.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
Four reasons why we went to Orlando to celebrate Dagny's 2d birthday.
===
Last night Star Parker spoke at our SIRC Presidnt;s Day Dinner.
This is a synopsis of what she said and if you would wish to follow her you can do so by going to www.urbancare.org
"Star Parker, president of the Center for Urban Renewal & Education (CURE), gave a riveting and motivational speech before a capacity audience at the annual SIRC Presidents’ Day banquet fundraiser. She highlighted many of the ideas contained in her her books and columns (Her syndicated column is now being picked up by the Savannah Morning News.)
Having herself overcome poverty and gotten an education, she now is a staunch defender of traditional values, free markets, and American exceptionalism. Part of her transformation was occasioned by discovering that religion and moral values are crucial to a right functioning society.
She discovered early the fallacies and misinformation of liberals who had simply branded the GOP as enemies of the poor. The existence of wealthy segments does not cause the poor to be poor, and attempts to redistribute wealth actually hurts the poor. The poor would benefit by getting government out of the way, and allow competitive free markets to function that have made America the success that it was in the past. America can be successful again, if the electorate realizes that the liberal mantras are actually hurting us.
She was particularly critical of the liberal (actually “progressive”) strategies or wars on religion, marriage and poverty. She impugned the motives of liberals on all of these as merely guises to increase the public’s reliance on government and ensuring the continuance of them as the ruling class. Hence the war on conservatives who have a totally different agenda on these issues that actually improves the lot of those targeted by the liberals.
Also the objective track record of liberals on these strategies is abysmal. Out of marriage births are now 43% of all versus 12% at the start of the Great Society push. And for blacks, it is now 70%. 60% of all births are now covered by Medicaid.
Why do blacks continue to support the liberal agenda? 25% are on government support and another 25% work for government. The 4,000 housing projects started by governments in the U.S. are now recognized as disasters. The free market works much better to solve society’s problems.
Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security are now in arrears by some $80 trillion present value. The U.S. cannot sustain those promises, which dwarf the actual national debt which is pushing $18 trillion. 70% of all non-defense spending is now a transfer of wealth program.
The liberal rationale on attacking marriage and traditional values is sort of justified by the now huge size of the single women cohort. They tend to support government programs as paramount, believing that being sexually active they will rely on the government more as they age, as they have no family.
Combatting this philosophy will be difficult because of the semi-monopoly in government supplied education and brainwashing of future generations. School Choice is crucial to solving this problem. And what’s wrong with everyone learning English as our official language?
There is a cultural war going on, and the red states are crucial to combatting adverse philosophies winning out. Freedom and traditional American values are now losing.
We need more rights, not less, e.g. “right to work” and “right to carry”. In poor communities, the message to males should be “work” and to females “wait”.
She is the author of three books: Pimps, Whores & Welfare Brats; Uncle Sam's Plantation; and White Ghetto, and is currently working on a fourth: How the Poor Get Rich.."
===
Several days ago marked the anniversary of Obama's Shovel Ready one trillions dollar, yes one trillion dollar, boondoggle.
It was ballyhooed by the liberal press, media and White House when launched but nary a word now.
The purpose of this expenditure was several fold:
1) It created a lot of hoopla , got people juiced up that it would create good jobs and was a lot of PR b---s---
2) The real purpose was to elevate Federal spending so in future years the increase would be from a higher base. Government never quits increasing spending as you know. It always finds excuses and this administration is interested in increased spending and wealth transfers.
3) I suspect it was a way of paying off some campaign contributors who printed up costly signs announcing the Obama Shovel ready Project.
Where did that trillion dollars go? Were any projects actually completed, bridges repaired etc.? If so, you can bet Obama would be shouting from the roof of The White House telling us about them, having basket ball players shooting hoops from them, movie stars singing from them and all those thousands who worked on them would be there in the overalls telling us how it saved their families from poverty.
===.
Are we about to relive the past? Does Kerry's threat of a boycott have meaning in context of this video? You decide!
Several days ago marked the anniversary of Obama's Shovel Ready one trillions dollar, yes one trillion dollar, boondoggle.
It was ballyhooed by the liberal press, media and White House when launched but nary a word now.
The purpose of this expenditure was several fold:
1) It created a lot of hoopla , got people juiced up that it would create good jobs and was a lot of PR b---s---
2) The real purpose was to elevate Federal spending so in future years the increase would be from a higher base. Government never quits increasing spending as you know. It always finds excuses and this administration is interested in increased spending and wealth transfers.
