Guard Dog

The far less appealing truth is money in politics is not an issue and American foreign policy is driven by the goodness of its heart? Alright then. No, that it's decisions are usually based on information that is false and conclusions that are fanciful. I don't doubt the good intentions behind every thing ever done in the name of making the world a safer place for freedom and setting people free from tyranny, etc, etc. But good intentions are meaningless. What matters is a proper understanding of the underlying facts and a workable plan of action that is followed. One that has a clearly defined goal, the applies the means to achieve it, then a plan to withdraw. In short everything we did not do in our most recent conflicts.

I know you didn't ask me but it's none of those things. It's a agreement to free trade, travel, and cooperation on matters concerning common interest. It's problem is it's beginning to intrude on the day to day internal governance of the member nations and the Brits have already had enough. Indications are some others may follow.

They hardly need them, it's easier and safer for them to just buy the politicians who do have those powers. That way you also avoid the responsibility and have Afghanistan and Iraq be labelled as Bush wars rather than [companyname] wars. Somebody, somewhere loves all the interventions and it's hard to see them as being long term vote winners given their consistent lack of success. Yet you can always find plenty of politicians willing to support bombing an ever increasing number of countries. Ok look, this whole notion of evil millionaire corporatists convincing the government to start wars they can supply weapons for makes for common movie and comic book plots but it is not reality. The truth is far less appealing I'm afraid. First of all the millionaire corporatists don't need to start a war to sell weapons and munitions. The US uses live ammo training a lot. More than any other nation AFAIK. Plus munitions that are unused for five years are "recycled" (meaning sold or scrapped) for no good reason I understand. Without firing a shot in anger we turn over our entire munitions supply every five years or less. Second of all the wars the US has involved itself in were born from a toxic mix of good intentions, poor intelligence, and incompetence. We waded into Vietnam to save the South because we though 1) It could be saved. It couldn't. 2) Insurrections in Laos & Burma could be stopped. They couldn't. 3) If the three Indo-China countries went red the Philippines and Indonesia would follow. They wouldn't. The Gulf War, wonder of wonders, was done correctly. A clear objective that was achieved and that was it. Exactly what was not done in Afghanistan. The errors or Iraq are too numerous to list. Syria is a quagmire we helped create through stupidity but really should wash our hands of. But apparently we won't. As for Korea, stop engaging them. Let them rant, and quietly let China know if they don't reign fat boy in we'll put tactical nukes back on the DMZ as a deterrent. But we won't do that either. Never use a bigger tool than a job requires and don't take something apart if you don't know how to put it back together, Two lessons the US needs to learn.

It's really gotten warm now. I walked with the dogs down to the river today and sat on the banks for a while. Tommy had been getting Adaquan injections every week for his arthritis and it's really helped him. I wouldn't even have attempted that walk with him two weeks ago. I moved my desk out of the loft because he really can't do the stairs and it upsets him when I go up there without him. But he is much more like his old self lately which brings a joy to my heart I can't even describe.

Well, the day contractors get war powers I'll start to worry. Incidently, the majority of the costs I listed above were not combat actions. It was in peacekeeping actions afterwards. It turns out wrecking an enemy if far less expensive than building a frien... whatever they are. Destroying the Taliban had to be done. Sinking trillions of dollars into rebuilding Afghanistan has been a fools errand. It would have been better to let the tribal warlords have it. They essentially have it anyway. Iraq was a screw up all the way around because it removed a big counterbalance to the real regional threat, Iran. At least they should have had the sense to split the country into three sovreign nations and to hell with the Turks if they didn't like it. The three main groups in Iraq were ever only held together at gunpoint anyway. But George W Bush seemed to believe inside every Iraqi was a little American struggling to get out.

If you are actually worried Russia & the US are going to go to war I wouldn't lose any sleep over that. It's it possible the world my see another major power war again someday. But I seriously doubt it. That whole "mutually assured destruction" that has kept the world at relative peace for 70 years is still a thing.

America is interested in waging wars for profit? Let's see, the war in Iraq cost a little north of 1.7 trillion dollars as of 2013. But hey Iraq is a stable peasceful country now and we get all of it's oil right? Oh... wait... Well, in Afghanistan 2.4 Trillion and the Taliban and other radicals are all gone right? Oh... wait. But in Vietnam we spent 170 Billion dollars but we sure saved South Vietnam right? Oh wait... Wars for profit. We really f----d that up.

Actually there was a bill before the ACA that did that too. It was signed around 2003 IIRC. The ACA nullified some of it's provisions which is why it was added in. I forget the name of it. They offer better plans but I took this one with the additional carrot of a one time $1k in my HSA. Plus since it's a high deductible plan I can use my HSA with no tax penalty without going over the "big number". Dental insurance now.... they all suck. Some more than others. They actually do have coverage caps and they are pretty low. It's enough to make you want to brush your teeth right now.

This is completely false. The vast majority of health insurance covers a percentage, and it has a yearly cap. If you end up in the hospital for a month you will literally be drowning in debt. Hmmm... unless your health insurance is drastically different than mine that cap is your out of pocket maximum. For example, my insurance has an out of pocket maximum of $10k. Although I do get some discounts and benefits for using doctors and labs "in network" I'm responsible for all of my healthcare up to $10k. After that I'm fully covered. That's the way most of them work in my experience. It's unusual for someone to hit the "big number" so it's a pretty good deal for the insurance companies even if 30-40% of policies go over.

