Life changes

Well, the last 48 hours or so have been filled with excitement and dread.  Excitement over my appointment as the at-Risk coordinator here at Coronado.  It is a chance to work with kids who need someone to challenge them and show them the value of education.

However, there is a flip side to this coin.  I have to leave the classroom, and that is something which makes me extremely sad.  When I first came into the teaching profession back in August of 2005, I knew almost immediately, this was for me.  I completely loved it!  I loved the interaction with the students and I loved teaching them not to think like I do, but to think.

Over the last 2 years I was blessed with some wonderful AP students.  I will never forget them, or the things they have taught me.  This year I have also had some great students, not the least of whom are my IB kids.  They have been amazing.  They have risen to the challenge and pushed me to be a better teacher.  They are truly a great set of kids with an amazing future in store.

So one week from now I will no longer be an active classroom teacher.  That phase of my life will have come to an end.  However, a new chapter will be starting, and, while I may no longer be an active class room teacher I will keep this blog alive.  Hopefully I can still spread some knowledge and humor (so keep reading and responding).  To all my ‘babies’(as my wife calls them) I will always be YOUR teacher.

Inflation? What inflation?

One of the things I keep hearing from various statists (and their defenders) is that there “is no inflation” (these are the same people whom in 2006 said I was crazy for thinking there was an economic crisis on the horizon).  Some even argue inflation is a good thing.

The coming problem with the economy is depicted on this graph.

Yes, this graph is a good indicator of the coming problem, one which could make 2008/09 look like a joke.  You can see that, in the last year or so the Federal Reserve has increased the money supply by an incredible 120% (note: the chart up above only takes into account the M1, not the M1+M2+M3 for ease of viewing purposes only and various sources give different amounts for the exact increase in monetary supply).  Yes, you read correctly.  The monetary stock has been increased by 120%, give or take.

The red line, however, is of particular interest.  It is the size of excess reserves being held by the banks.  So far most of the money the Federal reserve has “pumped” into the banks has remained in the banks.  Believe it or not, that is a good thing.  Why?  Because once this money starts leaving the banks (and it will) then it will “gain velocity” and we will have inflation.  Back in the early 1980’s the chairman of the Fed, in order to counter an increase in the money supply of approximately 13% was forced to raise interest rates to 20%-21%.  Want to purchase a home with 20% interest rates?  I didn’t think so.

But the Fed, at some point, will have to raise interest rates or it will destroy itself.  The result of this will be to crush what ever economic comeback will take place in the next year or so (if there is any economic come-back).

So when I hear politicians complain that the banks aren’t loaning money and are bad for keeping “stimulus” money in their vaults, I thank the banks (at least in this instance) for being greedy.

For the three or four people regular readers, tomorrow a little discussion about the gold standard.

Free market solutions to Health Care

As our days get shorter and the temperatures drop, we see the debate about the US health care system heat up.  Democrats and Republicans alike argue how best to provide “affordable health care for all”.  Unfortunately, both sides are arguing for different versions of what is essentially the same solution: government intervention.

Here is a thought from left field (or, since it’s free market solution, would it be right field?):  let the free market solve the problem.  What a novel idea!

However, before we solve the current “problem” we might want to try and understand what exactly is the root cause of this problem.

The first problem we tend to hear about is “health care in this country is too expensive.”  Having a sick wife, I can attest to the fact that health care is quite expensive.  However, one must (or should) ask “why is it so expensive”?  Is it because the “free market” does not work (something we are often told by statists) or is it because the market is, in fact, responding to intervention in the market by government?  I would suggest the problem is, in fact, multi-faceted, but the main problem is two-fold.  It is caused by government inflating the dollar and then spending said dollar in the health care arena (thus you have more dollars chasing the same number of goods and an increase in price) and by the fact you have a virtual monopoly on who can and can not become a supplier of health care services.

The second part of this problem is caused by the monopoly powers of the American Medical Association (the AMA).  They have act as gate-keeper if you will in the creation of medical schools.  Through their powers of accreditation and certification they ensure the number of doctors in this country is kept as low as possible, the result of which means they MUST charge more money (more buyers chasing the same amount of “product” means the price of that product must be increased) and results in doctors making more money.  An interesting fact is that approximately 10% of all applicants to medical school are accepted.  I seriously doubt only 10% of the applicants to medical school are qualified to be doctors.

