Wednesday, October 22, 2014

Are San Francisco low achievers exempt from the effect of market forces?

San Francisco, California and its metropolitan areas contain some of the highest property values in the world.  The price per square foot for commercial real estate rivals that of Hong Kong and New York.

Ditto for residential property, the prices are sky high and rising.  In typical liberal fashion, these market forces for this highly desirable part of the country have been thwarted several decades ago by rent control laws that prohibited landlords from obtaining fair market rates for their assets.

And the low achievers that pay way less than fair market value in the short term can enjoy screwing their landlords out of the fruits of their labor owing to liberal politicians securing votes by sticking it to 'the man' and passing laws that prevent rents from achieving the short run.

But these rent control laws are running up against very powerful forces, namely the laws of supply and demand.  In the long run, the supply and demand forces will simply find a way to prevail despite the best efforts of scumbag politicians to keep them at bay and keep those whose lives are artificially improved through legislative fiat intact, in addition to their votes.

Landlords in general are not stupid.  These guys are actually pretty damn savvy, on the whole.  They have been patient, and since they are for the most part law abiding citizens, have gone along with the local governments' restrictions on their assets.  But they have not been idle: there are ways, and then there are ways to beat the system.

Additionally, these landlords have hired particularly sharp attorneys, who have been hard at work finding ways to free up the locked value of San Francisco property, and legally evict these free loaders who have been squatting on the assets of others for decades and only paying peanuts for the privilege to do so.

The squeals of outrage from these low life squatters are now evident, as the chickens come home to roost in San Francisco.  Evictions of deadbeats who either cannot afford any longer the cost to live in paradise, or choose to default and let the authorities work their charms while the TV cameras are rolling.

In any event, subverting the laws of supply and demand is not possible - in the long run.  In the short term, sure.  But those who live in the short term always have hell to pay in the long run.

Welcome to the NFL, all you San Francisco hippies who now have to pay fair market value.  It's about time.

Thursday, October 16, 2014

What would one party rule look like in America?

Barack Obama would love nothing more than to destroy the Republican party and create one party rule.  In that manner, he and his successors could get quite a lot done without that pesky 'Party of No.'

We already have several areas within the United States that are defacto one-party ruled: Detroit comes to mind as the poster boy of what happens when dissent to an out of control government is crushed and extinguished as a countervailing force in politics.

Barack's old stomping grounds of Chicago are also governed by one party only: the Democrat party.  And this has been the case since "Big Bill" Thompson (R) was mayor ending in 1931, although "Big Bill" was so corrupt that he may as well have been a Democrat.

Chicago politics is now in play nationally, with Barack Obama ruling through executive orders and virtually ignoring the will of Congress and the American people.  He learned this style of politics in the least democratic area in the US - The Windy City.

Just a few days ago, Chicago Public Schools' teacher's union boss Karen Lewis withdrew her name from the upcoming mayoral race, and it now appears that the current uber-liberal, big spending Democrat mayor Rahm Emanuel will not face any credible opposition.

This news of Karen Lewis' withdrawal was bemoaned as a loss of choice for the voters of Chicago, since Karen Lewis was running ahead of Rahm in the polls.  The choice was never between the two dominant philosophies within the US currently: liberal or conservative.  The choice Chicago voters would have had with Karen Lewis in the race was re-electing a big spending liberal in Rahm, or electing an even bigger spending liberal in Karen Lewis.

Not much of a choice, given that Chicago's public unions (including Karen Lewis' CPS teacher's union) are running billions of dollars of unfunded pension liabilities that has bankrupted Chicago to the point that it is another Detroit, only in zombie form - Chicago is fiscally dead but just doesn't know it yet, much like zombies are dead but don't seem to understand the concept.  

Wednesday, October 15, 2014

Fredd saw this coming 5 years ago....

Dumb ol' Fredd published this post way back in 12/2009.  With how things stand in Afghanistan (and Iraq) now, this makes me look like some kind of prophet - read this and then consider what has transpired in the Middle East since then:

'With our 18 month time table now in play, President Obama has laid out the framework of our mission in Afghanistan. We send 30,000 more troops, secure the Afghani population from terrorism within their borders inflicted by the Taliban, and train the Afghani army and police forces so that they can assume responsibility for their own security. 

Sounds good. Sounds achievable. Right? No way in hell is this going to happen, and I would be more than happy to elaborate on why I think this administration has absolutely no chance in achieving these pie in the sky goals. 

