THE END OF A DECADE

It is hard to believe we are already a decade into the 21st century. For those of us who have been around awhile it is the future, but it hasn’t turned out quite as anyone expected because such things are unpredictable. We certainly live in a time of technological wonders, particular in personal communications. But personal computers and cell phones have been around since the 1980’s, though in a more primitive form. The main difference for consumers is in audio-visual areas as a result of an increase of processing power. On the other hand we’ve gone nowhere in space for decades except for discoveries in the universe that the Hubble telescope has revealed. Medical progress has been exceptional, largely due to the now-threatened American health care system.

The economy, on the other hand has largely flatlined for most people. The stock market is more or less where it was when the decade began and many people feel they have made little material progress. But growth will almost certainly resume in the near future on a more sustainable basis provided that inflation does not spin out of control, which is almost inevitable unless the government slashes spending and stops printing money.

We can look back on a happier time at the turn of the century, when celebrations around the world occurred magnificently without incident. Then our biggest worry was Y2K, before the arrival of the age of terror in 2001. Yet as awful as terrorism is, the war is asymmetrical and no standing army threatens us anywhere. The “American century” is far from over, really beginning only after World War II. It has been a time in which the world has enjoyed unprecedented progress and prosperity thanks largely to the American umbrella. No more benevolent power has ever dominated world. This should continue well into this century if we intelligently address our current problems, which will happen over time as long as we remain an open society. All that troubles us should balance out in the long run for nothing is more resilient than a free society, and so I end this year on a somewhat optimistic note.

IS IT BETTER TO BE LOVED OR FEARED?

In posing this question from the standpoint of a head of state Machiavelli clearly thought it was better to be feared. When President Obama was elected there was an international outpouring of “love,” following the departure of the fearsome George Bush, culminating in the Nobel Peace prize. Obama has done everything possible to encourage this sentiment, opting for multilateralism, dialogue, closing Guantanamo, ruling out “torture,” effectively apologizing for his predecessor, etc.

But while western Europeans may be enthralled, our enemies remain unimpressed, for this has only reinforced Al Qaeda’s notion that Americans are weak, vulnerable, and can be worn down in the long run. “Change” has engendered new “hope” that we can be defeated. Terrorists know they will be treated kindly if caught and now be turned over to the dysfunctional U.S. justice system.

In this case is it not better to strike “fear” in the hearts of our enemies? Killing them alone will not work because they want to be martyrs. What we need to do is make them face the most horrific circumstances possible from their standpoint. How about assigning them aggressive female guards and whatever else they would view as a fate worse than death Let them face what they perceive to be hell on earth. Let them fear us. Let us not hear any more about “our” values, which only generates contempt on their part. We should terrorize the terrorists. Only then will we gain their respect. It is nice to be loved when possible, but in this case it is better to be feared.

THE UNDERPANTS BOMBER

If the federal government uses the logic of its shoe-bomber strategy then it would follow that we may all have to drop our drawers at airports due to the underpants bomber. In case you forgot, the reason we all have to take off our shoes to get on an airplane is due to one guy who tried to blow up an airplane with an explosive in his shoes. He was stopped by passengers, and again passengers handled the underpants man, yet now security will be further "tightened." Yet according to Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano, the "system" worked. Sure. That's why they were so good at coordinating terrorist lists. Given the ineptitude of government our primary line of defense is ourselves.

If we weren't so squeamish about "profiling" maybe we'd have a more effective security system. Instead we have grandmothers being scrutinized and forced to remove their shoes. All the security apparatus in place makes flying ever more miserable and humiliating, yet the underpants man still got through. Fortunately this time he only burned himself. But it makes no sense to continue to harass normal people equally instead of focusing on potential threatening characters.

On the other hand this incident also indicates weakness, stupidity, and lack of imagination on Al Qaeda's part. Despite all the various doomsday scenarios we have effectively suggested to them, they are still apparently focused on airplanes (and secondarily trains, as in London and Madrid). There is a remarkably consistent profile of terrorists so far. Like the 9/11 bombers, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was an Islamic male, came from a relatively affluent background, and was educated in the west. They all became alienated from societies that are so obsessed with multiculturalism and self-loathing of "liberal" elites that they no longer believe in themselves, and so discourage others from doing so as well. There is a self-destructive death spiral gripping Europe and the American left.

