Thursday, September 30, 2004
H.L.Mencken
"A professional politician is a professionally dishonorable man. In order to get anywhere near high office he has to make so many compromises and submit to so many humiliations that he becomes indistinguishable from a streetwalker."
~ H. L. Mencken
~ H. L. Mencken
Wednesday, September 29, 2004
John Quincy Adams on U.S. Foreign Policy
AND NOW, FRIENDS AND COUNTRYMEN, if the wise and learned philosophers of the elder world, the first observers of nutation and aberration, the discoverers of maddening ether and invisible planets, the inventors of Congreve rockets and Shrapnel shells, should find their hearts disposed to enquire what has America done for the benefit of mankind?
Let our answer be this: America, with the same voice which spoke herself into existence as a nation, proclaimed to mankind the inextinguishable rights of human nature, and the only lawful foundations of government. America, in the assembly of nations, since her admission among them, has invariably, though often fruitlessly, held forth to them the hand of honest friendship, of equal freedom, of generous reciprocity.
She has uniformly spoken among them, though often to heedless and often to disdainful ears, the language of equal liberty, of equal justice, and of equal rights.
She has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations while asserting and maintaining her own.
She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart.
She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama the European world, will be contests of inveterate power, and emerging right.
Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be.
But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.
She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.
She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.
She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.
She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom.
The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force....
She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit....
[America’s] glory is not dominion, but liberty. Her march is the march of the mind. She has a spear and a shield: but the motto upon her shield is, Freedom, Independence, Peace. This has been her Declaration: this has been, as far as her necessary intercourse with the rest of mankind would permit, her practice.
When John Quincy Adams served as U.S. Secretary of State, he delivered this speech to the U.S. House of Representatives on July 4, 1821, in celebration of American Independence Day.
Let our answer be this: America, with the same voice which spoke herself into existence as a nation, proclaimed to mankind the inextinguishable rights of human nature, and the only lawful foundations of government. America, in the assembly of nations, since her admission among them, has invariably, though often fruitlessly, held forth to them the hand of honest friendship, of equal freedom, of generous reciprocity.
She has uniformly spoken among them, though often to heedless and often to disdainful ears, the language of equal liberty, of equal justice, and of equal rights.
She has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations while asserting and maintaining her own.
She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart.
She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama the European world, will be contests of inveterate power, and emerging right.
Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be.
But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.
She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.
She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.
She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.
She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom.
The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force....
She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit....
[America’s] glory is not dominion, but liberty. Her march is the march of the mind. She has a spear and a shield: but the motto upon her shield is, Freedom, Independence, Peace. This has been her Declaration: this has been, as far as her necessary intercourse with the rest of mankind would permit, her practice.
When John Quincy Adams served as U.S. Secretary of State, he delivered this speech to the U.S. House of Representatives on July 4, 1821, in celebration of American Independence Day.
Tuesday, September 28, 2004
Bushism
President Bush attended the opening of the Smithsonian Institute American Indian Museum. President Bush said he was proud of the history of the Indians and proud that the white man could come to this country to liberate them and bring them democracy.
-- Jay Leno, The Tonight Show
-- Jay Leno, The Tonight Show
Monday, September 27, 2004
The First Vietnam
Reviewing the past is instructive
When U.S. occupation troops in Iraq continue to suffer casualties every day after the war officially ended, academics and journalists began in haste to supply capsule histories comparing their situation with those of troops in the Philippines during the Filipino-American War (1899-1902). A New York Times essay summed up the lesson in its title, "In 1901 Philippines, Peace Cost More Lives Than Were Lost in War" (2 July 2003, B1)), while an article in the Los Angeles Times contrasted the simplicity of McKinley's "easy" goal of annexation (though at the cost of 4,234 U.S. soldiers killed and 3,000 wounded) with George W. Bush's ambition to "create a new working democracy as soon as possible" (20 July 2003, M2).