So how could we solve this problem?  Easy.  Free up the market and you will see an improvement not just in the quantity of health care available, but in the quality of health care which is provided.  Think of high definition televisions (or cell phones for that matter).  It was not long ago that HD televisions were hovering around the $10,000 price range.  Today, you can get them for SIGNIFICANTLY LESS money, thanks to the innovations of the free market (or at least a market which is significantly more free than the health care market).  Cell phones at one point were large and expensive.  Today, they are small, affordable and of far better quality, with many cell phones containing such “space-age” features as GPS, internet, email and gizmos limited only by the imagination of would-be designers.

The second part of the problem is to end the monopoly power of the AMA.  Why is it that, when someone is taken ill with a respiratory infection or common cold they have to see a Doctor to obtain medication?  Why not allow people to see a “medical technician” in such cases, a person who did not attend a full fledged medical school, but perhaps has had a year or two of training to provide people with basic services in “non-emergency” situations?

Some would argue the latter solution would be unsafe.  How can they assume this?  If the current system is full proof then why do we have patients who sue doctors for “malpractice”?  We have it because it isn’t full proof.  It will never be full proof.  Instead of going to a doctor who charges $300 an hour for his services (because he has a ton of med school loans to pay off) why not go to a trained technician who would charge say, $20 to look in your throat, take your temperature and prescribe some basic medication?  If you don’t get better after a day or so, then go to the more advanced practitioner.  This would cut down on people using their health insurance (which should truly only be used in cases of catastrophic illness such as hospitalization) to pay for the equivalent of an oil change and tire rotation on your car.  Would you use insurance for that procedure?  No.  Of course not.

The good news is that, without government intervention, the market is stepping in to solve this problem.  Walgreens is developing “retail health clinics” where you see a health care professional and can purchase medication right there in their store.  Wait times will be shorter than a doctors office and prices will be low.  THIS is innovation and the free market at work.  This would NEVER happen if we allow the people who run Amtrack, the war on Terrorism and the Fannie Mae get their hands on health care.  Remember, if there is something being done in this world, and it’s being done wrong, it’s probably being done by the US Government!

What has happened with costs in the health care market is not because it’s free, in fact it is far from “free”.  It is caused by intervention by government bureaucrats who, although I’m sure they mean well with their ideas of “economic justice” and “redistribution of wealth”, by intervening in the economy simply create the very problems they are trying to solve.  What is amazing to me is that, after about a century of experimentation in the market place with “progressive” ideas we still have not learned our lesson.  Socialism/Marxism/cooperative economics does not work.  There is a mountain of evidence to prove it does not work.  And yet, here we are in 2009 being led by people who look to the writings of Karl Marx and Mao and tell us that if we just increase the amount of socialism in the health care industry all will be well.

Here are some facts to help prove my point.  In 1990 the government said medicare would cost us $12 billion.  They were wrong by about $95 billion.  In the UK, 20% of patients with “treatable” colon cancer (treatable at the time of discovery) have to wait so long for the “free treatment” to start that their cancer has become incurable.  Think about that.  In Massachusetts the state implemented a universal health care system.  Some refer to it as the Romney miracle (one of the things I dislike about Mitt Romney).  Rather than lower costs the people of that state have seen their health care costs RISE 18%!  This is what happens when government gets involved and tries to regulate the market.

If government completely takes over the health care industry, we will all be feeling like this patient!

 

 

“You’ll Never Walk Alone”…

What a great sporting weekend.  I am never amazed by the power of sports and their usefulness to us as human beings.  What am I talking about?  Please bear with me.

The past week or so has been a dark time for us Liverpool FC fans.  Last Saturday we lost our third match in a row thanks to a freak beach ball on the pitch and an incompetent set of officials who forgot the rules of the game (or chose to completely re-write the rules of the game).  On Tuesday we lost in the Champions League to Lyon, something Liverpool don’t usually do (especially not at home).  By Wednesday morning the British press were calling for our manager to be sacked, and things looked truly dark.

However, then came Sunday.  Arch rivals (and three time defending Champion) Manchester United came to Anfield.  To make things worse, club captain Steven Gerrard (the best player in the world in my opinion) would be left out due to injury sustained on international duty in a completely meaningless friendly match.  Fernando Torres was questionable, and things did not look good.  However, as someone once said, that’s why they play the game.  By the end it was 2-0 and could have been 4-0 in favor of Liverpool.

