http://www.mlgoodell.webs.com

A friend forwarded an email called Federal Budget 101 which explains our fiscal crisis with stunning clarity, in terms so simple even a public employee union member could understand it. The author, an engineer, provided the basic numbers:

.        Federal Revenues:     $2,170,000,000,000

.        Federal Budget:      $3,820,000,000,000

.        Budget Deficit:      $1,650,000,000,000

.        National Debt:            $14,271,000,000,000

.        Amount cut from the budget during the debt ceiling debate: $38,500,000,000.

Now, most people, unaccustomed to dealing in numbers of this magnitude, tend to gloss over them, dismissing them as something outside the realm of their comprehension. And this is where the engineer made his brilliant move: He created a fictional family called the Joneses, he lopped off the last eight zeroes in the numbers above, and came up with the Jones family budget:

?                     Total annual income for the Jones family: $21,700

?                     Amount of money the Jones family spent: $38,200 

?                     Amount of new debt added to the Jones family credit card: $16,500 

?                     Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710

?                     Amount cut from the budget: $385.

So the question is, if you were a bank, would you lend the Joneses any money? If you were a merchant, would you bill the Jones family, or would you make them pay cash up front? Would you even mow their lawn without getting paid first?

The Jones family is in serious trouble, and our nation is as well. Of course, the argument can be made that the difference between the Jones family and the federal government is the Jones family can’t print their own money. That may be true, but with the S & P debt downgrade, and the Chinese Finance Minister’s comments over the weekend that we need to learn to live within in our means, it seems likely someone’s going to cut off our ink supply before long.

This is unquestionably the greatest crisis to face our nation since Barack Obama’s election, and how is the administration responding? As far as the downgrade is concerned, they are trying to shoot the messenger. First they claimed S & P doesn’t understand accounting. Then they said S & P overstepped its bounds. They reminded us credit agency failures were what got into this mess. It was classic dirty, bare-knuckled politics known as The Chicago Way, and these people play for keeps.

The downgrade thus dismissed, Obama has gone back out on the campaign trail, doing what he does so well, speaking of hope and change, and trying to buy off the public with fresh new “investments.”Some might wonder if he is actually this stupid, or is he in fact a Manchurian Candidate, manufactured specifically for the task of becoming President and destroying our economy?

To return to the Jones family budget analogy, Obama, playing the role of Mr. Jones, looks at his $21,000 income, his $16,000 shortfall and his $142,000 debt, and concludes, “Say, why don’t we build ourselves a swimming pool?” Mrs. Jones, no doubt up to her elbows in unpaid bills, asks, “Won’t that cost a lot of money?” Then Obama says, “Sure it will, but it’s an investment. Plus, we can use solar energy to heat the pool. Think how much money we’ll save on our gas bill!”

http://www.mlgoodell.webs.com
The other day Bob Schieffer, who has what passes for gravitas in this age of cultural decline, who works for some television station or other, quoted a slur he stole from a Facebook follower, which pretty much sums up how pathetic our society has become. “Why are Republicans allowing freshman congressmen to control this debate?” Schieffer quoted the social media maven. “It’s like letting the teenager in the family run the family budget.”

It isn’t clear whether the Facebook smirker and Schieffer don’t understand what the debt ceiling debate was about, or they haven’t the slightest comprehension of basic economic principles, but one thing that is beyond doubt is allowing freshmen Congressmen to control the debate was the polar opposite of letting the teenager in the family run the family budget. The first term Representatives, elected as part of the people’s revolt way back in 2010 (you can Google it if it’s too long ago to remember), were the only people in the debate who were seriously arguing that we have to control spending. In other words, just the opposite of the typical teenager.

But, no matter. It was a good line. Who cares if it is accurate, or even if it makes sense? It is a hallmark of liberal invective that the important thing is to wound. It doesn’t matter if the insult is a lie, or illogical, or even if it violates a principle ordinarily held sacred by those on the left. Whether it is calling Joe and Hadassah Lieberman “dirty Jews,” ridiculing Michael Steele’s race, condemning Sarah Palin for leaving her children with her husband while she was out working, or mockingly suggesting Michele Bachmann is a lesbian, when it comes to casting slurs, nobody does it better than leftists.

Is it true?  What difference does it make? It’s only words, after all, and words have no intrinsic meaning, just as actions have no intrinsic value. There is no such thing as right or wrong, the only thing that matters is whether it works. Well, that last only applies to moral issues. When it comes to government, which is the only morality to which a leftist will pay fealty, the only thing that doesn’t matter is whether it works, because it seldom does. Which is the problem.

When it comes to liberal invective, the important thing is to sting, to be able to say, “Sssss, what a  burn,” or in the parlance of southpaw tweethearts, #ohsnap. This is what passes for debate in our sclerotic culture. This is how issues are confronted. Liberals and their media-based water carriers, refuse to accept that the Tea Party movement was a spontaneous uprising by Americans fed up with the direction in which their country is going. They have watched their President and his party attempt to dismantle their country, to betray their ideals and to uproot the tree of liberty the irrigation of which, they suspect, is long overdue.

Instead of accepting Tea Party members’ claims at face value, leftists denigrate them. They call them liars to their face. They call them terrorists, suicide bombers, racists. They unearth the most despicable claims, slurs and lies, and then they accuse the Tea Party of being rigid and uncompromising. The Tea Party is not a coherent movement. There are as many different Tea Parties as there are members, but one thing most of them share is an understanding that to continue on the path we’re blithely skipping down, will lead to destruction. They are trying to stop the train wreck. They are the only adults in the room, and no amount of invective will change that fact.

http://www.mlgoodell.webs.com

Word has it that the Republicans are losing the debt ceiling fight. According to some polls, while most Americans are opposed to raising the debt ceiling, they blame Republicans for failing to raise the debt ceiling. These polls also show that, having voted for Republicans in response to what was generally agreed to be out-of-control spending, the voters are angry at Republicans for attacking the deficit by reducing spending.

Apparently, when the President lays down a list of nonnegotiable demands, such as “This debt ceiling increase has to be done in a way that doesn’t harm my reelection campaign,” and “I will veto any debt ceiling legislation that doesn’t include tax increases,” the American people respect him for seeking compromise, but when Republicans say “This is not a revenue issue, this is a spending issue,” they are pilloried for obstructionism.

It’s really hard to understand why when the President warns senior citizens that he will stop their Social Security checks on August 3, the Republicans get blamed. The fact is, in the event of a failure to raise the debt ceiling, if Social Security checks are stopped it will be the result of a decision made in the White House. It will be a decision targeting the most vulnerable, as payback for Obama not getting his way. There will be plenty of money for Social Security, military pay, veterans benefits, and interest on the national debt.