How much confidence can we have in this administration's ability to protect us from terrorists when it won't even acknowledge that there is, or ought to be, a continuing "war on terror?" We cannot always count on our enemies being so inept and must recognize that these attacks will continue. Next time we may not be so lucky. It is time to stop wasting resources, profile the likely attackers, and recognize the fact that, despite softer euphemisms,whether we like it or not, these people are at war with us. The only way to be rid of this menace is to ruthlessly pursue and destroy them.

A CHOICE OF CATASTROPHES

As Air Force One returned the President from a conference on global warming to a blizzard in Washington my skepticism on the subject was further increased. We are supposedly facing a global catastrophe within the next century and this is gospel for many people. Indeed they approach it with a religious fervor that tolerates no contradictory information, such as the fact that temperatures have dropped in the last ten years, the models are faulty, and long-term prediction is almost impossible.

But suppose there was some certainty about rising sea levels. Wouldn’t it make sense to limit and reduce development along threatened coastlines? Instead we have a truly nutty EPA declaring that carbon dioxide, a naturally occurring gas, is a threat to our health. Tell that to the plants. This is yet another prescription for seizing control and wrecking the entire economy. The logical answer would be more plants, stopping the destruction of rain forests, planting trees, etc. in ways that might actually benefit people.

Of course we have a choice of disasters, each as plausible as the worst global warming scenario over the next hundred years. There is more certainty in the likelihood that the social security and medicare systems of the western world will go bankrupt in the coming decades. Volcanoes could erupt spewing toxic matter into the atmosphere and blotting out the sky. An asteroid could strike the earth as in previous mass extinctions. Sunflares could erupt and destroy our atmospheric shield. A new plague could emerge that could wipe out much of the population. Or we might all simply transfer ourselves into cyberspace.

The point is that no one can predict what will happen over a century into the future. The only certainty is that the future ins unknowable. The more likely scenario is that we will somehow muddle through, experiencing neither the best nor the worst of anything as we always have up until now.

MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY

I went to the American Museum of Natural History and Hayden Planetarium (now folded into something called the Rose Center for Earth and Space) for the first time in decades. I was not impressed. In my view the changes that have taken place are not for the better. To begin with there are exorbitant charges for special exhibits of dubious value. We bought a pass for everything, but that was of limited use since you have to tell them the specific time you want to go in advance, even for less-than-crowded walk-through exhibits.

For me the sense of mystery and wonder is gone. That could be my age, or more likely the way things have been redone. Other things haven’t been updated so you find interesting gemstones with obsolete place names like “West Germany” and “Zaire.” There is a lot of build-up for the space show in the planetarium. You get on line, then take an elevator to a room where you wait around until the relatively brief show starts. I remember walking with awe through dark halls of star walls to get there as classical music played until you entered the room with the old projector. Then the show was about astronomy; now it is generically about everything and nothing. The digital screen over the rotunda offers great possibilities but the show, purporting to be a "Journey to the Stars" was pretty mediocre.

There’s another section that is supposed to deal with with the origin of the universe narrated by someone obviously reading a script they don’t understand. It is a large spaceship-like circle that is also digitally projected, but it only lasts a few minutes and is largely wasted. Then you stroll down a walkway with small indications and nonworking screens that are supposed to be indicative of all the eons since the origin of the universe. It is less than awesome. Incomprehensively there is nothing about astronauts and human space travel except for a few incidental photos on a hallway wall. The Rose Center is a total waste of space.

The real trouble is we’ve seen all this before done better on science, nature, and space shows on television every week. Given that, the museum ought to offer something special, but regrettably it doesn’t. It somehow manages to make the wondrous routine. If you’re planning a trip to New York City you can skip this. You won’t have missed much.