3) I suspect it was a way of paying off some campaign contributors who printed up costly signs announcing the Obama Shovel ready Project.
Where did that trillion dollars go? Were any projects actually completed, bridges repaired etc.? If so, you can bet Obama would be shouting from the roof of The White House telling us about them, having basket ball players shooting hoops from them, movie stars singing from them and all those thousands who worked on them would be there in the overalls telling us how it saved their families from poverty.
===.
Are we about to relive the past? Does Kerry's threat of a boycott have meaning in context of this video? You decide!
And this from a man who rewrites history with a liberal bent. (See 1 and 1a below.)
===
Betrayal from Afghanistan. Maybe we should try that reset button which has not worked with Russia.(See 2 below.)
===
And then more treachery from Iran.
I served on The Board of The Woodrow Wilson Center for a brief period. They are a Non-Partisan Foundation established and partly funded by Congress to honor the memory of President Wilson. They have an extensive staff and large number of Fellows who publish some interesting and informative material. (See 3 below.)
===
Lamentably American indifference, lack of understanding and abject ignorance extends beyond foreign policy matters. (See 4n4a and 4b below.)
===
Now for a little 'white' humor. (See 5 below.)
===
Dick
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Oliver Stone: Obama is a Weak and Spineless Man
By Melanie Bailey
Hollywood filmmaker Oliver Stone says President Barack Obama is a "weak man" who has abandoned the principles he espoused on the campaign trail about civil liberties and foreign policy.
"The man stunned us with a lack of spine," Stone told an audience of libertarian students at the 2014 Students for Liberty Conference in Washington, D.C., Mediaite reports.
"He's a weak man," he added, referring to what he says has been an inconsistency between Obama's "anti-war" talk during his presidential campaign and the policies he has pursued since occupying the White House.
Stone was joined during a panel discussion by liberal journalist Jeremy Scahill, who blasted MSNBC for failing to hold the president to account for "overreach" on issues such as targeted assassinations, covert operations, and military interventions.
"MSNBC is like watching one big Obama for America meet-up," Scahill said, adding that Fox News is guilty of perpetrating "conspiracy theory" about the president.
Stone issued similar critiques of Obama's record in a documentary series he released in 2012 entitled "The Untold History of the United States."
1a) Rumsfeld: US Going Into Decline Due to 'Weakness' in Military
By Drew MacKenzie and John Bachman
Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld condemned President Barack Obama for showing such "weakness" that American adversaries are growing bolder by the day.
Rumsfeld, author of the new book "Rumsfeld's Rules," told John Bachman on Newsmax TV's "America's Forum" that the United States is not spending enough money on the military.
"The greatest security threat [to America] is the fact that the United States is behaving in a way that is sending a signal of future weakness," he said. "In the Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson administrations, we were spending 10 percent of gross domestic product on defense. Today, we're spending less than 4 percent and the entitlements have ballooned."
"There's no way we can keep on spending trillions of dollars we don't have. So that vacuum we're creating is going to be filled, and it'll be filled by countries that don't have our values and clearly are adverse to our interests."
Rumsfeld, who was secretary of defense from 1975 to 1977 under President Gerald Ford, and from 2001 to 2006 under President George W. Bush, said Iran's ayatollahs are determined to build a nuclear weapon, which will set off a dangerous Middle East arms race.
"You very likely are going to end up seeing other countries in the region develop nuclear weapons," Rumsfeld said. "And there are other countries that are perfectly capable of it, and there are countries around the world that are willing to assist them with nuclear programs. And that is not a good thing for the world."
Rumsfeld warned that Saudi Arabia and Egypt would soon want to arm themselves with nuclear bombs.
The former defense secretary also attacked the Obama administration for announcing that it was pulling out all its troops from Afghanistan by the end of this year, sending a message to Taliban terrorists that the war-torn country is ripe for another takeover.
"The president never should have said we'll be leaving on a certain date because it tells the Taliban, wait a while and then you can come in and take over," he told Newsmax TV, adding that the country was "on a good path forward and it has been placed in jeopardy unnecessarily."
He also warned of what life could be like in Afghanistan if the Taliban gains power again. "They used the soccer stadiums to cut off people's heads. Women couldn't go out in the street without a male member of their family, they couldn't go to school. They were a vicious government."
Rumsfeld also said the United States should not have offered to give aid to the Syrian rebels fighting the Assad regime and then gone back on its promise. "Either you keep your mouth shut, [and] if you say something then by golly you'd better live up to it, and we did exactly the wrong thing."
