The Cradle of Civilization or....

....the Death of Civilization?

According to the currently popular fountain of knowledge (Wikipedia), "The cradle of civilization is a term referring to locations where, according to current archaeological data, civilization is understood to have emerged."  There were actually several "cradles", but the first was generally acknowledged to be in Mesopotamia, which roughly corresponds to modern day Iraq and Syria.

It seems to me this area is today more like the world's hell hole.  Is there anything good going on there?  I'm not seeing it.  Will this be where civilization ends?  There is obviously an abundance of oil and gas in the region, but little else that the rest of the world seems to have any use for.  If it wasn't for that, I think the rest of the world would just as soon let 'em fight it out among themselves.  

I believe it was Donald Trump (OK, one point for The Donald) who recently said the world was better off when Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi ruled Iraq and Libya. The people who live there would probably not agree, or maybe they would, I dunno, but at least there was a regional status quo that contained the dysfunction.  Now every little sicko guy with a kufi (beanie) thinks he is some sort of Islamic Grand Poo-Bah.  The sad part is the poor ignorant masses there seem to believe in and are willing to die for them. 

I've been reading a book titled Gideon's Spies by Gordon Thomas..."The Secret History Of The Mossad" (Israel's version of our CIA, only better).  It's a good read, and not terribly biased.  I've been amazed to learn how many plots and other evil deeds the Israelis have been able to foil.  They are brilliant, and yes, cunning, vicious, and devious, too.  They have to be....for them it's "do or die".

Despite Israeli's shortcomings, and I'll admit they are numerous, I still believe they are the closest "friends" we have in the region.  Of course they play us when it suits their needs, just like we play everyone else when it is in our interest.  But still, if anyone can cut the legs out from under Iran and all the rest of the whack jobs there, IMHO it is Israel.  

I hope our next President, whoever he/she is, will support Israel.  For if we don't, I see the cancer that is Islamic fundamentalism continuing to spread far and wide.  To think we can negotiate with and trust these radicals is absurd. 

I know this might sound all doom and gloom, but I don't mean for it to.  In fact, I'm optimistic that the good guys, led in the region by Israel, will eventually, somehow, prevail.  I think the Europeans are rapidly coming around to seeing the light, too.  Hey, I'm just calling it like I see it.

OK, skewer me now if you want.

S

I'm not feelin' the love

Remember my recent post about the creeping anarchy I saw around the world?  I'm not so sure it's "creeping".  Seems to me it's about to break into a jog, if not a sprint.  Consider this:

Mid East meets West

Unless you live under a rock you'll know that the Mid East is currently in turmoil.  Really, really deep doo-doo, actually.  It's their normal state of affairs.  Literally millions of refugees have fled the wars in Syria and Iraq, and now are trying to escape the barbarism of ISIS, too.  Many hundreds of thousands have made their way to Europe, looking for a better, or at least safer, life.

According to EU rules, open borders theoretically allow those in any EU country to move freely around and into any other EU country.  This is now being challenged, and strained.  It's really a sad situation.  All these migrants want is to not be shot at, to work, to provide food for their families and a roof over their heads.  It's something we can all sympathize with. 

Here's the problem:  Germans, possibly because of their lingering national guilt due to their dark WWII-years, have been surprisingly accommodating to these refugees, while many other countries have not been.  Germany expects 900,000 to arrive just this year.  (To put this into context, it would be like 3,000,000 refugees arriving in the US in just one year.)  That's quite a social burden to take on.  Most of the rest of Europe can't or won't, and it's threatening the cohesion of Europe, such as it is. Yet the migrants keep coming.

Things are getting more tense and desperate by the day, which historically will lead to an eventual breaking point.  And every terrorist attack, such as the French train shooting a few weeks ago, strengthens the case of the anti-immigrant factions who see in every refugee a latent terrorist. 

So when is this breaking point going to be reached, and when it happens, what form will it take?   Beats me.  All I know is that the Europeans are being re-active, and not pro-active.  They fell behind the curve early and will probably never make up the lost ground....a situation that anarchists dream of.

Remember reading of those days when having big 'ol oceans around us kept us isolated from all those pesky foreign problems?  No more.  We're no longer immune from the wars in the Mid East, the stock market crash in China, or pollution originating anywhere in the world.  All those problems will find us, too, probably sooner rather than later. 