We have been trying to do this since the inception of hostilities in 2001. According to my math, that is eight years and counting. Eight years. You would think by now that some serious training would have transpired, and that a stable standing Afghan army would now be in place. In addition to the standing Afghan army, we have been training (and training, and training, and training…..) an Afghan civilian police force to assume some of the civil security now under tenuous control by the U.S. Army for eight years now. 

Eight years. 

Well, we all have to consider what kind of raw materials we all have to work with as it pertains to available personnel within this endeavor. Most Americans think that the citizens of the world are all made up of the same DNA (which is true, but irrelevant) and accordingly, other than some minor differences in politics, that we all behave the same; we all have similar hopes, desires, fears, and dreams for a just and righteous society. 

Right? Wrong. Profoundly and demonstrably wrong. 

The template that most Americans and nearly all the U.S. politicians have in place is horribly wrong. We assume that the Afghan population has the same desire, the same potential and the same tenacity to take control of their national security as that of the typical American. 

This is where a disconnect the size of the Grand Canyon throws the monkey wrench into our strategy: the Afghani population are not by any standard in the civilized world what we would call ‘civilized.’ And that is the key here. This country, if you can even call it a country, is one of the most primitive societies on earth. Illiteracy is well above 90% of the population. More than 9 out of 10 Afghanis can neither read nor write. This society consists solely of local brutal and savage tribes with no contact to what the rest of us would call civilization at all. 

Karl Rove in his interview with Fox News last week said that illiteracy is an issue with regards to our goals in Afghanistan. This is the understatement of the century. Saying illiteracy is an issue with regards to our goals in Afghanistan is akin to saying that having a 5 foot 9 inch center on your NBA team is an issue in winning the NBA Championship. It is like saying that having a 167 pound average on your NFL team’s offensive line is an issue to achieving a Super Bowl win. It is similar to saying that having an IQ of 77 is an issue to securing a Rhodes scholarship. 

This issue of illiteracy is not only huge, it is an impediment, a virtual road block to our ultimate goal of training Afghanis to defend themselves from overthrow by the Taliban. In order to maintain an effective fighting force or civilian police, it's imperative that the soldiers and policemen have the ability to reason, to make split second decisions regarding whether to use deadly force or not, and to make these decisions on the side of justice consistently. An uneducated, uncivilized goat herder with no formal education has no business being placed in any position of power over others, such as are civilized soldiers and police personnel. 

The U. S. Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines require anyone entering military service in an enlisted capacity to have at least a high school education, or have completed a G.E.D (General Equivalency Diploma). Ditto for nearly all U.S. civilian police force entry requirements. Additionally, these branches of our armed forces also require an officer to have completed a college degree prior to receiving the commission. Our armed forces have by far the highest standards of any significant military force on the planet. You cannot possibly get into the U.S. armed forces if you can’t read, since all of the training you are expected to complete to master your specific job entails a significant amount of reasoning, logic and comprehension. 

And yet we as a nation seem to expect that we can train these savages to achieve our civilized standards of behavior in a matter of a year or two. Good luck with that. The average Afghani picking up a rifle and trying to keep in step in a platoon formation is much like the old TV show ‘Gomer Pyle, USMC.’ Gomer couldn’t do anything right, but had the typical heart of gold that Hollywood script writers always gives these fish out of water characters. And it took every bit of energy on Gomer’s marine platoon sergeant, SFC Vincent Carter, to keep Gomer in line. Imagine an entire army of Gomers. And of course who could forget deputy sheriff Barney Fife of the 60's sitcom 'The Andy Griffith Show.' Stumbling, bumbling Barney (with his standard issue heart of gold) was issued only a single bullet, and for good reason: give him an entire cylinder of ammo in his service revolver and the idiot became a bona fide menace. 

Now consider trying to train an entire standing army and police force of Gomer Pyles and Barney Fifes. And once you have that image in your mind, then imagine hitting all of those Gomers and Barneys in their heads with a brick 20 or 30 times, until dementia and brain damage was well established. Then you would have a better feel as to what kind of standing Afghan army and Afghan police force you will have at the ready. It will take much more than 18 months to train these ignorant and brutally savage goat and yak herders. It will require them all to attain high school diplomas. And how long will that take? Well, it took me 12 years, if you don’t count Kindergarten. 

But before you start with that process, you have to build schools. And before that construction starts, you have to have the will of the population to initiate this process. Good luck with that. And Obama is confident that 18 months will do it. The reality is that the Afghanis will never, ever be up to the task of their own security as a nation. The only force on earth strong enough to get rid of the Taliban in Afghanistan is the United States military. And we have yet to unleash our awful and terrible deadly forces within our awesome arsenal to do that. 