A moment of reflection returns us to what Bernard Fall called "the first Vietnam," the Filipino-American War of 1899-1902, in which at least 1.4 million Filipinos died. The campaign to conquer the Philippines was designed in accordance with President McKinley's policy of "Benevolent Assimilation" of the uncivilized and unchristian natives, a "civilizing mission" that Mark Twain considered worthy of the Puritan settlers and the pioneers in the proverbial "virgin land." In Twain's classic prose: "Thirty thousand killed a million. It seems a pity that the historian let that get out; it is really a most embarrassing circumstance." This was a realization of the barbarism that Henry Adams feared before Admiral George Dewey entered Manila Bay on May 1, 1898:
"I turn green in bed at midnight if I think of the horror of a year's warfare in the Philippines where... we must slaughter a million or two of foolish Malays in order to give them the comforts of flannel petticoats and electric trailways."
In "Benevolent Assimilation": The American Conquest of the Philippines, 1899-1903 (1982), Stuart Creighton Miller recounts the U.S. military's "scorched earth" tactics in Samar and Batangas, atrocities from "search and destroy" missions reminiscent of Song My and My Lai in Vietnam. This episode in the glorious history of Empire is usually accorded a marginal footnote, or a token paragraph, in school textbooks. Miller only mentions in passing the U.S. attempt to subjugate the unhispanized Moros, the Muslim Filipinos in Mindanao and Sulu islands. On March 9, 1906, four years after President Theodore Roosevelt declared the war over, Major General Leonard Wood, commanding five hundred and forty soldiers, killed a beleaguered group of six hundred Muslim men, women and children in the battle of Mount Dajo. A less publicized but horrific battle occurred on June 13, 1913, when the Muslim sultanate of Sulu mobilized about 5,000 followers (men, women and children) against the American troops led by Capt. John Pershing. The battle of Mount Bagsak, 25 kilometers east of Jolo City, ended with the death of 340 Americans and of 2,000 (some say 3,000) Moro defenders. Pershing was true to form - earlier he had left a path of destruction in Lanao, Samal Island, and other towns where local residents fought his incursions. Anyone who resisted U.S. aggression was either a "brigand" or a seditious bandit. The carnage continued up to the "anti-brigandage" campaigns of the first three decades, which suppressed numerous peasant revolts and workers' strikes against the colonial state and its local agencies.
Excerpted from Imperialist War against Terrorism & Revolution in the Philippines by E.San Juan, Jr.
When U.S. occupation troops in Iraq continue to suffer casualties every day after the war officially ended, academics and journalists began in haste to supply capsule histories comparing their situation with those of troops in the Philippines during the Filipino-American War (1899-1902). A New York Times essay summed up the lesson in its title, "In 1901 Philippines, Peace Cost More Lives Than Were Lost in War" (2 July 2003, B1)), while an article in the Los Angeles Times contrasted the simplicity of McKinley's "easy" goal of annexation (though at the cost of 4,234 U.S. soldiers killed and 3,000 wounded) with George W. Bush's ambition to "create a new working democracy as soon as possible" (20 July 2003, M2).
A moment of reflection returns us to what Bernard Fall called "the first Vietnam," the Filipino-American War of 1899-1902, in which at least 1.4 million Filipinos died. The campaign to conquer the Philippines was designed in accordance with President McKinley's policy of "Benevolent Assimilation" of the uncivilized and unchristian natives, a "civilizing mission" that Mark Twain considered worthy of the Puritan settlers and the pioneers in the proverbial "virgin land." In Twain's classic prose: "Thirty thousand killed a million. It seems a pity that the historian let that get out; it is really a most embarrassing circumstance." This was a realization of the barbarism that Henry Adams feared before Admiral George Dewey entered Manila Bay on May 1, 1898:
"I turn green in bed at midnight if I think of the horror of a year's warfare in the Philippines where... we must slaughter a million or two of foolish Malays in order to give them the comforts of flannel petticoats and electric trailways."