As the song says, “At the end of the storm is a golden sky…”.  Is this the start of our march toward title number 19?  Champions league title number 6?  Who knows?  The season is a long one, 28 more matches to go (in the League).  But, the fact is, Liverpool have just won a MASSIVE match (viewed by more people around the world than the Super Bowl) and we are within striking distance of league leaders Chelsea.  And it is a very good Monday morning!

Goalie Pepe Reina celebrates the second goal against Manchester United on Sunday

Pity the Imperialists

A great post which I found quite interesting. Check it out.

Pity the Imperialists

Shared via AddThis

Secession Part I of series reposted

I’m reposting the first part of the promised series on the idea of secession.  I will post part two later this week.  Enjoy.

Over the past month or so we have suddenly heard a lot of talk about a very old idea, secession.  As a historian and a teacher of history (and US Government) I usually see these sorts of issues as great “teaching moments”.  Unfortunately, because I am not teaching Government this semester I have not really had a chance to take advantage of this opportunity.  Yesterday, during our final social studies dept. meeting of the year the issue came up as a point of conversation (actually a point of pontification by someone I will refer to as the “queen”).  The queen often pontificates on a wide range of subjects and, unless you agree with her, she tends to look down her nose at you, especially if it is a political topic.  Of course the queen and I differ greatly in our political leanings, but I am always open to a good discussion of issues in a clam and rational manner.

Anyway, the queen held forth and enlightened us all on her opinion about the idea of secession.  She simply dismissed the “tea-baggers” (I wonder if she knows what that means?) and Rick Parry as stupid, ridiculous, etc…  Now, I am NO fan of Rick Parry.  Not in the slightest.  But when we history teachers start dismissing issues with simple ad-hominem attacks and do not engage the issue on its merits (or the lack thereof), I am disturbed.  I am especially disturbed as the queen is an AP teacher and should understand that the issue of secession is one which runs throughout American history, especially the first 70 years or so.  Even today we still have arguments about the scope and power of the federal government and whether or not the states have a check on that scope and power.  This argument is related to the idea of “original intent” as well.  Such a rich ground for discussion.  Instead, because the queen is a democrat, and there is a democrat in control of the executive (and legislative) branch, the idea is ludicrous.  Of course, just a few short years ago she would have thought secession from “Bush’s America” a good idea.

Anyway, I decided to look at the idea and see what I could find.  And what I found was interesting.  Stay with me as this will be long.  First, some background.

Thomas Jefferson authored a pamphlet known as A Summary View of the Rights of British America. In it, Jefferson lays out a very strong argument for the rights of “Americans” based on the ideas of John Locke.  He states the king is “no more than the chief officer of the people” and that, if the King ever looses sight of that and stops working for the people, the people may replace him.  Jefferson explains this idea in the Declaration of Independence when he says “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”  Many would argue this part of the declaration gives us the right to secession, a right which was taken away by the Civil War.  This is one of the four main principals of the Declaration of Independence, but it is one which most teachers avoid discussing, for obvious reasons.  The right to revolution is controversial but it is there amongst the ideas of Limited Government (another idea we seem to have forgotten/ignored), Individual freedom and Human Equality.

Fast forward to the constitutional debates.  In order to understand the constitution we are often told we need to look to the federalist papers (if that), which is a good start.  I would suggest we should also look to the writings of the anti-federalists and Thomas Jefferson.  I know, Jefferson was not there, he was in Paris.  True, but he was in contact with Madison and Madison would have been steeped in Jeffersonian ideals.  The ideas of Jefferson are the ideas of Locke, and these ideas would have been part and parcel of the beliefs of most, if not all, of the founders.  What kind of a constitution did the founders give us?  The answer is easy, but I fear the meaning is lost on most Americans today.  They gave us a Federal constitution, and a federal government, not a national government.

What does that mean?  Let’s look at the Treaty of Paris which ended the War of Independence.  In it, King George III did not recognize the independence of a single American nation.  He recognized the independence of 13 independent “states” which, in the language of the day, meant “nations”.  So each of the 13 states was sovereign.  The constitution which would be submitted by the convention for ratification would feature a federal legislative body which would have none of the sweeping powers to legislate or veto state laws claimed by that same body 200 years later.  It just is not there.  Plus, you can read the notes on the debates.  James Madison, the father of the constitution, repeatedly argues for a veto over state law by the federal Congress, and his arguments are defeated again and again.  Why debate the issue if that power is given to the Congress by the constitution?

