Veterans' Day

Veterans Day has an interesting history. The armistice that ended World War I went into effect on November 11, 1918 and President Wilson said these words one year later: "To us in America, the reflections of Armistice Day will be filled with solemn pride in the heroism of those who died in the country’s service and with gratitude for the victory, both because of the thing from which it has freed us and because of the opportunity it has given America to show her sympathy with peace and justice in the councils of the nations…"

It wasn't until June 4, 1926 that Congress officially recognized the 11th as a holiday, calling on all government buildings to display the flag this day and churches and schools to commemorate this day as the end of "the war to end all wars." Finally, on May 13, 1938, it was made an official holiday known as Armistice Day to honor the fallen from the First World War. After the Second World War and the Korean War, this day was changed to honor the fallen from all wars and those who have served. On June 1, 1954 the name was officially changed to Veterans Day.

So, now that you have had your history lesson for the day, take the time to thank the veterans you may know for their service to our country. If you don't know any, I invite you to take a moment to consider the sacrifices the members of our armed forces have made for your freedoms.

Lay Down a Life

Less politics today, more philosophy.

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. - John Stewart Mill

A man who won't die for something is not fit to live. - Martin Luther King Jr.

What do these quotes have in common? One is from a pacifist while the other is a justification for violent conflict, so how could they possibly say the same thing to me? They both firmly advocate a willingness to put one's life on the line for the defense of ideals or country. The main difference I can see is that Mill argues for the willingness to put a life on the line, be it mine or that of those who oppose me.

I think that contrasting Mill's statement with Dr. King's nonviolent approach reveals less of a logical difference than one might expect. They both advocate a willingness to lay down a life for the advancement of something larger than the individual; in both cases, that something larger happens to be the illusive concept of Liberty. The only difference is that the pacifist is constrained by ideology to that life only being his own, whereas Mill would argue that the choice to take a life includes that of the life of any who threaten the collective liberty of the people, not just one's own.

I'm not trying to advocate anything today. I just think that people need to be reminded that hardship is not the same as sacrifice and that allowing one's liberty to be infringed, even if one is kicking and screaming about it, is still capitulation.

A Profitable Point of View

So, I caught snippets of Obama's press conference last night pushing his health care plan. Obviously, something about it got me thinking and this isn't going to be a post about health care law and reform. When the President made a comment about how insurance premiums are rising at the same time as the insurance companies are making "record profits" I thought about the complaints of a year ago about oil companies posting record sales and profit numbers. So, I have to ask of those who think that the companies are making too much money: what is too much profit?

I'm serious. What do people mean by saying that someone is making too much money? What makes it evil to be making money during a down economy? At what amount do you decide that someone is making more money than is fair? I rarely hear anyone make the argument that people should be paid the same amount for a job that requires a lot of training and skill as for a job that requires far less training or is involved with less risky situations. For example, I don't think I know anyone who will say that I should be paid as well as a heart surgeon.

I think the idea that someone is making "more than their fair share" comes from one of two things, or a combination of them. First, their is the common mistake that the economy is a zero-sum game. If they are making that much money, there must be less money left for me, the argument goes. While budgets are (or should be, in my opinion) operated on finite amounts, the economy as a whole is much more flexible due to lending and commodities trading and more. Second, is envy. It's a simplistic explanation, but true whether we want to admit it or not. Those who cannot see how to elevate themselves are quick to think that others must be doing something wrong or unethical to have such gains in their own lives. Therefore, the playing field must be leveled, that way there is a more equitable division of assets. As I've said before, leveling the playing field only leads to lowering everyone to a common denominator, rather than raising the masses up.

Another issue I have with complaining about company profits, especially true in the case of complaints leveled against the oil companies, is that no one seems to care if the company is also at record levels of expenditures. Costs go up to the consumer, profits go up at the company, obviously the company is just pocketing the whole enchilada. Wrong. If a company is making a constant 7% on the sale price of a commodity, do you think people will complain about how much money the company is making? 7 cents on the dollar is still 7 cents, whether that's coming from a $4 gallon of gas or a $2 gallon of gas. Of course they are making twice the profit on the $4 gallon, but they are also spending twice the money to make it. Let's check my math: 28 cents from the 4 dollar gallon leaves $3.72 and 14 cents from the 2 dollar gallon leaves $1.86. Yep, twice the cost and twice the profit and still a 7% margin.

The discussion on the economic repercussions of profit/salary caps and punitive taxation on production and innovation will be left for another day. I think most readers can figure out what my opinion on that will be. So, I leave you to think about my initial question, in a rephrased format: at what point will you claim that you are making too much money?

The Best Defense....

On September 30, 1980 a pair of Iranian fighters attacked a French-built nuclear research reactor in Iraq, near Baghdad, at the urging of Israel's Chief of Army Intelligence. The bombing damaged the reactor some, but not enough to delay it's use. Israel determined that the still-functional reactor would be instrumental in Iraq's attempts at developing a nuclear arsenal and on June 7, 1981 the Israeli Air Force destroyed the reactor before it ever was made operational.

