Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
The National Wildlife Federation (NWF) has issued a new report (PDF) asserting that the Early Asian Immigrants (incorrectly referred to as “Native” Americans) are hit the hardest by “climate-induced weather extremes”. I’ll leave aside the obvious problems with that fanciful claim, and the oddity of the idea of “climate-induced weather” whatever that means, to look at the NWF’s proposed solution to their imaginary problem.
Their solution? Well, their brilliant plan is that everyone but the Immigrants should pony up some money to give to the Immigrants.
Now, the history of the Early Asian Immigrants is a sad and tragic one. They were cheated, lied to, killed indiscriminately, and their culture and ways were denigrated and often destroyed.
The response of the US Government, after many years, was to give the remaining tribes of Immigrants their own nations. These are sovereign areas with their own leaders, where many US laws do not apply. Me, I’d give just about anything to be able to write my own laws, and not have to obey some US laws. But I don’t get to.
Now, however, the NWF wants to change the rules. They want to alter the laws so that the separate Immigrant nations can not only be sovereign and independent and run casinos and not be subject to various state laws, but they can also suck up tax money paid by people who live in my nation. As an example of what they want to change, they say:
Indian [sic] Tribes are also excluded —– because of statutes, regulations, or practice —– from dozens of federal natural resource programs that provide assistance to states, local governments, and other entities.
Well … yes indeed, they are excluded from using my tax money for a host of things, and for very good reasons. That’s the price they pay for independence and sovereignty, that they don’t get treated the same as other US citizens, or like a State, or like a local government—because they aren’t any of those things, they are a sovereign nation with all that implies. For example, I can’t go on the reservation and do what I want, that’s the Immigrant national land. Immigrants don’t have to follow a variety of laws, and rightly so. And I don’t get any money from tribal funds that they are getting from Immigrant casinos, casinos that are illegal for me to operate.
So while I definitely feel for the Immigrants, who historically have suffered unimaginably, they can’t have it both ways. If they want to be full participants in the American rush to have the US government reimburse them for every imaginary problem, they can’t also be exempt from various laws and State taxes and some even from Federal taxes and get to have their own nations. If they want the full panoply of dubious benefits that the rest of the citizens get, sorry, they’ve got to become just like me, subject to all of the nonsense which us Late European Immigrants have to put up with.
Or they could just pay for the things that they need from their casino takings … which were $7,300,000,000 ($7.3 billion with a “b”) just in California alone in 2009, and $26,400,000,000 nationally, and on which in many states they paid no state taxes. I say they should use their own money for that kind of quixotic quest. If they want to use my taxes to fight imaginary menaces, well, they should have to pay taxes just like I do and be subject to the same idiotic rules that constrain me.
In any case, if the Immigrants are entitled to my tax money, it seems only fair that in return I should be able to open my own casino. But I don’t need to make billions. If I can only make a few million dollars from my casino, I assure you that I can protect myself against the worst that man-made warming can do, and save the Government a pile of money in the process … plus I’ll pay all applicable taxes on my takings.
It’s a win-win kind of deal.
w.
=============================================================
UPDATE:
Willis has free reign to publish here, however this is not an article (in its present form) I would have published if consulted. Once published, I can’t put the cat back in the bag. – Anthony
=============================================================
A note from the author. Anthony has most graciously given me the room to write here without censorship or interference or suggestions of any type,and has my great thanks for the freedom. As such, I ask that everyone be clear that what I write is mine, and what Anthony writes is his. He is passionate about his causes, as am I about mine. I thought long and hard about this before I posted it, as I do with all of my posts, but even more so because it is a touchy subject. I re-wrote it several times to try to make it clearer and clearer.
Now, I could have just said “Ooooh, too hot to handle” and picked a less controversial subject … but if Anthony and I and all the guest posters did that, this would be the most boring blog on the planet.
All I ask is that people quote my words when they object, because most people are treating this subject like a web-based Rorschach test, and reading into it all of their hopes, fears, and prejudices.
Again, my thanks to Anthony for his marvelous blog,
w.
East Texas Red says:
August 9, 2011 at 3:10 pm
Willis, come on, supporting Obama makes you somehow left-wing? I’m not going to identify any specific thing you said to justify my remarks. I’m talking about the tone of your remarks. You are attacking an entire people as being freeloaders (the giveaway is the use of the word ‘they’ repeatedly). You’re racist.