Madison was not happy with a federal legislature rather than a national one, so much so that he writes to Jefferson to express his disappointment in a letter dated October 24, 1787.  He is worried that a state role in federal policy making would make too responsive to the whims of the people.  Again, we see there is a great deal of power retained by the states.

What are the roots of the ideas of "secession"?

Cooperative economics and the roots of fascism part II.

We left off discussing the Jacobin version of Fascism and how they dismissed the need for representative bodies when the government is well intentioned.  I want to briefly mention one more aspect of the Jacobins, and that is their use of terror a s a tool of the state.  The idea was to maintain a permanent state of crisis so as to circumvent debate and deliberation.  Who wants debate and deliberation anyway?  This is one of the main problems I have with democrats and republicans today.  Both sides play this game wherein they say we must act quickly in responding to a crisis by passing emergency legislation (after 9/11 it was the Patriot Act, today it’s Health Care) with little or no debate.  We saw it in the spring with the bail out bill and we will see it again, I’m sure.  If the issue is so important that it strikes to the foundation of the Republic then, in my view, debate should be encouraged!  In such a situation the last thing you want is to make a wrong move.  Stifling debate and discussion is not characteristic of a free society.

One of the major problems many people have with my associating fascism with marxism is the fact that fascists and communists tend not to play nice in public.  Just look at the downright hatred both sides held for the other during the 1920’s and 1930’s (and the 1940’s as well).  In our modern world you know you have truly upset a progressive if they start calling you a fascist!  Why is this?  After all, the father of fascism, Benito Mussolini, came out of the Marxist movement of the 19th Century, so why all the enmity?  I believe it has to do with apostasy.  As a libertarian, it is difficult for me to truly anger a Progressive or a Marxist in quite the same way as a fascist could.  Think of the absolute hatred the American left exhibited for George W. Bush.  It’s not because he was a libertarian (many Marxists I know actually think a Ron Paul Presidency would be a far better thing than the Bush presidency).  You could argue that the neo-cons are fascists and the reason they are despised by the modern “left” is because they are seen as committing apostasy.  They are, in many ways, seen as having been members of the Church of Marx (for lack of a better term), and having left it and are now denouncing it.  So I would argue that, rather than labeling fascists as “right wing” because that is what they are, it is a way to punish the fascists for their apostasy.

Remember, Mussolini argued for entry into World War I not from the right, but from the left!  His arguments for entering into the war were similar to those of Woodrow Wilson and John Dewey, leaders of the american Progressive movement.  All of these men argued for entry into the war in order to liberate foreign people from the yoke of imperialism.  Does this sound like an argument a “conservative” such as Ron Paul would advocate?  Of course not.  It is not a “liberal” foreign policy in the sense of the Jeffersonian liberals of the 18th and 19th Century.  It is, however, a liberal idea which would sound perfectly normal being proposed by a Ted Kennedy or a Hillary Clinton.  Strangely enough, it is also one of the numerous reasons President Bush cited for invading Iraq in 2003.

Looking back at Mussolini, the saw class as being important, but not trumping the importance of the nation and culture.  In his eyes, socialism was just one version of what was needed, and he, in a sense, wanted to expand on it and Marx’s vision.  He was calling for a new version of Marxism, socialism in one country.  He was “leaving the ranch” so to speak, and striking out in new territory, or so he thought.  However, in reality, he was simply building upon the work  begun during the French Revolution by the Jacobins in fusing ideas of nationalism with ideas of cooperative economics and statism.  In the next post we will discuss the ideas of National Socialism.

Gold vs. Paper

The following is an interesting article about Gold vs. Paper currency.

Most people take it for granted that the world will never return to the gold standard. The gold standard, they say, is as obsolete as the horse and buggy. The system of government-issued fiat money provides the treasury with the funds required for an open-handed spending policy that benefits everybody; it forces prices and wages up and the rate of interest down and thereby creates prosperity. It is a system that is here to stay.

Now whatever virtues one may ascribe — undeservedly — to the modern variety of the greenback standard, there is one thing that it certainly cannot achieve. It can never become a permanent, lasting system of monetary management. It can work only as long as people are not aware of the fact that the government plans to keep it…..

http://mises.org/story/3729

Inflation

One of the things I find most disturbing about politics is that it is often about convenience.  What I mean is that often perfectly logical people quite conveniently “forget” what they said in the past and support policies they would normally not support if “their” guy were not in office.  I’m specifically referring to Paul Krugman, the Nobel prize winning economist who writes for the New York Times.

