Posse Incitatus

Syria on the Brink

The violence and unrest in Syria are rapidly reaching a boiling point.  Hundreds of people have been killed just in the past few days, and the Arab League has halted its monitoring of goings on inside the country out of concern for the safety of its monitors.

No one knows for sure how many former Syrian Army soldiers and officers have defected and joined the Free Syrian Army, a loosely-knit coalition of defectors and militia groups on the side of the opposition, but it is a significant number.

Israel in particular is observing developments in Syria with alarm, fully aware that if the thuggish regime of Bashar al-Assad collapses, extremists and terrorists could easily gain control of Syria. It would be, as the expression goes, jumping from the frying pan into the fire. Or, as is also a good possibility, fighting will continue as those formerly allied to topple Assad will fight amongst themselves.

As usual, predicting what might happen in the Middle East is a crapshoot.  Attempting to analyze what might transpire if the Assad regime is overthrown is difficult, because there are so many other "moving pieces" evolving as I type: Egypt, Libya, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and untold numbers of shadowy terrorist groups not named al Qaeda that operate under the radar and are wont to do their own thing.

I've always said that Islam leads the league in "loose cannons" that are impossible to rein in, let alone to predict. A reformation would be nice, but calling for such an event assumes a central authority, which, as we all know, is absent in the so-called "Religion of Peace."

Here are a few considerations, and you can concoct your own conclusions or deductions.

1) Assad and his fellow regime thugs belong to the Alawites, a Shia Islamic sect. But the vast majority of Syria's population consists of Sunni Muslims. Assad's regime has aided and abetted Hezbollah and Hamas in their efforts to menace Israel.

2) If Assad is overthrown and Sunnis prevail in the struggle to take control of the country, that would seem to portend carte blanche for al Qaeda.

3) Directly to the east of Syria are Iraq and Iran, both of which are Shia-dominated countries. Could it possibly be a blessing in disguise to have a Sunni-dominated government in Syria if that is what transpires? Perhaps. But as always, don't rely too much on that "IF."

4) Don't EVER underestimate the Mossad. They appear to have played a role in assassinating several nuclear engineers in Iran as that nation marches on toward developing nuclear weapons. I believe there's a good chance this top-notch Israeli intelligence agency will have some influence on what shakes out in Syria.

I wish I could offer some monentous counsel on what the near future holds for Israel and Syria. But I am going to admit that I am wholly inadequate to the task. Just keep an eye on developments. The year 2012 is going to be critical. But NOT because of the Mayan calendar. Rather, because the pandemonium in the Middle East will eventually charter the world's march toward greater liberty or toward a dark, backward repressive state of affairs that promises more volatility and bloodshed.

 

 

Economic Illiteracy and Tax Misinformation

Is anyone else getting sick and tired of hearing about Warren Buffett's secretary? Obviously Buffett himself and President Barack Obama are not. They both love to cite the misleading claim that she pays a higher tax rate than Buffett. And they neglect to mention that her salary must be well north of $200K in order for her to fall into the 35 percent tax bracket. But do you think any of our inept old media hacks have the gumption or presence of mind to even inquire what her salary is? Hardly.

Obama has gone so overboard he actually invited the secretary, Debbie Bosanek, to serve as a stage prop during Tuesday night's State of the Union address. (By the way, why are we referring to her as a secretary? Isn't that as outmoded as "stewardess" rather than flight attendant? These days, the proper term is "administrative assistant.")

But let's cut to the chase: This is a case of comparing apples to oranges.  Remember that the person paying a capital gains tax has already been taxed on his original investment money. He paid income, Medicare and social security taxes on the wages he earned. When stocks he owned appreciated in value, the corporate tax kicked in. And any dividends earned were taxed as well.

Aside from all that, let's remember that the top 10 percent of wage earners pay 70 percent of the tax revenues. And it's been proven time and again that conservatives give much more money to charity than liberals. Romney gave $7 million to charities over a two-year period. By contrast, Sen. John Kerry was a notorious tightwad when it came to charitable contributions (at least until he married into the uber-rich Heinz clan). Kerry’s 1991–1995 charitable contributions were $0, $820, $175, $2039, and $0.

This is the type of fact our woeful media neglects to report, because it simply doesn't jibe with their bash the rich narrative. And the economic illiteracy of millions of Americans who buy lock, stock and barrel the line about Warren Buffett's secretary is the type of ignorance that just might get Barack Obama re-elected and do grave damage to our republic.