The federal government pulls in about $180 billion every month (and spends $335 billion)! Social security runs about $60 billion, military pay $12 billion, disability $7 billion, and interest on treasury notes, $29 billion, for a grand total of $108 billion. That leaves $72 billion left over to cover the rest. If seniors don’t get their social security checks, that’s something they ought to take up with Obama.

This isn’t to whitewash the Republican performance during this debacle. They badly misplayed a winning hand. The moment they took their first step down the road to compromise they began to lose traction. Having been elected with a mission, having passed a budget that at least began to address  the deficit, they didn’t have to do anything else, except beg, plead, cajole and demand that the President and his Congressional allies either act on the House version of the budget, or come up with a proposal of their own. The Democrats had become an embarrassment to themselves, so hamstrung were they by their inability to make a decision.

Obama proposed a budget earlier this year which was laughed out of the room. It addressed the debt by promising to increase it by more than $7 trillion over the next decade. He proved himself then to be childishly unserious when it came to fiscal responsibility. He has done nothing since to change that fact, though he speaks as though he has become convinced of the need for deficit reduction. But his speech consists of just words. He speaks in generalities about a willingness to consider entitlement reform, while adding that it may cost him his Presidency. In exchange for those words, he wants Republicans to give in on taxes.

His offer is “Give us tax increases now, and we will set a date to begin talking about spending cuts after the election.” As unconscionably insulting an offer as this is, even it is meaningless. Absent a serious, written, concrete plan to reduce spending in specific areas, Republicans should not act. Word has it that the Republicans are losing the debt ceiling fight. According to some polls, while most Americans are opposed to raising the debt ceiling, they blame Republicans for failing to raise the debt ceiling. These polls also show that, having voted for Republicans in response to what was generally agreed to be out-of-control spending, the voters are angry at Republicans for attacking the deficit by reducing spending.

Apparently, when the President lays down a list of nonnegotiable demands, such as “This debt ceiling increase has to be done in a way that doesn’t harm my reelection campaign,” and “I will veto any debt ceiling legislation that doesn’t include tax increases,” the American people respect him for seeking compromise, but when Republicans say “This is not a revenue issue, this is a spending issue,” they are pilloried for obstructionism.

It’s really hard to understand why when the President warns senior citizens that he will stop their Social Security checks on August 3, the Republicans get blamed. The fact is, in the event of a failure to raise the debt ceiling, if Social Security checks are stopped it will be the result of a decision made in the White House. It will be a decision targeting the most vulnerable, as payback for Obama not getting his way. There will be plenty of money for Social Security, military pay, veterans benefits, and interest on the national debt.

The federal government pulls in about $180 billion every month (and spends $335 billion)! Social security runs about $60 billion, military pay $12 billion, disability $7 billion, and interest on treasury notes, $29 billion, for a grand total of $108 billion. That leaves $72 billion left over to cover the rest. If seniors don’t get their social security checks, that’s something they ought to take up with Obama.

This isn’t to whitewash the Republican performance during this debacle. They badly misplayed a winning hand. The moment they took their first step down the road to compromise they began to lose traction. Having been elected with a mission, having passed a budget that at least began to address  the deficit, they didn’t have to do anything else, except beg, plead, cajole and demand that the President and his Congressional allies either act on the House version of the budget, or come up with a proposal of their own. The Democrats had become an embarrassment to themselves, so hamstrung were they by their inability to make a decision.

Obama proposed a budget earlier this year which was laughed out of the room. It addressed the debt by promising to increase it by more than $7 trillion over the next decade. He proved himself then to be childishly unserious when it came to fiscal responsibility. He has done nothing since to change that fact, though he speaks as though he has become convinced of the need for deficit reduction. But his speech consists of just words. He speaks in generalities about a willingness to consider entitlement reform, while adding that it may cost him his Presidency. In exchange for those words, he wants Republicans to give in on taxes.

His offer is “Give us tax increases now, and we will set a date to begin talking about spending cuts after the election.” As unconscionably insulting an offer as this is, even it is meaningless. Absent a serious, written, concrete plan to reduce spending in specific areas, Republicans should not act. They cannot rely on this President to keep his word. This President has demonstrated a willingness to say anything to achieve his goal. Remember, this President lied about his own mother’s deathbed experience in order to get his way on Obamacare. Obama’s mendacity is so slimy and overweening that he makes Bill Clinton look The Beaver.

Whether it is possible for Republicans to have any input into the national dialogue on the debt is open to question, but they need to try. They need to say, every day, that this is not a revenue issue, this is a spending issue. They need to work hard to get their message across. If they fail to do so, and if the American people swing back to the Democrat party in the next election, then we will have announced that we want to be like the Greeks. We are as soft, lazy, selfish and stupid as the Greeks, and we don’t give a flying hoot about anything but immediate, short-term self-gratification. Obama’s mendacity is so slimy and overweening that he makes Bill Clinton look The Beaver.

Whether it is possible for Republicans to have any input into the national dialogue on the debt is open to question, but they need to try. They need to say, every day, that this is not a revenue issue, this is a spending issue. They need to work hard to get their message across. If they fail to do so, and if the American people swing back to the Democrat party in the next election, then we will have announced that we want to be like the Greeks. We are as soft, lazy, selfish and stupid as the Greeks, and we don’t give a flying hoot about anything but immediate, short-term self-gratification.

http://www.mlgoodell.webs.com
If the title evokes memories of an old rock standard, that’s okay, because that sums up my feelings lately–a little bit moody and a whole lot of the blues. Each day, it seems, another bit of light in my life flickers and begins to die. The name Miniver Cheevy is often on my lips and almost always on my mind.

The things I most loved about life are being carelessly tossed out the window of our technological Juggernaut, left scattered and broken, littering the shoulders of the information superhighway. Newspapers, letters, books and bookstores are being jettisoned in favor of ebooks, emags and etail. E as in evil.

With the devolution of the tactile comes the desolation of the mind, and the putrefaction of the soul. We live in a society in which more people can name the 5th runner up in last year’s American Idol than can name even one Supreme Court justice. Is it any wonder that our elected officials can loot the nation’s pension plan without anyone getting upset, or even noticing? This state of affairs proves that the thousands of teachers’ union members who invaded Madison, Wisconsin this spring were telling the truth when they proclaimed by deed if not by word that the only reasons they entered the education racket were to get a lucrative pension, and because they couldn’t be fired for incompetence.

As Steely Dan once complained, “The things that pass for knowledge, I don’t understand.”

The things that pass for values are a mystery as well. Our pop culture mavens go gaga over a transgressive diva, and parents pay good money so their eight-year-old daughters can learn how to dress, move and sing like that modern Medusa.

