Yes, we have been Shlinkered, schnooked, and bamboozled by a totally incompetent Herenton administration, so what are we going to do about it, trust him to fix it up? I hope not. Unfortunately, the story of Mayor Herenton’s financial mismanagement extends deeply into the City’s pension plan, and probably has infected MLG&W - if Joseph Lee’s “financial expertise” is contagious.
Having read what is on the table for cost cutting are the “usual suspects”, sell this, raise taxes on that, cut the pay of the police and firemen – but what is most interesting in what wasn’t even mentioned: The City Pension Plan and adminstion pay scales. For too long, our government officials have justified pay scales and benefits in how they relate to the national competitive landscape, which in my opinion is a laughable logic. If they are going to continue using that logic, I would suggest that they compare Memphis only to other bankrupt cities, not Atlanta, or Nashville (Washington DC and New Orleans come to mind).
Just from the bits and pieces that I have read about the City of Memphis Pension System, it is generous to it’s participants in ways that private pension plans would never consider unless they could print their own money. The printing press that has financed the Memphis government employees pension plan just had its plug pulled. The Pension plan (and every job at city hall) needs to be evaluated by a competent third party who could easily quantify significant abuses and significant potential areas where the city can make cuts.
The pension plan needs to mirror the private sector, and while we’re at it, so does the government. If a CEO came to Wall Street and admitted such serious mis-management and financial deception, he would be looking for a new job and the SEC would have him under investigation. Maybe that’s asking too much of “the system”.
Sunday, October 30, 2005
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s called for Israel to be wiped off the map
From looking at the various governments that have condemned Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s called for Israel to be wiped off the map, you would think that his statement was unexpected. The surprise wasn’t his statement, after all, the Arab world has been calling for Israel’s total destruction since it's birth in 1948, and Iran has been calling for Israel's demise ever since Ayatullah Khomeini led a coup that deposed the Shan of Iran back in 1978. Ever since then, the Iranian government has been waging a low level war against Israel, through it’s surrogates in Syria and Lebanon, directly via Iranian revolutionary guards based in Lebanon, and through various Palestinian terrorist groups. What was surprising was his honesty, his willingness to not continue playing the game of diplomatic duplicity. The Muslim world wants Israel destroyed. How can anyone mis-understand that statement? In a world where leftist drum-beating pacifists are willing to believe any lie as long as it agrees with their point of view, it must have been a sobering wake-up call.
Now that Ahmadinejad has removed the mask of Arab moderation and revealed the face of Iran's hate to the world, Israel should act under the well-established customary prerogative of “Anticipatory Self-Defense” under International law. Iran’s clandestine development of a nuclear weapons program, and Ahmadinejad’s overt threat make Iran the single most urgent danger to Israel’s existence.
Israel has always lived in a neighborhood where enemy Arab (and Iranian) states and their non-state surrogates have used whatever means they could to destroy tiny Israel. There are 22 Arab (plus Iran) countries lined up against Israel. Under the likes of Iran’s Ahmadinejad, the possibility of him turning Iran into an irrational nuclear suicide state - just to rid the world of Israel is not inconceivable, and it is a risk that Israel cannot allow to exist. Losing one Arab state may be a price worth paying in the Arab world if it means ridding the Mideast of Israel.
Israel, however has options, none of which are particularly good: They have to prevent - for as long as possible - their enemies from acquiring WMD, and they have to make it clear to their enemies that if attacked with non-conventional weapons, Israel will make sure that none of them will be left unscathed.
Hopefully, the day will come when Israel is accepted by the Arab world. Until then, Israel has a duty to protect itself. Thanks to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s called for Israel to be wiped off the map, maybe the world will understand Israel's distrust of Muslim intentions. After all, of the countries that protested Ahmadinejad’s comments, not one was an Arab country. Their silence is deafening.