Iran and Israel have a less cordial relationship today. Back in April, The Times reported that Israel is prepared to strike at Iranian sites in a move similar to the aforementioned Osirak incident. The three month old report was made more relevant over the weekend by Vice President Biden muddying the waters by opening his mouth. As reported by the AP: "Vice President Joe Biden signaled that the Obama administration would not stand in the way if Israel chose to attack Iran's nuclear facilities." I say he muddied the waters because a few days later, the Jerusalem Post reported Obama has felt the need to clarify the position of his administration. Obama reiterated that Biden had only been referring to the fact that one state cannot dictate to another what the state's national interests are. However, also according the The Times, Saudi Arabia has given tacit approval of any possible Israeli plans to bomb Iranian military sites.

This web of who approves of whose actions is enough to make my head hurt, so I will end with my main amusement over Obama's clarification of Biden's remarks: the administration seems to have had no problem dictating to Israel what it's national interests "should be" in the not-so-distant past.

North Korean Bingo

When I was in college, I took a class named the Art of Diplomacy. Taught by a gentleman who had been with the State Department for many years, and still worked with them from time to time, it was certainly an engaging class. Our major project for the semester was a mock diplomatic negotiation where the students formed delegations from various countries and we were expected to negotiate with other nations regarding a specific issue, keeping our nations interest in mind (part of this was determining what our national interest would be.) Where am I going with this personal history lesson, especially with a title like North Korean Bingo? My class's negotiations were regarding North Korean nuclear proliferation. Our North Korean team did a wonderfully theatrical job of negotiating; they threatened, cajoled, whined, and postured during all of the negotiations, the performance culminated in the team storming out of the negotiations on the last day of the project.

What do we have in the news over the past months? North Korea has imprisoned American journalists, launched ballistic missile tests, stated the willingness to use nuclear weapons, tested such weapons. BINGO! If you're using a game board with the free space in the center. Why do I find all of this interesting? I'm intrigued by how closely our mock negotiations five years ago reflect current events. This tells me one of two things. Either North Korea's unpredictability in juxtaposing diplomacy with brinkmanship is more predictable than I had thought, or my class was bad enough at what we were doing to create an incredible coincidence.

I would prefer to think that we just have a coincidence on our hands, since the result we had in class would be disastrous if it is played out in the real world. As a friend of mine once said, "Jimmy Carter's smile-and-apologize-and-give-out-hugs idea of diplomacy got us a North Korea with nuclear technology, we'll have to deal with that eventually." It looks like that "eventually" may be coming closer and I am of the sincere opinion that apologies and appeasement will only make things worse after (maybe) making them better momentarily.

Maverick Montana

Montana has, for as long as I can remember, been something of a maverick state. The reputation it holds conjures up images of people living off the grid and dodging the Federal government rules and regulations. They're at it again.

World Net Daily reports that the State of Montana has passed (and the governor has signed) a law stating that Federal regulations cannot apply to guns and ammunition manufactured in Montana for sale and use within the state. The state is citing the Commerce clause, correctly stating the Constitution only allows for Federal regulation of commerce in interstate commerce rather than completely self contained intrastate commerce. The WND article has a more in depth detail of why Montana says they have the power to enact this law, including detailing the "contract conditions" under which they became a State of the Union. Mainly, I'm interested to see how the Feds handle this sort of direct thumbing of the nose by a state which, as far as I can tell, is correctly using the 9th and 10th amendments to enforce its views of the 2nd.

For another blog on this, go here.

Equality by way of Corruption?

Define corruption in a political sense. What do you think it should mean? Is it the use of political power in favor of one group to the detriment of another? Or is that just politics.

I found an article over on Townhall that made me think about this. The article doesn't focus on the under the table dealings of politicians, though it does mention them. The main point Goldberg is trying to make is that political corruption can be blatant, pernicious, and there for all to see and still not be stopped. It can even be applauded when the people do not understand the implications.

As you know, I can't leave a post well enough alone until I have a quote or two in it. Here are today's gems:

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to
govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be
necessary." -- James Madison, Federalist No. 51

"Free government is founded in jealousy, not confidence. It is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions, to bind those we are obliged to trust with power.... In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." -- Thomas Jefferson, 1799

I chose these two for one simple reason: they both highlight the need to remember that our government was not founded to help people. It was founded to protect the people from interference and allow them to help themselves. People forget the mindset that built our economy. Henry Ford best summed it up on February 11, 1934 when he said, "Let them fail; let everybody fail! I made my fortune when I had nothing to start with, by myself and my own ideas. Let other people do the same thing. If I lose everything in the collapse of our financial structure, I will start in at the beginning and build it up again."

Edit: The Washington Post published something similar.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/13/AR2009051303014_pf.html