Every decade or so, people bestir themselves from their glutinous sloth to vote overwhelmingly in favor of men and women promising to rein in a burgeoning public sector. Then they believe the lies of those still clinging to power. They decide they don’t want any programs cut. “Don’t touch my Medicare,” they weasel. “But don’t raise my taxes, either.” Those assigned to root-and-branch reforms soon conclude their mandate was instead to get reelected, and that becomes their highest goal. They don the lace, and the gauze, and the push-up bras, and cozy up to customers around the bar, whispering to the voters, “Buy me a drink?”

As our nation steps back from its self-proclaimed role as the world’s grownup, ceding moral leadership to Europe, industrial and economic leadership to China, and regional hegemony to Iran, we wonder what we were fighting for, and whether it was worth the cost. What was the ideal which impelled us to the front, and who today is so naive as to speak of values?

We live in a culture in which Bill Maher is admired for spewing unrelenting hatred, but anyone who speaks of values is condemned as a hater. There are no ascendant values, there are only lifestyle choices. Endorsing excess, we are free to do anything, except to ask how much is enough? Questioning the helical trend leads to moral indignation on the part of the self-indulgent. This pursuit of flavor-of-the-month outrage leads to moral illiteracy. It leads to the point where the Lutheran Church can come out in favor of genocide–again–and escape condemnation because its position on gay marriage is affirming and uplifting.

Meanwhile, the State of New York has “legalized” gay marriage, as if it were against the law for two men or two women to get married before. This isn’t about justice, or human rights, or even fairness. It certainly isn’t the long-awaited answer to a crying need in the gay community. Entering into committed, long-term, monogamous relationships has never been a defining characteristic of homosexual culture. In fact, quite the opposite is true. (Next time you’re at a ball game and your kids are dancing to “YMCA,” take a moment to listen to the lyrics. Then you will understand the meaning of irony).

No, this wasn’t about justice, it was about approbation. Watching some of the exuberant response to the New York vote, I was struck by one celebrant boasting a seven-tiered wedding cake hat. Suddenly I realized this is not about making the world safe for serial monogamous same-sex relationships, this is about men dressing up in wedding gowns. This is about harsh, gruff, mean old Dad saying, “You look marvelous in that dress, son. I’m so proud of you.”

http://www.mlgoodell.webs.com

During last month’s  bizarrely partisan ambush of Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis), President Hosni Obama (D-Chi) said the Republican budget plan would “end Medicare as we know it.” Since then, Democrats have been demagoging seniors, blatantly lying, and jeopardizing national security, in a naked bid to reclaim control of the House of Representatives.

Obviously Ryan’s plan, which isn’t scheduled to begin for ten years, won’t force current retirees to face a bleak future bereft of nice young doctors who’ll sit down and talk with them about their neuralgia, fibrositis, or their inability to sustain a woody for more than four hours. It may be obvious, but it doesn’t play as impressively as “Republicans want to force seniors to die painful, protracted deaths in order to continue financing their tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires.”

What the President didn’t tell us during his hatchet job on Ryan is regardless whether we adopt Ryan’s reform, Obama’s IPAB scheme, or somebody else’s plan, in ten years Medicare as we know it will come to an end.  The only question remaining is whether Obama understands this and is lying about it, or whether he doesn’t understand this, and is blithely skipping down the path of the Big Government Tooth Fairy.

Medicare as we know it has a $30 trillion unfunded liability. Medicare, and its companion Ponzi Scheme, Social Security, cannot be sustained under any sense of economics. When the President and his band of hacks talk about funding these “entitlements” by raising taxes on “millionaires and billionaires,” they are playing an ugly populist game, resorting to class warfare to obscure the fact that “millionaires and billionaires” couldn’t fund Medicare and Social Security even if their income were taxed at 100%. They couldn’t fund the programs even if their assets were subject to confiscatory taxes.

By all honest accounts, in twenty years, in order to continue to provide Medicare and Social Security “as we know it,” it will be necessary to tax all wage earners at the rate of 60 - 70%. This is just to fund Medicare and Social Security, It doesn’t include money for the defense department, for SEC Investigators’ internet porn accounts, air traffic controller’s Nyquil, or TSA gropers’ rubber gloves.

It is a mystery why people in their 20's and 30's aren’t up in arms over this blatant theft of their future. The unbelievable thing is virtually all of them realize what is happening. The know Social Security is a joke, that there is no hope of them ever receiving a dime of benefits. They know this, but they don’t choose to hold their elected representatives’s feet to the fire. It’s as if there is some disconnect between the world and their place in it.

The fact is, anybody under the age of 50 should be outraged. We should be witnessing our own “Arab Spring” in Washington, with hundreds of thousands of people calling for the ouster and imprisonment of the men and women who have been shamelessly looting the national pension plan for decades. If they were in business instead of politics, they would be in jail.

There is still time, only just, to make a difference, to begin necessary reforms, to begin means testing Medicare and Social Security benefits. To begin making good on the social compact and to preserve the framework for civil society. Obama had a chance to address “entitlements” with his first budget plan this year, but he punted. Most pundits nodded approvingly, noting that this placed the onus of raising the subject on the Republicans; it forced the Republicans to touch the “third rail.”

Ryan recognized the trap, but walked right into it, because it was the right, the necessary thing to do. He made his proposal, and thought it would be, at the very least, a starting point for serious, long overdue but adult conversations. Instead, he got a bitter, nasty, dishonest verbal beat down by hypocritical “uniter” in the White House. Now Democrats are running on lies, while continuing to refuse to pass a budgets (it has been more than 750 days since the Democrat-controlled Senate has pass a budget–a lapse unprecedented in our nation’s history).

Politics is a nasty business, but there must come a time, when a nation’s economic security hangs in the balance, that our leaders should act in the interest of their constituents. Sadly, that doesn’t seem to be the case today. Democrats are playing to win the short term game, which is tantamount to telling young Americans, “You can go to hell.”

After losing the special election in New York’s 26th Congressional District, Republicans are starting to ease back from the budget plan they had already approved. Having once again been given the trust of the American people, they are on the verge of once again proving they don’t deserve it. They need to understand that the mission the American people elected them to fulfill was not running for reelection. If Republicans fail this time, where are the people to turn? Surely not to the Democrats, who have proved themselves either incompetent or criminally venal, or possibly both. Perhaps it is time for social-media-savvy young Americans to form a new party. Perhaps it is time for them to begin to vote, to vote for hope and change, to vote for someone intent on keeping his promises, and not just to use the Oval Office as a cudgel with which to bludgeon the American dream.

http://www.mlgoodell.webs.com
His HuffPo hagiographers notwithstanding, President Barack Obama did not plan the mission to take out Osama bin Laden. And rightfully so. He has no military experience, and therefore, no standing, to directly plan a combat mission. He would have needlessly and recklessly endangered American soldiers’ lives if he had. The sad thing is, his abject supporters had no reason to give voice to such fancies, because it was a rare instance of Presidential courage.

