Russia Finally Admits Defeat

For those who are interested in current events, watching how Russian media presents the official Russian viewpoints about the Russia-Ukraine War is interesting. Since 2022 it's been bluster, demands, threats... but that has changed since Trump became fed up with Putin's stalling and continued attacks on Ukrainian civilians and gave his latest ultimatim; come to the negotiation table and be serious about ending the war in 50 days, or Ukraine will get long-range weapons and additional air defense systems. In short, Trump has put Russia on notice that Ukraine will be able to prosecute the war within all of Russia west of the Urals... an existential threat.

The Russian response is typically Russian... full of anger, frustration, and expressions of betrayal (Russia is always thwarted in its noble plans by some evil force from the West). This particular video is really very sad. The host (Solovyov) is engaging in fantasy, and he knows it. They don't have the spare S-300 and S-400 air defense systems to send to Iran; they need them to protect their forces in Ukraine and inside Russia from Ukraine. They don't have the weapons to arm the Houthis or Syrians; they've lost large number of their weapons in Ukraine and can't make enough to keep their own troops supplied. They can't send forces to conquer African countries; their forces have been seriously depleted in Ukraine and they can barely keep up by throwing raw untrained recruits into combat where they get slaughtered for nothing. All this is is bluster. Solovyov knows that Russia can't use tactical nukes in Ukraine much less against its Western supporters because that would result in a retaliatory attack by NATO and US forces that would destroy all Russian forces in Ukraine as well as take out significant military assets in Russia... and risk a strategic nuclear response against Russia that would result in the end of the Russia state. And yet, Russian leaders are bluffing... and not bluffing.

Solovyov is a spokesman representing the Kremlin, sending out trial balloons to see how they will be received by the West, and by the Russian people. This segment was a tacit acknowledgement of military defeat in Ukraine. Russia's leaders know they have no chance of prevailing but cannot bring themselves to publicly admit defeat and withdraw their forces... the one thing that would save the current Russia as we know it. They will continue to bleed the Russian economy, the Russian military, and the Russian people dry. It's over, and all of the ranting and frustration won't change things. If, in desperation, they attack NATO countries with conventional or tactical nuclear weapons, they will bring the end of Russia.

This is why Trump gave them 50 days. That seems like a lot of time, maybe too much time... but the leaders of Russia have to come to terms with the fact that they've lost and nothing, not even employing nukes, will bring them victory. The only question now is, how bad will their defeat be? Like the Japanese after two nukes realizing that continuing only meant more Japanese deaths with no hope of victory, Russian leaders need to accept this and admit it. Not rushing them is good, because desperate people do desperate things under pressure.

Russia will come to terms with defeat, because it has no other options that aren't worse.

tags:

How To Steal an Election, Hypothetically(?)

“Those Who Cast The Votes Decide Nothing. Those Who Count The Votes, Decide Everything” – Soviet Dictator Josef Stalin, Circa 1950

Picture this:

It's in the fourth year of a wildly controversial presidential term. The current president is fiery, speaks bluntly and sometimes foolishly, has a record of success along with a record of repeatedly antagonizing his political opponents both in his party and among the opposition, and he is strongly disliked by many in the political ecosphere... reporters, analysts, pontificators... because he does not seek their approval or their advice. In fact, he often disregards and ridicules it, to the consternation of the so-called political establishment and to the delight of his base. His base is comprised of mostly lower and middle income White and minority voters who value independence, identify themselves as religious, and who generally support social and financial conservative values... small business owners, semi-skilled and skilled workers... as well as the majority of law enforcement and military members. He does not garner much support or respect among the professional class, those in academia, the tech industry, the financial sector, and especially from the media and entertainment industries. He is the butt of most late night comedy show hosts, and much if not most of their nightly routines center on finding something to ridicule the president about. The opposition party has tried and failed to remove him from office repeatedly, first by pushing a baseless investigation of him as a foreign agent based upon a known-false document prepared by the other presidential candidate during the last election cycle as if it were true, then by impeaching him on a party-line vote in the House on false, specious accusations of abuse of power and obstruction of justice only to see the impeachment fail on a party-line vote in the Senate. Neither the baseless collusion investigation or the baseless impeachment had wings once they became known as baseless, and thus have not been referred to by the opposition party against the president during his re-election campaign. The economy made a remarkable turnaround under this president's lead, reaching historic highs, then the nation and the world was hit by a pandemic caused by a virus from China that quickly spread world-wide with 10X the fatality rate of the common flu. The actions taken to combat this pandemic have significantly and negatively affected the world's economy; the nation's economy has also experienced a significant contraction due to the curtailing of economic activity as a preventative response to the pandemic.

