The (D)Evolution of Military Leadership

If Liberals can support the troops, but not support the war—a contradiction of sentiments so obvious and alarming that it warrants no intelligent discourse from news analysts(that is the reason, right?)—then I feel as though I can espouse the other extreme. While I support the war, I do not support the leadership of the troops. The only place where the average Liberal and I may agree on Iraq is on the campaign’s mismanagement. Whereas our troops should have made every day a Day of Shock and Awe since entering the Iraqi theatre in March of 2003, they’ve been handcuffed by the politically correct military policies dictated by Donald Rumsfeld and the Bush administration. The best, most recent example of this mismanagement? For your consideration, I present a stark contrast in the treatment of our troops by military leadership.
Here we see two complete opposites. On one hand, we have a man who volunteered to serve in the armed services three years ago, who has gained rank and leadership clout only to refuse a tour of duty in Iraq. A man who of his own free will and clear conscience enlisted in the service at the time of the Iraq invasion, only to refuse to take part in the military’s continued efforts in that nation. A man who is a deserter, a traitor, and at any other time in history would be hanged, shot, or otherwise executed for his outright refusal to serve.
And on the other: no less than eight soldiers held in United States armed forces prisons in solitary confinement for war crimes. Their crimes, which are deplorable if proven, are substantiated only by the testimony of enemy combatants and others of questionable credibility at best.

Consider the mismanagement, the utter lunacy. Lt. Ehren Watada stands before news cameras, is idolized and lauded as a hero, and granted the freedoms of an innocent man in spite of the fact that he is admittedly guilty of his crime. Then look at the treatment of our brave men held in solitary confinement, treated in ways that are prohibited for our own prisoners of war, on the mere accusations of the enemy. Generals with this level of ineptitude make Custer look like a careful and contemplative strategic mastermind.

Here’s what I find supremely ironic: imagine if Lt. Watada had engaged in this kind of public refusal to serve during the Viet Nam War. During Viet Nam, men who refused to be conscripted—conscripted!, without freedom of choice or thought—into the armed forces and refused to serve were immediately imprisoned. Others fled to Canada and became pariahs, persona non grata in their own homeland. These men were compelled to serve and did so bravely and selflessly, much the our soldiers overseas do today. Had a man refused to serve during World War II, the consequences would have been even more dire. Go back further in history, and you find treatment that becomes more brutal aggressive towards this type of treason. Yet no sooner did Lt. Watada go public with his insubordination did websites like www.thankyoult.com pop up in support of this man.

Today I find myself united with Liberals and others entrenched against the Iraq War in wondering “When will the insanity end?” Though the question is posed for contrasting reasons, any kind of answer, any clear leadership, any brand of justice, would be most welcome.

Since I’m not a Democrat, I’m indifferent to the primary elections dominating the headlines. As I have no ability to impact the result of those elections, I won’t discuss them. Instead, I’d like to look at a matter closer to home. Springfield Public Schools has requested a levy for funding to support the Springfield public schools. The past three attempts to pass such a levy have failed. Perhaps, one might wonder, the school system would recognize that additional funding from increasing the tax rate will continue to fail. Perhaps, one may then conclude, the schools would seek alternate avenues of securing funding, and set a precedent for the Toledo community—along with the State of Ohio. But status quo, my friends, status quo prevails. Hopefully, status quo will continue to include a rejection of the levy.

There are two primary reasons that these ballot measures should fail, and a third reason that I feel they should fail, though I recognize some may disagree.

The taxation of property owners is unjust, and represents the kind of ‘taxation without representation’ that led to the birth of a nation. Let me pose a hypothetical situation. My neighbor and I earn the same amount of money annually, live in homes that assessed at the same value, and pay our taxes accurately, including property taxes which are used to fund local schools and are increased levies. Now suppose I have no children. Also suppose my neighbor has two and sends them to the local public schools. In this situation, not only will I receive no direct benefit for my contribution to the local public schools, I will contribute more than my neighbor who receives significant direct benefits from his contribution. My neighbor will contribute less, because he will be eligible to receive tax credits for having children. Though, I may receive some marginal intangible benefit from a community with more intelligent children—who may be better behaved and more economically productive in the long-run for their education—this benefit is marginalized by the direct benefit observed by those who receive services rendered by the schools. Additionally, I will be further penalized by more taxation for paying for improvements to my residence that increases its value relative to my neighbor’s residence, as I will pay more in the short-run in sales taxes for the improvements, but more in the long-run for property taxes, for which I will not receive full benefit. Finally, both my neighbor and I will be paying taxes on property which may be taken by local government under eminent domain.