There were substantial risks inherent in this mission, not least was the damage that failure posed to Obama’s reelection campaign. While it is no means clear that the mission’s success will ensure reelection, its failure, by indelibly linking him to Jimmy Carter’s abortive Iranian rescue mission, would have cemented his identity as that hapless predecessor’s doppelganger. Clearly, Obama is far too ambitious to dream of spending the next few decades building houses for poor people and rubbing shoulders with dictators, mass murderers and Holocaust deniers.

It was a rare show of courage from this most timid of visionaries, yet it was courageous. It was, in fact, an astoundingly risky maneuver. The physical insertion of a team of soldiers into a foreign nation, even those as superbly skilled and impeccably drilled as Navy Seal Team Six, was fraught with peril. Chances of catastrophic failure were far greater than reliance on a “surgical” air strike. It was akin to Woody Hayes’ view of throwing the football. Anytime you drop back to pass three things can happen, and two of them are bad. Yet Obama wasn’t just dropping back to pass, he was heaving a bomb into triple coverage, and the pass was completed.

Obama took a risk, and it paid off. The chance of failure loomed large, and more than just the end of his Presidency, the danger to national interests was considerable. Imagine if bin Laden weren’t there. Mission planners were 80% certain he was, but that means in one of five circumstances, he wouldn’t have been home. If he weren’t, it’s entirely possible that the lengthened search time would have allowed locals to swarm the scene. It would have been Black Hawk Down all over again, but this time it would have been much worse.

This time it would have been an invasion force pinned down, short on supplies, forced to fire on Pakistani citizens, or possibly even the military, or worse, to surrender. It would have been the Jimmy Carter Desert Classic on steroids. Imagine the public relations disaster. Imagine the foreign policy implications of a squad of American soldiers held in a Pakistani version of Guantanamo. Imagine them going on trial in Karachi, or before the International Criminal Court. Or, imagine the audio, once leaked, of the soldiers, surrounded, out of ammunition, water and supplies, both helicopters inoperable, begging, pleading for backup, for reinforcements, and receiving only silence. Imagine them fighting hand to hand, until, finally, they were overwhelmed, stripped naked, brutally mutilated and dragged through the streets of Abbottobad; in other words, imagine them receiving a Sharia-compliant funeral.

The risks were huge, and Obama “manned up” for once. So give the guy a Miller Light. He’s earned it. Remember, this is the guy who needed to ask permission of the Arab League before he would go along with NATO’s humanitarian intervention in Libya. (On the other hand, Pakistan is ostensibly our ally, which in the curious ethos of Obamaworld, merits it less consideration than a brutal dictator slaughtering his own citizens).

Still one has to wonder whether this mission was necessary at all. Bin Laden, was isolated, without internet or even telephone connections. He was reduced to communicating through written messages, hand-delivered by a courier. His influence as a terror strategist was diminished if not eliminated. Clearly, he was living his dream of returning his world to the middle ages. There may be some sense of vindication in nailing him, but was it really the “most significant achievement to date” in the war against terror? Surely not. Capturing Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, whose interrogation set in motion the actions culminating in bin Laden’s death, was more significant. So was the apprehension or death of most of the lop levels of al Qaeda leadership in Afghanistan, and even more so the slaughter of thousands of willing jihadists in Iraq.

It wasn’t necessary, but it made a lot of people feel good. Was it worth the risks? Hard to say, since the mission was successful. It was good to see that our President is willing to take chances, even if the rewards are limited, or personal. When all is said and done, though, “getting” bin Laden is starting to look suspiciously like a campaign stunt, and if that is the case, maybe he hasn’t earned that Miller Light.

http://www.mlgoodell.webs.com

Tavis Smiley, a host on the as yet still-funded PBS, recently called the 2011 Budget agreement an immoral document. If he had been referring to the last Congress’ blatant abdication of duty in failing, for crass political purposes, to even propose a 2011 budget, he would have been right. Unfortunately, he was referring to the attempt to inject some fiscal sanity into the federal government. Where Smiley comes from, fiscal sanity is racist.

“I don’t understand why it is in this town that every debate about money always begins and ends with how we can further reward the rich and more punish the poor,” Smiley frowned.

Which got me to thinking. Which is better, to reward the rich and punish the poor, or to punish the rich and reward the poor? The latter option seems to be what people like Smiley are naturally drawn to. Every time the President addresses the subject of budget restraint he refers contemptuously to “millionaires and billionaires,” who make too much money and pay too few taxes. The President views the rich, and the enterprises by which they generate their wealth, as anathema.

Yet what of the alternative? Has there ever been a culture which has long endured once it chose to travel the path of punishing the rich and rewarding the poor? Why shouldn’t the rich be rewarded? Isn’t wealth that to which what most people aspire? Do any of us actually respect and admire those who can’t take care of themselves? We may take pity on them, and give them money for food or shelter, but do we really like them? Do we want to like them? Did you ever hear someone say, “I was born with all the advantages, but through discipline and will power, I managed to become poor?”

The rich occupy a realm to which most people aspire, and from their wealth comes much good. The great foundations, which provide so much help and encouragement to so many underprivileged, were created not by the poor, but by the wealthy. In America’s great museums the art hanging on the walls often came from wealthy donors, but never from the poor. It is the rich who create jobs; Nancy Pelosi’s demented assertions aside, giving money to the poor does not.

Being poor is not an admirable goal. It is not something to be pursued, or praised, or rewarded. Poverty carries with it in its essence a stigma, and it is not the proper role of the state to assuage that sense of shame. To the contrary, the role of the state should be to reiterate, and to amplify that sense. The state should let poor people know, not only are they failing themselves, but they are failing their children, and their society.

Medicaid is one of the three “entitlements” which comprise the wall of bricks teetering precariously over the American economy. It is projected to continue growing at an ever increasing rate, soaking up more and more of taxpayers’ dollars, and contributing ever more to our burgeoning debt. How to continue to pay for this is one of the great issues confronting those few adults willing to actually attempt to tackle the issue. Yet one solution no one mentions is reducing the cost of Medicaid by reducing the number of people who qualify.

The modern welfare state, comprised as it is of “safety nets” and “entitlements”, is built on the concept of destigmatizing poverty. It offers incentives for impoverishment, and penalizes those who seek to escape it. Ironically, this system, which tends to perpetuate an entire segment of our population in social, cultural and financial poverty, is maintained in the name of compassion.

True compassion would involve offering incentives to escape poverty, and a consistent, committed policy of calling poverty what it is, a shame, a drain, and a lousy way to live.

http://www.mlgoodell.webs.com

Of the many consequences of Bill Clinton’s tawdry two terms, arguably the worst was the denigration of Impeachment to a mere political tactic. If Bill ‘n Hill had come clean about their Whitewater fiasco there never would have been a Special Prosecutor. However, once one was appointed, it was just a matter of time before he unearthed something actionable. Revelations of the President’s sophomoric behavior, coupled with his disdain for the rule of law set in motion a chain of events which led inexorably to Impeachment.