=============================================================
Ridiculous assertion. East, you’re an idiot. Because Willis doesn’t prance around words in order to appease people that would repeal the first amendment doesn’t make him or anyone else a racist. You object to the word “they”? Is the English language that hard for you? How would you have had Willis refer to the people who signed onto this bit of inanity? And you really believe you can discern a tone from the typed word. You’re not going to identify any specific thing, because you can’t’. He didn’t attack an entire people as being freeloaders, just the ones that signed on to this obvious begging for money. East, you are just a small person intolerant of people with other thoughts. Now, I ask you. Do you think it is a good idea for those people to be compensated for the imaginary climate change by people such as Willis? Why is it unfathomable to you that people may be a bit irked at the thought? You know, I love free speech, it is necessary for this nation or any nation born of such lofty ideas to endure. But sometimes, and you serve as a fine example, it serves only to give our most base individuals a voice. I can’t believe this nation bore people such as you.
@bushbunny,
Evidently you aren’t aware that not all native American groups should be credited with arrival shortly after the ice age. There were a few different waves. The Aleuts, Navajo and Apache belong to the same language group and were the most recent to obtain significant penetration. The Navajo and Apache were migrating down opposite sides of the Rocky mountains and upon arriving in the US southwest, part of their life style was raiding pueblo and hopi tribes for their harvests. The Europeans didn’t dominate the native Americans just with guns and diseases, but with the help of other native Americans which did not have to be turned against each other, there we already hostile relations. It is racist to suggest that their interests lay more with other native Americans than with their new European allies.
I don’t know if there is a similarly rich diversity among Austrailian aborigines, but if there is I’d be curious to know more. The first Americans may have been more closely related to the Austrailian aborigines than the current native Americans. There are anecdotal reports of an aboriginal type remnant on the Baja surviving barely until European arrival. The inexorable loss of information to the laws of thermodynamics means some things about the past may never be known. The point is, if you are hoping to gain some advantage from spreading multi-generational guilt among the innocent, then no modern humans are innocent.
Even with president Obama, it wouldn’t be a surprise to find out that there were more recent slave owners and traders among his Kenyan ancestry that among his European. Most of American society these days, outside of black liberation theology church’s like Obamas are colorblind. The reason “social justice” has to be qualified, is because it isn’t justice.
I’ve always found this interesting….
….not many people are aware that American Indians also owned slaves
American Indians as Slave Owners
By 1860, the Cherokees had 4,600 slaves; the Choctaws, 2,344; the Creeks, 1,532; the Chickasaws, 975; and the Seminoles, 500. Some Indian slave owners were as harsh and cruel as any white slave master. Indians were often hired to catch runaway slaves; in fact, slave-catching was a lucrative way of life for some Indians, especially the Chickasaws.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/655380/posts
Willis, I agree with you. Great article.
One point that is not generally recognized. Among the tribes in North America, there are some that are just as much immigrants as the Europeans. The Athabaskan speaking Navajos and Apaches just beat the Spanish into the American Southwest by a couple of hundred years, yet are treated the same as if they have always been there. People move around. Get over it.
Joshua says:
August 9, 2011 at 9:12 am
OK, I agree with you, Joshua. It’s not deceptive at all to use “facts” that you know may not be facts at all, without making even the slightest attempt to check them. Clearly, in your world that is ethical action of the highest order. My bad.
Come back when you quote my words about Oprah, so people can be reminded of how you haven’t understood what I actually said.
Seems like you missed my point. I have absolutely no problem with tax dollars going to Native Americans. I do not, however, think that we should change the treaties and the laws surrounding them so that they can get more tax dollars. And I particularly don’t think that we should do so based on imaginary problems.
I say that changing the treaties and the laws surrounding them so that Native Americans can belly up to the government trough like the rest of us citizens only makes sense if they are to be treated in all respects like the rest of us citizens. I say that the Native Americans are playing with fire when they want to change the treaties and the laws … because if the treaties and the laws can be changed to favor the Native Americans, then they can also be changed to their grave detriment. I would very much like not to open that door, as the treaties are fragile enough as it is.
Sure, that makes sense. Go out and vet those. You vet your issues, I’ll vet mine, and we might get something done. Oh, you think I should vet your issues? Funny, I don’t think you should vet my issues, I think you should vet whatever issues you want to vet. Crazy, I know, but there it is.
