing businesses to death.