This ain't Hell, but you can see it from here

Category: Reality Check

  • More of That “Arab Spring” Freedom

    I thought the whole point of that “Arab Spring” stuff was to get rid of restrictive, autocratic governments and to promote freedom.  And I thought that’s why the current administration supported the “Arab Spring” movements in Libya, Tunisia, and Egypt while they deposed stable governments in each nation.

    But I must have been wrong, at least when it comes to Egypt.

    It seems as if Egypt has now started arresting activists – as well as comedians accused of insulting President Morsi.  Hmm.  Those same kinds of things are what Mubarak did, if I recall correctly – and was one of the reasons why the “Arab Spring” folks wanted him gone.

    Egypt is also debating new laws that will give the state sweeping powers to regulate civil society.  Hmmm.  I seem to recall Mubarak being castigated for doing that also.  But maybe I’m wrong about that, too.

    And I don’t recall Murbarak ever declaring NGO funds provided from sources abroad to be “public funds” – like one new law supported by Morsi and his ilk in Egypt’s parliament would do.

    But fear not:  that decision to support the Arab Spring protestors and throw valued US allies out on their ear was a good one.  Otherwise, the POTUS and his staff wouldn’t have made it, right?

    Yeah, right.  I’m really getting the impression of “déjà vu all over again” – 33+ years later.  Think Teheran, 1978.

    We’re still paying the price for that Carter-era idiocy.  I wonder how long we’ll be paying for this latest naïve foolishness?

  • “The Tree Is Safe, Your Excellency”

    This is . . . sad.  Just sad.

    The POTUS arrived in Israel yesterday for his first state visit to that nation.  He and the Israeli President, Shimon Peres, planted a US magnolia tree as part of the arrival ceremony.

    Accounts vary on what happened later.  According to Israeli accounts, the tree was dug up later that day.  A White House spokesman denied this, saying that the tree’s roots were “wrapped in plastic mesh”.  My guess is that both are correct – e.g., the tree was unearthed, then plastic-wrapped and put back in place.

    Why?  Well, it seems any plants brought from abroad require a check by the Israeli Agricultural Ministry before they can be planted in Israel.  And it also appears that the POTUS’s staff was made aware of that fact beforehand by officials in the Israeli government, but elected not to send the tree ahead of time to allow inspection.

    I’m not joking.  See the entry for 19:54 yesterday in the article.

    I mean, really.  For crying out loud:  the state where the POTUS grew up (Hawaii) has some pretty strict quarantine requirements.  The US has pretty stiff restrictions on foreign plants and agricultural products entering the US, too.  So figuring out that import restrictions on plants might exist in other countries shouldn’t exactly be rocket science.

    (sigh)  First they don’t plan ahead regarding the POTUS’s food “taster” at a recent Capitol Hill luncheon. Here, they didn’t bother perform the due diligence necessary to prevent a major international faux pas (or simply didn’t care).  Suppose the Israelis had told the POTUS at the ceremony, “Um, no . . . you can’t plant that; it goes to quarantine first”?

    What’s next?  Are they going to forget to tell British authorities ahead of time that they’re coming and just show up at Buckingham Palace’s front door one evening expecting to see the Queen?

    It also looks like someone forgot what kind of fuel the POTUS’s limo uses during his latest trip, too.

    Our nation deserves better than this.  It’s one thing to look foolish at home.  This time, we’re looking foolish in front of the whole world.

  • “The Food is Safe, Your Excellency”

    Apparently the POTUS recently attended lunch with Senate Republicans.  However, he passed on eating lunch himself.

    The reason?  According to Senator Susan Collins of Maine, the President couldn’t eat because his “taster” was not there.

    I’m not joking.

    “He looked longingly at it,” Collins continued. “He honestly did look longingly at it, but apparently he has to have essentially a taster, and I pointed out to him that we were all tasters for him, that if the food had been poisoned all of us would have keeled over so, but he did look longingly at it and he remarked that we have far better food than the Democrats do, and I said that was because I was hosting.”

    Geez.  And people called the Nixon Administration an “Imperial Presidency”.

  • Reality Check?

    The elephant in the room is making enough noise to be heard, but nobody seems to be listening.

    As Jonn noted here one Senator is convinced that PTS(D) should preclude many vets from owning guns, but we may have a sitting senator who, in every way, could be pictured along side the very definition of the thing.

