Duane S White .com
Common sense conservatismArchive for Duane White
“Live and Let Live” not part of Muhammad’s plan
We’re often told these days by Muslim apologists that the terrorist attacks we have endured at home and abroad throughout the years have in some way been caused by our own actions. We’re told by Muslim clerics that the biggest reason for their hatred of the United States is our intervention in the affairs of the Middle East. This line is then dutifully picked up by the American media, the political left and in some cases even repeated by “conservatives”. Though I like many of the things he has to say, presidential candidate Ron Paul makes me nervous when he talks about his “live and let live” view of the world. It would be nice to think that we could just simply ignore the terrorists, leave them to their own little part of the world and think they are just going to leave us alone. It would also be nice to believe in a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, “free” health care and the Tooth Fairy.
Any naive attempt to convince them that we mean them no harm will not make for a more kind and gentle Middle East. What it will do is convince them that we are retreating under pressure and hiding behind the veil of isolationism.
If, as Ron Paul and others suggest, the Muslim extremists target the United States because of our “interference” in the Middle East, then why do the terrorist strike in places such as The Philippines’? I’ve spent a little time in the sands of Saudi Arabia and have friends and family members who have spent even more time in Iraq and Afghanistan, and none of us have ever seen a Filipino soldier in that part of the world. I could be wrong, but I don’t think the Philippines have been an outspoken supporter of Israel either, which is another excuse we often hear as to why the Muslims want to blow us up. Yet for some seemingly inexplicable reason, the Philippines are a major target of Muslim extremists who want to remake the entire world in their image.
On Valentine’s Day 2005, militants linked to Al-Qaeda struck the Philippines’ Makati financial district with a series of bombings that killed seven people and wounded another 151. The Investigation into one of the bombings showed the suspects got onto a bus with the bomb in a backpack, leaving it behind when they left and then detonated the bomb with a cell phone.
This is not an isolated incident for the Philippine people. Since January 2000 radical Islamist groups have carried out over 40 major bombings against civilians and civilian property, yet no one is accusing the Philippine government of sticking its nose in the affairs of the Middle East. Nor is it a Muslim nation that clerics are attempting to “keep in line”. According to the 2010 Census, Makati City includes a population of just over a half million people, 88.9% of which identified their religious affiliation as Roman Catholic. The other 11.1% is divided among Protestants, Hindu, Buddhist, Jews, and Muslims. Clearly, Islam is the minority in the Philippines, yet they seem to be demanding the most attention. Evidently Islam does not preach “live and let live”.
The reality of who the enemy is demands that we recognize that it is not our involvement in the affairs of the Middle East that invites Muslim aggression. It is the simple fact that we don’t believe as they do, and don’t live our lives according to their religion that invites Islamic extremism. No amount of capitulation to demands that we remove all U.S. forces from Muslim lands and end our support of Israel will ever change that.
Naturally, Americans are tired of a “War on Terror” that never seems to have an end. We’ve now been in Afghanistan for 10 years and I don’t claim to have the solution for a way to end our involvement in that country. What I do know is that we cannot simply pick up our toys, go home and hope the bad guys don’t follow us back to our front door.
As I watch the republican presidential candidates, I want to make sure that I’ll be voting for someone with a clear idea of the threat we face. I like Ron Paul’s domestic agenda, but the last thing I want to hear is that it’s our fault the terrorists want to kill us. If I want to hear that, I can turn on MSNBC. We’re either going to fight these people “over there”, or we’re going to fight them right here on main street USA. Contrary to what some people say, it’s a fight that we didn’t start, but it’s one we must finish.
How much is enough?
This past Saturday, a teacher from here in Yakima wrote an article in the newspaper detailing the difficult challenges faced by teachers, the rough working conditions and the poverty level wages they have been forced to accept.
