Armenian Genocide Resolution - part III

Pelosi's Armenian gambit

And, of course, leave it to Krauthammer to cut through the issue, lay it out clearly, and make the points that everyone needs to know to understand this issue.

He also clearly points out how quite a few members of Congress not only have a tin ear but are astoundingly clueless when it comes to grasping not only current U.S. foreign policy, but also history and the entire purpose of even having a foreign policy. Remember these people make decisions about how billions of our money gets shipped abroad to despot A or to insurgent B who may one day become despot B.

Do we really think the U.S Congress is capable of handling any critical thinking in intricate matters like this when most seem to base their opinions solely on what their constituents say in opinion polls? That, by the way, is the answer to the third question. Pelosi was pandering for donations and to pass some "feel-good" legislation. She probably figured the controversy would give her more publicity and make her seem tough.

All it proves is how badly she and most of Congress on both sides of the aisle do not understand foreign policy. This also once again clearly demonstrates why the U.S. really should be out of these types of regional struggles on the other side of the planet altogether. Congress of course doesn't care since it is not their money and foreign policy is just another issue to generate talking points for the next campaign.

As we now know, the Democrats have no intention of pulling out of Iraq even if they take the White House. This is because their feigned opposition to the war was solely for the purpose of increasing their numbers in Congress in 2006. At least some of the more strident anti-war dems have figured out that they have been sold out. The rest of them will return to the sheep fold as it is explained why a 180 degree turn isn't really that dramatic and was actually the right thing all along. War is peace.

"Harmlessly passing your time in the grassland away..."

Armenian Genocide Resolution - part II

Cal Thomas on the Armenian Genocide resolution


A well-reasoned article as to why passing the resolution is a bad idea in terms of current U.S. foreign policy. This is no doubt the same reasoning that both parties have decided is correct as to why the U.S. Congress should not pass the resolution.

Now read the article again and ask yourself why are we so concerned about the internal affairs of Turkey? Why are we worried about a country who has only proven itself to be a semi-democracy? Turkey is a democracy basically until the Muslim fundamentalists win election in which case, they are always immediately overthrown by a military coup. Doesn't that really make this more of a military dictatorship? One which, by the way, is the direct descendant of the secular Turkish military who carried out the Genocide.

Read the article again. I will try to boil down the big and convoluted picture. We are worried that a rebellious group who is using terrorist tactics to liberate a compatriot ethnic enclave operating out of a foreign nation that we are now occupying as the only stable military force available in order to create a peaceful democracy in that foreign nation might be attacked inside that foreign nation by an long-time ally in a war that ended 20 years ago that is a nominal democracy as a result of a resolution from Congress condemning events that took place 92 years ago and that are still the subject of much controversy and speculation which might in turn result in that long-time ally voting invading that foreign nation and electing a fundamentalist government as it has routinely done in the past when it has had the chance to act as a full democracy, which it isn't. All of this is of course being done in the context of spreading democracy in the region, which of course we don't really support fully for Turkey because it would lead to the creation of a state that supports fundamentalist Islam which would undermine our long-term attempts to stabilize (and interfere) in the region.

Is any of this really authorized by the Constitution? Isn't this the antithesis of avoiding the "entangling alliances" that George Washington warned about before he left office? Haven't we been burned enough by intervening in wars that aren't really our wars to begin with?

In the end, of course, the U.S. government will continue to give away as much or our money as possible to everyone involved on every side of this conflict and say that it somehow makes our country safer to be not only the world's policeman, but also the world's nanny and janitor.

Armenian Genocide Resolution

Pat Buchanan on Armenian Genocide Resolution


I have few Armenian friends and have heard a few second-hand stories about how various people survived the genocide in 1915. So, of course I believe it was a real event and as significant as the Holocaust. But I'm not sure if I'm missing Buchanan's point here. He has typically been against the expansion of the role of the U.S. military in the world, but he doesn't make that point here. He mostly condemns the democrats for pushing this resolution at a very critical time for what is likely nothing more than pandering for donations.