In this environment, the primary season was abbreviated and the opposition kept any one candidate from taking an insurmountable lead until April, when all but the front-runner and the second-place candidate dropped out and endorsed the front-runner, ensuring the second-place candidate who openly supported socialism would not win for the second election in a row. Thus, the front-runner's eventual ascension to the nomination was inevitable. Yet, there were problems. The nominee had not done well in primary debates; many questioned his mental capabilities due to his performance and his advanced age of 77. Yet, the consensus among political ecosphere was that the nominee was the candidate who would best appeal to the American public based on his projected 'likable' persona and his political experience. In order to appeal to the special interest groups that comprise the Party faithful, the African-American woman primary candidate was chosen for the VP position. The idea was to create a 'balanced' ticket that appealed to all of the party's constituencies... men, women, White, or People of Color... while also being deemed preferable to the two distasteful current office-holders who were both openly White, male, conservative, and Christian (thus, bigoted, racist and homophobic). But it wasn't enough. The party had lost the last election even though their candidate won the nationwide popular vote. Typical party constituencies... working-class, union members, even minority voters... could not be relied upon. What to do?

What if... the current pandemic was used to justify the wholesale indiscriminate mailing out of ballots to all registered voters whether requested or not? What if a subset of those ballets were duplicated, say, ballots for registered voters who had not voted in the past couple of elections, and stashed away? What if the election WERE held, the mail-in ballots plus day-of-voting ballots resulted in the party's candidate losing to the current office-holder? Well, we know who voted because we have their ballots... and thus we know who hasn't yet voted. We can bet that the vast majority of registered voters who didn't vote are represented in our stash... and we don't need them all. Just enough. So, we pause the voting, use our list of returned votes to exclude those from our stash, and take enough votes from our stash, mark them for the votes that matter in the time we have (mostly the presidential ballot, maybe in a few states throw in a senator because we're not worried about the House... no way we're losing that!) and throw them into the mix? What would that look like? Of course, we can't let observers see all this, so we block windows, we sequester them away so they can't look closely at piles of ballots we bring in from the stash or we can mix them in with ordinary ballets, we tell observers to go home because we're done counting... and when they go home we resume counting.

It would look like the incumbent is leading with significant margins in several states, only to see that lead whittle away and then disappear, giving the election in these states to our candidate. It would look like the vote swinging in favor of our presidential candidate, but lower races on the ballot not changing so that state races don't change and most Senate and House races don't change. Remember, we don't have to do this in every state, or even every precinct or county in every state... just enough precincts and counties in just enough states to push the election our way.

I'm not saying this is what happened, I'm saying that it certainly looks like what happened. And, brought to us by the party that vigorously opposes any form of establishing certainty that a registered voter cast the vote being counted, denying full transparency and openness on the vote tabulation process, and pushing processes and practices that only enhance the capability for vote fraud. The same party that tried to tell us that the Russians changed the course of the 2016 election yet denies any such thing could possibly have happened in 2020. Or, that 150K+/- ballots suddenly appearing in the middle of the night, almost all for their candidate (which is statistically highly unlikely) is normal. The problem is, we don't know and we CAN'T know that the election was fair, that only legitimate votes were counted... because one party doesn't want us to know and has done what it could to ensure we don't know and will NEVER know. That is the problem. Joe Biden has declared himself as the winner and the media is supporting him, yet Joe and the media know that the election results are not finalized... but they are trying to create the impression that the election is over when it's not. Why?

