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

Category: “Teh Stoopid”

  • More “Words of Wisdom” About Syria from the State Department

    Well, our “esteemed” Department of State is at it again.  And as usual, they are being “farsighted, and protective of US national interests”.

    Yeah, if you couldn’t tell – that last was sarcasm.

    Apparently a largish number of State Department officials – 51, to be precise – have signed something called a “dissent channel cable”.  This document, apparently intended for the POTUS and his senior advisors, calls for the current        gang of fools in charge      Administration to direct “targeted military action” against the Assad regime in Syria.

    Yeah, that’s the ticket.  More pinprick strikes and/or drone operations.

    I hate to break it to our “esteemed” DoS officials, but that train left the station years ago.

    Back in 2012-2013, we stood by and did nothing at the beginning of the Syrian civil war.  We then gave lip-service and a totally ineffective pittance of support to the then-existent moderate Syrian opposition (and wasted literally hundreds of millions doing so).  As a result, al Qaeda and Daesh co-opted the Syrian opposition; they now own virtually all of it.  There are effectively no freaking Syrian opposition moderates left.

    Moreover, in the last year or two Russia has moved in to Syria big time.  Yeah, that’s right – this Administration’s hesitant, bumbling inaction has allowed Russia to move back into the Middle East directly for pretty much the first time since Egypt kicked them out in the 1970s.  Now, any “targeted military action” against the Syrian government is virtually a lock to involve striking forces belonging to their Russian allies as well.  That wouldn’t have been the case if we hadn’t sat on our hands and scolded at the beginning.

    In short, we’ve fornicated Fido well and thoroughly here.  There are no good solutions left that promote US national interests.

    Don’t believe me on that last?  Well, consider:

    • If we stand by and do nothing, Assad continues to kill off his own people while fighting al Qaeda/Daesh forces – with firm Russian and Iranian support.  Russia will demand compensation for helping, probably in the form of a long-term presence in bases in Syria.  Iran may well do the same.  That’s bad, but it’s also IMO probably the best option we’ve got now.

    • If we intervene with “targeted strikes”, we hit Russian and Iranian forces along with Syrian forces.  The Iranians may well not be able to react.  But does anyone here think the Russians won’t shoot back?  Then, we either go in with both feet or back down.  If we go in with both feet, how does the possibility of “simultaneous war with Russia and Iran” sound?  Is Syria worth that?

    • Even if by some miracle the Russians and Iranians leave, we’re still screwed.  Let’s say we help the Syrian opposition take out the Assad regime, and the Syrian opposition takes over.  That opposition now appears thoroughly dominated by al Qaeda and Daesh.  If you think they’ll willingly let a “moderate regime” friendly to the West take power, you’re naïve as hell.  So backing the Syrian opposition and winning now probably sets up an al Qaeda or Daesh Caliphate in Syria, either immediately or within a couple of years.  (Remember – after the Iranian Revolution, Khomeini didn’t immediately take power.  It took several months for Khomeini to throw out the remaining Iranian moderates under Bakhtiar and Bazargan – who initially held power – and establish his dictatorial theocracy.)

    Anyway:  initially, we had options.  Now, we really have no good options.  So jumping in militarily with both feet – unless we’re willing to conquer and occupy, possibly after fighting a war against both Russia and Iran – makes absolutely no sense at all.

    . . .

    Yeah, the Syrian Civil War is nasty.  Lots of innocents are dying.  But there aren’t any “good guys” left to support that have a snowball’s chance in hell of winning.  We get involved, it’s a lock that all we’ll do is p!ss away more US lives and dollars to no good end.

    We had our chance about 4 years ago to make a difference in Syria.  We screwed up by-the-numbers then, and the chance is no longer there.

    But here, we picked the worst possible course of action. We took actions that destabilized Syria (see “Spring, Arab”) – then failed to follow through, leaving those we encouraged twisting in the wind and leading indirectly to the rise of Daesh. Hell, letting Assad continue to rule Syria with an iron hand would have cost fewer innocents their lives, kept Russia “on the outside looking in”, and likely marginalized Daesh or prevented their formation entirely.

    I’ve maintained all along that we had no “dog in this fight”; that was true IMO from day one. Assad is a true bastard, but many if not all foreseeable potential alternatives and outcomes of his overthrow then were no better for the US. Now, barring a literal miracle all of those alternatives are IMO far worse than his continued rule.

    Sometimes, “Better the Devil ye know . . . . “ is damn good advice.

  • Yet More ObamaPhone “Good News”

    I’ve written previously about the “Lifeline” program, AKA “ObamaPhones”.   Short version:  the program today is poorly conceived, badly run, and rife with fraud.  You can see my previous articles about it here and here.

    Well, here’s some more news about Lifeline.  And as before – if you pay taxes or pay for your own phone service – and thus pay for stupid crap like this – the recent news concerning the program kinda . . . sucks.