I agree with him that Turkey has been a very good ally to the U.S. and that the democrats are demonstrating their tin ear for world diplomacy (not that the neo-cons have fared much better in this decade). But if he is suggesting that we should continue to help out Turkey and reward them as allies, that seems to counter his usual sentiments arguing against the war in Iraq and the expansion of the U.S. military to every corner of the world now that the Cold War has ended.

Here are my points for what they are worth:

• I'm not a big fan of government doing anything it isn't expressly authorized to do. The passage of a measure like this, while the subject is obviously serious, strikes me as being about as useless as national broccoli awareness week or the 10,000 other resolutions passed by Congress. If the Armenian Genocide becomes an important issue in one context or another that involves the federal government, then by all means talk about it. Resolutions of this type which don't serve any purpose strike me as the worst sort of pandering. We should make sure it's in the history books, but what role the federal government should play in that is likely none.
  
• I agree with Pat that this is likely going to cause us a lot of trouble with Turkey when we really can't afford it. Ironically, perhaps, the Kurds were also implicated in helping the Turks carry out the Genocide. They should probably also be included in any resolution. Even if they are not, they are likely to feel the negative consequences of it's passage when Turkey invades northern Iraq.
  
• As long as we are a world of nation-states, I accept whole-heartedly the notion that national borders should be drawn along current ethnic and cultural lines for historic ethnic groups (multi-cultural nations such as the U.S. excepted). As such, I think that there should be a Kurdistan and that the northeast quadrant of Turkey should go to Armenia while the southeast should go to an independent Kurdistan.
  
• That being said, if you look at an ethnic map of the Middle East, you will see that Iraq, Turkey, and especially Iran, are such hodge-podges of different ethnic groups that it's any wonder they should be single nations at all. The fact that we are now being steadily drawn into a conflict that resulted from the failure to create an independent Kurdistan in 1921 just goes along with my overall thesis that the U.S. just needs to stop intervening in the world, period, unless our safety is directly (directly) threatened. Otherwise, we wind up with the current mess we are in with Iraq and the likely messes that will arise with Turkey and Iran in the next six months to a year.
  
• I would be more than happy to lose Turkey as an ally if it also meant we would be gone from intervening in the Middle East for good.
  

Blog Action Day

Today is supposedly "Blog Action Day", but I refuse to get involved is these kind of hokey promotions, so I will not be posting anything today.

Getty Spacey about Science

Pinkerton: After Sputnik we aimed high, now our aims are low

Krauthammer: What Sputnik launched

The more I read Jim Pinkerton, the more I am convinced he has no understanding of history, science, or technology. Krauthammer still thinks we should be going to the Moon, but if you read the two articles you will see what an intellectual midget Pinkerton is compared to Krauthammer in terms of understanding the significance of Sputnik and local space travel.

Going to the Moon was a PR event and nothing more. It may have had some impact on the Cold War or our perception as a superpower in the rest of the world, for good or bad, but any positive effects would be impossible to quantify. The real positive by-product of the race for math and science technology spurred (perhaps) by hysterical overreaction to Sputnick was satellite communication, computer technology, and yes even the Internet that Pinkerton says has turned into a collosal time waster.

Then again these things might have happened on their own with government grants or focus on science and math. We love to worship the false gods of politicians who take credit for things that really happened on their own through the invisible hand of people making their own decisions about how to spend their time and money.

I disagree with Pinkerton's negative assessment of the internet being a waste in the form of introspection (i.e. "staring at our bellybuttons") since exploring one's own mind and thoughts can be one of the most productive human activities if used positively to achieve self-understanding or progress our understanding of others. In other words, increasing our own happiness and sense of satisfaction in life. Pinkerton would rather have us wasting billions to go to some cold, desolate place where there is absolutely nothing of value for us. Why not dig a 20 mile deep hole in the Earth and send people down there on exploratory missions? All this money wasted so that the baby-boomers can feel they are part of something big. A giant Woodstock with other people's money which, at the end of the day, is meaningless.