I would like to live in a country where, whether my candidate wins or loses, I have full and complete confidence in the integrity of the election system and processes. I cannot say that today, can you? THAT is the problem. The solution is simple: do in the US what we did to ensure fair and honest elections in Iraq. Make the first Tuesday in November a mandatory federal holiday (get rid of one of the other ones), require everyone to vote in person absent a valid reason for a mailed ballot, require voter ID (driver's license, passport) at the polls, put the voter's thumbprint on their ballot at the polls (have an ink pad in the booth, they thumbprint the ballot before leaving the booth and this is checked against the voter's thumbprint on record by the ballot-registering computer), provide voters a receipt for their ballot with their recorded votes, require ID for registration including a valid government ID (driver's license, passport), expire voter registrations every five years and require re-registration otherwise the voter is removed from the rolls to clean out the moved and dead voters. This would support automatic ballot confirmation, reduce the cost and effort of voting, ensure that only qualified citizens voted, and let us know who won the election by the end of the day. You know one party would be supporting this, while the other party would vigorously oppose it... and you know why, having seen what has happened during this election cycle. Because campaigns, platforms, positions, outreach... none of it matters if you control a voting process that is open to fraud.

Dear Nervous & Frustrated Liberal Pundit…*

 

Dear Nervous & Frustrated Liberal Pundit,

It’s up to you.

Yesterday, after a year of angering the American people, the voters in perhaps the most Democrat-friendly state elected a conservative Republican to the Senate seat held by one Kennedy or another for more than a half-century.

You’re depressed: Massachusetts was supposed to be a shoe-in, a rubber stamp, a mere formality with Paul Kirk keeping the chair warm until a more permanent Democrat could be installed.

You’re angry. You’re wondering in disbelief how can the American people vote for a Republican after the 8 years of George W Bush? Have they forgotten already? In Massachusetts?

And let’s face it, you’re scared. Jonathan Cohn is right. If Obama, Bill Clinton, and Vicki Kennedy can’t get a Democrat elected to Ted Kennedy’s seat, in Massachusetts for God’s sake! then no Democrat Senator or Representative is safe from defeat.

Now you have a choice.

You can continue the denial, the self-deception. You can blame Brown’s victory on the process, the stomach-turning sausage-making that has resulted in what was once called health care reform, is now spun as health insurance reform, but what we all know as Obamacare. After all, what’s in a name? That which we call Obamacare by any other name would still smell most foul.

What about shelving the bill. The bickering and dickering, the horse-trading, backroom dealings, and outright bribery would stop… and these are among the things that have destroyed the Democrat brand in the eyes of the public. These are the things that Obama promised us he would end, and yet you, Liberal Pundit, are oblivious to the anger that has risen from Obama’s embracing of the corruption that he swore he would stop. Even CSPAN has had enough.

Giving up on this health care bill will not damage Democrats in the polls. Honestly, what could damage them any more than they are already? Liberal Pundit, are you really listening to what the American people are saying? It won’t fix the problem. It costs too much. How are we going to pay for it? When are Obama and the Democrats in Congress going to actually do something about the economy, and that doesn’t mean passing Stimulus II, Son of Stimulus, “Targeted Investment” or whatever the nom du jour of the warmed-over bucket of spit that Democrats are bandying around.

Liberal Pundit, the American people are willing to forgive incompetence in their leaders, to Move On if you will, as long as they think the leader won’t screw up like that again. After all, Bill Clinton won a second term after the ‘93 tax hikes, the ‘94 assault weapon ban, and the Brady Bill. Why not advise the Democrats to start over, to invite Republicans including Scott Brown to the table, to create a list of solutions that both Democrats and Republicans can agree on. Maybe it is only 80%, or 60%, or even 30%… but isn’t 30% of a loaf better than nothing? Especially when bipartisan support also means bipartisan ownership? I think it is, if you care for your country more than you care for your political party, if you’d rather do the right thing than be right, if you’re more interested in accomplishing something than stomping on your political opponents.

So, Liberal Pundit, do you have those qualities? Can you urge the Democrats to be good Americans instead of just good Democrats? To walk the walk and work in a true spirit of bipartisanship to solve the country’s problems? I guess we’ll find out soon enough.