You’re the one bringing up “welfare queens”, you’re the first one in this thread to use the term. You totally misunderstood my point about Oprah, and that would be clear if you QUOTED MY WORDS. Of course, if you quoted my words then people would see you are blowing smoke in their eyes, so I can understand why, despite numerous requests, you’d rather deal with your own fantasies than with what I actually said.
I see your point. You think that cleaning up big messes is really important, and cleaning up smaller messes is totally unimportant.
I just don’t roll that way. I work on things, not based on how big they are, but based on whether I think I can make a difference. Yes, at times this means that my efforts are directed at smaller things. But much more importantly, it greatly ups my odds of success, because I pick topics where I think I can make a difference.
So if you want to clean up big messes, go for it, Joshua … but don’t pretend that your choice of where to focus your efforts is what everyone should focus on, that’s just your ego at work. Each of us has to pick where to put our own efforts, it is intrusive to assert that we should just accept your estimate of what is worth working on as being valid for everyone else.
w.
Gary Hladik says:
August 9, 2011 at 11:39 am
I have asked before. I’ll ask again. QUOTE MY WORDS, FOOL! I never said I want to send more money to government, that’s your bizarre fantasy, so your entire post is nonsense. You find the discussion “amusing” because you totally misunderstand it …
w.
East Texas Red says:
August 9, 2011 at 3:10 pm
And you are nasty. You are unwilling to quote what I actually said, and instead you continue to spew your vitriol. QUOTE WHAT I SAID or go home, Red, your brand of ugliness, unsupported by cites, facts, or quotations, is unpleasant and unwanted. You fantasize I’m talking about “freeloaders” because I say “they” … yeah, that makes sense. Everyone who says something like “If people want to make a difference, they should vote” is talking about freeloaders, the word “they is a dead giveaway.
Do you realize how foolish you sound when you make that kind of claim, and then refuse to provide a single scrap of evidence for your bizarre fantasies?
w.
People have misunderstood my use of “Early Asian Immigrants” as being a term I use for something other than making a point about how “Native” Americans are nothing of the sort.
What do I call Native Americans in real life? Simple — I call them whatever they call themselves. The guys off the res who had a band that I played in during the sixties called themselves “Indians”, as did the older guys on the Apache res I lived next to for a while in the seventies. Other younger guys wanted to be called “Native Americans”, a term I find deceptive … but if they want to be called that, that’s what I call them. It’s only polite.
Here’s an example. I was in Paxton, Alaska earlier today. I asked a lovely young and obviously local woman where she was from. “I’m a concrete Indian”, she said, “I grew up in Fairbanks”.
Fair enough. Lots of the tribes no longer use the term “Indian”, and I’ve had guys go out of their way to inform me aggressively that “Indian” is an offensive word that should never be used to refer to them … but if that’s what she calls herself, who am I to complain?
Which is why I hate political correctness. Each term is supplanted by another, which is supposedly better and more politically correct, when all it is is another word for the same thing. I call people what they want to be called, and although people assure me is not PC to call them “Indians”, no one has informed the woman I talked to today.
w.
[I’ve added this to the head post to avoid misunderstanding.]
It is absolutely amazing how many morons and idiots here are posting without even reading what Willis wrote.To the idiots who post without reading and quoting what is said, go get a life and learn to read . Don’t parade your ignorance and lack of literacy.
Willis Eschenbach says (August 9, 2011 at 8:08 pm): “I have asked before. I’ll ask again. QUOTE MY WORDS, FOOL! I never said I want to send more money to government, that’s your bizarre fantasy, so your entire post is nonsense.”
Oops, sorry, forgot the rules. My bad.
I was thinking specifically of this response to sHx, August 8, 2011 at 8:20 pm: “PS – I hate to spoil another of your fantasies, but I’m as far from the “taxed-enough” crowd as a man can get. I think that US taxes should be raised across the board, and particularly on the wealthy…” [italic in the original]
So I’m genuinely curious as to which part of of the above I’ve misunderstood. Last I checked, “taxes” go to “government”, right?
Help me out here, Willis.
point goes to you, gary.
and you didn’t use any snarl words like ‘fool’ or suggest psychopathology (bizarre fantasy) or irrationality (nonsense). let’s see what kind of cartwheel he does next while spitting venom at you and waving his ad populum.
a troll is someone who makes deliberately provocative statements in order to bring about ‘drama’ for the lulz.
this is a troll thread by design and willis is getting off on it so much he’s oblivious and must not imagine anybody might notice him trying to pass off vituperation as wit. he’s trippin.
if he wants to make this blog as popular as joe romm’s, it’s a brilliant strategy.