    John McCain is a bona fide American Hero. However, the very events that make him a hero would make him suspect in some eyes.  Anyone doubt he could buy any gun he fancied?

    Please set aside his current behaviors because my point concerns a much broader dichotomy.

    The DSM is evolving tool. And there is a rather lengthy history of defining any opposition as mentally ill.

    Calling a Senator or two a “Wacko Bird” is one thing, but where will it end for the rest of us?

  • Daily Dose of Delusion. (Updated)

    So once again the the people over at Our Journey to Smiles are doubling down on the delusions. The main one is that somehow that all the woes in Afghanistan are because out outside forces and interference. Their latest video states as much.

    Why do we spend money like this? Why don’t we use an alternative way? The international community says that drones are used to kill the Taliban. This is not true. We should see the truth. Today, it’s hard to find the truth and no one listens to the people.They kill human beings. Drones bring nothing but bombs. They burn the lives of the people. People can’t move around freely. In the nights, people are afraid. Drones don’t improve people’s lives, they limit the people’s lives. The people are not happy with drones. When they hear the sound of drones, they feel sad.
    Drones don’t protect the people of Afghanistan. Instead, drones kill the people of Afghanistan. You hear in the news and reports that every day, families, children and women are killed. Do you call this safety?

    So you see because of international intervention it led to the deaths of twelve people at a local party and a local teacher from a Girls school.

    But on a serious note I thought that the majority of the drone strikes were in Pakistan and not in Afghanistan. And since my frienemy is no longer working with Rethink Afghanistan so I am not sure if they are still working with Journey to Smiles.

    UPDATE: This comment from the video is a good example of what happens when history is forgotten.

    Sporkmater you’re missing the point here: drones are killing innocent people, whose relatives will not think of the US better for it. No wonder the Taliban has regained so much support.

    On a seperate note, I’m willing to bet that the Taliban would not allow so called agricultural ‘aid’ that is going to poison the whole ecosystem and economy with Roundup pesticides and GMO-slavery. So? yea, maybe they will be better off with the Taliban in charge. Who is to say?

  • Three Historical Social Security “Whoppers”

    The other day, I ran across the text from an interesting little historical document on the Social Security Administration’s web site.  In 1936 the Federal Government published a short pamphlet describing the “new” Social Security system.  That pamphlet said – in plain, easily-understandable English – a few things that turned out to be . . .  well, lies.  Big,  big lies – think whoppers good enough to make the Burger King proud.  (smile)

    Since things on the SSA website seem to get revised periodically, I thought I’d go also ahead and save a copy of this pamphlet.  I’ve printed that particular SSA webpage to a downloadable PDF file.  It can be downloaded here.

    Here’s the first “whopper” that jumped out at me.  From the above pamphlet:

    The checks will come to you as a right. You will get them regardless of the amount of property or income you may have. They are what the law calls “Old-Age Benefits” under the Social Security Act.

    Well, obviously that’s not exactly the case.  The SCOTUS says otherwise – see Fleming v. Nestor.  Bottom line:  if Congress says you don’t get Social Security, you don’t get it – regardless of whether or not you’ve paid into the system enough to qualify.  You have no contractual right to “your” Social Security – because it’s not “yours”.  It’s a government benefit, and Congress can change the rules (or the benefits paid) any time it likes.  It’s not something you own.

    The correct way to phrase this would have been, “The checks will come to you as an entitlement.  But Congress will tell you how much you get, and can end your benefits at any time if they like.”

    Here’s the second “whopper”.  Again, from the 1936 Social Security pamphlet published by the Federal government:

    YOUR PART OF THE TAX

    The taxes called for in this law will be paid both by your employer and by you. For the next 3 years you will pay maybe 15 cents a week, maybe 25 cents a week, maybe 30 cents or more, according to what you earn. That is to say, during the next 3 years, beginning January 1, 1937, you will pay 1 cent for every dollar you earn, and at the same time your employer will pay 1 cent for every dollar you earn, up to $3,000 a year. Twenty-six million other workers and their employers will be paying at the same time.