    For those who might not be familiar:  “Lifeline” provides subsidies so that “low income” households can have a phone for emergency essential communications.  The program is theoretically limited to one phone per “independent economic household (IEH)”.

    When the program was landline-only, that was fairly easy to enforce.  Then in 2005, cell phones were allowed under the program.

    Now, Stevie Wonder could have seen that was a bad idea from a fraud perspective.  But the program was changed to allow cells anyway.

    Theoretically, Lifeline enrollees are still required to give a valid address.  Also theoretically, multiple enrollments at the same address are a “no go”.  Except . . . they’re not, really.

    You see, telecom companies are allowed to “override” the IEH (e.g., one subscriber per address) requirement.  The override is designed to be used for places like homeless shelters, where conceivably multiple persons who qualify might reside.

    However, recent reporting from telecom companies participating in indicates that over 1/3 of Lifeline subscribers last year used this “override” – e.g., a second (or third/fourth/fifth/whatever) line at an address already having a Lifeline subscriber.  And there’s no telling how many more covert fraudulent ones were issued (multiple subscribers in one household, but not all using their actual residence address on their application).

    There is no way in hell all of those overrides were legit.  I’d be surprised if even 2% of them were.

    It gets even better.  In one company’s case – Total Call Mobile – 99.8% of their Lifeline subscribers were approved using the override (the overall average was 35+%).  Yeah, Total Call Mobile is the same company that recently got fined $51M by the FCC for program violations – and as I noted here, likely still came out nearly $40M ahead on the deal.  Nice gig if you can stomach the work, I guess.

    Further, employees at Total Call Mobile said they learned how to do that from employees at other companies participating in the program.  So some of the other Lifeline providers are doubtless doing the same, albeit certainly not on the same scale.

    The aggregate cost of this apparent fraud to taxpayers?  Try around $476M annually – or nearly half a billion dollars.  And that’s likely a low estimate.

    The Washington Examiner and Washington Free Beacon each have recent articles describing this latest Obamaphone fishiness.  They’re worthwhile reading, even if they might turn your stomach.

    We need to make major changes to this fraud-filled abomination of a Federal program.  IMO it needs to go back to landline-only – pronto.

  • Predictable. Completely Predictable.

    Like several other “workers’ paradise” libidiot-run cities, Washington DC recently raised its minimum wage substantially above the Federal minimum. In 2014, it was raised to $11.50 an hour – and there’s been talk about raising it further soon, to $15 an hour. They’ve also instituted other mandatory benefits.

    So, things are rosy, right? This means the “little guy” minimum-wage workers in DC are all getting bigger average paychecks and living better?

    Well, some might be. But I’m thinking this headline kinda gives us the “rest of the story”:

    Nearly Half of D.C. Employers Said They Have Laid Off
    Workers, Reduced Hours Due to Minimum Wage Hikes

    Looks more to me like employers are watching their bottom line – and as a result are paring hours to keep labor costs close to the same as before. If that’s the case, then that means that many entry-level workers are NOT are getting paid a whole lot more. Some may even be making less than they did before, albeit for less hours worked.

    Oh, and yes: prices generally did rise, too. So it’s not just the little guys getting hours cut (or laid off) who are taking it in the shorts due to DC’s minimum wage hike.

    Gee – who’d have thunk it?

    Yes, that last was sarcasm. Anyone who has half a clue clue about economics could have predicted this.

  • Read ‘Em and Weep

    Isn’t it great that the world is so safe and peaceful these days?

    Army has fewest active-duty soldiers since 1940, report says

    I hope the sarcasm in the intro above was obvious.  Gee thanks, Mr. President.

  • And In the “YGBSM!” Department . . . .

    . . . these headlines say it all.

    DOJ to nix ‘felon,’ ‘convict’ terms deemed stigmatizing

    and

    Cops cancel ‘insensitive’ Cinco de Mayo checkpoints

    Geez.  GMAFB.

  • Don’t Try These At Home. Or Anywhere Else.

    Well, we have a couple of examples of “things not to do” today, courtesy of Fox News.

    First:  do not engage in celebratory gunfire at a wedding.  (Or anywhere else, for that matter.)

    Why?  Well, sometimes it doesn’t turn out all that well.

    The guy survived, but I’m sure that his wedding night wasn’t exactly what he’d planned.  Police are reportedly investigating the incident.

    Second:  guns and “selfies” don’t mix.  Jonn’s written about this a couple of times before – here, and here – and warned everyone that’s not a good idea.  Looks like someone didn’t bother to listen.

    Not picking on India today, these two stories just happened to both be about incidents occurring in that nation  And with a population approaching  one and one-third billion, the law of averages rather dictates you’ll see some spectacular stupidity from time to time.

  • “We have sent many operatives to Europe with the refugees.”

    The Washington Post today has an excellent and informative article – if also a somewhat disturbing one. It documents in some detail how four Da’esh operatives passed themselves off as “refugees” and used that ruse to infiltrate Europe.