Now that Ahmadinejad has removed the mask of Arab moderation and revealed the face of Iran's hate to the world, Israel should act under the well-established customary prerogative of “Anticipatory Self-Defense” under International law. Iran’s clandestine development of a nuclear weapons program, and Ahmadinejad’s overt threat make Iran the single most urgent danger to Israel’s existence.
Israel has always lived in a neighborhood where enemy Arab (and Iranian) states and their non-state surrogates have used whatever means they could to destroy tiny Israel. There are 22 Arab (plus Iran) countries lined up against Israel. Under the likes of Iran’s Ahmadinejad, the possibility of him turning Iran into an irrational nuclear suicide state - just to rid the world of Israel is not inconceivable, and it is a risk that Israel cannot allow to exist. Losing one Arab state may be a price worth paying in the Arab world if it means ridding the Mideast of Israel.
Israel, however has options, none of which are particularly good: They have to prevent - for as long as possible - their enemies from acquiring WMD, and they have to make it clear to their enemies that if attacked with non-conventional weapons, Israel will make sure that none of them will be left unscathed.
Hopefully, the day will come when Israel is accepted by the Arab world. Until then, Israel has a duty to protect itself. Thanks to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s called for Israel to be wiped off the map, maybe the world will understand Israel's distrust of Muslim intentions. After all, of the countries that protested Ahmadinejad’s comments, not one was an Arab country. Their silence is deafening.
Friday, October 14, 2005
The Gandhi Institue for Non-Violence.........
As much as I respect the intentions of those who follow in the footsteps of Mahatma Gandhi within the M.K. Gandhi Institute for Nonviolence (GINV), I feel compelled to disagree with a few points in Dr. Manoj Jain’s 10/14/05 guest column (and no, I’m not with the Institute of Violence).
How did Dr. Jain comes up with factoid #1- “In the 21st Century, violence has become standard issue”? Violence has been around since man crawled out from under a rock - and the 21st century is no more violent than the 20th century (or the 19th, 18th, 17th, etc).
Factoid #2 is equally as mysterious. While inequality, injustice, poverty and racism can cause violence, I am mystified why didn’t he include religious extremism as THE major source of violence (The Crusades, Holocaust, Muslim Extremism). I don’t remember any poor people hijacking airplanes, much less blowing themselves up in restaurants.
The far left (of which I include the Gandhi Institute) in the past has had a habit of being apologists for those who wish to advance their grievances through the use of violence. In the world of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) like the Gandhi Institute, violent acts against innocent civilians are considered acts of “desperation” that deserve to be understood, rather than meted out a measure of justice.
One day the world may be better situated to accept the concept of non-violent resistance as the means to conflict resolution, but until then, I prefer to keep both feet planted in reality.
How did Dr. Jain comes up with factoid #1- “In the 21st Century, violence has become standard issue”? Violence has been around since man crawled out from under a rock - and the 21st century is no more violent than the 20th century (or the 19th, 18th, 17th, etc).
Factoid #2 is equally as mysterious. While inequality, injustice, poverty and racism can cause violence, I am mystified why didn’t he include religious extremism as THE major source of violence (The Crusades, Holocaust, Muslim Extremism). I don’t remember any poor people hijacking airplanes, much less blowing themselves up in restaurants.
The far left (of which I include the Gandhi Institute) in the past has had a habit of being apologists for those who wish to advance their grievances through the use of violence. In the world of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) like the Gandhi Institute, violent acts against innocent civilians are considered acts of “desperation” that deserve to be understood, rather than meted out a measure of justice.
One day the world may be better situated to accept the concept of non-violent resistance as the means to conflict resolution, but until then, I prefer to keep both feet planted in reality.
Thursday, October 06, 2005
Pan-Arab/Muslim Military Strategy: Plausible deniability and the use of surrogates
The difficulty that the United States is experiencing in Iraq – fighting an enemy with no address, no uniform, and who is unwilling to fight a conventional face to face battle – is a product of our military/political leaders imposing our Western value system against an enemy that is playing by another set of rules. The sooner we acknowledge the real boundaries and the real rules of the battlefield, the sooner we can win the war in the Mideast.