FUNNY MONEY

Every day the dollar continues to decline against other currencies. There are some who think this is good because it increases exports, but there are downsides as well. The government is pursuing a weak dollar strategy to the long-term detriment of the country as well as the rest of the world. The decline is caused by increasing debt and a balance of payments deficit. This is before the government goes further in the red with health care and other spending schemes that will only exacerbate the situation.

A weak dollar is not in anyone’s interest. First it means a decline in living standards relative to the rest of the world, second imports and travel become more costly, third it generates currency instability throughout the world, and fourth it makes each one of us lose wealth because our assets and income are worth less. This is what usually happens with high inflation, which we don’t have yet, but is almost inevitable down the road if deficits continue to pile up.

This is the classic state solution to debt- inflate the currency so that dollar debt holdings are worth less and easier to pay off. This does not just screw the Chinese who are holding massive amounts of dollar debt, but any citizen who has savings or lives on a fixed income. This is beneath the dignity of the United States, but under the present course it will happen. This will end the dollar’s reign as the world’s reserve currency because its stability cannot be counted on. We will lose many of the advantages that come with reserve status, and it will represent an overall decline in American strength and influence.

A strong, stable dollar is in everyone’s interests. We need a reliable and predictable standard of value that we can trust in. Unfortunately the government has an ongoing interest in inflating currency because it is easier than the pain involved in cutting spending and reducing debt. But once the world loses faith in the dollar the government will be reduced to the constraints usually born by third world countries. So it is that the President of the United States this week was the recipient of humiliating lectures on fiscal responsibility from Asian countries.

THE GOVERNMENT'S WARPED PRIORITIES

While unemployment rises to 10.2% this administration and congress are obsessed with health care and cap and trade legislation instead of the economy. The latter in fact will lead to an economic train wreck costing an untold number of additional jobs. In foreign affairs while Iran and North Korea threaten a nuclear nightmare the administration is advocating nuclear disarmament at a decidedly inauspicious moment. The US is in the curious position of being to the left of France, Germany, and Britain for the first time. Never have the government's priorities been so warped. Left-wing ideology rather than reality is triumphant.

It is now clear that this is the most radical government in the history of the United States. Although Obama gives the impression of soothing moderation in his pronouncements and demeanor, what he actually is doing is completely different. The congress, the House in particular under Nancy Pelosi is even worse. They are pursuing a radical restructuring not only of government, but of society, based upon faulty assumptions, and in spite of the public’s opposition. The outcomes of these policies are likely to be disastrous. On the bright side it is increasingly likely that there will be a shift in 2010, hopefully in time to put the brakes on all of this.

SNAKE OIL SALESMEN

I receive daily Email news aggregations from a number of conservative sources. Unfortunately many also bombard my mailbox with ads for really dopey products, which are written to be persuasive but ought to be suspect to anyone with half a brain. There are two types- health and financial products.

The health claims are totally off the wall although written to sound convincing. Any time alternative health cures deviate from mainstream medicine they should be greeted with a high degree of skepticism. A cursory search on the Internet will usually yield contrary information from reliable medical sites or user testaments that the product doesn’t work as advertised. These are the sorts of things one would expect from new age weirdos, not conservatives.

The financial “advice” is even more insidious to the extent that the proponent has probably loaded up on the new hot stock they are urging everyone to buy. Such promotions are based on the other idiot principle; that someone else will buy what you own at a higher price until it eventually crashes and the last person winds up losing their investment. We also hear gold being constantly promoted in television commercials by people who own gold. If they can induce enough people to buy in the price will increase and they will benefit. I don’t propose to give financial advice here but to my mind gold has already had a big run up. If enough people buy gold the price will rise but eventually hit a point that is at odds with reality. Nor do I suggest that one ignore the real danger of eventual high inflation due to government debt and not invest defensively, but there are always alternative commodities and investments.

I find it offensive that these organizations are using subscriber lists to lure the gullible into risky if not dangerous situations. It undermines their overall credibility and is an inappropriate abuse of subscriber trust.