That he survived the trial had more to do with the GOP’s failure of nerve than any merit the Arkansan brought to the process. In the end, he was, if not vindicated, certainly excused. Republicans were painted as small-minded and vindictive, and the Ship of State had sprung a handful more leaks. The only concrete result, given tremendous impetus with the 2006 elections, was a strong tit-for-tat impulse on the part of the reascendant Democrats to return the favor.

Fortunately for the body politic, there was nothing actionable in George W. Bush’s Presidency. It didn’t take long before even rabid impeachment advocates such as Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) discovered that slogans did not constitute a valid basis for bringing the process forward. “Bush Lied, People Died,” may have filled the Democrats’ campaign coffers, but they wouldn’t stand up in court.

So it was, following the denouement of Bush’s Presidency, that many hoped the scourge of impeachment would be laid to rest. Certainly your correspondent hoped this would be the case. It was my position vis-a-vis the Birther movement. I responded, “I don’t want to know,” whenever the subject was raised. If we had a responsible media, that question would have been addressed during the primaries, when reporters should have asked the tough questions, rather than exulting over the tingles running up their legs each time The One opened his mouth. Once he took office, it was too late. I definitely didn’t want to see him Impeached.

Over the course of his first term, Barack H. Obama (D-Chi.) fumbled the issues he didn’t bumble. He abdicated his duties on everything from foreign policy to the economy, gaining a glaring black eye through his mishandling of health care reform. He brought shame to his nation through his acts of obeisance to kings and princes, sheiks and ayatollahs. He dismantled the economy through a knee jerk embracing of ever-expanding government. He did little right, but one thing he didn’t do was deserve to beIimpeached.

Until now. It is painful to write these words, but they are true. Yesterday, with Virginia Commonwealth University’s upset victory over Kansas in the quarterfinals of the NCAA Men’s Basketball Tournament, aka March Madness, Obama’s last claim to Presidential legitimacy was shattered. It is hard to believe, but as we approach the national rite known as The Final Four, the President has no picks left.

Few can recall the diligence with which he made his selections, as televised by ESPN, without feeling an upsurge of pride. While many Presidents in the past would have wasted valuable time and energy focusing on such extraneous matters as the upheaval in the Middle East, the Civil War in Libya, or even the steadily unfolding tragedy in Japan, Obama knew what was important. He kept his eyes on the prize, and picked the teams destined to play for the National Championship.
Timorous Americans rejoiced at his wisdom, they drew sustenance from his courage, they were inspired by his judgment.

Now, however, the American people have been cast adrift. Who, they wonder, will guide us now. Unmoored, many have begun to demandIimpeachment. While Constitutional scholars are divided over whether failing to pick even one entry in The Final Four constitutes a “high crime or misdemeanor,” a growing number argue that in fact, it does.

Andrew Johnson, a Professor at University of Michigan’s School of Law has stated, “It is a difficult issue, but the fact remains that no previous President has blundered quite so badly in his NCAA brackets. It isn’t pretty, but it is the law.”

Obama’s disastrous picks have badly damaged morale in the White House. One high ranking Administration official, who will remain nameless as he is not authorized to tell the truth, stated, “When he went around the world apologizing for America, we stayed with him. When Obamacare went up in flames, we were undeterred. When he punted on Deepwater Horizon, we were still on his side. Even when he looked like a deer in the headlights over Libya, we didn’t falter. We always knew, no matter how bad things looked, we had an ace up our sleeves. We still had the NCAA. We were serving the shrewdest Bracketologist of this or any other era. And now this.”

Overcome by emotion, the official broke off, before regaining his composure. “Look,” he said in a shaky voice. “He’s already lost his economic team. Rahm’s gone back to Chicago. Gates is leaving by the end of the year. And right now, all over the White House, people are cleaning out their desks and packing their bags.” He shook his head, angrily, and continued. “We all bought into his program. We all believed he was The One to turn things around. But now, not one team in The Final Four–are you freaking kidding me?”

It’s a pity it has come to this. So much potential, so much promise, so much hope, all wasted, all washed down the gutter on a flood of tears. Yes, sadly, tragically, it is time. Impeach Him.

http://www.mlgoodell.webs.com

There are few things as disturbing as watching the current administration in full crisis mode. It’s sort of like watching a Charlie Sheen interview, without the underlying sense of competence and class. The administration has been scrambling since that Tunisian fruit vendor lit himself on fire. Granted, these are difficult times, and the stakes are enormous. This is the  sort of situation which demands a leader.

In times of crisis it is essential that the President and his advisors identify what approach will best serve American interests, and ensure that each member of the team speaks with the same voice. Of course, it helps if the President is capable of identifying what is in his country’s best interests, and  even more important, believes that his country’s best interests are worth pursuing.

Sadly, there seems to be no consensus in this administration on either of those questions. It is difficult for even the greatest leaders to lead when they aren’t sure where they want to go. One reason this administration has sounded so confused is because, rather than confronting a crisis, they are floating trial balloons. The Secretary of State comments on the uprising in Egypt, and the rest of the team listens closely to see whether China, Russia, or the Chairman of the Heidelberg University International Relations Department approve.

It is a truth universally acknowledged that it is hard to lead if you are afraid to get out in front, and sadly, the current White House occupant spent much of his legislative career voting “present.” This person seems to have embraced the ideal of American decline. He appears to honestly believe that the world will be a better place because of it.

How else to explain his timidity in chartering a ferry to evacuate Americans stranded in Libya? It wasn’t just any ferry, but a third-rate one, so unseaworthy that it bobbed in Tripoli Harbor for a couple of days waiting for calmer waters out at sea. This was how a nation with the world’s most powerful navy chose to respond to this crisis. As a Wall Street Journal editorial noted, even Carter sent helicopters.

Now, while the world sits back and watches the Libyan dictator slaughter his own people, the American administration dithers about the need to get permission from the United Nations before we lift a finger to stop Libyan jets from snuffing out a desperate cry for freedom. We would rather watch people die than risk offending Hugo Chavez.

The academic sophisticates throw up their hands and ask, “What can we do? It’s not our fight. We don’t want to offend anybody.” We can, (and should have done a week ago), tell Ghadafi that we will shoot down any fighter that leaves the ground. Then we should have sent American jets to patrol the Gulf of Sidra. Ghadafi might not like that, but then again, he might remember that the last time he responded, it didn’t go so well for his side.

It’s been more than two decades since he last tried to shoot down one of our jets. The question we need to ask is, in that time, which air force got stronger? The answer is so obvious that the threat should have been made, and could have been made with virtually no fear of consequences.