No empirical dataset has been produced to indicate that a greater amount of money spent on public education produces greater amounts of educational success. It also holds that no relationship exists between smaller classroom sizes and greater educational success. And it’s not for a lack of trying, either. To the contrary, studies have been authored attempting to prove that these correlations exist. But schools are one example of the common wisdom that simply throwing money into a situation does not guarantee that the situation will improve.

Rather than funding schools through monies extracted from local taxpayers in the form of property taxes, the funding for schools should be derived from the people utilizing the schools’ services. This leads to my argument that all schools should be private, and government run schools should not be the universal standard. I realize this perspective perfectly contradicts the status quo, and scares a lot of people. But consider the private schools that exist in your community, and compare them to the public ones. Consider the complete lack of accountability in public schools, and the inability of all taxpayers to affect change on their local schools. Consider the lack of diversity in perspective offered by state legislated curricula. Finally, consider this toolbag:

And consider the fact that he’s teaching again; in public schools. Way to go, Colorado—the state that brings us esteemed public educators, and the rape of a handicapped girl in a school stairwell during school hours.

Learning From Minor Misfortunes

Without delving too far into the world of athletics, I believe the recent incident with Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger illuminates two important discrepancies. The first regards the inconsistent legislation dictating personal safety, and the second highlights the ill-logic of many conservatives on the topic of individual freedoms.

According to reports, Roethlisberger was driving his motorcycle when he collided with another vehicle and suffered severe injuries. Witnesses also claim that Roethlisberger was not wearing a helmet, an observation consistent with Roethlisberger’s claims that he does not wear a helmet while riding a motor cycle on various sporting news programs. Roethlisberger was within his legal rights to refuse a helmet in the state of Pennsylvania, along with in his home state of Ohio. But, imagine if big Ben had been caught without a seat belt. He would have been ticketed, labeled irresponsible, and told to straighten his ways.

There’s the incongruity. I cannot attest to the rationale behind the law that mandates seat belts. My guess is that it has been so legislated because sufficient evidence has been revealed to show that injuries caused by a refusal to wear a seatbelt impose costs on society that are greater than what society is willing to bear. Those costs include direct dollar costs of lost wages and productivity, increased expenditures on additional medical treatments, and increased litigation costs, along with indirect negative externalities imposed upon society in the forms of parents unable to parent while medically incapacitated, greater preponderance of disabled and maimed individuals, and emotional duress sustained by multiple parties as a result of the injuries—which in turn can impose direct dollar costs in lost wages and productivity. You can see how once one explores the potential costs of unnecessary injuries resulting from traffic accidents that could otherwise be avoided by something as simple as a seat-belt, the exercise can be both illuminating and absurd. The point it leads to, however, is much simpler. If the costs of noncompliance with seatbelt laws are so significant as to warrant national enforcement, why are motorcycle helmets not the same? Perhaps the answer is that motorcycle enthusiasts are not as valuable to society as typical motorists, and the loss of such arrogant pigs is not as significant.

Of course, that’s merely a smug and inflammatory response to what is basically an incongruity in legislation that will be corrected over time. But it leads me to my next point. Conservatives are wont to identify their freedom to not wear a helmet while motorcycling, or a seatbelt while driving as personal liberties that have been unjustly denied them by an imposing governmental system. Those same conservatives are likely to identify their right to be reckless as one that affects no one other than the individual refusing to wear a helmet or seatbelt. Those are the likely to be the same conservatives who identify homosexuals as participating in an unacceptable behavior that should be prohibited by law. They may claim that mainstream homosexuality taints a culture and corrupts the family system vital in rearing children capable of making good moral and economic decisions in their adult lives, but that refusing a seatbelt harms no one but that person refusing.