In retrospect, do you think maybe we should have left Iraq, and Libya, and Syria, and all the rest of that blighted region alone?  They were in a bad situation for sure, but are things any better today after all our meddling?  We were told the goal was to get the bad guys over there before they could get to us here, but I fear the opposite....we've only accelerated the process.  

Yes, I'm a political science nerd.  It's gonna be interesting (for me at least) to see how all this eventually shakes out.  Keep your powder dry.

S

I don't like where this is going

Ahh Oh.  This isn't good.  I just heard on the news that the birth rate among women in the US has dropped below the level needed to sustain a growing population.  In other words, more people are dying than being born.  The break-even number is 2.1 births per woman, and now we've dropped to 1.9 births.

I don't think this is due to a lack of "lust".  The main excuse given for not having as many children is they are unaffordable.  Not too many decades ago one income in the household was usually enough to support a family.  Today it more often than not takes two incomes.  Apparently we're now on the cusp of two incomes not even being enough.

We've known that middle class incomes have been flat for the past 30 or so years while the most wealthy have seen their rate of income growth skyrocket.  This isn't politics, just fact.  It looks like we're approaching the breaking point.

This really has far reaching consequences.  With new technology and increases in productivity, it takes fewer workers to make the same amount of stuff it did just a few years ago.  Today it takes more of us buying even more stuff to keep employment up.  Fewer of us consumers can only exacerbate unemployment.  (This makes the slogan "Buy American" even more urgent.)

Higher unemployment = more misery.  And less tax revenue, which = higher deficits and/or less services.  We say we want to cut spending, but when we try (think the recent budget sequester and cuts in air traffic controllers and airport TSA agents) we scream bloody murder.  It's time to "pay up or shut up".  We simply can't have it both ways.

To a point I can see us slipping towards what Europe is experiencing right now.  For years they have been experiencing negative growth.  This is what we have to look forward to.

S

Sleep well tonight...NATO has your back

There was a time after WWII when the US, UK, and western Europe had real reason to believe the Soviet juggernaut would just roll right on across the Iron Curtain border and claim everything right up to the US continental shelf.  That spawned the creation of NATO.  We had the money and hardware, they had the manpower.  Fair enough.

But over the years the western Europeans got back on their feet and became solid economic powers on their own.  But they also had warm feelings for social services for their people and decided to spend their money on their people instead of their militaries.  Of course they spent some, just not as much percentage wise as they should have.  Why should they as long as Uncle Sugar was there with his checkbook?

Today we're all in economic straits, cutting back on everything, yet the US still pays for 75% of NATO's expenses.  Only the US, the UK, and basket-case Greece pay their treaty-mandated 2% of their GDP for defense spending.  (The US actually spends 4.9% of our GDP.)

Remember a couple of years ago when Europe was all up in arms about the mess Muammar Gaddafi was making of Libya?  With great chest-beating they demanded NATO military intervention.  Yes, they got it.....on our dime.  And a nickle of that we had to borrow.

According to an article in the NYT:

 “We are moving toward a Europe that is a combination of the unable and the unwilling,” said Camille Grand, a French military expert who directs the Foundation for Strategic Research. “European countries are continuing to be free riders, instead of working seriously to see how to act together.”

Meanwhile, elsewhere the news reported that many cancer treatment centers here who serve Medicare patients may soon have to turn some away because of a lack of funding, airline flights are backed up because we can't pay for enough air traffic controllers (that sequester thing), and our veterans can't get the VA benefits we promised them without waiting up to a year for their paperwork to be processed.

I'm no longer getting a warm fuzzy about NATO covering my back.  What exactly does NATO do these days, except spend our money for us?

S

The Lance Armstrong scandal...is it TV "sweeps" week?

OK, I know I'm gonna get roasted here, but as everyone else is offering their opinion of Lance Armstrong and his misdeeds after watching him on Oprah last night, I'll offer mine, too:  *Yaaaaaaaaaawn*

He's made a lot of money from his job as a professional bicycle rider, but not a penny of it was from me.  I'm told in many parts of the world (Europe 'cause it's so congested, and Asia where until now it was all they could afford) riding a bicycle is a big deal.  It's how many people get to work.  I get it.  (If I lived in an area where everything I needed was just a short bike ride away I'd ride one too, but I don't.)  