We, contrary to any and all common sense regarding this situation, continue with this pie in the sky hope that we can make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. 

Good luck with that.'

End of post.  This material was published in December, 2009.

Monday, September 29, 2014

We're all 'Little Eichmanns' now (Part II)

A relatively recent concept has changed the world...for the worse. The term 'collateral damage' was never considered in wars of the past.  

The manner in which wars were won in the days of yore were simply a matter of the winning side inflicting such damage on the losing side that no other possibility existed other than surrender or annihilation.

In this manner of warfare, the winning side would impose on the losing side every action, thought and philosophy it deemed as the way of life to which all under the victorious regime would abide henceforth, with dissenters killed, imprisoned and otherwise dispatched as the realm saw fit.

Of course, back in 'the good ol' days,' there were no media to cover wars in action, and broadcast to the world the tactics and messiness in general of such conflicts.  Now, each and every civilian death is photographed, spread to each corner of the world and denounced by opponents as barbarian, murderous and heinous behavior.

'Collateral damage' came about only recently in human history.  It became the rule of combat that soldiers of one side could only target and kill soldiers of the other, leaving be the 'innocent civilians.'  If, heaven forbid, a civilian was killed in the course of combat, then a campaign was immediately undertaken to discredit the careless combat unit and its command throughout the world as evil.

Accordingly, with all civilized peoples careful to avoid at all costs (including victory) injuring civilians, the formerly weaker side in any conflict was empowered to use this abhorrence by civilized folk in inflicting collateral damage to its advantage: knowing that their adversaries would not target groupings of known civilian areas such as churches, schools, hospitals and the like, the historically weaker and more ruthless combatants would then entrench themselves and their weapons inside such areas and conduct their attacks with impunity.

Simply setting up rocket launchers, mortars, howitzers and weapons caches inside mosques, hospitals and schools along with a battery of photographers has now given much weaker combatants the upper hand in all warfare now: they know that civilized opponents will not knowingly lob artillery into a school, because if they do the ever present photographers will broadcast to the world the women, children and civilian casualties that the 'evil' warmongers did to the innocents in the population.

Works every time it is tried.  But these rules only apply to civilized combatants. Muslim based combat units such as Hamas, al Qaeda, and now ISIS have based their entire war strategy on this fact of war now, and launch their weapons from within as many civilian shield areas as possible, and they launch their weapons into largely civilian populations on the other side as possible.

Muslim combatants don't play by civilized rules.  That kind of nonsense is for losers, and they want no part of such foolishness. They correctly understand that there really are no such thing as innocent civilians: populations support and are complicit in all combat operations.  They feed, clothe and fund their soldiers.  They work in the factories that provide arms and support for their soldiers.  This is unarguably true for populations on both sides.  

The bad guys know this plain fact of life.  They see everyone that resists sharia law as a 'Little Eichmann.'  And they know that all of us 'Little Eichmanns' do not have the same view, much to the advantage of Muslim terrorists.

It's time that the West started to view Muslim populations as 'Little Eichmanns' and act accordingly.  Only until this happens, we will be forced to live the the atrocities we see Muslims commit in the name of Allah on the West and our philosophy.  

The violence will never end until we come to our senses.

Thursday, September 25, 2014

We're all 'Little Eichmanns' now

Islamic terrorists have declared war on the West and all we in our society stand for.  They call it jihad, but it's the same thing.  From the Muslim perspective, if you are a non-believer (in the teachings of the prophet Mohamed the term would be infidel), then you have two choices:

  • Convert from your infidel ways and follow the teachings of the prophet.
  • Die.
There is no middle ground as far as Muslims are concerned.  The Koran puts this in writing.  ALL MUSLIMS believe this.  They have to.  Or they themselves are condemned to die.  There are no 'radical Islamic' terrorists.  The term 'radical' suggests that those who are engaged in jihad have strayed from the mainstream Muslim beliefs.  They have not strayed.  These jihadis are following the exact words in the Koran.  From a Muslim's eyes, they are not terrorists, but warriors for Allah.  Big difference from the Muslim perspective.

This is the reason why we do not see mass repudiation of the jihadi methods by 'moderate Muslims.'  None of the rest of the timid Muslim world will raise their voice against the tactics of these bolder members of their sect, as that would paint a target on themselves for elimination in the name of Allah.  In essence, there is no such thing as a 'moderate Muslim.'  