If that juxtaposition does not simplify the matter enough, I’ll simply state my point. Conservatives must understand that when they identify acts or traits that they consider unpalatable and deplorable, they must be willing to acknowledge some of their own behaviors have comparable ramifications. I don’t mean to say that conservatives should give up on their agenda, but understand when compromise is necessary and accept consistency in legislation. It’s not about passing legislation that aims to serve one end of the political spectrum; it’s about appealing to the middle—something the greatest conservatives of our time like President Reagan understood.

Analyzing the reasons and ramifications of increasing gasoline costs

I suppose it’s appropriate that I address the topic of gasoline prices, given the national hysteria over the recent increase in both the price of gas, and the price of crude oil. While I intend to address the matter from several angles, there is one overarching theme that I want to make abundantly clear: the increase in gas prices is a component of many things, including obvious impediments to increasing the supply of gasoline, oligopolistic competition involving a commodity, and expectations determined in part by the fear perpetually drummed up over prices. Arguing that Exxon’s management, or any other oil company for that matter, is evil for allowing such prices to persist ignores the basic logic behind the mechanisms of supply and demand. Furthermore, advocating windfall profit taxes benefits the government, not the people, and brings us closer to a society that advocates government control over consumer and producer control. Remember what you believe in and your basic logic skills before you allow gas prices to stir you into a rage.

A key component in the gasoline hysteria can be attributed to the perpetual fear mongering of media outlets, both national and local. No news program or publication targeted at any market has avoided the subject of gasoline prices. It is more likely that you will hear the current trading price for a barrel of crude oil than the current trading level of any major index including the Dow Jones indices. But what purpose does this serve? Is it really necessary to report the average price of gas nationally when local prices—which are the only prices that matter to the consumer—are posted on virtually every street corner in commercial areas? The answer is obviously: no. The frantic reporting of gasoline prices in the attempt to portray the situation as a crisis rides shotgun for any media outlet, whose m. o. has been reporting the most controversial, shocking, and upsetting news to garner interest and ratings for decades.

The biased reporting indicated its intentions at shocking the public—and insulting our intelligence—in recent stories focused around the ‘significant increase in pawn shop traffic, where individuals pawn cherished goods for gasoline money.’ Unfortunately, the reporting indeed increased the ire of the American public, but failed to insult our intelligence. You see, in an attempt to appear ‘unbiased’ in reporting the news of the day, almost all media outlets avoid critical analysis of their own reporting. However, no analyzing one’s own reporting not only avoids bias, but rather, takes a benign story and allows unreasoned interpretation and bias to creep in. If one takes the time to consider why some people would be pawning more items for gasoline money, the relationship is fairly obvious. No report claims that new traffic to pawn shops has increased, and one can conclude that individuals who would consider pawning valuables and possessions in the first place are likely to be the same type of person who is incapable of dealing with a significant price change in a commodity, and must resort to drastic action in order to compensate for their own lack of foresight and restraint in spending.

In reality, reporting the increase in gasoline prices as a surprise is about as misleading as it gets. The United States has been set up for a massive increase in gasoline prices for years, and I’m not the only one who finds it surprising that the increase hasn’t been more significant. Consider the factors affecting demand for gasoline: an increasing population in the United States which is correlated with an increase in the number of cars on the road, a residual propensity to drive long distances rather than fly due to 9/11 and other airline disasters, and an increase in demand and sales for cars that produce less miles traveled per gallon of gasoline. Also consider the fact that gasoline is a commodity, which indicates it is very price inelastic. Now, consider the factors affecting supply: no increase in physical capacity of domestic refineries, a block on domestic crude oil production, and temporary shortages or outages due to unavailable additives (to be considered later). This means that the supply of gasoline produced can only grow at a very limited rate, if at all. The situation as I’ve described it can be modeled as in the graph below, where S1 and D1 indicate market supply and demand respectively. Notice that demand has been illustrated to reflect inelasticity, and though it may be appropriate to model supply in similar fashion, it has been illustrated to show that output can increase, but only at a substantial premium to the consumer. The appropriate changes in demand and supply mentioned above have been similarly reflected in D2 and S2 respectively.