I can see why people "over there" might be enamored with Lance Armstrong and bicycle riding.  That's why it's called the Tour de FRANCE.  But just as I doubt they're too impressed with our World Series or Super Bowl, I'm not into their bicycle riding events or icons*.

Like most people my age I had a bike when I was a kid, but I never thought of riding it as a future career, and I outgrew it. To me riding a bicycle is about as relevant today as roller skating or jumping up and down on a pogo stick.  If anyone feels it necessary to get doped up in order to be the best pogo stick jumper in the world, well, I feel very sorry for them.  I'll be enthralled by their career and their personal life....umm....never.

Mhew....That's my take on the Lance Armstrong "scandal".  :)

Happy weekend!

S

*  I don't think I'm alone.  Lance was born in the Dallas suburb of Plano, yet I don't recall ever seeing a sign that said, "Welcome to Plano, Texas, the birthplace of Lance Armstrong!"

Sorry for dozing off....is it over?

No, I didn't actually doze off during the final presidential debate last night, but it was touch and go for a while.  The polls this morning all agree President Obama won, but I certainly saw no knock-out punch or anything even close.  What I saw was a surprising amount of agreement on the issue of foreign affairs.  On many occasions Romney said he agreed with Obama's handling of (xyz).  Where was the blood and broken, flying teeth?  I just thought it was a boring event.

I will have to say that Obama did successfully (in my mind) call out the discrepancy in Romney's claim of a plan to generally cut spending and move towards a balanced budget all while cutting taxes across the board and increasing defense spending.  That arithmetic just does not compute, and unless Romney can/will provide specifics on how he's going to do it, I'm a skeptic.

I will also agree with Obama that raw numbers of military hardware (ships, planes, etc) are no longer as important as weapons system capability and survivability.  I've met many military leaders over the past dozen or so years and they all seem to agree.  I sleep well.

What shocked me was the fact that Europe, Africa, South America, Australia, and most of Asia except China have just disappeared.  They are apparently no longer even discussed when it comes to foreign affairs.  Did you hear them mentioned last night at all?  (OK, Russia was mentioned very briefly, but that was it.)  They've just vanished!

No, the only part of the world that matters seems to be the Mideast and SW Asia.  We seem to spend ALL our time / money / effort trying to civilize those heathens, and all we ever really do is buy off a few despots and corrupt generals.  All because they have oil.  There isn't a damn thing there besides that.  As I've said before, we need to develop our own secure sources of energy so we can quit beating our heads against the wall trying to schmooze those bastards.

OK, now I'm worked up and awake....about 12 hours late.

S

Globalization....two thumbs up or a giant disaster?

Depends on where you're sitting.

I recently thought of Thomas Friedman's 2005 book The World is Flat that told us, like we didn't already know, that we're living squarely in the Age of Globalization.  And that reminded me of 1992 presidential candidate Ross Perot's warning that "that giant sucking sound you hear" will be American jobs being sucked south and eventually overseas if the US passed the North American Free Trade Agreement.  

Perot lost, Clinton and Congress passed NAFTA, and he (Perot) was essentially proven correct.  New industries have since been created to make up for many of the lost jobs, but it's been an ongoing gut-wrenching transition.

International trade has been around for thousands of years, but things really kicked into high gear after WWII when America's revved-up wartime economy had the capacity to produce much more than we could consume at home and the world found itself with an abundance of surplus cargo ships.  

At first lots of our "stuff" went over there (thanks in large part to a Europe rebuilt by the Marshall Plan), and a few early VW Beetles and assorted cheap junk began coming back over here.  By-and-large, though, we were the big international trade winners.  Payback has been hell ever since.  

The irreversible tipping point came in the 1990's when the world's telecommunications companies grossly over-estimated the future demand for new world-wide fiber-optic cables.  Rates charged due to the glut of new capacity fell through the floor.  Now it wasn't just merchandise that was flowing back and forth across oceans, but ideas, aided by the fledgling internet, too.

Supporters of globalization say it's been a good thing because the choice of goods available to us here has multiplied exponentially, while costs have come way down.  Others say prices had to come down in order for us to afford them as the purchasing power of American middle class consumers has been essentially stagnant for the past 20 years.  