Here is my response to Mr. Miller’s letter:
Once a proud example to the world, the American pubic school system is now a shadow of it’s former self and the United States is now last among the industrialized nations. The President recently laid out his plan for “winning the future”, but we can hardly do so with a third rate education system. Lately we’ve been hearing a lot from teachers and the teachers unions about how overworked and underpaid our teachers are. If we hope to lead the world in education again, we need to correct the tragic neglect of these valuable national treasures known as teachers and the heroic public service they provide our country.
In recognition that immediate action must be taken , I humbly submit the following proposal to advance the future of education in America.
We need a minimum starting base salary for new teachers, set by the Congress, thereby ensuring fairness among the states. Currently my nephew’s wife is going to school and planning to join the teaching profession. After she finishes school they are planning to move to whatever state pays their teachers the most money. This inequality allows those states with more resources to recruit all the best teachers. Therefore, pay should be standardized, giving all the states an equal footing when drafting new teachers. Naturally, it cost more to live in Manhattan than it does in Pocatello Idaho, so a local cost of living adjustment would be added to the base salary depending upon where the teacher lives and works. The only question remaining to be asked is, “How much is enough”?
Lately I’ve heard a lot of teachers and union people comparing the teaching profession to the work done by doctors and scientists, and suggesting we should pay teachers the same amount earned in those professions. With that in mind, I’m suggesting a starting BASE salary of an even $100k per year with automatic 5% increases in the base salary for each year of service. After 10 years, a teacher would be earning $147k a year in base salary. Mr Miller, who has been teaching for “26 plus years” would now be earning $322k in base salary. I’m curious what would be considered a fair pension.
Before all you aspiring teachers start planning your retirement to some beach house in Malibu , I have a few more things to add. As it turns out, there is more than one question remaining to be asked. In fact, there are several.
How do we pay for it?
I guess “The Rich” are just going to have to pay a little more of “their fair share“. Here in Washington State we don’t have a state income tax. A proposal to add implement one on high income earners was rejected by the voters in the last elections. I guess the legislature needs to do another end run around the greedy voters in Washington State an impose that income tax anyway. The teachers gotta have this money. Of course, if you have children at home you will qualify for child tax credits and probably won’t have to pay the income tax. Once again, the people using the system are not the ones paying for it.
How long will it be before we’re once again being told that teachers need a pay raise?
Human nature being what it is, there is never enough money. No matter how much you have, you’re always going to want more. It’s just human nature. Every time a union contract is renegotiated, they are always for more money, more benefits, or more time off. How much is enough?
How does a six figure salary for a 9 month teaching job improve the education of a child?
We’re already told how overworked and underpaid teachers are. If they are already doing the “best they can,” how is it possible that paying them more money will translate to children getting a better education? If they are already giving 100%, how can we expect 110?
One of two situations is the truth. One, they’ve been slacking off and holding the education system hostage while waiting for more money, or two, they know full well that higher teacher salaries will not result in a better education for little Johnny, (or Jose’). Either way, I think all this fuss about union benefits for teachers, and higher salaries exposes the truth once and for all. It’s never been about education. It’s always been about greed.
I recently heard an older man on a radio show complaining about proposals that would raise the retirement age to 70 years old. The host of the radio show said “We have to do something, the system is going broke. It’s not going to be there for our children and grandchildren.”
The old man’s response was, “I don’t care. I paid into the system and I’m going to get mine while it’s still there”.
The thinking from the teachers unions is pretty much the same. Anyone with even nominal intelligence knows that we can not keep demanding more and more money from a decreasing number of taxpayers to pay ever increasing wages and benefits for public sector union employees. We don’t have the money to sustain this, but union thugs just don’t care. They intend to get as much as they can, for as long as they can, even if it bankrupts everyone else.
Now, let’s set the record straight. Yes, teachers have a tough job. I sure wouldn’t want to do it. You couldn’t pay me enough to babysit 30 undisciplined misfits all day long. Yes, it’s also an important job. Educating the youth of America is just about important as it gets unless we want a society of people with the intelligence of Joe Biden.