Multi-generational poverty existed all over the globe prior to government provided social services. Why alcoholism is so high among Native Americans is an interesting question – a question for which I have yet to see a definitive answer.
This is a classic left/right issue. My belief is that as imperfect as welfare services are (certainly as they currently exist in this country), in the end, they are justified. Our efforts have not ended poverty, but from the long-term and comprehensive analyses I’ve seen, initiatives such as the Great Society have brought, in balance, positive returns on the dollars spent. Look at poverty rates when the Great Society began and compare them to poverty rates after the Great Society progressed. Look at poverty rates among the elderly before The New Deal and compare them to poverty rates among the elderly now. Calculate how many people those rates represent over decades. Considere numbers of people who trained in invaluable job skills, and the amount of food distributed, at the amount of vital infrastructure built through programs like the WPA. I don’t pretend to know all the right answers either, but I do know some of the wrong ones, and one of the wrong ones is a facile and categorical determination that social services make problems like poverty and alcoholism worse.
Yes – it would be better to weed people out, to evaluate the provision of services on a case-by-case basis. My points are that: (1) I doubt the logistical viability of providing services purely on a case-by-case basis, (2) in counter-balance to the inefficiencies or redundancies or misappropriation of services resulting from an approach that targets groups are the efficiencies that would result from targeting groups – such as building services that target alcoholism in Native American communities, and (3) if you simply deny funding to social services because of inefficiencies as compared to idealized administration of revenues you will simply reduce the number of people who receive services and wind up catching people who legitimately benefit from services in your net. To me, the inevitable inefficiencies that occur in how social services are currently provided are an unfortunate but worthwhile cost of providing services to those who are in need. This is especially true when you compare the costs involved to those associated with the kinds of mis-allocated tax revenues that are provided on another scale entirely to programs as I mentioned above (arms manufacturers, ill-founded military initiatives, etc.). The perfect can be the enemy of the good. There is no such thing as a perfectly administrated system when you’re dealing with so many people and such a complex problem. By all means, advocate for improved efficiencies – but to focus on kvetching about tax revenues going to a population as devastated by poverty as the Native American community makes little sense to me.
Perhaps Ancient American, Original American or something equivalent would have been a better designation as anyone born on this continent is technically a native American.
We sometimes use the word ‘native’ to designate those Stone Age, hunter-gatherer peoples that Indo-European language speaking farmers have been displacing for the past 7,000 years. This has continued to the point where now about half the people on Earth speak languages that were derived that of a single inland people thought to have originated near northern Iran.
Willis said:
What do I call Native Americans in real life? Simple — I call them whatever they call themselves
Gareth says:
Excellent point. Could you let us know which first nation groups/bands/nations call themselves early asian immigrants?
@ur momisugly Joshua says: August 10, 2011 at 6:52 am “Look at poverty rates when the Great Society began and compare them to poverty rates after the Great Society progressed. Look at poverty rates among the elderly before The New Deal and compare them to poverty rates among the elderly now.”
And I suppose you’d say the ongoing in industrial and technological revolutions had nothing to do with increasing people’s personal wealth? Since the Great Society plan, how much has our currency been inflated? How much wealth has been lost because of government intervention and meddling?
gnomish says (August 10, 2011 at 6:29 am): “point goes to you, gary. [snip]”
Thanks, gnomish, but I think you’re being a bit harsh on Willis. The theme of his article is a certain political application (one of many) of climate “science”, the kind of topic commonly covered on this blog. As happens occasionally (hah!), peripheral points have come up in the discussion. I thank Anthony for leaving the thread open, as I’ve found the comments both educational and entertaining. Overheated rhetoric is just that, a curious “feature” of this Gore-ius forum we call the Internet.
“this is a troll thread”
Hang on. Let me (mmphh!) slip into (gasp! it’s sooo tight!) my leather speedo…Wait…OK. Ahem…
No. THIS! IS! WUWT!!!! 🙂
Gareth Phillips says:
August 10, 2011 at 8:11 am (Edit)
Willis said:
What do I call Native Americans in real life? Simple — I call them whatever they call themselves
Gareth says:
Excellent point. Could you let us know which first nation groups/bands/nations call themselves early asian immigrants?