Three or four years ago, the market was trading at price P1. The same factors were all in place at that time, so it was pretty clear to most economists that the price of gasoline was bound to go up if the supply chain was put under any duress, or if the demand grew significantly. Today, gasoline trades at a price in line with P4, reflecting both the increased scarcity and increase in demand. In the short-run, once refineries have managed to master shipping ethanol blends in the same cost efficient manner they shipped blends with ATP additives, the price will recede to the level P2. That being said, it seems clear to me that the days of $1.50/gallon gasoline are long gone. Furthermore, the prospect of $2.00/gallon gasoline is also pretty unlikely in the current market climate. The only way we will see substantial price reductions in gasoline will require a blend of things conservatives and liberals have been talking about for years: a decrease in consumption and reliance on gasoline that the liberal left demands in environmental interest, and an increase in refining capacity and domestic crude production from areas like the Gulf of Mexico and ANWAR as conservatives have said.

Most people don’t want to consider the facts as I’ve laid them out, and would rather react to the situation in an irrational manner that blames ‘greedy’ oil companies for posting large profits in the face of increased costs. Those same people are the first to refuse to acknowledge that the average profit margin for Exxon-Mobil on a gallon of gasoline has grown by less than a penny over the past year to $0.09/gallon, and that the majority of Americans experience a benefit from these profits as many of them are invested in Exxon-Mobil’s publicly traded stock, either through direct purchase, mutual funds, or pension plans managed by their employers. So, while a $8 billion profit sounds excessive, one must understand that the profit is not derived from price-gouging, but rather, from the massive volume of business, and at the benefit of all its investors.

However, the final thing I will point out for consideration is the mechanism to determine the appropriate release valve for prices. There are two options, as I indicated before. The liberal route involves curtailing demand, which could involve conservation, substation to alternative fuel, or a blend of the two. The conservative route involves increasing our capacity of crude production along with an increase in refining capacity as well. Yet, neither solution will yield instant results. Alternative fuels have taken and will continue to take time to perfect.

Increasing refining capacity will similarly take time, given the amount of infrastructure that would need to be developed, along with obtaining the appropriate permits and clearances within EPA guidelines. In reality, neither route alone will succeed, it will probably take a blend to increase the independence and cost-effectiveness of energy in the U.S. A blended approach hedges against other shocks on supply, especially given possible irrational actions from some of our lesser crude oil suppliers including Venezuela and Iran.

The death of the American democratic system, or at least the failure of that system to continue affecting positive change in the nation, will happen for two reasons: overwhelming turnouts of uninformed and deliberately misinformed voters, and the nature of the two party system. In a way, the two causes are related, with the later being a contributor to the former. However, the end of democratic process has obviously not arrived, in spite of those clamoring that the current administration has killed our democracy with totalitarianism.

To begin, anyone who earnestly believes that the President’s administration is in any way more totalitarian—or ought even be classified as such—represents the kind of uninformed and deliberately misinformed public that can bring down a democracy. Were Americans really oppressed by a totalitarian regime, we would not have seen public opinion polls affect congressional action to block the sale of various domestic seaports to D.P.W. Similarly, it would be impossible for lunatics like Charlie Sheen or Michael Moore to spread absurd conspiracy theories and affect public opinion to any degree. Clearly, the deliberate misinformation of folks like Charlie Sheen has some significant effect on public opinion, as was recently indicated in a CNN.com poll regarding Sheen’s 9/11 comments.

Indeed, how could one ignore well reasoned statements like: “"There was a feeling, it just didn't look any commercial jetliner I've flown on any time in my life and then when the buildings came down later on that day I said to my brother 'call me insane, but did it sorta look like those buildings came down in a controlled demolition'?" . . . Show us this incredible maneuvering, just show it to us. Just show us how this particular plane pulled off these maneuvers. 270 degree turn at 500 miles and hour descending 7,000 feet in two and a half minutes, skimming across treetops the last 500 meters.”

Somehow, the 9/11 commission seemed satisfied that a trained pilot—which the hijacker was—could execute such maneuvers, and recognized that an object moving at 500 m/h would be impossible to photograph with cameras taking video at barely more than a frame/second. It’s a simple problem Occam’s Razor effectively addresses: which is more likely, that a terrorist organization hell-bent on the murder of thousands of American and the disruption of our way of life executed a horrific plan destroying the World Trade Center, or did the U.S. Government execute some incredibly elaborate conspiracy that required:

- A missile that looked enough like a plane be fired at the Pentagon without anyone noticing.

- The disappearance of hundreds of persons scheduled to fly on those planes.

- The faking of cell phone conversations of the people on those planes.