There are a lot of people out there with important jobs though and most people think they should be paid more than they are getting. I’d love to be making 20% more in my paycheck but the man who signs that check has a different idea. When I’m not shooting off at the mouth in some blog post, I drive a milk tanker for my day job. If you think that’s not important, try eating your Frosted Flakes dry tomorrow morning. How about the cow? She’s got a pretty important job, don’t you think? (No, I’m not talking about the Secretary of State.)
If teachers really want to be paid a better salary and actually improve the education system at the same time, then I suggest that we’re going to have to make some adjustments to the system that does not involve throwing more money at an already failed system.
Every time we get a new President, we get treated to a brand new plan for education. George H.W. Bush was going to be the “education president”. Clinton introduced “Goals 2000”. George W. Bush signed the “No Child Left Behind” act that was actually written by Ted Kennedy. Of course when it didn’t work out as promised, Bush took all the blame. Now Obama has released his education plan called “Race to the Top”. All of these education plans have two things in common. They have all required more money than we were spending before, and they have all failed. According to figures just released by the Department of Education, 82% of the schools in the nation are failing to meet their goals. Obviously we need a change in direction. If we keep doing what we’ve been doing, we’re going to keep getting what we’ve been getting. Failure. All the money in the world won’t change that.
Looking for answers in all the wrong places
The President is spending a little time out on the left coast looking for ideas on what government can do to help create jobs. On Thursday he was in San Francisco meeting with local business leaders, including Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, and today he is in the Portland area and will tour computer chip maker Intel’s factory in Hillsboro. I submit that the President is talking to the wrong people. San Francisco and Portland are both blue state strongholds and therefore he has little chance of hearing solutions that will actually work. I’m not a business leader or an economist, but I’ve got a couple of common sense and logical suggestions the White House should look into that the President probably won’t be hearing about during his west coast visit.
“DRILL HERE – DRILL NOW.”
There are currently 103 permits for offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico that are being held up by the Obama Administration, even though the moratorium on offshore drilling has been lifted since October 12. Worse yet, the Obama regime shows no sign of changing it’s position on blocking offshore drilling at the expense of the American people. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar canceled a Gulf lease sale last October. He postponed another, originally scheduled for March, until 2012. Yet another one that had been planned for October 2011 could be delayed until 2012. That would make 2011 the first year since 1965 that the federal government has authorized any drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.
The Gulf region accounts for more than 25 percent of domestic oil production and the lack of drilling there is having a devastating economic impact on the region and also threatens to exacerbate the problem of rising oil prices for the rest of the nation. It also means less money for the federal government, which is apparently not a major concern to the Obama White House. Rebecca Blank, under secretary for economic affairs at the Department of Commerce, told a Senate committee last fall that the revenue loss to the government would be “negligible.” Not everyone agrees.
With production in the Gulf of Mexico expected to drop this year by 220,000 barrels per day, according to the US. Energy Information Administration, that equals about $3.7 million in lost revenue each day for the U.S. Treasury, (based on the $90/barrel oil and the royalty rate of 18.75 percent). Over the course of a year, that adds up to more than $1.35 billion dollars in lost revenue to the federal government. A recent study conducted by Wood Mackenzie for the American Petroleum Institute estimated that increased access to those areas would bring $150 billion into federal coffers by 2025. If these numbers don’t phase the administration at all, here are some other numbers that should be causing alarm. According to Dr. Lee Hunt, President of the International Association of Drilling Contractors, there are 75,000 people who are unemployed because of this administrations opposition to domestic oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, (or anywhere else for that matter). Imagine if those 75,000 people were working, and paying income taxes instead of drawing unemployment checks. It’s called real wealth creation, not transferred wealth that the government has to either confiscate from someone else or borrow from China.