For us in the West, who are typically Christian, we all have bulls' eyes painted on us by these jihadis.  We are targets for either conversion or death.  All of us.  And accordingly, random acts of terrorism such as mall bombings, Boston Marathon bombings, and rockets launched into population centers within Israel intended to kill as many civilians as possible are not considered 'terrorism' by those who commit them.

These acts are permitted, and even encouraged and celebrated, by followers of the prophet.  All of them.  

If we ever want to stop these jihadis from killing in the manner which they prefer: mass killing via bombs and rockets into civilian population centers, aircraft, buses, malls, etc., we must confront the truth as our enemies see it: we are all 'Little Eichmanns' in their eyes.

And we are indeed from the Muslim perspective.  The term is fairly decently described by Wikepedia:  '“Little Eichmanns” is a phrase used to describe persons participating in society who, while on an individual scale may seem relatively harmless even to themselves, taken collectively create destructive and immoral systems in which they are actually complicit.  This is comparable to how Adolf Eichmann, a Nazi bureaucrat, unfeelingly helped to orchestrate the Holocaust.'

The term was popularized by uber-leftist, faux-Indian professor Ward Churchill a few years ago, and he was widely derided by many on the right as outrageous in this claim.  Churchill, in the eyes of the Muslim, is dead spot on, however, in his assertion that our enemy views us all as a society complicit in rejecting the teachings of Mohamad, and accordingly our mass executions via jihad are entirely justified and proper.

This jihad has been going on since the Koran was written.  This Muslim sentiment against infidels is what led to the Crusades in the Middle Ages.  It is what caused our little tiff with the Barbary Pirates back in Thomas Jefferson’s day.  It is the stuff that keeps the Middle East in constant turmoil.

We have been in this war, whether we want to acknowledge it or not, for over 1,400 years now and counting.  This war will continue, assuming we continue to ignore it and assign the reasons for our mounting casualties to criminal activity or radicals and their madness.

It is not madness.  It is what 20% of the population of the earth believes should happen to us infidels, or ‘Little Eichmanns.’  It is what ISIS/ISIL/IS, al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezzbolah, al Fatah, Boco Haram, and back to the Barbary Pirates and Suleiman the Great all believe, and who all structure their assaults on the infidels accordingly.  All of these Muslim groups above, to a man, woman and child, believe the same thing, and there is not a nickel’s difference among any of them.  This, in their belief system, is what Allah wants and DEMANDS that they do.

But if we want this to end, what should we do?  I have a real simple answer for that, stay tuned….

Friday, September 19, 2014

Obama doesn't listen to anybody

We are hearing a drumbeat of support for 'boots on the ground' to eradicate the ISIS scourge from the most experienced military minds in the country.  To a man, general after general after general tells us that air strikes and advice without back up from combat troops from the US will accomplish absolutely nothing in combating these animals.  No effect whatsoever.

Obama, just like always, rejects this advice and is going his own way.

He was also forwarned three years ago that we had to leave a residual force in Iraq to maintain the gains the US had won through our military presence over the prior 8 years of combat or so.

Nope, he blew that advice off as well.

And now we see what we get with this guy in charge of military decisions.  Chaos in the world.

Even a liberal pinko commie can see the results of this guy's pacifism in the face of global evil.

Well, maybe not.

Tuesday, September 16, 2014

You don't hire a sumo wrestler to run a Weight Watchers clinic...

...and you don't choose that same sumo wrestler to jockey your Kentucky Derby thoroughbred horse.

Some things in life should be obvious:
  • bald, fat, old guys don't make good television news anchors
  • ugly, fat, old unpopular girls don't win beauty pageants
  • short, stubby overweight accountants shouldn't start at center for the Boston Celtics
  • slow, chubby, short, old advertising executives should not be selected to carry the ball for the Chicago Bears
  • stupid, slow high school dropouts should not head up NASA space exploration programs, or other rocket science related endeavors
And something that should be patently obvious to every red blooded American is you simply don't elect a dyed-in-the-wool, card carrying, liberal, weasly mealy mouthed pacifist to be our Commander in Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces.

And yet we did.  And we all see what happens when we do: look at how this guy, Barry Obama, has been all over the map regarding the rising Islamic terror threat that demands some sort of response.

Barack Obama is simply not the guy to deal with any serious threat to American interests.  Nor is any other liberal pacifist Democrat. They just don't know how to properly wield the considerable military power of the U.S.  And there IS most definitely a proper way to use it, and an improper way to abuse it.  

If we have by now learned our lesson, then we will never elect another liberal Democrat to the presidency.  If we do, we see what we get.  

Dithering, fumbling, stumbling foolishness. Democrat presidents make us look bad to the rest of the world.