In "Benevolent Assimilation": The American Conquest of the Philippines, 1899-1903 (1982), Stuart Creighton Miller recounts the U.S. military's "scorched earth" tactics in Samar and Batangas, atrocities from "search and destroy" missions reminiscent of Song My and My Lai in Vietnam. This episode in the glorious history of Empire is usually accorded a marginal footnote, or a token paragraph, in school textbooks. Miller only mentions in passing the U.S. attempt to subjugate the unhispanized Moros, the Muslim Filipinos in Mindanao and Sulu islands. On March 9, 1906, four years after President Theodore Roosevelt declared the war over, Major General Leonard Wood, commanding five hundred and forty soldiers, killed a beleaguered group of six hundred Muslim men, women and children in the battle of Mount Dajo. A less publicized but horrific battle occurred on June 13, 1913, when the Muslim sultanate of Sulu mobilized about 5,000 followers (men, women and children) against the American troops led by Capt. John Pershing. The battle of Mount Bagsak, 25 kilometers east of Jolo City, ended with the death of 340 Americans and of 2,000 (some say 3,000) Moro defenders. Pershing was true to form - earlier he had left a path of destruction in Lanao, Samal Island, and other towns where local residents fought his incursions. Anyone who resisted U.S. aggression was either a "brigand" or a seditious bandit. The carnage continued up to the "anti-brigandage" campaigns of the first three decades, which suppressed numerous peasant revolts and workers' strikes against the colonial state and its local agencies.
Excerpted from Imperialist War against Terrorism & Revolution in the Philippines by E.San Juan, Jr.
Sunday, September 26, 2004
A-cube Society
An Affiliation of Rugged Individualists
The A-cube (A to the third power) Society is an informal association of individuals united by the creed of the three A's (A-cube):
A: AGORA [Gk - more at gregarious]: a gathering place; esp.: the marketplace in ancient Greece.
A: ANARCHISM [Gk - anarchos having no ruler]: a political theory holding all forms of government authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups.
A: ATHEISM [Gk - atheos godless]: a disbelieve in the existence of deity.
(all definitions from Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary)
The A-cube philosophy of laissez-faire capitalism, rational self-interest, and reason was best expressed by philosopher/novelist Ayn Rand:
"My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute."
The A-cube Society has no dues, no officers, no hierarchy and no rules. The society meets whenever two or more members gather. Membership in the society is self-selecting. If you would like to join, we welcome you and wish you well in spreading the A-cube spirit . . . but remember, you are 3000 years ahead of your time.
The A-cube (A to the third power) Society is an informal association of individuals united by the creed of the three A's (A-cube):
A: AGORA [Gk - more at gregarious]: a gathering place; esp.: the marketplace in ancient Greece.
A: ANARCHISM [Gk - anarchos having no ruler]: a political theory holding all forms of government authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups.
A: ATHEISM [Gk - atheos godless]: a disbelieve in the existence of deity.
(all definitions from Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary)
The A-cube philosophy of laissez-faire capitalism, rational self-interest, and reason was best expressed by philosopher/novelist Ayn Rand:
"My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute."
The A-cube Society has no dues, no officers, no hierarchy and no rules. The society meets whenever two or more members gather. Membership in the society is self-selecting. If you would like to join, we welcome you and wish you well in spreading the A-cube spirit . . . but remember, you are 3000 years ahead of your time.
Social Security Debt
Here, people, learn a bit about all the 'surplus' the Social Security Fund has provided. Of the Total Federal Government debt at end FY 2003 of $6.8 trillion 'only' $1.3 Trillion was owed to the SS trust fund (plus $1.6 Trillion to other trust funds). Only the interest on these portions the Government does not have to pay to 'itself'.
And I am sure you are aware of the additional $44 trillion in un-funded contingent liabilities the Feds have run up. So the Fed. Gov. 'saves' only interest on the puny $2.9 Trillion of the total of over $50 Trillion debt principal; on the rest it has to pay interest - and of course, eventually, it has to pay back the entire debt principal.
Sete
Economic Report series
Government Trust Fundand Deficit/surplus Report (updated March 2004)by Michael Hodges - email- a chapter of the Grandfather Economic Reports -
Each year nearly every congress-person in both partiesclaims they want to save social security.
But every year they allow every penny of paid-in surplusesto the trust fund to be spent on other stuff.