______

*A response to Jonathan Cohn’s letter earlier today

Technorati Tags: Jonathan Cohn,health care,Obamacare,Scott Brown

Plan B

In the past few days, there’s been a couple of stories floating an idea by the Treasury Department to encourage people with 401(k) accounts to switch their investing out of securities (stocks, bonds, etc.) and into annuities:

The U.S. Treasury and Labor Departments will ask for public comment as soon as next week on ways to promote the conversion of 401(k) savings and Individual Retirement Accounts into annuities or other steady payment streams, according to Assistant Labor Secretary Phyllis C. Borzi and Deputy Assistant Treasury Secretary Mark Iwry, who are spearheading the effort.

The purported reason for this is to ensure that those who plan to depend on their 401(k)s for the bulk of their retirement income will have a sufficient income stream, with the excuse given that investors lost an average of 31% of the value of their 401(k) accounts between January 2008 and March 2009. What is hidden in the story is the fact that these accounts recovered half of that loss in the past nine months, and at the current rate of growth in the stock market the average 401(k) will be back at January 2008 levels in another nine months. So, where is the crisis? What is the real reason?

I think the real reason is clear; the Obama Administration has an eye on all of that money and wants to grab it. Obviously, outright confiscation would result in an armed uprising by outraged Americans. However, what if the Congress pulled an Argentina and changed the 401(k) laws to force conversions of all of the funds in 401(k)s to government-backed annuities… T-bills… or face a confiscatory tax rate? Yes, there’d be a court battle that would drag on for years, and that might or might not be won by taxpayers, but in the meantime the government has all of that money. And what would they do with it?

Today, our budget deficits are funded by taking the surplus funds out of Social Security, and selling T-bills. The Social Security surplus is drying up as the number of retired recipients is approaching the number of working contributors. Buyers of our T-bills are similarly drying up; it’s a lot easier to sell a couple hundred billion dollars worth of T-bills each year than to sell more than a trillion dollars worth of T-bills each year… and as the economy falters and we buy less imported oil and Asian-manufactured goods the Arabs, Japanese, and Chinese have less dollars to buy our T-bills. More important, the Chinese, who are the largest purchasers of T-bills, have us over a barrel. They can use the threat of not buying our debt as a strategic lever against us. Certainly our economy would collapse if we were forced to either stop all deficit spending or print more than a trillion dollars to buy next year’s debt. As China’s domestic consumption grows, they need our markets less and less… and we’ve already funded much of their economic development. What if they decide to annex Taiwan, and they use the threat of cutting off purchasing our debt if we interfere? Will the Obama Administration risk economic collapse over Taiwan? I don’t know if the Chinese are willing to push us that far, but certainly we’re fools if we expect them to continue to buy our debt when our ability to repay that debt is becoming increasingly doubtful. So the Obama Administration and the Congressional Democrats have come up with an alternative, a Plan B, to take all of the money in our 401(k) accounts.

A prudent nation would forego more government spending than it collects in taxes. Prudent and Congress are two words that are seldom if ever found in the same sentence, however. The current Congress seems hell-bent on spending every dime they can get their hands on, and borrowing even more money to spend once that is gone. The current Administration will not stop them. Changing the law to put another $3.6 trillion in the hands of the Congressional spendthrifts and postponing the hard decisions about government spending for another couple of elections is the easy way out, especially if enough people buy the spin about how this is somehow looking after their best interests.

This is how a once-great country sinks into economic purgatory. This is how America, the strongest nation the world has ever known, with the largest economy and the highest standard of living, turns into a banana republic. Be afraid. Be very afraid. (HT: Instapundit)

Technorati Tags: economy,China,deficit,debt,401(k),Obama,Treasury

The World Leaders' Guide to Dressing One's Children at International Summits... or, what not to wear

The London Daily Mail has an article on Malia's attire at the G-8 Summit, specifically on the political nature of the peace symbol displayed prominently on Obama's eldest daughter's shirt.

Perhaps the Obamas see this differently than I and many others do. In their minds, a peace sign is non-confrontational, and besides no one in their right mind can be against peace. Maybe they do understand the significance of the symbol and this is someone's way (Michelle?) of making a point. Or could it be that this is a cheap way to score points with the disaffected Left, the folks who are angry with Obama for not pulling the plug on Iraq, Gitmo, DOMA, etc. Yes, this is the cynical view.