What else could we have done? We could have recognized the rebels’ provisional government. We could have done it immediately, unilaterally, without waiting to see how it would play in Berlin, Beijing or San Francisco. Now some might argue that we don’t know which side will win. Actually, we do. The side with the biggest guns and the willingness to use it will. Especially if the United States of America refuses to do anything about it. Besides, what’s the worst that could happen if Ghadafi did survive? It’s not like we would be losing a friend in the region.

Others might argue that we don’t know who these rebels are. They might turn out to be even worse than the guy already there. Those people haven’t been paying attention for the past 40 years. Actually, there’s only one person in the world who would be worse than Ghadafi, and he’s already got a job, starving most of North Korea.

We could have sent some arms and ammunition to the rebels. We could have sent them satellite images, cable intercepts and any other intelligence that would help them avoid ambushes and massacres. We could have shown them support, and possibly been able to help shape the outcome. Instead we have cowered on the sidelines. We have begged others to take the lead. We have acted like a nation already in decline.

The President’s claque in the media has made much of late of how similar he is to Ronald Reagan. Well, it’s no longer Morning in America. It’s not even Dusk. If anything, it’s about a quarter past nine at night. Based on his behavior, the current President seems to think that’s a good thing.

If that’s the way he really feels, Barack H. Obama doesn’t deserve to be President. If he wants to lead a third rate country, he should quit his day job and go run for President of Yeswecanistan.

http://www.mlgoodell.webs.com

The good news is President Barack H. Obama (D–Chi.), has finally found the leader of a state he’s willing to stand up to. The bad news is it’s the democratically elected Governor of Wisconsin. Organizing for America, an organization authorized by the Democratic National Committee and closely identified with the President, posted a call to arms on its website, which helped organized the thousands of union thugs who descended upon the state capitol over the weekend.

They understand that what is happening in Wisconsin is nothing less than a fight for the future of public employee unions in America, and by extension, for the economic future of America itself. The two objectives are mutually exclusive, and those who have surrounded and occupied the Wisconsin State Capital Building, those who have polluted the grounds with their droppings, and the air with their posters and chants, have made their choice. They have elevated their narrow interests above those of American citizens.

It is fitting that Wisconsin is the site of this battle, because Wisconsin was the first state to allow collective bargaining for public employees. When public employees to join unions  they immediately adopt the adversarial attitude with which unions have historically functioned. Union members view the company as the enemy. They believe they benefit when the company benefits suffers.

As a Michigan resident, I have had the misfortune of witnessing this at first hand. The state has been mired in a depression for more than a decade because the United Auto Workers Union was so desperately greedy, and so mindlessly opposed to the interests of their employers, that they nearly succeeded in shutting down the American auto industry. (Fortunately for them, the President stepped in, essentially nationalized the industry, and jettisoned legitimate investors’ rights in order to honor the unsecured claims of his union bosses).

Unfortunately for the City of Detroit, the President has shown no inclination to intercede on the part of the Detroit Symphony Orchestra, whose striking members were so transfixed by their desire to destroy their company that they never stopped to realize they were the company.  It is truly a shame, but the musicians are apparently all idiots. Having effectively ended world class classical music in Detroit, their immediate reaction was to ask Mayor Dave Bing to either delay his State of the City address or to change its venue from Orchestra Hall so as not to cross a picket line. Bing, though a Democrat, and therefore not characteristically inclined to act like a man in the face of union demands, apparently reasoned there is no great harm in crossing a picket line when the company the picketers are strike has effectively ceased to exist.

When workers join a union they immediately elevate their interests above those of their employers.
When they organize in the private sector they merely commit economic suicide. However, when public employees organize, their employers are the American people. Therefore, public employee unions have elevated their interests above those of their nation. They believe they benefit when the American people suffer. The only mistake Scott Walker has made so far is to deny that his ultimate goal is to destroy public employee unions. That should be his primary goal, and it should be endorsed by every American who cares about the future of the nation.

Of course few on the infantile left have been able to resist the absurdity of attempting to link events in Egypt with the insurrection in Madison. (Surprisingly, Obama has been one of the few who has). Someone posted on Twitter the other day, “This is Democracy in action.”

Democracy in action? I thought. Democrat Senators have abandoned their seats in order to prevent the legislature from meeting? Tens of thousands of union thugs have flocked to the state and occupied public buildings in an attempt to intimidate the Governor and the remaining law-abiding legislators into backing away from their proposed legislation? Wisconsin public employees are essentially holding an illegal general strike?.

If this is Democracy in action, I would hate to see mob rule.

http://www.mlgoodell.webs.com

How awful is liberal columnist Leonard Pitts Jr.? Well, if my father were a liberal weenie given to posing as an intellectual while spewing the most absurd, illogical arguments; if he were a moral poseur, pretending to be preaching about love and mutual respect while dismissing those with whom he disagrees as either evil or moronic; and if he were just a real lousy writer, then I could probably get my own TV show on CBS called “P!#tts My Dad Says.”

Fortunately my father is none of those things, which makes this the most tortured analogy since, well, since any one used by Pitts on a good day. Take today’s column, in which he praises the boneheaded suggestion that Republicans and Democrats to sit together during tonight’s State of the Union address. You can’t help wondering if the Representatives and Senators will find boxes of juice and cookies at their desks. What, no cookies? That’s right, Michelle has banned them. Too much sugar.

However, our elected representatives will be given blankies, and there will be a rest time scheduled during the speech. Actually, none of that is true, though it might as well be, as that is how childish the idea is. Even worse than the idea are the reasons used to justify it. The main one, of course, is the firestorm of bitter partisan invective, irresponsible accusations and libelous allegations in the immediate aftermath of the shooting in Tucson.

As Pitts writes, “It is a tragedy that has inspired many of us to reconsider the violent, vitriolic and divisive political rhetoric that has become so commonplace. While such rhetoric did not cause – even indirectly – the carnage in Arizona, that reconsideration is still appropriate.” Huh? Partisan discourse played no role whatsoever in this incident, which is why we all (read conservatives) should avoid disagreeing with the President, Senate Democrats, and sanctimonious, egotistical and illogical columnists?

That makes as much sense as the Head Priest in some ancient culture announcing that his astronomers have determined that the earth’s position relative to the sun during its orbit is the reason days are getting shorter. “The sun is not angry at us, nor is it sick. In fact, it does not require us to sacrifice virgins. Which is why we need to continue sacrificing virgins.”

It’s a popular belief that the  United States is fairly evenly divided between liberals and conservatives, with a small group of independents in the middle who determine the difference in most elections. This theory is not born out in polls, which show a plurality of Americans self-identify as conservatives, while very few are willing to call themselves liberals.

The main reason four out of five Americans are afraid to call themselves liberals is they don’t want people to think they read Leonard Pitts, Jr.

http://www.mlgoodell.webs.com

It is a truism of Western culture that tolerance is hard. Tolerance leads to ostracism and death. Tolerance means braving the assaults of heartless corporate CEO's and oppressive right wing Christians; to celebrate diversity, to have the courage to proclaim, "I'm no better than you are," is to run afoul of the gatekeepers of societal regimentation. It is easier to follow the path trod by the jack booted mobs of intolerance than it is to make a stand for acceptance.