    On a crisp morning last October, 198 migrants arrived on the Greek island of Leros, all of them seemingly desperate people seeking sanctuary in Europe. But hiding among them were four men with a very different agenda.

    The four were posing as war-weary Syrians — all carrying doctored passports with false identities. And they were on a deadly mission for the Islamic State.

    Two of the four would masquerade as migrants all the way to Paris. There, at 9:20 p.m. on Nov. 13, they would detonate suicide vests near the Stade de France sports complex, fulfilling their part in the worst attack on French soil since World War II.

    The other two Da’esh operatives were detained in Greece for lying about their identities. However, after a time they were released and allowed to continue their journey. They were later arrested in Austria – thankfully, before they could commit a terrorist attack. God only knows what other actions they took to support terrorism in the interim.

    The article goes on to provide more info about the issue of Da’esh using the “refugee” flood as cover for infiltration. That info paints a rather disturbing picture.

    Think about that for a moment. In one group of less than 200 “refugees”, 4 of them – or over 2% – were decidedly not “refugees” at all. Rather, they were radical Islamist operatives intent on committing terrorist atrocities in a foreign land. They were merely using the ruse of being “refugees” as cover for their infiltration in order to avoid more thorough screening.

    Over a million “refugees” from the Middle East have entered Europe recently. European intelligence agencies believe several hundred thousand of them may never have been adequately screened on entry.

    If even 1% of those unscreened “refugees” are instead terrorist operatives, that’s 1,000 terrorists for every 100,000 alleged “refugees” who entered. And based on an admittedly small sample, there’s evidence that the actual rate may well be more than double that.

    Da’esh brags that they have many more such “sleeper” operatives in Europe now. Indeed, this article’s title is a quote from a Da’esh commander discussing the subject.

    So far, only a bit more than three dozen of those Da’esh operatives infiltrated as “refugees” have been identified and apprehended in Europe. And of those, seven of them participated in the Paris attacks last year.

    And yet, the      gaggle of naive fools and clueless tools running the show in DC      current Administration wants to admit tens of thousands of “refugees” to the US, too. But don’t worry – the Administration assures us that any such “refugees” admitted will be screened “thoroughly”.

    Yeah, right. In reality, if admitted they won’t be screened anywhere near as thoroughly as the foreign born spouse of the couple responsible for San Bernardino. And we know how that turned out.

  • Another Chapter In That Continuing “Good News Story” Called ObamaCare

    We have some recent news about that        Patently Puerile, Asinine Current Administration concept       current Administration initiative called the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) – AKA ObamaCare.  And, as usual, the news isn’t all that good.

    A few weeks ago, news articles surfaced saying that insurance carriers were worried about ObamaCare.  Specifically, they began warning the public that losses sustained by policies issued through state exchanges were unsustainable.

    Well, yesterday the other shoe fell.  UnitedHealth – the nation’s largest provider of health insurance – has announced it will pull out of most state ObamaCare exchanges next year.

    Why?  Simple.  They want to stay in business.  UnitedHealth estimates their losses due to policies issued through ObamaCare exchanges over the last two years at approximately $1 billion.

    Gee, who’d a thunk it?  I mean, insurance is only based on the market model that the insurer sells many policies, but pays out a comparatively small number of claims.  Specifically, over the long term an insurer must take in more in income than they pay out in claims and other expenses to stay in business.  Otherwise, over the long term they go belly-up.

    That’s a major reason why health insurance companies typically have an exclusionary period for preexisting conditions.  It’s also why truly bad drivers end up in the “shared risk” insurance pool in most states – and then pay through the nose for their auto insurance.  Both practices are designed to bring revenues above expected claims payouts; and both practices are supported by hard statistical data.

    ObamaCare’s prohibition on the exclusion of preexisting conditions radically changes the financial basis for ObamaCare insurance policies – it’s raised the amount paid out in claims hugely.  This means there are two options an ObamaCare insurance provider has if they want to stay in business:  raise premiums dramatically, or cease participation.  United Health has just begun the process of doing the latter.

    But wait – ObamaCare has made insurance cheaper, right?

    Yeah, right.  Now, tell me another shaggy dog story – this time one that’s funny.

    It turns out that both patient medical costs and health insurance premiums are rising under Obamacare.  Given basic economics, that was also eminently predictable.  A recent study by Blue Cross/Blue Shield found that on average ObamaCare policy holders are sicker and require more medical care, at larger cost, than people who obtain health insurance through their employers.  Wanna guess where the money for those extra costs comes from?

    If you guessed “increased premiums”, give yourself a gold star.  Well, that plus subsidies – which are paid out of your taxes.

    Gee.  What a surprise.

    Bottom line:  ObamaCare is based on flawed economic analysis, bad assumptions, and with wishful thinking.  It’s the equivalent of King Canute ordering the tide not to rise.

    However, there is a major difference.  King Canute didn’t expect the tide to obey him; he was making a point to his courtiers concerning the limits of his authority.  The imbeciles that brought us ObamaCare actually expected basic economics to change on command.