HEALTH CARE, THE MEDIA, AND THE MAJORITY

I had an indication of what health care may become like the other day when I had to stand in line for an hour and a half to get a flu shot at a pharmacy, since none of my doctors had it on hand. Whatever the outcome of this legislative process it is going to result in something infinitely worse than what we currently have. The original purpose for health care “reform” was the forty something million who are uninsured. Never mind that this consists mostly of illegal aliens and young people who don’t want to pay for insurance. Nevertheless if the government was really interested in a safety net for those without coverage, it would provide for that, not upend and revolutionize the coverage everyone else has.

Over 70% of the population is satisfied with the coverage they have, so the liberals, in typical fashion want to destroy something the majority has because they cannot abide a minority without. In the liberal mindset any minority that is at variance with the majority average must be accommodated, almost always at the expense of the majority. Think about “affirmative action, “ etc. and you get the picture.

But in the process they are pursuing two mutually exclusive objectives- expanding coverage and reducing costs. This is a no-brainer that most people can figure out; it just isn’t possible without taking something away from someone else. As a result there is skepticism and opposition from many quarters, even as pernicious organizations like the AARP betray their members interests. In desperation the administration has proactively attacked perceived enemies, such as Fox News and the Chamber of Commerce, going beyond anything Nixon ever did.

I’m particularly nervous about News Corporation, the parent of Fox. I own stock in the company, although as an investment it is a turkey. I had mixed feelings about the purchase of the Wall Street Journal, for as people like John Stossel move over to Fox you have virtually the entire right located in one company. This is a recipe for disaster should anything go wrong. Although the head-on attack on Fox backfired as even the “official” media balked at excluding them from briefings, the company is particularly vulnerable to back door pressure, via administration appointments to the FCC, which will certainly be gunning for them. Meanwhile Fox ratings are increasing while the administration’s popularity is decreasing, and continued public support and vigilance is the best safeguard for what in truth is press freedom. Jefferson said given a choice between a government without newspapers and newspapers without a government he would choose the latter, and his word echo to the modern media of today.

Overall I believe that the administration and congress have seriously overreached and there will be a reaction in 2010, which should help undo whatever damage they have done by then.

HEALTH CARE, THE MEDIA, AND THE MAJORITY

I had an indication of what health care may become like the other day when I had to stand in line for an hour and a half to get a flu shot at a pharmacy, since none of my doctors had it on hand. Whatever the outcome of this legislative process it is going to result in something infinitely worse than what we currently have. The original purpose for health care “reform” was the forty something million who are uninsured. Never mind that this consists mostly of illegal aliens and young people who don’t want to pay for insurance. Nevertheless if the government was really interested in a safety net for those without coverage, it would provide for that, not upend and revolutionize the coverage everyone else has.
Over 70% of the population is satisfied with the coverage they have, so the liberals, in typical fashion want to destroy something the majority has because they cannot abide a minority without. In the liberal mindset any minority that is at variance with the majority average must be accommodated, almost always at the expense of the majority. Think about “affirmative action, “ etc. and you get the picture.

But in the process they are pursuing two mutually exclusive objectives- expanding coverage and reducing costs. This is a no-brainer that most people can figure out; it just isn’t possible without taking something away from someone else. As a result there is skepticism and opposition from many quarters, even as pernicious organizations like the AARP betray their members interests. In desperation the administration has proactively attacked perceived enemies, such as Fox News and the Chamber of Commerce, going beyond anything Nixon ever did.

I’m particularly nervous about News Corporation, the parent of Fox. I own stock in the company, although as an investment it is a turkey. I had mixed feelings about the purchase of the Wall Street Journal, for as people like John Stossel move over to Fox you have virtually the entire right located in one company. This is a recipe for disaster should anything go wrong. Although the head-on attack on Fox backfired as even the “official” media balked at excluding them from briefings, the company is particularly vulnerable to back door pressure, via administration appointments to the FCC, which will certainly be gunning for them. Meanwhile Fox ratings are increasing while the administration’s popularity is decreasing, and continued public support and vigilance is the best safeguard for what in truth is press freedom. Jefferson said given a choice between a government without newspapers and newspapers without a government he would choose the latter, and his word echo to the modern media of today.

Overall I believe that the administration and congress have seriously overreached and there will be a reaction in 2010, which should help undo whatever damage they have done by then.