The total amount siphoned-off from that trust fund to date is $1.3 Trillion,with an additional 1.6 Trillion siphoned from other trust funds,With zero plan to pay anything back to support future retirees.
Trust fund surplus siphoning continues to help camouflage government spending,So budget surpluses can be claimed when actually there are deficits,Or smaller deficits can be claimed than is really the case.
This camouflage helps politicians get elected,Drives up debt like crazyAnd destroys social security and other trust funds.
And - destroys citizen trust in government.
Total Federal Government debt at end FY 2003 was $6.8 trillion, according to the.Federal Debt Report. (which increased to $7 trillion by the end of calendar year 2003). Of that total, according to the Treasury Dept., $2.9 trillion was owed to trust funds, because the general government siphoned-off all surpluses that should have been kept in those trust fund accounts for specific use - - like employee and senior pensions. After siphoning off trust funds for other uses they placed non-marketable IOUs in the trust accounts instead of marketable assets - - with no budget to pay-back the trust funds.
Trust funds include many different special trust accounts: such as the social security trust fund, the federal employee retirement fund, federal hospital trust fund, railroad retirement fund, military retirement fund, employee life insurance fund, etc.
The practice of siphoning-off trust fund surpluses to spend on non-trust stuff is a way of camouflaging general government deficit spending, making it appear to be in surplus when it's really in deficit (you get it, Steve?)- - - or making it appear that a huge deficit is just a modest deficit. Politicians like this practice, but such is dangerous to the financial health of future retirees and our young generation - - and such undermines citizen trust in government..
Note the left chart showing exploding debt owed to trust funds - - an increase of $2 trillion during the past 12 years - - or 345% higher.
After bragging for years about budget surpluses, when in fact the general government was in deficit (not surplus) despite the highest tax revenue share of the economy in peace-time history, we know they were claiming trust fund surpluses as their own. They were understating their claimed deficits by mixing in surpluses of trust funds.
According to the left chart, $2.9 trillion of the general federal government government's $6.8 trillion debt is owed to the group of trust funds.. As we will see below, $1.3 trillion (of that $2.9 trillion) is owed just to the social security trust fund. The government is not talking about paying down its $2.9 trillion debt to trust funds with its own money. Why should we allow FICA and trust surpluses to be siphoned-off to pay down debt the general government owes to non-trust entities? Additionally, if the general government siphons-off trust fund surpluses and uses that to pay down some of its 'public' debt then that will make the debt owed to the trust funds rise by the same amount - - resulting in zero debt reduction. Its smoke and mirrors. The general government should run its own surpluses for that purpose, not siphon from others.
Using trust fund surpluses to pay down general debt to others is equivalent to - 'a son siphons-off surpluses in his mother's retirement account and uses same to pay down his own credit card debt - - and then gives her non-marketable IOUs which contain zero pay-back plan, and instead of paying interest in cash (as he would have to do to a credit card company) he will just slip in a few more IOUs in her account - - while telling others that he is a good guy because he is paying off debt and at same time he is saving her retirement account.' Of course it should be just as wrong for a government to self-deal with social security trust funds as it is for a son self-dealing in his mother's retirement account.
Bottom-line: when someone says we are going to use surpluses to pay down debt - - then, you should say whose surplus funds are you using - - your own (of which you have zero), or trust fund surpluses funds that are not yours? Answer: trust funds. And then ask, where is the budgeted plan to repay the trust funds for $2.9 trillion siphoned-off to date to help save social security, etc.? Answer: there is none. Lastly ask, what is the true surplus of the general government if you don't count trust funds as if they belonged to the general government? Answer: the general government has no surplus - - its still running a big deficit. If we want debt reduction (and we do) then its total debt reduction, not just shifting debt from the public to trust funds.
And I am sure you are aware of the additional $44 trillion in un-funded contingent liabilities the Feds have run up. So the Fed. Gov. 'saves' only interest on the puny $2.9 Trillion of the total of over $50 Trillion debt principal; on the rest it has to pay interest - and of course, eventually, it has to pay back the entire debt principal.