I didn’t say win the war in “Iraq” on purpose, because the reality is that the war is about pan-Arabism and militant Islam. No, it’s not a “war on terror” anymore than WW2 was a war on execution squads (it was a war against Nazi fascism). Muslim/Arab terrorism is a tactic, a military strategy, and the motivation is both Pan Arab Nationalism and extremist Islam – and the epicenter of this movement (as it relates to the war in Iraq), runs from Iran, through Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. So until we acknowledge that the formal joint military pact between Damascus and Theran is playing itself out on Iraqi turf against coalition forces and the Iraqi people, we will be fighting this war with one hand behind our back.
How is it that Iran and Syria can send fighters and munitions into Iraq and we don’t do anything about it? Because the US has spent decades allowing surrogate fighters in Lebanon, trained by Iranian/Syrian military experts, to fight against Israel. Once the US accepted this strategy, it blossomed around the world. As long as Iranian/Syrian fighters weren’t pulling the trigger, as long as there was no “smoking gun” that could provide evidence of their involvement, they could deny it. Our political establishment demands “irrefutable proof” so we back off. This strategy of “plausible deniability” has proven hugely successful for the Saudis. They have financed Islamic terrorism for decades and financed the exportation of their Wahhabi extremist version of Islam around the world. They continue to supply fighters against US forces in Iraq. They even made up the majority of the 9-11 hijackers, they paid cash under the table to Palestinians suicide bombers…. yet our politicians consistently refused to connect the dots.
The West can win the war against Islamic terrorism by using precise military strategies that reflect the reality on the battlefield. Terrorism will never be reduced to zero. There will always be the “deranged individual” willing to strap on a bomb. But at least he won’t have a bomb expert supplying the c4 explosives and the know-how to execute his mission. If the politicians were to back off and allow the US military to demonstrate to the world that they are playing by a “new set of rules” that doesn’t recognize surrogates and plausible deniability, we will see our troops come home a lot quicker, and the world will be a safer place.
I didn’t say win the war in “Iraq” on purpose, because the reality is that the war is about pan-Arabism and militant Islam. No, it’s not a “war on terror” anymore than WW2 was a war on execution squads (it was a war against Nazi fascism). Muslim/Arab terrorism is a tactic, a military strategy, and the motivation is both Pan Arab Nationalism and extremist Islam – and the epicenter of this movement (as it relates to the war in Iraq), runs from Iran, through Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. So until we acknowledge that the formal joint military pact between Damascus and Theran is playing itself out on Iraqi turf against coalition forces and the Iraqi people, we will be fighting this war with one hand behind our back.
How is it that Iran and Syria can send fighters and munitions into Iraq and we don’t do anything about it? Because the US has spent decades allowing surrogate fighters in Lebanon, trained by Iranian/Syrian military experts, to fight against Israel. Once the US accepted this strategy, it blossomed around the world. As long as Iranian/Syrian fighters weren’t pulling the trigger, as long as there was no “smoking gun” that could provide evidence of their involvement, they could deny it. Our political establishment demands “irrefutable proof” so we back off. This strategy of “plausible deniability” has proven hugely successful for the Saudis. They have financed Islamic terrorism for decades and financed the exportation of their Wahhabi extremist version of Islam around the world. They continue to supply fighters against US forces in Iraq. They even made up the majority of the 9-11 hijackers, they paid cash under the table to Palestinians suicide bombers…. yet our politicians consistently refused to connect the dots.
The West can win the war against Islamic terrorism by using precise military strategies that reflect the reality on the battlefield. Terrorism will never be reduced to zero. There will always be the “deranged individual” willing to strap on a bomb. But at least he won’t have a bomb expert supplying the c4 explosives and the know-how to execute his mission. If the politicians were to back off and allow the US military to demonstrate to the world that they are playing by a “new set of rules” that doesn’t recognize surrogates and plausible deniability, we will see our troops come home a lot quicker, and the world will be a safer place.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)