- The crash of a flight in Pennsylvania that otherwise would have targeted another significant building.

- The corroboration of Al-Qaeda, who accepted responsibility for the attack, when they would benefit even more greatly from telling Americans that their own government executed the attack?

Under a totalitarian regime, how would one managed to convince a projected majority of people, or at the very least, 45,000 persons that such a conspiracy was feasible? That sounds like the real conspiracy to me. As a sidenote, I find an incredible irony in the juxtaposition of statements claiming that President Bush is a blithering, incompetent, dullard, and yet has set in motion the most elaborate conspiracy since the JFK conspiracy theories began circulating.

In just over 7 months today, when I believe the Republican Party will lose its majority in both the House and Senate in crushing defeats around the country including predominately Republican states, we shall see just how un-totalitarian our current government is. All the political maneuvering in the world will not save the Republicans from the unpopularity of the President, lack of tangible results on important issues like social security and border security, and the growth in spending that otherwise would have indicated a Democrat controlled congress.

Yet this presents a problem to many registered Republicans today, much the way it could potentially fluster registered Democrats were the roles reversed. The two party system requires two relatively centrist parties to exchange ideas and garner voter support through results. Our two party system has become one where one centrist party squabbles ineffectually with a left-wing obstructionist party and achieves none of the goals important to its constituents. Yet, those constituents find themselves stuck between choosing someone who identifies with the liberal obstructionist party—a platform hard for anyone to agree with—and the ineffectual weak-willed leaders who upset them in the first place. I think voters are angry enough to vote across their ideologies for Democrat candidates, and will sweep in a new congress in Nov. 2006. However, this is the real shame of a two party system. Were there a viable third and fourth party, voters upset with the incumbents could vote for a different candidate without having to support a candidate whose ideology differs from their own. Voters would ideally be less likely to identify themselves as lifelong Republicans or Democrats and simply vote along the party lines without engaging in any sort of critical thought or information seeking to shape an intelligent opinion and vote in a responsible manner.

The error of indoctrination and rhetoric

I haven’t touched the sale of various port terminals to Dubai Ports World for a few reasons. Frankly, I’m tried of the coverage. Most of the people discussing this matter involve no discussion, but rather, a shrill unilateral condemnation of the notion of selling port operations to an Arab state. Forget analyzing the facts that security will still be in the hands of the Coast Guard and Port Security Inc.—a Chinese influenced firm—or that having ports controlled by the UAE pales on comparison the danger of our wide open borders. Furthermore, let’s also forget that no American firms have expressed interest in the deal because they refuse to transact business with the Union, who demand salaries upwards of $150,000 for a longshoreman and that electronic transmissions of incoming freight be re-keyed into their system as a concession to maintaining a certain workforce. Let’s just ignore this deal as endemic of major problems battling this country. Remember, the talking points have been for the past 6 years: Bush and his cronies are evil. Equivocal discourse doesn’t fit that agenda.

Right wing talk shows have moved on after providing their own waffling defenses of the ports deal. They’ve moved on to something that I consider equally troubling. Michael Savage and his co-hosts have been ranting about the state of public schools. Laura Ingraham ran with a tape recording of an Aurora, Colorado teacher—Jay Bennish—vehemently regurgitating Michael Moore’s anti-capitalism rants, anti-war rants, and comparing President Bush to Hitler in place of a geography lecture. I don’t know what has happened to this teacher (I must have missed that segment), but the lecture is quite sickening. To hear this undereducated, over-influenced by a single point of view spewing this vile anti-American filth in a publicly funded school with no oversight and no retribution does disturb me. It disturbs me when teachers ignore the lesson plan, and substitute their own political agendas for the lesson plan. The other chief complaints about public schools regard a refusal to post a famous painting of George Washington praying after Valley Forge as a violation of separation of church and state, and a refusal to teach the Declaration of Independence because the documents reference God—or how the fundamentals and foundations of Islam take up a chapter in some history textbooks, while Christianity receives a 5-page section. Of course, that latter point ignores the fact that most of this history taught from the period 0 CE to 1700 and even beyond hinges on Christianity and references it, even if indirectly. But when do they take out religious history entirely, I wonder? However, I think that the point contending that there is a conflict for the students and a distraction for them when placing a sexually-reassigned teacher back in their original school to teach primary and middle-school students.