In 2003, when there was a Republican running the executive branch, and they controlled the Legislative branch as well, Krugman was deploring (and rightfully so) the deficit spending of the Bush administration and the inflation of the dollar by the Fed (led by Alan Greenspan at that time).  Back in 2003 Mr. Krugman wrote that he switched his mortgage from an adjustable rate to a fixed rate as he was worried about inflation and deficit spending (3-11-2003 article titled “A Fiscal Train Wreck”).  Now, in 2009 he insists deficit spending saved the world.  What changed?

Well, since 2003 we have had a switch in the parties running our government.  Now the Executive branch and Legislative branch are run by the Democrat party.  But the policies themselves have not changed.  In 2001 the CBO was projecting a 10 year budget surplus of more than $5,000,000,000,000 (trillion for those of you who are Manchester United fans and can’t count).  Now it is projecting a 10 year deficit of $9 trillion (added onto the $10 trillion the debt is currently at.  So that is a $14 trillion swing!  And Mr. Krugman now thinks this is a good thing.

Some out there continue to insist that inflation is a good thing.  ”What is wrong,” they ask “with inflation?  At the worst it is a neutral force as the rise in prices will not hurt you seeing as how you have more money.”  Stick with me and hopefully you will understand.

First, let us take a hypothetical situation (it wasn’t hypothetical less than a century ago, but now it is).  Let us assume the nation is on a system of hard currency, in other words, the gold standard (or the silver standard, either one will do).  In other words, the nation is following a policy of sound money.  As Rothbard aptly pointed out “so long as the society remains on this pure gold or silver ’standard’ there will probably be only gradual annual increases in the supply of money, from the output of gold mines [or silver mines].  The supply of gold is severely limited, and it is costly to mine further gold, and the great durability of gold means that any annual output will constitute a small portion of the total gold stock accumulated over the centuries.” (Rothbard 20)  Rothbard goes on to explain this will lead to gently falling prices.  As the economy grows you will have either the same amount of gold chasing more goods/services or you will have slightly increasing amounts of gold/silver chasing an increasing amount of goods and services.  This means your dollar will increase in purchasing power rather than decrease in purchasing power (the dollar today is worth less than 4% of its value in 1913).  This will lead to greater prosperity for greater numbers of people.  Imagine, if you will, how much cell phones would be selling for (or cars, or gasoline) IF a dollar was not worth 4% of its value from 100 years ago, but was worth 97% of its original value?

In our modern society we are used to prices increasing, not decreasing.  Some economists insist the deflation I am describing is bad, yet from the start of the Industrial Revolution until around 1940 what we had was just that, a scenario in which the prices of goods and services was gently falling as efficiency and production increased.  Because of the increase in productivity profits did not decrease.  There was no major depression, even though we are told that is what will happen.  Just look at the recent drop in price of say, cell phones or flat panel TV’s.  That hasn’t caused a depression.  In fact, you can trace the current depression and the panic of 2008 to the actions of government and it’s central bank, the Federal reserve (but that is a topic for another post).

What happens when government (in our case the Federal Reserve) inflates the money supply?  Some, such as the “Chicago” school of economics, believe inflation is a good thing.  They postulate, in essence, what I would call the “tooth fairy” theory.  If the tooth fairy came by everyone’s home tonight and left us an amount of money equal to our current net worth, so they say, there is no net negative effect.  Everyone is euphoric because they are now worth double of what they once were.  At the worst, according to them, the net negative social effect is zero.

However, there is a fly in their ointment.  It is this:  the inflating of the dollar is not similar to our “tooth fairy” analogy (or Milton Friedman’s helicopter effect.  This money is not spread out equally to all citizens in society.  In fact, quite the opposite.  The first group/persons to get the money are whom?  Those who are printing it, the government.  So they receive the greatest benefit, as they are able to go out and purchase goods and services before the flood of money is reflected in the prices.

Rothbard describes the effects far better than I.  ”… The new money ripples out through the system, going from one pocket or till to another.  As it does so, there is an immediate redistribution effect.  For first the counterfeiters [or the printers], then the retailers, etc., have new money and monetary income which they use to bid up goods and services, increasing their demand and raising the prices of goods that they purchase.  But as prices of goods begin to rise in response to the higher quantity of money, those who haven’t yet received the new money find the prices of the goods they buy have gone up, while their own selling prices or incomes have not risen.  In short, the early receivers of the new money in this market chain of events gain at the expense of those who receive the money toward the end of the chain, and still worse losers are the people (e.g., those on fixed incomes such as annuities, interest, or pensions) who never receive the new money at all.  Monetary inflation, then, acts as a hidden ‘tax’ by which the early receivers expropriate (i.e., gain at the expense of) the late receivers.”  Thus it has changed the distribution of income and wealth.  The ripple effect not only affects prices, but the distribution of effort toward production.