Look at the bright side. Maybe Obama's daughters can hang out with fellow Democrat presidential offspring Amy Carter, famous for the shoutout she received from Dad during one of the Carter-Reagan debates for her role as one of her fathers's sought-after advisors on nuclear weapons policy. Sure, then Obama can be like Jimmy Carter, following Carter's example, consulting with the Obama girls just like Jimmy. Because we all remember what a smashing job HE did on foreign policy, economic policy, etc.

Oh, wait...

An Unfailingly Reliable Indicator

Then-President Jimmy Carter defending himself against a crazy rabbit (upper right)

I see former president Jimmy Carter has an op-ed in today's New York Times calling for the re-enactment of the 1994 'Assault Weapon' ban, a useless symbolic gesture and perhaps the single achievement of the Democrat House that allowed the GOP to take that chamber back after a half-century (certainly Bill Clinton believed so).

What I don't understand is why anyone is pushing for this law, a law that had absolutely no effect on crime, that was never successfully prosecuted, and that is almost certainly unconstitutional in this post-Heller world. One of Carter's claims is that American-made and legally purchased 'assault weapons' are being smuggled into Mexico and used by the cartels in their war against each other and the Mexican government... a claim which has been proven false as the cartels' main source of weapons is from other Central American countries like Panama, where real full-auto assault weapons (not the semi-auto lookalikes we can legally buy here), rocket launchers, grenades, etc., are available. Actually, I do understand. It's not about the problem in Mexico, it's about not trusting the American people.

Carter talks about his hunting guns, and then derides the NRA for "defending criminals' access to assault weapons and use of ammunition that can penetrate protective clothing worn by police officers." What he is either too stupid, or too dishonest to mention is that any centerfire deer rifle, including the ones he claims he owns and uses, will penetrate "protective clothing worn by police officers" (body armor). In fact, a criminal with a hunting rifle is far more dangerous than one with a semi-automatic AK-47. If Carter were really concerned enough about the danger to police he'd voluntarily turn in his own firearms before they can be stolen and put to criminal use. Again, the claim to be a 'hunter' is only a badly-disguised attempt to portray himself dishonestly as a 'sensible' gun owner instead of the elitist bigot that he really is. (If you're thinking I neither like or respect the man, you're thinking right.)

I for one am grateful Jimmy Carter occasionally makes a return to the world's stage. This man is the most reliable indicator of the intelligent side of a position the world has ever seen. You simply have only to determine where Jimmy Carter stands... and then you know unfailingly the opposite side is correct.

Don't The Police Have More Important Things To Do?

A perfect example of what is wrong with our country.

Santa Monica has hundreds of burglaries, robberies, dozens of rapes... and yet they have the manpower and money to go after this poor schlub?

The Nightmare Scenario: Are We Paying For The Rope That Will Be Used To Hang Us?

Let's say you were running a country with a huge population but a primitive infrastructure. For historical reasons, your population was not well-educated and your country was not industrialized; manual labor predominated. Your political-economic system provided security for the ruling elite and a docile populace, but the fundamentals of your economy could only change if you obtained money from other countries. More important to you as a leader, you believed your country was not treated with the respect it deserved given its historical accomplishments. How would you address these problems?

Let's say you realized that, although your economy was aligned with socialist principles, you were enough of a realist to realize that economic capitalism was the best way to bring prosperity and technical advancement to your country. So, you decide to utilize capitalism by exploiting your greatest resource; your people.

Fast forward a dozen years. Your country's factories produce durable goods for the world. Because you don't enforce intellectual property laws, much of what you value from other countries is used without compensation in your country... software, entertainment. You even turn a blind eye to the illegal copying of this, because it brings in hard currency. But all isn't rosy.

You realize that you need to not repeat the mistakes of countries like Japan, or England, Germany, or even the Unites States... manufacturing powerhouses who failed to control the natural resources that they depended on to keep their economies afloat. So, you bribe corrupt leaders of resource-rich but poor countries elsewhere in the Third World so you can develop and control their resources. You give guns and money to the Sudanese regardless of their deeds in Darfur, so you can get the oil you need. You do the same things in Nigeria and Angola. You go elsewhere in Africa, sending your people over to oversee the natives in places like South Africa and Zimbabwe. Like a drug pusher, you give poor nations cheap loans so they become beholden to you. You dump consumer goods in their markets, squeeze out the local competition for textiles, and you set up companies for these markets using mostly Chinese labor. In short, like the European powers you practice colonialism, but unlike your antecedents you have no religious or moral sentiments to make lives better for those you exploit, and you have no plans to leave. You don't stop in Africa, either. Iran and Venezuela need a friend who can sell them weapons, and you need oil. It's just business.

