The cost of war

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed." President Dwight D. Eisenhower April 16, 1953

If you are interested in the cost of our actions in Iraq, visit http://www.costofwar.com/


Now even though you wouldn't like me when I'm angry, I can feel the inner economist in me getting out.

Spending on education, housing, welfare and foreign aid (non-military) never approaches defense spending. This has been true for a long time... way before jet fighters and tanks. Banks lend money because they get to mark up their assets (which they are lending, not selling) by over 300%. Governments spend the money on defense because it's the only thing we let them do. Businesses move into the defense market because it's the easiest way to make money disappear. Incidentally, we defended ourselves perfectly fine before the income tax.

Many a Libertarian and Republican would argue that the sole purpose of government is to defend from abroad and police within. They have latched onto the deep instinctual need for these services to justify their importance.
You could think of them as demagogues, leading the public by emotion. Concern, generosity and love come and go. Some people never feel them, while most citizens feel them fleetingly and fake it the rest of the time. Fear is always there and it always generates emotional responses.

Americans need to latch onto the one common desire amongst us. Greed. The only justification for supporting the government financially is domestic. If you don't think Americans should have free health care, free schools, or any free lunches, then stop paying taxes. If you think America should be well defended, buy a gun and defend it. Our nations' bankers stand behind the president as he sells us their loan. You don't have to say yes.

Foundations of Empire

I just had to spread this bit of sublime truth. Thank you Something Awful!

Substantial reward for an explanation of why car racing is patriotic.

No one wants to sit next to Bush

Everyone secure your beverage! He's got that sparkle in his eye.

The New York Times Can Suck An Egg

Surprise, surprise, violence in Iraq. The headline mentions, "scores dead." The New York Times, is just one of many newspapers that doesn't know an important story from stock quote.
Of course, in due news wire fashion, they are to include all the relevant facts:
"After the attack, [...] onlookers scaled the burning armored vehicle. Helicopters that flew in to protect the Bradley were then fired on from the ground and fired back, the military said in a statement, adding that the aircraft then destroyed the armored vehicle as well."
No mention of the onlookers who were on the vehicle. The Times even goes as far as to spread the military's pathetic excuses, saying that the helicopters,
"fired upon the anti-Iraqi forces and the Bradley, preventing the loss of sensitive equipment and weapons."
I, the layman, would have thought the way to avoid loss would be to recover the weapons. The human race has lost a great many loved ones. Turns out, we could have avoided all of that if we shot rockets at everything. Like the video game baddies who fall in a hailstorm of bullets and disintegrate, Bradley Armored Vehicles are designed to regenerate back at the base when exploded.

The people who print these stories are worse than branding execs who put, "may cause anal leakage" in small print on snack food packaging. When a spokesperson gives such an outrageously blind statement, it's any free speaker's duty to pull the ostrich's head out of the sand. If only these news spinning techniques existed back in the good war:
"Yesterday, our armed forces lost control of 2 Milton-Bradley^tm Nuclear devices over Japan. The president ordered the detonation of the devices, preventing the loss of the sensitive weapons. A popsticle stick house in Hiroshima was destroyed."