Ignorance is Bliss

Let's say you own a business and have been alarmed about how many customers you've lost during the past few years. You listen to what your customers tell you, read what they say about you on Internet forums, and perhaps even conduct a survey to find out what you're doing wrong and how you can improve to win back your lost customers.

You do those things, that is, if you're a sane, rational and reasonable person, and not a delusional pompous ass. If you're the latter, you give your customers the finger (possibly figuratively and literally) and condemn them for being too stupid to recognize what a great product you have and failing to patronize your business.

The stupidity and hubris of the latter scenario is just what the lamentable Newsweek did with a recent cover story titled, "Why Are Obama's Critics So Dumb?" This sorry excuse for a magazine is but a shell of its former self, hemorrhaging readers, ad revenues and dollars. Yet instead of trying to give people what they want and obviously are not getting, the bozos at Newsweek effectively gave the American public the finger. Obama's such an incredibly effective and wonderful president; you folks are just dim bulbs, too dense to appreciate what you've got.  Can you believe this crap?

As we've known for several years (even long before Bernard Goldberg wrote "Bias" a decade ago), the mainstream news media is corrupt, compromised and an absolute joke when it comes to objectivity and substance. They carry the Democrats' water, and spend WAY too much time and energy focusing on inane Hollywood types and other tabloid trash.

Major newspaper circulations have taken a nose-dive, these publications are hemorrhaging jobs and money, and many of them have a diminished physical presence (i.e., the paper version). Some newspapers don't even publish a paper version more than three or four times per week.

Network news also has fallen on hard times, with ratings in freefall and an American public that rejects the notion that TV should tell us what time they're going to give us the news (e.g., at 6:30 p.m. after the local news) and instead seeks its news at the most convenient times and through various technologies.

This American Thinker piece chronicles the downfall of a once great institution. Here's a startling example of just how grave the problem is for our tone-deaf media: The Washington Post has endured a whopping 33% circulation drop (263,000 readers) since 2000, and the Post's advertising revenue has plummeted over 60 percent since 2000. 

The clueless scribes of a dying institution perhaps are delusional and certain they can do no wrong. But more than likely, they are just ignorant — ignorant of history, ignorant of what makes America tick, and ignorant of the error of their ways. They're just like lemmings headed over the cliff. Few will miss them when they're gone.

 

 

Gingrich resurgent

As the almost total absence of my posts on the GOP primary demonstrates, I have little interest in the three-ring circus that has been playing out for almost a year.

One thing is clear:  Newt Gingrich has struck a nerve.  He also annoys a lot of Republicans who are convinced that his high negatives and long-ago political baggage render him ineligible for the nomination.

To this people, I have one word:  Hillary.

I seem to recall her being an incredibly unpopular figure, polarizing, grating, tainted with corruption and denounced by both right and left as a Machiavellian manipulator with ice-water in her veins.

Yet somehow, she became a viable candidate in 2008 - so much so that it was only the Democrats' bizarre "super delegate" system that allowed Obama to achieve the nomination.  He could win caucuses, but not primarly elections.

How could the woman who brought us the missing Rose Law Firm Billing Records, the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy and a dozen other egregious insults now be considered not only viable but - in many circles - preferable to the current president?

It boggles the mind.

GIngrich has far less baggage in that regard.  He is familiar, but comfortably retro as well - a divisive figure with more lines and perhaps a little more wisdom than when he was last in the public eye.

He has a reputation for saying stupid things - which I am sure the man who brought us 57 states and Navy Corpsemen will not really want to bring up.

I carry no water for Gingrich, as I've noted before.  I simply wish to point out that public opinion is fluid and often flows contrary to expectations and what the media wants.  The fact that Gingrich is already being roasted alive (gotta love the ex-wife being trotted out) and somehow is still in the race shows that all the baggage he's carrying may not be all that heavy.

It also shows that in a campaign certain to be nasty, the guy with the thick skin who can dish it out as well as take it has the edge.

 

The Gingrich Backlash

I didn't watch last night's debate, yet couldn't help but see and hear many sound bites during today's news coverage. CNN's John King incurred Newt Gingrich's wrath and scorn by leading off the questioning with allegations by Newt's ex-wife that he asked her for an open marriage during the late 1990s when he was also publicly excoriating President Bill Clinton for the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

Gingrich earned a huge applause when he lashed out at King and the "elite media," and he may well have earned himself a victory in tomorrow's South Carolina primary. As of Friday evening the Speaker was running neck-and-neck with presumed frontrunner Mitt Romney in several polls, and also earned former candidate Rick Perry's endorsement. Two other also-rans, Michelle Bachmann and Herman Cain, have not endorsed anyone in South Carolina.