2001 imagined daily shuttle flights to the moon because there was still a sense that there might actually be some purpose to having people on the moon. There might be hidden water or valuable and rare minerals hidden under the surface. I think the flights in the movie were even done by private companies (I remember seeing ads on the TV monitors at least). This has not happened with either the private sector or the government sector for one key reason: it serves no purpose. The moon is a giant desolate rock up close and there is nothing to be gained by populating it.

So let's abandon the belief that spending billions of dollars to put a few people on the moon is "science". It is a reflection of technological achievement, but it is neither science nor anything that benefits humanity other than some government contractors and bureaucrats. Saying that we need to be in space or we will lose our edge on science (by which he really means technological advancement) is like saying American businesses will not be productive unless we have the world's tallest building. A trip to the moon is like holding the record for the world's largest pizza - it's a trivial event that shows you have the ability to do something. Imagine if we spent that money on something productive or let people keep it instead of having it forced away by the government.

Phony Giuliani

GIULIANI HANGS UP ON PHONIES

My mind is pretty much set against Giuliani as being anything other than an opportunist politician. I believe that he handled the 9/11 crisis well from a political perspective (as opposed to say Nagin and the governor of New Orleans in their political handling of Katrina). But as far as what he did in actual work on the ground as mayor, historians will have to sort that out since I've heard both positive and negative. A friend also reminded me that he was basically despised prior to 9/11 although I think Dinkins and Koch were not all that popular at times either. New Yorkers, after all, love to complain even more than the average American.

Here is my favorite quote from the brief article:

"If I had chased all of these frivolous issues, I never would have turned around the deficit in New York City. I never would have reduced crime . . . welfare . . . and I wouldn't have been able to handle Sept. 11," he said.

Besides his usually schtick of riding the corpses of the victims of 9/11, he is doing something that every politician who was fortunate enough to serve in the 90s has done - taken credit for something they had nothing to do with. I stand by my theory that every politician in the US got a free ride in the 90s because of the economy doing so well. Is it just coincidence that the national, state, and local governments all ran surpluses in the 90s? Did we suddenly elect perfect and brilliant leaders who knew how to make things happen? No. They all got lucky because for whatever reason (to be explored later) the US economy boomed in the 90s. Philadelphia eliminated its deficit, Pennsylvania eliminated its deficit, New York City eliminated its deficit, the national government eliminated its deficit, every local school district ran a surplus in the region except a handful. County government didn't need to raise taxes in the 90s.

Now Rendell is in the governor's mansion and we are running a huge deficit. Where is his magic? The batch of politicians from the 90s have all moved up the ladder but the magic seems to be gone. Why? Because they all got lucky. None of them will ever admit this publicly because the public will believe them when they say that they turned around the governments they lead. The truth is that spending, as always, kept increasing, but that tax revenue increased faster than they could spend it. Now that the economy has gone back to its normal pace, we are back to deficits.

As for Giuliani reducing crime and welfare, these are just as much results of an improving economy as turning around deficits and he knows it. But we will eat up anything we hear if it is said with a smile. Giuliani is not by far the only one guilty of this lie, but he is certainly one of the most prominent liars right now.

I'm now convinced that basic practical economics should be a part of every high school curriculum just so students can learn a little bit more about the way the real world works. By that I mean an explanation of government spending, revenue, the consequences of FIAT money, the role of Federal Reserve, and the use of the Dollar as a currency peg for other currencies. That is just as if not more important that basic civics lessons about how government is supposed to work. Especially in the day and age when most "legislation" is actually passed in the form of an executive order. Who cares about the details of the legislative process? The more important thing is what factors influence how the government makes its decisions and passes laws.