Rothbard concludes, “In sum, the Austrian insight holds that counterfeiting[or government printing of fiat currency]  will have far more unfortunate consequences for the economy than simple inflation of the price level.  There will be other, and permanent, distortions of the economy away from the free market pattern that responds to consumers and property rights holders in the free economy.”(Rothbard 26)

In our current situation of deficit spending, who is benefiting?  For the most part so far it is “banking” organizations such as AIG and Goldmann-Sachs (I think most of us would be amazed at how many people in government were employees of the latter at one time or another), and the auto industry recipients of federal dollars such as GM and Chrysler.  And they have received this largesse at our expense.  No, Bush nor Obama, directly raised our taxes to do all of this.  Instead they simply inflated the dollar.  I will let you decide if it was/is ethical for them to do this.

What is Libertarianism Part II

At this point I feel it is important to mention the fact that, in no way is this series meant to cover EVERYTHING Libertarianism is.  That would be impossible.  Rather, it is an attempt to give you a general idea of what it is and what Libertarians believe.

At this point it would probably be a good idea to look as some of the issues we face today and provide you with some Libertarian ideas on how to fix these problems.  The first problem we will take on shall be the idea of foreign policy and war.  In doing so, we should look at a couple of terms first, and clear up some misconceptions as far as these terms are concerned.  ”Isolationist” is a term which is often thrown at anti-war “Libertarians” such as Ron Paul.  The term itself was coined at the time of US entry into World War 2 and used as a smear against those who were opposed to that war.  Murray Rothbard put it best when he said “isolationists were at the very least narrow-minded ignoramuses ignorant of the world around them, in contrast to the sophisticated, worldly, caring ‘internationalists’ from Lyndon Johnson to Jimmy Carter and their followers have constantly tried to pin the ‘isolationist; or at least ‘neoisolationist’ label on today’s left wing.”  But anti-war policy is not a domain which only the new “left” rules.  In fact, the old left, libertarians, often were and are against war except in extreme cases.  Often, prior to the second World war, it was these anti-war liberals who were seen as true “internationalists” and Richard Cobden, of the “Manchester School” was called the “International Man” not an isolationist.  Prior to the smear campaign against the libertarians of the pre-war era, those who opposed the “aggrandizement of the nation-state and favored peace, free trade, free migration and peaceful cultural exchanges among peoples of all nations” were known as “Internationalists.”  A better term perhaps (certainly better than “isolationist” would be non-interventionist).  They do not favor “isolationism” at all, but rather advocate political non-intervention in the affairs of other nations, economic and cultural internationalism in the areas of trade, investment and interchange.  This is the essence of libertarianism.

Often I have been called a modern day Whig, Don Quixote and someone who longs for an America which never existed (all of this from a “friend” who is a college professor and a supposed “intellectual”).  I have been told these ideas were nice and quaint back in the 18th Century, but our modern 21st Century world calls for something more sophisticated.  I just do not understand how these ideas can be seen as “archaic” in today’s world.  Perhaps had we been following these ideas for the last 70 years we would not be remembering the horrible events which took place 8 years ago today.

As a former member of the US military, I have a problem with what has been going on for the past several decades.  Part of out problem with the so called “War on Terror” (how can you have a war against an ideology anyway?) is the fact that, perhaps, the reason we were attacked is not because they “dislike our freedoms” (as we were told in the days after 9/11/01) but because we are “over there” instead of minding our own business.  Meddling in the affairs of other countries, whether those countries are in the Middle East, Asia or South America will logically have consequences.  So how then can it be a surprise when someone or several someones takes exception to this meddling and uses force as a response?

Another problem is our targeting of civilians.  The sanctions enforced against Iraq (as an example) lead to the death of approximately 500,000 Iraqi’s, many of whom had done nothing to deserve that horrible death.  Many many more died due to the invasion of Iraq and the aftermath, and the excuse for all of this?  We were making the world safe for democracy.  So we made the world “safe” by using violence to force others to think as we do?  That hardly sounds logical.