Sete
Economic Report series
Government Trust Fundand Deficit/surplus Report (updated March 2004)by Michael Hodges - email- a chapter of the Grandfather Economic Reports -
Each year nearly every congress-person in both partiesclaims they want to save social security.
But every year they allow every penny of paid-in surplusesto the trust fund to be spent on other stuff.
The total amount siphoned-off from that trust fund to date is $1.3 Trillion,with an additional 1.6 Trillion siphoned from other trust funds,With zero plan to pay anything back to support future retirees.
Trust fund surplus siphoning continues to help camouflage government spending,So budget surpluses can be claimed when actually there are deficits,Or smaller deficits can be claimed than is really the case.
This camouflage helps politicians get elected,Drives up debt like crazyAnd destroys social security and other trust funds.
And - destroys citizen trust in government.
Total Federal Government debt at end FY 2003 was $6.8 trillion, according to the.Federal Debt Report. (which increased to $7 trillion by the end of calendar year 2003). Of that total, according to the Treasury Dept., $2.9 trillion was owed to trust funds, because the general government siphoned-off all surpluses that should have been kept in those trust fund accounts for specific use - - like employee and senior pensions. After siphoning off trust funds for other uses they placed non-marketable IOUs in the trust accounts instead of marketable assets - - with no budget to pay-back the trust funds.
Trust funds include many different special trust accounts: such as the social security trust fund, the federal employee retirement fund, federal hospital trust fund, railroad retirement fund, military retirement fund, employee life insurance fund, etc.
The practice of siphoning-off trust fund surpluses to spend on non-trust stuff is a way of camouflaging general government deficit spending, making it appear to be in surplus when it's really in deficit (you get it, Steve?)- - - or making it appear that a huge deficit is just a modest deficit. Politicians like this practice, but such is dangerous to the financial health of future retirees and our young generation - - and such undermines citizen trust in government..
Note the left chart showing exploding debt owed to trust funds - - an increase of $2 trillion during the past 12 years - - or 345% higher.
After bragging for years about budget surpluses, when in fact the general government was in deficit (not surplus) despite the highest tax revenue share of the economy in peace-time history, we know they were claiming trust fund surpluses as their own. They were understating their claimed deficits by mixing in surpluses of trust funds.
According to the left chart, $2.9 trillion of the general federal government government's $6.8 trillion debt is owed to the group of trust funds.. As we will see below, $1.3 trillion (of that $2.9 trillion) is owed just to the social security trust fund. The government is not talking about paying down its $2.9 trillion debt to trust funds with its own money. Why should we allow FICA and trust surpluses to be siphoned-off to pay down debt the general government owes to non-trust entities? Additionally, if the general government siphons-off trust fund surpluses and uses that to pay down some of its 'public' debt then that will make the debt owed to the trust funds rise by the same amount - - resulting in zero debt reduction. Its smoke and mirrors. The general government should run its own surpluses for that purpose, not siphon from others.
Using trust fund surpluses to pay down general debt to others is equivalent to - 'a son siphons-off surpluses in his mother's retirement account and uses same to pay down his own credit card debt - - and then gives her non-marketable IOUs which contain zero pay-back plan, and instead of paying interest in cash (as he would have to do to a credit card company) he will just slip in a few more IOUs in her account - - while telling others that he is a good guy because he is paying off debt and at same time he is saving her retirement account.' Of course it should be just as wrong for a government to self-deal with social security trust funds as it is for a son self-dealing in his mother's retirement account.
Bottom-line: when someone says we are going to use surpluses to pay down debt - - then, you should say whose surplus funds are you using - - your own (of which you have zero), or trust fund surpluses funds that are not yours? Answer: trust funds. And then ask, where is the budgeted plan to repay the trust funds for $2.9 trillion siphoned-off to date to help save social security, etc.? Answer: there is none. Lastly ask, what is the true surplus of the general government if you don't count trust funds as if they belonged to the general government? Answer: the general government has no surplus - - its still running a big deficit. If we want debt reduction (and we do) then its total debt reduction, not just shifting debt from the public to trust funds.