How do you handle your largest competitor, the Unites States? Well, you buy their debt so they can become beholden to you also. You give weapons technologies to proxies like Iran, Pakistan, and North Korea, so that America has to spend its time trying to do something about proliferation... and each time its efforts fail American prestige suffers another blow. The Islamists leave you alone, because unlike the Americans you really don't care about world opinion, and they know it. Not that you can project power... yet... but you've ensured that countries like Iran understand that it is in their interests to be aligned with you, to sell you oil and buy your technology, while they rail against the West. You don't care if the Islamists want to fight with the Americans. It only weakens both, and that benefits you. You don't care if the North Koreans or the Iranians get the Bomb. They won't use it against you, and it only weakens America.

So, here we are in 2009. China holds almost $2 trillion in US debt, in the form of treasury bonds. Foolishly, we have borrowed money from them to buy from them. And, we are counting on them to buy another couple trillion over the next few years. What happens when China calls in that debt? Or, even worse, what happens when China decides on a course of action that we find objectionable, and their response to our objection is to threaten to destroy our economy? Will we fight for Taiwan, for instance, if the cost of doing so makes our current economic woes seem like a bank holiday?

I don't think we've woken up to the fact that we are currently losing an economic war with China, and if we don't change course quickly we are going to be destroyed as a country. The evidence is there; all one has to do is to look at the contrast between Detroit and Shanghai, and to realize that the money that used to support America's industrial areas (the Rust Belt) has been sent overseas and has built China's shining cities and manufacturing facilities. It's not China's fault, of course. We gave them the opportunity by deliberately choosing to be non-competitive, and they have capitalized on our stupidity. And we're continuing down this road, further stifling our competitiveness because of shortsighted policy decisions. Americans were naive enough to believe that economic prosperity and political freedom had to go hand-in-hand, but that isn't necessarily true in a modern industrial society. Unlike us, the people who govern China don't have to worry about fractious political battles, and unlike us they have learned from their past policy mistakes.

Look ahead a few years. China is preparing a blue water navy, and there's only one reason a country needs a blue water navy: projection of power. China is working on a ballistic missile 'carrier killer' to deal with our blue water navy. China understands the latest GPS and computer technology, because they manufacture it for us, so there's no smart weapon in our arsenal they can't build. And China will have 32 million military-age men for whom there are no Chinese women, so these men will not be able to marry in their own society. All of these things will come to a head at the time we finally run out of money because China can choose when it will stop financing our debt... and then we are broke.

That is the nightmare scenario, the game of Risk in the real world: a China that has sewn up its natural resource needs, that has built a powerful military, and that has brought our economy to a halt. What if they go into Siberia? Only we could possibly stop them, and I don't think the American people will accept the risk of a nuclear strike against an American city to do so. The Russians don't have the population or the military to stand against them, even with nukes. Once China gets Siberia and has a few years of rest to rebuild what they lost in the Sino-Siberian War, who will be next?

The Economy Will Remain Broken Until Washington Is Fixed

Glenn Reynolds, over at Instapundit, links to a Politico article on how the Democrat activist organizations are starting to attack the Republican Congressional leadership in an effort to turn around public perception on the Stimulus Bill. Fine... that's politics after all, but I don't understand Reynolds' comment that he's "tired of it." Tired of what? The GOP leadership? Or, attacking the GOP leadership? I think many Americans were hoping that Hope and Change meant hoping for true bipartisanship, for putting country above party, and for changing the way things were done... but despite all the hope nothing has changed. Certainly the Democrats haven't changed.

The Democrats own the Stimulus Bill. Speaker Pelosi and the House Democrat leadership wrote the bill, and Senator Harry Reid and his fellow Democrat senators put together the Senate version. Democrats will control the conference committee that ends up deciding what the final outcome will be. As Obama, Pelosi, Reid, MoveOn, DailyKos, etc., are so fond of reminding us, they won. They are going to use their control of the Legislative and Executive branches of the government to ram this spending colossus through and nothing is going to stop them... not public opposition, not the CBO report that shows doing nothing is a better strategy, and certainly not the greatly outnumbered Republicans. Chances are the eventual bill won't even be made public until after Obama signs it.