Willis says … none, as far as I know. Not sure what you’re getting at. As I clearly stated, I referred to them in that way to make a point, that they are not native to the Americas any more than I am. When I meet them I call them by whatever name they choose.
However, calling oneself the “First Nation” doesn’t make you the first nation, any more than calling oneself “Native” makes you native to wherever you are. Tobacco is native to the Americas. Humans are not.
w.
Gary Hladik says:
August 10, 2011 at 12:57 am (Edit)
My bad, you are 100% correct. I had thought I’d been able to keep this discussion separate from that issue, but I forgot that post. Which is why I’ve said again and again to quote my words, it avoids miscommunication on both sides.
To make my position more clear, I am generally against increasing taxation. But we’re in a bind, because at present we’re borrowing about 40% of our annual budget. Republicans want to cut spending. Democrats want to increase taxes.
And although I don’t like to say it, I see no way out of this bind other than to do both, increase taxes and decrease spending. I’d love to do it purely by decreasing spending, but I see absolutely no way to do that.
Thanks for pointing out my error, and for the example of why quoting the words you are referring to is so important.
w.
Willis Eschenbach says:
August 10, 2011 at 12:16 pm
Gareth Phillips says:
August 10, 2011 at 8:11 am (Edit)
Willis said:
What do I call Native Americans in real life? Simple — I call them whatever they call themselves
Gareth says:
Excellent point. Could you let us know which first nation groups/bands/nations call themselves early asian immigrants?
Willis says … none, as far as I know. Not sure what you’re getting at. As I clearly stated, I referred to them in that way to make a point, that they are not native to the Americas any more than I am. When I meet them I call them by whatever name they choose.
However, calling oneself the “First Nation” doesn’t make you the first nation, any more than calling oneself “Native” makes you native to wherever you are. Tobacco is native to the Americas. Humans are not.
Garethman responds:
So by your reckoning Willias, Chinese people are not native to China, Australian aborigines are are not native to Australia and Black people are not native to South Africa ( Humans did not evolve in that area). Can you see the absurdity of your stance? I suppose horses are also not native to the Americas after having “emigrated” to Siberia a few thousand years ago leaving no descendants in that continent.
By the way, as I mentioned before ( possibly you missed it), first nations are called that because they were the first nations to move into the Americas. The clue is in the title. You may know of predecessors who may deserve that honour, but no-one else does at this time. Good to hear you have the common sense not to use your rule of “I call them what they call themselves” to start insulting first nations by calling them immigrants in face to face discussion. I suspect your argument in such cases is overtaken with a healthy sense of self preservation whereby you understand that no first nations refer to themselves in such an insulting way and your terminology is a product of your own bias.
Stick to climate science and you make a lot of sense, wander into commenting on other races and cultures and you start to sound like a very dodgy geezer with some very dodgy views.
Spector says:
August 10, 2011 at 8:01 am
Perhaps Ancient American, Original American or something equivalent would have been a better designation as anyone born on this continent is technically a native American.
I can see your point, but when these chaps arrived here there was no America, there was just this big empty continent, so they are not ancient Americans ( makes them sound old) or original Americans. They just happen to be in that continent first, so first nations seems to be a pretty good description. My own language is one of those ancient Indo European languages that has not changed much for thousands of years, but my wife would probably take issue with being called an ancient Indo-european!
Joshua says (August 10, 2011 at 6:52 am): “Look at poverty rates when the Great Society began and compare them to poverty rates after the Great Society progressed.”
In his book Free to Choose, the late Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman commented on the myriad US “anti-poverty” programs, “If these funds were all going to the ‘poor’, there would be no poor left…” Much of the funding is of course sucked up by the elaborate self-perpetuating bureaucracies administering the overlapping programs. As an alternative, Dr. Friedman proposed a “negative income tax” a single program to replace all the others and get the funds directly to those in need.
http://www.amazon.com/Free-Choose-Statement-Milton-Friedman/dp/0156334607/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1313005044&sr=1-1#_
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/23/business/23scene.html
Willis Eschenbach says (August 10, 2011 at 12:21 pm): “To make my position more clear, I am generally against increasing taxation. But we’re in a bind, because at present we’re borrowing about 40% of our annual budget. Republicans want to cut spending. Democrats want to increase taxes.”