This is a myth. In fact, tolerance is easy. More than this, tolerance is cowardice, tolerance is sloth, and tolerance is an ill-fated attempt to preserve the status quo. Consider Holland as a case study in national self-abnegation. The Dutch demonstrate the folly of tolerance in the face of intolerance.

No visit to Amsterdam would be complete without a visit to the Tropenmuseum, or Tropics Museum. Built in the 19th century to showcase the spoils of Holland's rapacious colonization, the design of the building, with its three-story-high atrium and the rich ornamentation of its colonnaded terraces, reflects the wealth generated by Dutch exploitation. From their early domination of the spice trade to the appropriation of southeast Asia's rubber supply, Dutch traders and slave masters helped  The Netherlands dominate the world of commerce and culture, and defined the architecture of Amsterdam today. Over the years, reflecting changes in Dutch culture, the museum has been transformed from a trophy case into a diorama of guilt.
 
In the twentieth century, having finished raping their colonies, and having witnessed close hand the horrors of war, the Dutch turned inward. With a welfare state financed by past riches, they have been liberated from the minutiae of survival, and are now free to contemplate the foibles of their past. Using liberality and tolerance to assuage the guilt of living off ill-gotten gains, if Holland were a person, it would be Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Their heyday of conquest safely behind them, the Dutch today manifest an aura of tolerance, a blandness which makes them resemble nothing so much as Canadians with an active sex life.

A recent visit to Amsterdam was punctuated by a Hollywood-chase-scene of a taxi ride. The driver, an Arab man just oozing rage, rammed his Mercedes down side streets, bullying tiny cars driven by environmentally conscientious Dutch men and women. When they slowed for speed bumps on the canalside road, he accelerated so aggressively that a collision seemed unavoidable. He repeated this vehicular assault until the driver pulled to the side to allow us to speed past. The other driver’s response was the essence of Dutch tolerance. He glanced away, unable to take offense, unwilling to force his sense of propriety, of civility, on someone else. To do so would be judgmental, hence wrong. How very un-Dutch it would be today, to seek to impose a standard of behavior on another. It would violate the principle of moral relativism, which has been elevated to a national religion in a godless society.

Over the course of a two-day visit there were numerous opportunities to observe other angry young men defying the social standards of  their host nation. A Mercedes full of angry middle eastern men bullying their way through traffic became a sight as typically Dutch as tour boats on the canals, or drug addicts vomiting on the steps of abandoned churches. This transplanted Arab street was given a pass by the much-vaunted Dutch tolerance. Those who chose to make a stand, who tried to point out the foolishness of tolerating the intolerant, were murdered in the street, forced into hiding, exiled, or put on trial. The Dutch experience makes clear that at some point tolerance becomes counterproductive.

The rampage in Tucson should remind us that we too have succumbed to the temptations of tolerance. We too, have chosen to use tolerance as an excuse to avoid the hard choices a society must make if that society wishes to persevere. It is easy to look the other way when confronted with an obviously troubled individual. If he seeks solace in online role playing saturated with violence, who are we to say that is wrong? Who are we to rise in defense of a civil society? Who are we to force our values on others?

To do so requires hard choices and sacrifice. How much easier it is to seek refuge in tolerance, to say there are no supreme values. To the tolerant, all choices are equally valid. To the tolerant, the idea of American Exceptionalism is racist, elitist, the handmaiden of bigotry. To be tolerant is to ignore those who seek to destroy us, whether they be a madman with a gun, a third-grade-teacher who views building her students’ self-esteem as her only mission, or an Islamist seeking to impose Sharia on a secular society.

Thanks to tolerance, we are willing to accept the destruction of a race rather than be thought racist,to sacrifice a generation on the altar of rampant violence, meaningless sex and valueless education rather than be thought judgmental, and to watch a great nation decline rather than be accused of patriotism. 

http://www.mlgoodell.webs.com

Last Friday we had an appointment with a stoma nurse at the hospital downtown where Mary will undergo surgery in a couple of weeks. Katie was very helpful, hopeful and encouragingly competent and confident. We felt in good hands, and were ready to leave what had been an upbeat session concerning a less than upbeat subject.

Then, as we got up to go, Katie noticed my book. Whenever I’m visiting a medical institution, I make it a point of bringing a book with me. The longer the better is my motto, as a way of forestalling the potential of hours spent exposed to the intellectual wasteland which is daytime TV. The book in question was “Decision Points,” by George W. Bush.

“Any good?” Katie asked.
    
“Actually it is, quite good.”

“He must have a good ghostwriter.”

I replied that I didn’t know if he did have a ghostwriter. “If he does, he’s very good,” I explained. “Because it really sounds like Bush’s voice.”

“Then he must have a stupid ghostwriter.”

I guess I had a shocked look on my face because Katie then acknowledged that “Oops, I think I showed my politics.”

I said something along the lines of “Maybe just a bit,” and we exited, laughing. By the time we reached the ground floor, though, my amusement had long since faded. It had been replaced with disbelief and disappointment.

How dare this nurse so casually and gratuitously inject such a slur into a professional consultation? Mary is engaged in a fight for her life, and Katie is on the front lines of this battle. How does her flippancy help promote unit cohesion? How does her reflexive contempt for others’ views enhance morale?

It would have been one thing if she had stated her opinion that Bush’s response to the terrorist acts of 9/11 were too extreme, or that she had issues with his tax policy, or that the 2008 financial crisis represented a failure of Presidential leadership. Such comments would perhaps have been more appropriate to a history seminar than a professional medical consultation, but they would not have been inherently insulting. They would have reflected intelligent thought, which is the opposite of what Katie’s actual comments displayed.

But the really disturbing part of this exchange was that Katie didn’t even mean it to be insulting. In the political milieu in which she no doubt wanders, the idea that Bush is an idiot is received wisdom. It is the truth, sacred and inviolable, no more open to question than the certainty the Barack H. Obama is “The One.” Had she realized how offensive her comments would be, I have no doubt that Katie would not have made them. They were entirely reflexive, in the same way that a Moslem will say “Insh’Allah” after announcing plans for the future. It was a simple expression of faith.

This blithe certitude hamstrings the retreat from vitriol to which so much of the commentariat has given lip service following  the attempted assassination of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords last weekend. It is hard to achieve a state of comity when one party’s comments are perceived as the direct cause of such violence, while the other party’s slurs are forgiven because, well, as every really smart person knows, they’re true.

