Regurgitate

The fawning coverage of the upcoming inauguration in the LAT and elsewhere is affecting this old fool the same way okra does.

Mark Shields on wars, drafts and tax increases

Last night on PBS's NewsHour, Mark Shields claimed that America has never fought a war, before the Iraq war, in which neither a draft nor tax increases were utilized. It isn't the first time he has argued that.

The U.S. has had an all-voluntary military since 1973. Since then, we have fought wars in the Persian Gulf and the Balkans and arguably in Somalia. Obviously, we have fought in Afghanistan and Iraq as well. Tax increases of one kind or another occur almost every year, including during the years of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. If Shields was referring to a general tax increase, which he probably was, we did not have that during the Persian Gulf war.

Shields shoots his mouth off a lot.

The Economist on Israel in Gaza

The Economist argues in its latest issue that Israel must end the war against Hamas in Gaza. It has already silenced Hamas's rockets. Hamas will think twice before it burrows under the border to capture Israeli soldiers or sets off rockets aimed at Israeli cities, The Economist says.

Why does The Economist believe these things? Hamas has not said it will stop terrorizing Israelis and their cities. If Hamas would, peace might be possible. If Hamas would recognize Israel's right to exist that would go a long way toward peace. Sadly, Hamas has chosen, alternately, either silence or belligerence. Hamas's behavior has not been promising.

Israel has killed about 1,000 Palestinians in Gaza so far in this war. By comparison with Russia, Syria and Hamas, Israel is a pussycat. But Israel is held to higher standards.

The Economist argues that Israel cannot afford to become a pariah state. The people it is bombing are the neighbors it must live with in peace. The war has done the cause of peace profound damage, The Economist says.

What peace? Israel has been at war with its neighbors since 1948 because its neighbors refuse to live in peace. Instead, they continue attacking Israel in one way or another, always expecting a different result than the one they always get. Israel has no choice but to defend itself.

The Economist votes left

The latest issue of The Economist contains among its "leaders" (editorials) a screed against George W. Bush and irrational praise for a man almost no one knows, Barack Obama. The anti-Bush screed, which must have been supplied by the Lexington columnist, includes the following: "He wiretapped citizens without authority, secretly permitted the use of torture and dismissed prosecutors on political grounds." A recent appellate court decision held that the wiretapping was legal; torture was not a practice authorized by the Bush adminstration, as the administration has often said; and the dismissed prosecutors were political appointees who could legally be dismissed at the presidents whim -- something many presidents have done, including Mr. Bush's predecessor, Bill Clinton.

The Economist admits that Mr. Obama is inexperienced but claims he is respectful and thoughtful. How would they know? By his speeches? To quote the Bible, "charm is deceptive, beauty is fleeting."

How charming will Mr. Obama be and how will he look in 2, 4 or 8 years?

Going for broke

The LAT says today that everyone is responsible for California's budget crisis, especially the governator, but Republicans, who oppose tax increases, are mostly to blame. The LAT makes no mention of how California stacks up against other states in terms of tax burden. No surprise there.

LAT: Avoid military adventures unless victory assured

In an editorial today, the LAT offers unsolicited advice to the new president concerning military matters. Take no chances, the LAT seems to say, and don't go it alone. Insure you've got allies.

The LAT critiques President Bush, no surprise. There is no war on terror, the LAT argues. And Bush had no allies when he invaded Iraq. (The Brits, Aussies, Spaniards, Poles and others were figments of Bush's imagination, apparently.) Bush should have been more like Clinton, the LAT argues, although the LAT apparently wasn't referring to interns under the desk in the Oval Office. The Balkan war was a proper war, the LAT suggests. The U.S. had sufficient allies there, presumably. Can you name them?

LAT sensible about tax code, but inconsistent

In an editorial today, the LAT argues for a simple tax code that does only one thing: raise revenue. Good for the LAT.

The trouble is, the LAT is inconsistent. It wants simplicity but then advocates credits for energy-efficient cars and home improvements, for education, for child care, for low-income taxpayers who work, etc. These are the kinds of things that make the code complicated. The LAT can't have it both ways.