Though I agree that public schools teachers that try and indoctrinate students into any political philosophy should be vilified and fired, the answer is not ranting about the loss of our nation and its future. Rather, the answer hinges on the foremost conservative principle—that of individual responsibility. Those who want the bible taught in schools, which I think would be infinitely valuable, have that option. They can send their children to private schools, Sunday studies, or educate their children themselves. It breaks down to two options. Until a move is made to implement a school voucher system universally, a system that has been shown to advance all schools and students where implemented, parents have two primary options. Take an extra job—or reduce consumption of other goods—in order to cover the cost of a private Christian-centric or other faith based education, or take the time to educate children on the topics not covered in school. This requires taking the time to determine what lessons aren’t being taught by meeting with teachers, then teaching those topics oneself. Yes, a difficult task for working parents, but if one values education, obviously worth the effort.

Conservatives ought have learned by now not to read from the shrill liberal playbook that rants and fumes at something it disagrees with, cajoling perpetrators and marginalizing themselves as reactionaries. Instead, conservatives need to rely on conservative principles to confront issues like this.

I honestly believe that there is no internal problem facing this nation than accepting one’s personal responsibility. The real challenge rests in the fact of making people realize the gravity of that charge, and finding ways to make oneself accountable.

Below are links to the Bennish story.
>CBS Story
Audio

New Evidence Vindicates President Bush

But underwhelms in the face of Cheney coverage.

If you got caught up in the overblown, childish, and utterly irrelevant coverage of Vice President Dick Cheney’s hunting mishap, you may have missed what may be the most important story of this young century. It had naught to do with Hurricane Katrina, Bird-flu, or Project DUL. Rather, it had everything to do with vindicating an administration that has been dogged by a media engine that desperately feeds the irrational and unmitigated rage of liberal voters, who, if properly stirred by the right people, would vote for Al Gore again given the opportunity.

As ABC Nightly News reported—probably to its own chagrin—evidence in the form of previously classified tapes of Saddam Hussein indicate that not only the tyrant sought to reinvigorate his chemical and nuclear weapons projects, but may indeed have had such weapons by the time the US intervened in 2003, and could have potentially transported those weapons to other hostile countries.

But the Dick Cheney interview still dominates the headlines. Did someone say obvious media bias? Not that it’s the media’s fault. But if given the choice to help matters, or hurt matters, they consistently choose the latter.

The decisions regarding the dissemination of information to major media outlets following President Cheney’s fault represent similar failings that have plagued the Bush administration for 5 years. If Cheney had immediately alerted the White House press corps, the subsequent frenzy of frothing, idiot journalists shouting at Scott McClellan could have been prevented. Instead, the ‘path of least resistance’ which equates to the ‘path of greatest conspiracy’ was chosen. So the same scenario played out. But how does that relate to the tapes translated by Tierney? The kind of mishandling that blows up an incident like a hunting accident after 5 years of experience with an inflammatory, biased and arrogant media that cares little for facts and everything for sensation indicates ineptitude at all parts of the administration. So, while Tierney’s reports have been circulating the intelligence offices, it wasn’t until they fell into the right hands that any progress was made.

If you managed to catch any of the hour that Bill Tierney spent on Coast to Coast AM with George Noory this evening, you caught a direct account summarizing the material that was barely scratched by the ABC Nightly News report. However, even in the hour of radio time, Tierney failed to adequately cover all the information he had. Two major handicaps now work against this vindicating and troubling information Tierney has uncovered: the vast amount of information to be covered and summarized, and effectively disseminating that summary to a populace that has become more convinced that the intelligence supporting an invasion of Iraq was faulty.

I can only pray they get it right this time.

I’ll admit, I enjoy writing about this, though. I enjoy writing about America being right regarding its own intelligence, regardless of the administration’s willingness to demure to a raging, illogical left. I enjoy writing this almost as much as media outlets have enjoyed spewing filth like ‘dead babies being raped in the New Orleans Superdome freezers,’ ‘President Bush is reading your email, constantly, and laughing while doing so,’ and ’11 miners found alive, but later killed by President Bush.’ Some of us like it when America succeeds. Others like it when America fails. If the past 5 years haven’t illustrated who is on which side, I don’t know what further evidence you may need.