    After the first 3 year–that is to say, beginning in 1940–you will pay, and your employer will pay, 1.5 cents for each dollar you earn, up to $3,000 a year. This will be the tax for 3 years, and then, beginning in 1943, you will pay 2 cents, and so will your employer, for every dollar you earn for the next 3 years. After that, you and your employer will each pay half a cent more for 3 years, and finally, beginning in 1949, twelve years from now, you and your employer will each pay 3 cents on each dollar you earn, up to $3,000 a year. That is the most you will ever pay. (emphasis and underlining added)

    Gee – a 3% tax on the first $3,000 of income is “the most you will ever pay”.  Even adjusting for inflation and the fact that a dollar in 1936 is worth $16.48 in 2012, that translates to a 3% employee tax rate on the first $49,440 of earned income  – not the 6.2% employee tax rate applied to the first $110,110 of earned income we have today.  (Yes, I know – it’s been temporarily reduced to “only” 4.2% until the end of the year.)

    Obviously that rather clear promise also turned out to be bullshit.

    Here’s the third “whopper” – and it’s my personal “favorite”.  From near the end of the pamphlet:

    What you get from the Government plan will always be more than you have paid in taxes and usually more than you can get for yourself by putting away the same amount of money each week in some other way.  (emphasis and underlining added)

    Yeah, right. Ask most people retiring today if they agree with that statement.  We all know that’s total bullshit.  The average guy or gal retiring today will get less in Social Security benefits than they paid in in taxes.

     

    Oh, and in case you’re wondering, insipid:  the 1936 Social Security pamphlet doesn’t say a damn thing about “insurance” or “premiums”; those words don’t even appear in the pamphlet’s text.  (The pamphlet does, however, sell Social Security as a de facto national retirement plan.) The payments made to retirees are termed “Old-Age Benefits”; payments made by employees and employers are clearly identified as “taxes”.  Even at this early date, Social Security never called itself – or sold itself as — some type of “insurance”.  Calling Social Security “insurance” is simply a bogus smokescreen used by those who wish to obscure Social Security’s true nature:  a inter-generational income transfer program, AKA welfare.

    Why?  Probably because it’s easier to sell insurance than welfare.

  • Ever Wondered Just How Bad You’re Getting Screwed by Social Security?

    As I’ve previously noted, most folks approaching retirement age probably have already figured out that they’re gonna get screwed by Social Security – e.g., that they will get less value back in benefits than they paid in in taxes.  But that’s only part of the issue.

    You’re also not going to own a damn thing.  Your benefits are completely dependent on the whims of Congress; there is no contractual relationship between you and Social Security.  If Congress decides to cut your benefits in half because of future financial difficulties, well, sorry.  That’s life, and you’ll have absolutely no legal recourse other than to vote for a different Congressman.  And that  may not make any difference.

    However, spreadsheets and the Internet are wonderful things.  I’ve developed a calculator that lets you see precisely what Social Security has cost you compared to a private retirement plan; you can download it here if you like.  So now you can see – if you’re so inclined – just how badly you’re getting screwed by Social Security.

    This calculator allows you to input your income history.  It then assumes that the employee and employer contributions for OASDI  – the Old Age Survivors and Disability “Insurance” part of Social Security taxes –  are each then invested in an actual retirement account owned by the recipient, with returns based on the DJIA.  (And no, insipid – the fact that the Social Security Administration and other elements of the Federal government continue to lie through their teeth and call it “insurance” doesn’t alter reality.  Social Security is not and never has been insurance.  There’s no contract, no policy, no premiums.  Those OASDI deductions from your paycheck  are taxes, not premiums; Social Security is a PAYGO income-transfer program and is not any form of retirement savings program or insurance policy.)

    (more…)

  • Delusions from desperation.

    Well it seems that the full understanding of what life will be like after we leave Afghanistan is hitting home at Journey to Smiles. It seems that their newest video is showing that more then ever.

    The biggest one is trying to have a campaign to get two million friends here and have them send a petition to the UN to have the UN “to negotiate a end to the Afghanistan War”. You know, since it has been so effective with Syria. Also it seems this groups has tried to contact the UN in Afghanistan without any reply back. That was back in April and I am not sure what they are expecting now.

    The rest of the video has different women talking about how the are treated and viewed in Afghanistan. Then someone suggest that a sports program might help can calling it “A Contest of Peace”. Yet I could have sworn that this was done before somewhere. Then there is the question that everyone is avoiding that one of them asked; “Is this something we are doing to pass the time?”.