It is just possible that many South Carolina Republicans are so fed up with the mainstream media that they will cast a vote for Gingrich, either out of sympathy for the pummeling he's endured of late, or just as a way to spite the media.

Then there's the whole open primary wild card. Independents and Democrats are allowed to vote in South Carolina's GOP primary, which could muddle the results in unforseen ways.  Is it possible many of these folks -- especially the Democrats -- feel Gingrich would be much easier for Obama to defeat in the general election than Romney, therefore they will try to help him earn the nomination? Maybe. But even if Gingrich wins South Carolina, there's a long road ahead.

Gingrich is a highly flawed candidate who should have been much more circumspect about publicly castigating Bill Clinton while he himself was cheating on his wife. He needs to avoid letting his massive ego and impatience prompt him into putting his foot in his mouth -- an all-too-frequent occurrence.

But as I've stated before, Gingrich is also highly intelligent, full of dynamic ideas, and has an impressive track record as someone who helped balance the budget four years in a row, implement significant welfare reform, and cut capital gains taxes, all of which made the 1990s economy roar. We could certainly do worse than to have him in the Oval Office (and currently are doing worse.)

John King and the stooges at ABC who originally broadcast the Marianne Gingrich interview are not interested in substance, fairness or pertinence. They are interested in sensationalism, ratings and stoking their own bloated egos. The people of South Carolina realize this, and because of that, Mitt Romney just might be in for a good ol' fashioned butt-kicking.

 

Sickness, Iran and Gasoline Prices

Which causes which? Do spiraling gasoline prices make me sick? Or does sick behavior by the Persian mullahs prompt the rise in gas prices? Well, both, kinda-sorta. But that's not what the headline means.

Actually, what I am referring to is a hideous 24-hour flu bug that ravaged my 52-year-old body on Tuesday and Wednesday, taking me away from work, blogging, eating and doing much of anything else productive. My son suffered the same flu bug about 10 days ago while he was still home on Christmas break, so I may have picked it up off of something in the house.

I slept a lot, listened to talk radio as I faded in and out of sleep, and got to watch a couple of pretty good movies while I veg-ed out in the La-Z Boy. I would recommend "The Cooler" starring Alec Baldwin and William H. Macy. It's about an old-school casino and its ruthless mob bosses, and a loser (played by Macy) who's in hock bigtime to the big boss. I won't spoil it by revealing more, but those who like mob movies ought to check it out.

The other enjoyable flick was "Adventureland," a comedy-adventure starring Jesse Eisenberg ("Social Network"). It's set in Pittsburgh in 1987, and describes the memorable summer of a bunch of teens and 20-somethings working at an amusement park. I'm a big Lou Reed fan, and lots of his music is heard in the flick, as well as a lot of 1980s staples.

Yes, I know it's fashionable to mock and bash the 80s (big-haired girls, leg warmers, dime-a-dozen "hair bands," over-produced techno-rock, and huge mobile phones, yada yada yada... but frankly, I think a lot of that era's music was far superior to what's out there now, and it's not just because I was young then. The Psychedelic Furs remain one of my all-time favorite bands; give me Style Council, R.E.M., Tears for Fears, Simply Red and INXS over most of today's bands!

Well, anyway, enough of the trip down memory lane... Don't look now, but gasoline prices have been steadily rising in recent weeks. Iran has been rattling sabers about closing down the Strait of Hormuz, and now President Obama has predictably put the kabosh on the Keystone Pipeline as a pander to environmental kooks. Don't be surprised if we hit and surpass $4 per gallon within a few months -- even $5 per gallon is plausible.

As I've mentioned before, I live in East Lansing, Mich., and work in downtown Detroit, 90 miles away. I spend a couple of nights a week in suburban Detroit to avoid driving back and forth. The combination of rent and gas money takes its toll on the family budget, but I must be grateful to even have a job in this economy. However, if gasoline prices top $4 per gallon, which I believe is likely, that's an impetus that could necessitate drastic changes. More on that later.

But aside from my travails, think of the truckers, delivery services and contractors whose businesses will be devastated by higher fuel prices. Consumers already squeezed by unemployment, underemployment and debt will be hammered even more.

Europe's economic and fiscal crises will exacerbate our sick economy. Perhaps the only blessing in disguise is this would increase the chances of the American people firing Obama and bringing someone competent back into the White House. Darkest before the dawn? Let us hope so.