It wouldn't be such a big deal if we were just talking about the fate of one or the other political parties, which after all are really just associations of like-minded folks banding together to move things in the direction they want. Who gives a fig? However, the Stimulus Bill is more than just partisan politics. We're talking somewhere north of $800 billion dollars here. Do you realize just how much money that is?

Here's some comparisons that will help you wrap your mind around the enormity of the $800+ billion we're going to print and spend, and obligate ourselves:

• We could select 16,000 random folks (yes, 16,000!) in each of the 50 states, and give them a million dollars
  
• We could give 10% of the population of New York City a million dollars each
  
• We could give every man, woman, and child in the country a new computer, a new iPhone, a new digital camera, and a 42" LCD HD TV... and still have enough money to pay their cable bill for a year
  
• We could give every American family a three-month paid vacation, at the average salary
  

Does anyone really believe that the way to get out of debt is to indebt oneself even more? Of course not. The first thing a smart person does when facing a shortfall is to cut spending, not raise it. After all, if spending like a drunken sailor would get us out of our difficulties, we would never be here in the first place.

The Financial Times had a great article on the cause of our current economic woes, and the possible solutions. What I don't understand is, if Tim Geithner is the financial genius who is uniquely qualified to fix the problem, then why didn't he cover these points in today's press conference... you know, the one that drove the Dow down several hundred points, because investors realize the Obama Administration doesn't have a clue about how to proceed and is flailing desperately. What was their solution? Let the bad banks fail, and stop throwing good money after bad. Yes, bank investors will lose money. That's what happens when you invest in a business that makes bad decisions.

All of the political posturing we've seen over the last week is just so much kabuki theater. The truth is really rather simple: the Dems want Republican support so that everyone owns this stinker of a bill... and no single party can be held responsible.

Grace Under Pressure

By now I'm sure everyone knows about US Air Flight 1549, the Airbus A320 that took off from New York City's LaGuardia Airport enroute to Charlotte, North Carolina but ended up floating in the Hudson River after encountering a flock of geese shortly after takeoff. The jet lost both engines due to ingesting geese, and was too low (3200' and 90 seconds into the flight) to make it back to LaGuardia. I've embedded a CBS report featuring a simulation of the flight, including radio transmissions plus some security camera footage showing the jet landing in the river.

Captain Sullenberger, the pilot-in-command, has been singularly recognized for his coolness in the face of emergency, and his presence of mind in rapidly exploring and then discarding all of the alternatives as unviable until only one remained... landing in the Hudson River. As he explained it to the NTSB during his deposition concerning the incident, he didn't want to crash catastrophically in the dense New York metropolitan area, couldn't make it to a runway, and so the only choice left was to land in the river.

I don't want to take anything away from Captain Sullenberger, who I think exemplifies Hemingway's definition of courage as 'grace under pressure.' However, the NTSB's full audio of all ATC transmissions does show Sullenberger's stress as reflected in his voice, and his anguish at realizing the impossibility of making a safe landing at Teterboro Airport (just to the west of the river). To his credit, once Teterboro is no longer possible, Sullenberger focuses on his only remaining choice, landing in the Hudson, and then works with his aircrew to put the plane down safely. Great credit goes to Captain Sullenberger, but also to his aircrew including copilot Jeffrey Skiles (who was busy trying to restart the engines and implementing other emergency procedures while Sullenberger flew the plane), and flight attendants Doreen Walsh, Sheila Dail and Donna Dent who prepared the passengers for the crash landing and then helped to evacuate the jet quickly and safely. All of them deserve every bit of praise for miraculously saving the lives of all 155 passengers onboard.

Another unrecognized actor in this drama is the air traffic controller handling the flight. I can't find his name, but he is trying everything he can to help the pilot... clearing traffic, suggesting alternatives... and then his voice is filled with resignation and despair as he loses the plane on his radar and knows that it has gone down. Another controller steps in to relieve him shortly thereafter, and understandably so. I would have given anything to have been a fly on the wall and have seen his reaction once he learned that everyone survived. Listening to the audio gives one a glimpse of how it must feel to be a first-hand witness to a tragedy. I know I had to sit and digest what I heard for a minute or so, even with the benefit of knowing how the story turned out.