You know I have to say, the air seems a bit fresher this morning. The sun seems a little brighter, the coffee tastes a little better. You know why? Because last night Mike Conley stood tall, put his team on his back and showed the f-----g Spurs who's boss! On to game 4!

Rays sweep the Tigers for the first time since 2008.

The America Conservative has an excerpt from that book on their page. Apparently Clinton was a seriously paranoid individual. She had staffers spy on other staffers. She read other people e-mail. They had a "loyalty" list of congress where they ranked the congress critters from 1-7 on their loyalty to their campaign. She had a strained relationship with the President (that isn't news to anyone) and her whole campaign went out if it's way to ignore the advice coming from Bill Clinton. And it sounds like he was warning them as far back as April 2016 they were in trouble. I might have to give that book a look. it sounds interesting from the little I read.

I don't believe the MDT was 100% responsible. The price of everything escalates over time because the cost of everything goes up. But in 2005 that service cost $85 give or take (going from memory here). In 2010 it was $98 so about a 15% change over five years give or take. So if it follows that rate of increase it should cost between $115-$120 ballpark. So the actual difference cause by the tax (which kicked in in 2011) is $46, and increase of thirty something percent.

The thing I was specifically referring to was a tax on medical devices that was included in the ACA. It's only a 2.3% tax but it is applies to just about everything. For example, if I take my dog to the vet for a check up, blood test and X-Ray. The tax applies to the syringe, the vial the blood goes in, the X-Ray machine, the stethoscope, the otoscope, the lab that analyzes the blood has it applies to all of their equipment. So all of this costs more for the Vet & lab to provide and the added costs are passed on to me. So because we have the ACA, which has nothing to do at all with Veterinary care, my dogs annual exam and senior dog wellness test which used to cost $98, now costs $166 for the exact same service. And it is only because all taxes, fees, and costs mandated by the government are ultimately paid by the consumer.

Wow, imagine the US doing something like this? How the Democrats would howl : http://www.reuters.com/article/us-australia-immigration-idUSKBN17M07Q?il=0

Here is a little media bias on display. This article is from the San Diego newspaper: http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/military/the-intel/sd-me-gibill-tax-20170419-story.html Now here is the same story from Stars and Stripes https://www.stripes.com/news/proposal-in-congress-would-require-servicemembers-to-pay-into-gi-bill-for-benefits-1.464199#.WPikaGe1uUm To summarize there is a movement in the House Veterans Committee to ask military personnel who participate in the GI Bill to pay $2400 (probably $100 a month for two years) into the program. When I was in the service I participated in that plan. For me it was $100 a month for 12 months. After 9-11 they dropped the pay in apparently. The GI Bill is an outstanding benefit. It paid for my first 72 credit hours of the 127 I earned to get my degree. I was over half way done before I paid the first penny out of pocket. Now, the San Diego Union Tribune went on at length about how terrible this is and how veterans groups are going to fight this new "tax on troops". But read the Stars and Stripes version and you'll see the San Diego paper never mentioned that it used to be a "pay in" benefit. That it currently limits the institutions you can use it at. That it is not transferable to survivors. The proposed changes by the HSoVA will change those things and pay out more money to boot. So yes, military members will have to pay more but they will get more. Why didn't that San Diego paper include that info? I don't know. I guess it didn't advance the narrative they wanted to tell.

Yep. Capitalism. the worst system in the world... except for all the others.

I know this is more about painting than photography but I found this on http://www.art.com Algoth this thread is going to end up costing me money. You've got me looking around on that site for something to liven up this house. I've never been one for decorating and the walls are pretty bare.

Are they really working for the betterment of the United States? I'm sure most like to think so. Differences of political philosophy are in the eye of the beholder since there are varying opinions of what actually will better the United States. But I wonder, did Barack Obama really believe the United States would be better if the IRS started persecuting political dissent. Did he truly believe the ACA driving up the cost of everything from home thermometers to veterinary care would better the lives of Americans? Did George W Bush believe crating a massive new federal bureaucracy that takes an interest in the activity of everyday Americans would make us better? If so perhaps the questions isn't their character so much as their intelligence. I believe the real goal of people in power is more power. That is what they are really working tirelessly for. Perhaps they really do believe taking power and freedom from people will lead to their betterment. Perhaps they tell themselves that lie to ease their conscience. Either way, even if it's done with benevolence in their heart (patronizing as it is), it joins them in the company of some truly evil people throughout history. To a degree at least. If a government really wants to better it's people and nation step one would be to not hurt them. Step two is to establish a set of rules everyone must live by with no exceptions. Step 3 confine itself to only enforcing those rules and leave the people to look after their own betterment.

I can insult someone as a "classist" now? Oh my..... what an opportunity Seriously though, if this is the best the American left has to offer, I am ashamed. Comrades, we used to be critical theorists with masterful analysis of capitalism and it's ills across multiple subjects, we were major contributors to sociology, Philosophy, economics, politics.... and THAT is all you got to offer? Oh I don't know Ben. In some aspects they are splitting the uprights in terms of socialist thought. With few exceptions (all of them fairly recent) the socialist nations of the world have not been known for embracing or encouraging things like free speech or independent thought.

Yeah I was thinking that myself. Had he been convicted and had two more life sentences then it would be less surprising. But you don't know what's in a mans head.

Try to read this one without your head exploding: http://claremontindependent.com/students-demand-administrators-take-action-against-conservative-journalists/

If anyone doubts that just have them look at the before and after pictures of the Presidents.