President Barack Obama has ordered the deployment of 17,000 troops to Afghanistan , the LA Times notes that the increase is part of a campaign promise made by Obama to refocus efforts in that arena. Afghanistan, however, has a long history of giving the boot to outsiders, the various tribal factions which cause constant friction aside; one has to add to the mix, the religious zealots of the Taliban and the long-standing relationships between the tribes and the “camps” that house the “so called terrorists” (One has to wonder what Helen Thomas is smoking).
Afghanistan has a long history of repelling “invaders” , a condensed, easy to read, treatment on the subject by Frank W. Thackery and John E. Findling can be found online at , Google Books. The Soviet Union, the last country to make a military excursion into Afghanistan, spent ten long years battling the terrain and a people entrenched in Islamic Fundamentalism. In an attempt to prop up a communist regime, the Soviets found that simply giving more freedom to women, for example, resulted in a backlash that resulted in a pounding defeat. The incursion is often referred to as the Soviet’s “Viet Nam”.
The question remains, therefore, have times changed so dramatically in the course of 20 years, that an increase in U.S. Military on the ground in Afghanistan will fare better? The government is, for all intents and purposes, a Democracy (thank you President Bush), and is working towards improvements in a country that’s terrain makes for safe havens for those pesky Islamic Fascists. The fact that the culture is deep rooted in tribal relationships, and many of those tribal leaders have responsibilities to either members of Al Qaeda or the Taliban adds to the problem. From the perspective of History, even the great Genghis Khan found Afghanistan to be problematic, therefore one would reason, that, given the fact little has changed, the addition of 17,000 troops will do little to put a dent in the continuing carnage.
The U.S. Military in Afghanistan, under General David McKiernan, requested an entire brigade (60,000 troops) - the President is “thinking about it”. It might be wise to recall that Lyndon Johnson, and his struggle with the Viet Nam war. Johnson avoided the initial call for major troop deployments. The difference between the two Presidents, Johnson inherited the mess from Kennedy, however, Obama campaigned against Bush and his involvement in Iraq, and focused his rhetoric on the “missed opportunity” of capturing Bin Ladin in Afghanistan. The rest, as the saying goes, is history.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Pelosi and the Pope – Nancy goes to the Vatican
Photo: Reuters - Catholics Protest against Pro-Choice Politicians
The Vatican has confirmed that Pope Benedict will meet with U.S. Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi on Wednesday. The report was confirmed by the Catholic News Agency yesterday. The Pope, in meeting with Pelosi, will do so in his role as Head of State, rather than his role as the Head of the Church – further, the article notes that the meeting will be private, giving no chance for Ms. Pelosi to turn this “audience with the Pope” into a “photo opportunity”. Pelosi is characterized in the article as a self-described “ardent Catholic”; however, she is also, contrary to church teaching, an ardent supporter of abortion – which is a sticking point with church leaders in the U.S. as well as those within the church who are pro-life.
During the general election of 2008, the Catholic vote played a significant role in the election of Barack Obama to the Presidency, regardless of his support for abortion. Catholics, for the most part, have traditionally voted Democrat, and with an estimated 30 million Catholics living in the United States, they are a voting bloc politicians would be best to court. It was not insignificant that Joe Biden, taking on the role of running mate to Barack Obama, was touted as a “Catholic”, in most news articles - this was noted as a direct attempt to attract the Catholic vote. Additionally, the support of Caroline Kennedy (another big Catholic name), in the early stages of the campaign, went a long way towards doing the same, especially in the Northeast where the family dynasty has the most support.
With 2010 elections on the horizon, it behooves the Speaker (who, incidentally appears to rule the roost in Washington), to do her part for the Party, and appear to be devout enough to meet with the Pope. (Granted, one is not supposed to be judgmental regarding another’s religious inclinations, and it could very well be that Ms. Pelosi is seeking to be exonerated, in the Catholic tradition of confessing sins (Abortion support), in order to be absolved. The crux of the matter is that once forgiven, Ms. Pelosi would have to become an ardent pro-life advocate – which flies in the face of traditional Democrat Party values and not-insignificant financial support from pro-abortion groups such as NARAL.)
In the Machiavellian world of U.S. politics, the meeting between Pelosi and the Pope, may be the result of the election of Michael Steele to the Chair of the RNC. Steele, a devote Catholic, who is pro-life, and has a Catholic pedigree that features a strong Catholic education, including “a few years at the Augustinian Friars Seminary at Villanova University, in preparation for the priesthood, before deciding instead on a career in civil service.” Therefore, the opposition party (Republicans) now have a bonafide Catholic at the helm, both an historical event and political boon that has been grossly overlooked (or under-reported).
What to look for in the coming days: Glowing reports of the meeting between Pelosi and the Pope from sources such as the New York Times, CNN and CBS, unless of course, the meeting either offered no press coverage, or is truly a personal visit of repentance. Alternately, the Vatican has a YouTube channel, updated frequently, for those who would follow this particular meeting. The most recent video from the Vatican appears below and focuses on the need for – confession. Timely.
Monday, February 16, 2009
The Great Depression and the New Deal – Comparison Current Economic “Crisis”
The Great Depression was brought about by several factors including a breakdown of the Gold Standard a system whereby governments “back” their printed currency with gold. In the late 1800’s, Democrat William Jennings Bryan, a Congressman ran an unsuccessful campaign for the Presidency against William McKinley, based on removing the Gold Standard. The Gold Standard Act was repealed in 1933, under President Franklin D. Roosevelt.