If the White House is serious about creating jobs, the President should order Ken Salazar to expedite the approval of those 103 oil permits. While were at it, lets approve the construction of an oil refinery or two in this country. The United States has not built a new oil refinery in 35 years. The last refinery built is in Garyville, Louisiana, and it started production in 1976. Demand has increased as our population has grown, but our supply is still the same, which is why gas costs what it does. That bad news it, it’s going to get a lot worse if we don’t change our misguided environmental policies.
Where Barack Obama is concerned, there are always two ways of doing things, the right way, and Obama’s way. Sadly, the two are mutually exclusive and there is little chance they will ever meet.
The Politics of Arrogance
Is it just me, or does it seem like someone needs to serve the Obama Administration with a nice big glass of “Shut the Hell Up Juice.” There’s probably a more professional and certainally a more politicaly correct way to say it, but it looks to me like this is an Administration who doesn’t know how to keep it’s mouth shut.
Remember back in the 2008 Presidential campaign when candidate Obama said that “America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.” in it’s dealings with other nations? While he may have been correct, but since he has taken office, this Administration has taken arrogance to a whole new level. In his first two years in office, Obama has alienated long time allies, emboldened dangerous adversaries, and embarrassed the United States with his egotism. Now his audacity may actually be costing lives in Egypt.
Political forces opposed to Egyptian President Mubarak have been attempting to force him from power for months. On Tuesday it appeared that Mubarak was prepared to throw in the towel and announced that he would be leaving office in September and would not attempt to appoint his son to replace him. Though not exactly what they wanted, the opposition seemed ready to accept this plan and let everything proceed peacfully. That is until Barack Obama decided to step into the middle of this Egyptian political rivalry.
“It is not the role of any other country to determine Egypt’s leaders”, Obama said on Tuesday night, but then went on to do just exactly what he said was not our place to do. “What is clear and what I indicated tonight to President Mubarak, is my belief that an orderly transition must be meaningful, it must be peaceful, and it must begin now.”
Evidently September was not soon enough for Obama. So, like the former chairman and CEO of General Motors, Rick Wagoner, the President of Egypt is being fired by the President of the United States. What may have been a nice orderly transfer of authority a few months from now, has now become a violent mob that is becoming increasingly dangerous.
The danger of the situation is not lost on Israel, who is keeping a very close eye on the situtation in neighboring Egypt. According to Associated Press writer Amy Teibel, senior Israeli officials maintain that Obama, who they view as a foreign policy neophyte, is repeating the same mistakes of prececessors like Jimmy Carter. Carter pressured the Shah of Iran to loosen his grip on power in the late 70’s, resulting in the Shah being driven into exile and replaced by hardline Islamic dictators.
Political analyst Aluf Been, writting for the daily Haaretz in Jeruslem says, “Jimmy Carter will go down in American history as ‘the president who lost Iran, and Barack Obama will be remembered as the president who ‘lost’ Turkey, Lebanon and Egypt, and during whose tenure America’s alliances in the Middle East crumbled.”
Apparently the government in Tehran agrees. The Iranian government released a statement on Thursday saying the protest in Egypt were a sign of an “Islamic renaissance” in the Middle East, and that they echoed Iran’s 1979 revolution, which toppled the U.S. backed Shah.
Egypt, under the Mubarak government, has always had a friendly relationship with the United States, and has aided American efforts in the war against radical Islamic terrorists. When Hosni Mubarak is driven from office, his government will most likely be replaced by the Muslim Brotherhood, a group that favors rule by Islamic law, and probably won’t be as friendly to the United States, perhaps even openly hostile.
All of this comes because of the one man who told us in the campaign that he would heal damaged U.S. relations around the world. We’ve been told by his supporters that this is the smartest man to ever occupy the Oval Office. Last month, James Corum, writting for the UK Telegraph said that Obama always considers himself the smartest man in the room. He may be right…. provided he’s in an empty room.
Duane S White .com 