Captain Sullenberger and his crew are heroes, ordinary people who rise above circumstances, who keep their heads in a crisis and calmly do the right thing. Yes, we admire grace under pressure in, say, a Super Bowl quarterback, but football isn't life or death where one wrong choice means the deaths of hundreds or maybe thousands... and you can always call a timeout and go to the sidelines for advice. Our true heroes are found in airline cockpits, and military cockpits, on the battlefield, or in ambulances and firetrucks, running towards danger rather than away from it. I think as a country we forget this too often, and it takes a 9/11 or a US Air Flight 1549 to remind us of what we should gratefully acknowledge on a daily basis.

Everyone who risks their life in the service of others is a hero. More important, every hero who gives his life for our country is bestowing a priceless gift to the rest of us. How often do we think of their sacrifice? How often do we honor it by giving of ourselves, by being better citizens and better people... by "earning this?"

America Is Great Because We Are Good!

Images courtesy US Navy

The biggest guy on the block always seems to be the butt of the neighborhood jokes, and it is no different with the United States of America. The UN's Jan Egeland (whose organization receives more than 40% of its funding from the US) has chided America for being "stingy" while liberals like Clare Short complain that the US is not only botching matters but has the unmitigated gall to think that it can actually handle a highly complex activity such as disaster relief without the leadership of the UN. Well, based upon the news coming out of the region, I'm sure that hundreds of thousands of starving and injured Indonesians, Thais, and (soon) Sri Lankans will be thankful that George Bush spent more time organizing with several other countries like India and Australia, and planning and implementing an effective relief effort that is actually in the region delivering food, water, and medical help, and less time calling for consultation, biting his lip, and seeking approval from the United Nations.



Diplomad has some very good information on what really is happening in South Asia, and which countries and organizations are having an impact on this historic disaster. Hint: it's not the countries and organizations that are doing the most grandstanding. France, the EU, and the UN are doing a lot of gesticulating, to no avail. The UN, whose disaster management experience has been gained at places like Rwanda, Darfur, Kosovo, and of course the Oil-For-Food program (that starved ordinary Iraqis, enriched Saddam, and lined the pockets of UN syncophants and bureaucrats) has been extremely busy... coordinating things like adjacent suites at 5-start hotels with 24-hour room service and color-matching the various jumpsuits that UN contract employees will be wearing to prevent clashes with other contributors' uniforms. Read their postings over the past couple of weeks to get an idea of the hypocrisy, incompetence, and arrogance which seems to be the only tangible product the UN is capable of bringing to disaster relief.

I am so proud of my country and the US military! No other country in the history of the world can do, and does, so much to help others. No other military in the history of the world has the skills and the capability to project power as quickly and effectively and benificently. Need some drinking water? Here's 200,000+ gallons a day... indefinitely (until our SeaBees and Army Corps of Engineers come in and rebuild your infrastructure... to US standards). Thousands of injured people lying around without medical assistance in devastated hospitals? We'll treat them and get them on their way back to health. "No better friend, no worse enemy."

Unfortunately, some people, like Andrew Sullivan don't get it; everyone in the military would far rather save lives than fight wars. The risk isn't much less. Sure, no one's shooting at you, but flying aircraft off ships over miles of ocean and jungle is a dangerous business and it is almost a certainty that Americans will die during this mission.



Osama bin Laden can talk about the Great Satan, the French can complain and moan about us, the EU can claim to be a "counterweight", and China can call itself the leading western Pacific economic and military power... but those suffering from the tsunami are eating food in boxes labeled "USA", drinking water from US ships, being treated by US medical personnel with US medicines, and watching US construction equipment operated by US citizens fix their infrastructure.

Note to the UN, the EU, and all of the rest of you US-bashers out there: actions speak louder than words. And, to the people calling for the cancellation of the inauguration so that the funds can be used for tsunami disaster relief... get Kerry and the Clintons to send their millions from their campaign warchests to tsunami victims, and then come see us.