The Market Crash of 1929 followed another depression in the late 1880’s, the nation’s spirits were high after World War I, spurring investments and “stocks” were traded without any regulation. When the market crashed in 1929, consumers became reluctant to invest, credit was available, and the Federal Reserve banking regulations were not effective. This led to bank failures - in the first 10 months of 1930, 744 US banks failed and 7 billion dollars in deposits had been frozen (Bank Holiday). As the failures continued (9000 banks total), borrowers did not have time to repay loans, construction ceased, and those banks that did survive instilled strict lending practices. Simply put it was currency with no backing, a subsequent lack of credit, and panic from the consumer that drove the country downward.
The fix was the “New Deal”, a program devised by President Roosevelt that put American’s back to work – the unemployment rate was at 25% - his stimulus included infrastructure projects that allowed able bodied American’s that did not have a job, to build highways, women were put to work in factories making low-cost clothing. He instituted social security for those too old to work, and all programs he instituted were thought to be “temporary” – once the economy righted itself, the “dole” would end.
F.D.R. must be doing 360’s in his grave.
How does today’s economic crisis and the subsequent “American Investment and Recovery Act”, compare to that of the 1930’s? It is true that there has been an economic downturn, specifically regarding Wall-Street; however, the market has not “crashed”. The effect of the lax lending practices of major banks required by Federal laws, effectively led the default of loans and subsequent foreclosures in the housing market. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, government “banks” for all intents and purposes, were the first to go under; and as larger private banks bought the “toxic” assets from failing institutions, they too needed a bit of aid from the government. Consumers are, right now, reluctant to make major purchases, and several banks have been closed, but the scope and the numbers are not sufficient to make a valid comparison between the two economic crises. The intent of the TARP was to free credit, however, without oversight, some banks who received funds did little to nothing to ease the credit necessary to keep retail and other sectors moving and layoffs followed. The panicked reaction of both the Bush and Obama administrations further exacerbated the problem. It had not, however, reached the proportion of the 1930’s – enter the Stimulus – indeed there is some job creation (short-term) in the bill, however, most of it is special projects otherwise known as “pork” – additionally, the creation of bureaucracies to oversee programs have created jobs with the Federal Government. There is tax breaks included, for those not currently paying taxes, and those paying taxes are receiving so little ($13.00 per week), that it would not fill a gas tank, let alone, instill consumer confidence. Temporary work programs serving all facets of the nation’s economy intended to alleviate a high rate of unemployment (a true New-Deal approach), is not included in this Act.
Now the question remains, as there are few valid comparisons between the 1930’s and today, will the Administrative Panic of 2008-2009, insure that the nation will slump further, with little to no tax relief for individuals and corporation that drive the economy? That remains to be seen – however, should this package prove to drive the middle class taxpayer to the brink, political fortunes of those who took the New Deal out of scope, and made the decisions this past weekend I the Senate, may end up poisoning an entire Political party.
The Market Crash of 1929 followed another depression in the late 1880’s, the nation’s spirits were high after World War I, spurring investments and “stocks” were traded without any regulation. When the market crashed in 1929, consumers became reluctant to invest, credit was available, and the Federal Reserve banking regulations were not effective. This led to bank failures - in the first 10 months of 1930, 744 US banks failed and 7 billion dollars in deposits had been frozen (Bank Holiday). As the failures continued (9000 banks total), borrowers did not have time to repay loans, construction ceased, and those banks that did survive instilled strict lending practices. Simply put it was currency with no backing, a subsequent lack of credit, and panic from the consumer that drove the country downward.
The fix was the “New Deal”, a program devised by President Roosevelt that put American’s back to work – the unemployment rate was at 25% - his stimulus included infrastructure projects that allowed able bodied American’s that did not have a job, to build highways, women were put to work in factories making low-cost clothing. He instituted social security for those too old to work, and all programs he instituted were thought to be “temporary” – once the economy righted itself, the “dole” would end.
F.D.R. must be doing 360’s in his grave.
How does today’s economic crisis and the subsequent “American Investment and Recovery Act”, compare to that of the 1930’s? It is true that there has been an economic downturn, specifically regarding Wall-Street; however, the market has not “crashed”. The effect of the lax lending practices of major banks required by Federal laws, effectively led the default of loans and subsequent foreclosures in the housing market. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, government “banks” for all intents and purposes, were the first to go under; and as larger private banks bought the “toxic” assets from failing institutions, they too needed a bit of aid from the government. Consumers are, right now, reluctant to make major purchases, and several banks have been closed, but the scope and the numbers are not sufficient to make a valid comparison between the two economic crises. The intent of the TARP was to free credit, however, without oversight, some banks who received funds did little to nothing to ease the credit necessary to keep retail and other sectors moving and layoffs followed. The panicked reaction of both the Bush and Obama administrations further exacerbated the problem. It had not, however, reached the proportion of the 1930’s – enter the Stimulus – indeed there is some job creation (short-term) in the bill, however, most of it is special projects otherwise known as “pork” – additionally, the creation of bureaucracies to oversee programs have created jobs with the Federal Government. There is tax breaks included, for those not currently paying taxes, and those paying taxes are receiving so little ($13.00 per week), that it would not fill a gas tank, let alone, instill consumer confidence. Temporary work programs serving all facets of the nation’s economy intended to alleviate a high rate of unemployment (a true New-Deal approach), is not included in this Act.
Now the question remains, as there are few valid comparisons between the 1930’s and today, will the Administrative Panic of 2008-2009, insure that the nation will slump further, with little to no tax relief for individuals and corporation that drive the economy? That remains to be seen – however, should this package prove to drive the middle class taxpayer to the brink, political fortunes of those who took the New Deal out of scope, and made the decisions this past weekend I the Senate, may end up poisoning an entire Political party.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