When my mother-in-law died last July, the funeral home informed us that they would contact the Social Security Administration, as required by law. We didn’t think anything more about it until just recently when my wife deposited a check into an account we’ve been using to cover expenses at her mother’s still-unsold house. That’s when she discovered there was about $5,000 more in the account than she expected. A customer service agent explained that the Social Security Administration was still wiring funds each month.

Thus, we began the task of trying to get the checks stopped. First Mary spent twenty minutes on hold before the connection was lost. Then I went to the SSA website, where I found link after link to pages showing how to collect benefits, how to increase benefits, and how to search for benefits you didn’t even know were there. Plus, now you can do it in Spanish. (I didn’t have time to look for the “Benefits for Illegal Immigrants” page). Unfortunately, there was nothing about how to stop collecting benefits.

I ended up sending them an email. Meanwhile, Mary had gotten put on hold again, though this time, after twenty minutes a recorded voice came on to inform her “Well, aren’t you the stubborn one? Congratulations, you have managed to enter the second level of ‘Talk to  Me.’ Because of your diligence, you can hang up now, and we will call you when we are ready.”

Sure enough, they called us back. I had the pleasure of initiating our end of the conversation, as Mary was on the other line. When I tried to explain what was happening, the woman said, “The funeral home never contacted us.”

“We called them, and they said they did.”

“Well, they lied then. We didn’t receive anything.”

“There’s no other option?” I offered.

“Nope. We never received notice.”

Interesting that a mere cog in a vast governmental machine such as the Social Security Administration knows instinctively that the mistake, or willful deceit in the case of the lying funeral home, must necessarily lie elsewhere. What other explanation could there be? She works for the government, and the government doesn’t make mistakes.

By the end of the conversation, after she told us that “Treasury will come in and take that money out of your account one of these days,” our friendly bureaucrat informed us that probably the funeral home had incorrectly informed the SSA. “Your mother collected through her husband,” she explained to Mary.

Aha! Mystery solved. The funeral home failed to determine the source of the deceased’s social security payments. They foolishly notified the SSA without reminding them to check whether she had been a surviving spouse. The funeral home representative forgot how important it is to help government employees do their job. No doubt the employee didn’t understand the bureaucrat’s truncated job description because, working in the private economy, he or she recognized that the failure to accommodate the customer’s needs and wishes will result in the loss of sales and business failure.

This simple message, that you must respect the customer, is forever lost on the bureaucrat. The bureaucrat doesn’t give a damn whether his customer likes him. She has no stake in whether the customer is satisfied or not, because she knows she has a monopoly. There is nowhere for the customer to go except back to the unsympathetic bureaucrat.

This is the reason the public sector will never pull an economy out of the doldrums. The public sector doesn’t produce value, it only consumes. In the private sector, businesses have to perform. While it is true that many people in Washington today, such as, apparently, certainly Hawai’i natives, believe that business, especially big business answers to no one and routinely runs roughshod over their helpless customers, this is rather the definition of government.

Take for example, General Motors. Within the short span of two decades, it went from the world’s largest corporation to one dependent upon governmental largesse for its very survival. (And General Motors was lucky it had so many unionized employees, or Washington would never have lifted a finger to bail it out). General Motors failed and almost disappeared because its employees stopped listening to their customers. Any time something went wrong, General Motors essentially said “The funeral home made a mistake. The funeral home is lying. We are never wrong.”

So it was that people grew to hate General Motors. They stopped spending their money on GM products. And this is the difference between business and government. If a business doesn’t give people what they want, people won’t give their money to that business, and that business fails. Therefore, the business has a strong incentive to make the people happy.

As far as government is concerned, people don’t give their money to government because they like government, or because they want the product government offers. They give money to government because if they don’t men with guns will come and put them in prison.

http://www.mlgoodell.webs.com

What’s the worst thing about the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell? It’s even worse than the specter of loyal officers falling on their swords, gritting their teeth and respecting America’s time-honored tradition of civilian command. Even worse than embracing trendy-lefty pop culture feel good sentiments. Even worse than launching a massive social experiment in the middle of a shooting war, with real live soldiers serving as lab rats. Even worse than a shabby manipulation of opinion polls which delivered a contemptuous backhand to those most at risk of death or dismemberment in the performance of their duties.

No, the worst thing about the repeal of DADT was delivered by the Washington Post via email the other day. The Senate, the WaPo announced, had voted to end the 17-year-old ban on gays serving openly in the military. No. That is not true. Gays have been banned from the United States armed forces for as long as there have been armed forces. DADT was Bill Clinton’s attempt to finesse his promise to his leftist supporters with the wholesale resistance of the military leadership to allowing gays to enlist.

Seventeen years later, perhaps society has sufficiently changed, certainly among those young enough to enlist in the military, that being gay no needs to be a threat to unit cohesion and morale. Perhaps young men and women don’t really care one way or the other. Perhaps. However, the fact that combat units were the only segment of the armed forces to respond negatively to the question posed by the manipulative survey cited above, that of the consequences of serving with openly gay soldiers, should have given our elected officials pause. Shouldn’t the opinion of those who are actually laying their lives on the line be weighted considerably higher than those managing the Visitors Center at Davis Monthan Air Force Base?

After all, why do we have armed forces? Isn’t it to protect and defend this country against our enemies? Surely that should count as a higher mission than assuaging tortured consciences or validating a rickety self-esteem? Whether gays are allowed to serve or not, or allowed to “be gay” while serving or not, should be a non-issue compared to figuring out how to get more uparmored humvees into combat zones.

This misguided concern reminds me of the comment I read, made by a professional feminist back when the question of the day was whether women should be allowed to enroll in the service academies. The brass was resistant, arguing that this was the thin end of the wedge which would ultimately lead to women serving in combat. That wouldn’t be such a bad outcome, the professional feminist argued, as that might help the military overcome its then-regnant “warrior culture.”

I laughed out loud at the phrase. Even though I was still in the liberal phase of my transition to adulthood, I readily acknowledged that the “warrior culture” was exactly what I wanted in my armed forces. I didn’t want tastefully decorated barracks. I didn’t want color coordinated tea cozies. I preferred to see troops deploy to strains of Wagner rather than Donna Summers.

Whether repealing DADT will become a problem will be apparent in due time. One hopes it won’t be. No doubt there are gay men serving on battlefields today. No doubt they respect the dictates of DADT. No doubt, even when granted license to tell, they will continue to keep their mouths shut. Unless the policy is further refined to Show and Tell, combat units should continue to function, and that’s the most important thing.

Ultimately, our armed forces will continue to reflect, albeit distantly, the culture they are called on to defend. As that culture grows more tolerant, the armed forces will follow suit. What is wrong is when the officer class manipulates facts and opinion in order to accommodate the whims of ideologues whose ultimate objective is the destruction of American armed forces. It is the willingness to ignore the meaning of words, the distortion of history and the elevation of diversity above performance which serves as the real threat to our troops.