Ah, that explains it. I actually wondered if Willis might be referring to deficit reduction, but noticed that the terms “deficit” and “spending reduction” were conspicuously (and I assumed deliberately) omitted. And the bit about voting Democratic and supporting Obama didn’t help. (Yes, yes, I KNOW, gimme a second…My wife could take nagging lessons from Willis…Here we go:)
Willis Eschenbach says (August 8, 2011 at 4:30 pm): “I find no vitriol in my post, and I supported Obama, so if you are in bed with right-wing hate-mongers it’s not here, and it’s your business.”
Willis Eschenbach says (August 9, 2011 at 12:46 am): “Since I am someone who supported Obama and has never voted Republican, that’s a bizarre and other-worldly accusation.”
Willis Eschenbach says (August 8, 2011 at 8:20 pm): “sHx, I have never voted Republican in my life, always Democrat, so your ‘further to the right’ is just your attempt to shoehorn me into a box.”
I doubt that anyone on this forum would accuse Democrats as a group of wanting less money sent to government, and Obama, even as a candidate, was certainly in favor of government expansion.
Anyway, misunderstanding resolved. My comment poking fun at both Willis and Joshua (August 9, 2011 at 11:39 am) was only half right, so I withdraw the part about Willis.
No, I wouldn’t say that. I wouldn’t be foolish enough to think that anyone can isolate the cause and effect of singular variables in such a complex situation. Which is what people do when they state categorically that social programs like The Great Society are counterproductive.
But what is unarguable is that great progress was made in poverty rates concurrent with the Great Society, great progress was made in poverty rates among elderly concurrent with the advent of Social Security and Medicaid. Our country reached global economic preeminence concurrent with the New Deal.
Joshua says:
“…great progress was made in poverty rates concurrent with the Great Society, great progress was made in poverty rates among elderly concurrent with the advent of Social Security and Medicaid. Our country reached global economic preeminence concurrent with the New Deal.”
Those are all most likely false correlations. A better argument can be made that economic progress was made despite those wasteful programs, not because of them. And despite the trillions of [2011] dollars spent ‘fighting poverty’, the poverty line is about where it was during the implementation of President Johnson’s “Great Society” programs.
In other words, all that money taxed away from the private sector was essentially wasted, making the country that much poorer, while not helping “the poor” in the long run. At this point, that money just buys votes.
I’ll give Joshua a pass on his economic illiteracy, since he’s surely no graduate of the hard sciences. Positing a false correlation is a rhetorical tactic, like showing a strong correlation between the rise in temperature and U.S. postal rates. That is a false correlation, and so are Joshua’s examples.
Smokey says:
August 10, 2011 at 3:25 pm
Joshua says:
“…great progress was made in poverty rates concurrent with the Great Society, great progress was made in poverty rates among elderly concurrent with the advent of Social Security and Medicaid. Our country reached global economic preeminence concurrent with the New Deal.”
Those are all most likely false correlations. A better argument can be made that economic progress was made despite those wasteful programs, not because of them. And despite the trillions of [2011] dollars spent ‘fighting poverty’, the poverty line is about where it was during the implementation of President Johnson’s “Great Society” programs.
=============================================================
Damn, on another site talking to a pinhead about rioters………… Count on Smokey to beat me to the punch! I would add though, that while we did manage to throw a lot of money away, in the name of helping the poor, we also managed to bankrupt our nation. Soon, if things don’t change, we will lose the ability to help any poor, much less selected ones. And Josh, you are correct, it is a classic left/right discussion. Sadly, it is going beyond the abstract. All of us agree that the least of our society should not be left behind. I think it is incumbent upon us to ensure we maintain the ability to assist the needful. The people in want(not need) should have to fend for themselves.
Towards your ensuing response, allow me to be a bit preemptive. Wars…… I agree, we are in too many places much too often. I am an advocate of maintaining a strong defense, but I don’t have a clue as to why instead of reducing our presence in foreign lands we have increased them. I find this deplorable. We started Iraq, we need to finish the transition and call it. See it through. We went to Afghanistan to get UBL, we got him, we’re done! Let’s go home. Libya? Yemen? And now it seems we’re looking at Syria? I’ve much trepidation about all of this. It can’t possibly work to our benefit. It’s playing with fire unnecessarily.
Fire and government…..nothing is left to say but to quote Washington…..” Government is not reason, it is not eloquence — it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.”
James