I personally don't see globalization as having been particularly kind to the American middle class, all things considered.  Sure, we have more "stuff", but at what price?  (Globalization isn't just about ideas and goods, but the flow of capital and jobs, too.)

I suppose whether globalization has overall been a good or bad thing (for Americans) will ultimately have to be reviewed over a number of decades by future historians, but from where I'm sitting today I see it as a prime example of unintended consequences run amok.

Regardless of what historians determine, all I know is the Globalization Genie isn't going back into the bottle. 

More on this subject tomorrow.  (Another snoozer, right?)

S  

Taxes....the good, the bad, and the ugly

This week it's all about taxes.  First the good:  April 17th is Tax Freedom Day.  The average American has essentially paid all the money he's earned so far this year to Uncle Sam to satisfy his tax bill.  After tomorrow he'll be working to put money in his pocket.  YEA!!


Now the bad:  Your taxes are due today.  Pay up.  BOO!!


Finally, the ugly:  IMO most Americans wouldn't mind paying their taxes IF we felt our government was being run efficiently and fairly.  I've heard it said that most Europeans don't mind paying much higher taxes than we do because they feel like their government is run efficiently (?) and they're getting something for their money.  A college education is inexpensive or even free for most, child care is free or heavily subsidized, unemployment and job re-training is much more generous, etc.  We won't even go into health care.  


Yes, those things cost a lot of money, and Europeans are taxed through the nose to pay for it (except the Italians and Greeks apparently), but at least they get something for their tax dollars...er...euros.  And yes, since the end of WWII NATO (read: the USA) has covered much of the cost of their national security, leaving them more money for their social programs, but still....  (European readers, if this is not true please feel free to correct me.)  


By contrast, here in the US we have a system that taxes one group and generally gives the benefits to another group, fomenting class conflict.  For example, I had to pay 100% of the cost to have braces on my kid's teeth.  I didn't qualify for any type of government help.  (Here in Texas kids on Medicaid can get them for free.)   College....100% on me.  We made too much to qualify for any grants.  Child care....no government assistance for us.  I know some will say, "But Scott, you could afford to pay for those things for yourself."  I disagree.  It was a HUGE struggle for us at the time.  We had to go without a lot, but my tax bill still came due on April 15th.  Imagine paying for car insurance, then having an accident and being told you didn't qualify for a repair because you made too much money.  Same principle.  You can imagine how such treatment might lead to "tax resentment".


Yes, of course, the rich pay LOTS in taxes, but they also get LOTS of special treatment / tax breaks, etc. And corporations....somebody 'splain to me again why we give BILLIONS of dollars in subsidies to highly profitable companies like ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco, ConAgra, and others?


Here's my point:  I'm not necessarily suggesting we should adopt Europe's social programs.  We can't afford what we have now, I contend because our government is run so inefficiently it's criminal.  What I am suggesting is that we need to spread the payment of taxes and the benefits they bring more evenly.


OK, rip me. 


S

The root of all evil....

....is money*, and who has all the money?  The BANKS!  


Funny how bank shenanigans were in the news multiple times today.  First was a report that banks were rapidly piling on more fees, putting the screws to us deeper than ever.  Free checking will soon go the way of the dinosaur, and fees to use bank debit cards are becoming more widespread, too.  Remember when banks used to be satisfied making the spread between what they charged us on loans and what they paid us on deposits?  Hahahaha!  There's another one for the history books.


The second mention concerned how Europe's rapidly deepening debt crisis is coming ever closer to engulfing us here on this side of the pond, too.  Seems the origin of the problem there was....ta da....the BANKS! Always looking to make a fast buck (or couple 'o BILLION bucks), they offered cheap money to the second tier European countries, knowing that the first tier European countries would ride to the rescue if it ever hit the fan.  And now it has, and they probably will.  


So the banks / bankers made BILLIONS, will probably ultimately write off some of it, pay a few hundred million in fines, and escape Scott free with the rest, unscathed.  No jail time for the scoundrels (who no doubt knew exactly what they were doing but didn't care), no public lynchings, nothing.  They can just ride off into the sunset and enjoy their happy, posh retirement.


Boy are we taxpayers (around the world) saps.


S


*It's in the Bible.  Look it up.