Syria may be a no-win situation because Iran is helping to fight the rebels by supplying fighters to President Bashar Assad's forces while the Russians are selling them arms, he said. "The implication that, when it was over Assad could still be there, is obviously a deterrent to anyone opposing Assad."
But Rumsfeld said the United States can bounce back and become a world leader once again.
"We do not need to go into decline," he said. "I expect that what we'll see is self-correction taking place because we ought not to leave a vacuum that is filled by people that fundamentally don't have our values and are against our interests."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iran had applied the Additional Protocol in the early days of the crisis that began in 2002 when Iran was discovered to have hidden almost two decades of nuclear work. Iran has signed the Additional Protocol but its parliament has not ratified the measure. Iran stopped applying the protocol when the United Nations Security Council began to move in 2006 to imposing sanctions on the Islamic Republic.
Sanctions from the United Nations and individual countries now target Iran’s oil trade and ability to do business abroad, severely hurting the Iranian economy.
Amano’s comments here, made the day before the start of multilateral talks aimed at a comprehensive agreement to guarantee the Islamic Republic does not build nuclear weapons, add to growing signs that progress will be — at best — slow. Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khameini said Monday that he was not optimistic about the talks, even if he did not oppose them. He said the talks were “of no use and will not lead anywhere,” according to the Iranian news agency IRNA.
A senior US official noted here that President Barack Obama has said the negotiations have only a 50 percent chance of success. Iran and the United States have been adversaries, without diplomatic relations, for over three decades since the Islamic Revolution in 1979.
The choices ahead are “very difficult decisions,” the American official said. “When the stakes are this high, and the devil is truly in the details, one has to take the time to ensure the confidence of the international community in the result,” the official said.
Both US and Iranian officials have said that, while they want to move as quickly as possible on freezing the level of Iran’s nuclear work for the talks to be able to proceed, the initial six-month negotiating period for a comprehensive agreement could very well double.
A major problem is that the technical problems outlined by Amano and the political hurdles referred to by both US and Iranian leaders could lead to increased pressure from hardliners in Israel and the US Congress to impose more sanctions. The clock started ticking on the six-month negotiating process on January 20 when Iran gave UN nuclear inspectors increased monitoring rights, according to the interim agreement known as the Joint Plan of Action.
This plan gave the IAEA more access to Iranian sites and officials. Despite these “steps forward” after years of deadlock, IAEA chief Amano said “more remains to be done.”
The IAEA is settling for smaller steps in order to make some progress. The agency is no longer insisting that new inspections start with a visit to the controversial military site of Parchin, where explosives testing is suspected to have taken place to make the trigger for an atomic bomb. “We have agreed to a step-by-step approach,” Amano said. “I don’t think we have a problem that Parchin is not included on the first step.”
This means that concern over possible military aspects of Iran’s nuclear program will almost certainly not be fully addressed over the next six months. But there has been recent progress. Amano said Iran agreed earlier this month to discuss electronic bridgewires, that can be used as nuclear triggers, part of an agreement on seven “practical” steps reached in Tehran.
The emphasis is on an overall approach that increases transparency, rather than making the military issue a make-it-or-break-it condition. Implementing the seven practical steps, plus six measures agreed to last November, “will give us more knowledge of Iran’s activities,” said Amano, insisting that this would be an achievement, even if not a complete resolution of the IAEA inquest. “Negotiating with Iran is not easy, but we are producing concrete results step by step,” Amano said.
He said there were great “constraints” in technical talks with Iran, as new Iranian leaders President Hassan Rouhani and Foreign Minister Javad Zarif are under pressure from various political factions at home, even as expectations for a positive result in the talks are high. Amano praised the Iranian negotiating team as “very prudent, cautious and intelligent” and echoed comments from other world leaders that this may be the best chance at a comprehensive deal.
The question now, as final negotiations begin on an overall settlement that would win nuclear assurances from Iran and result in the lifting of sanctions against it, is whether the IAEA’s success is too little too late or enough to help talks going and avoid a possible US or Israeli military strike against Iran’s atomic facilities.
Michael Adler, an expert on Iranian nuclear issues at the Woodrow Wilson Center, writes regularly on the issue for Breaking Defense.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)The American Public's Indifference to Foreign Affairs
By George Friedman
Rumsfeld, author of the new book "Rumsfeld's Rules," told John Bachman on Newsmax TV's "America's Forum" that the United States is not spending enough money on the military.
"The greatest security threat [to America] is the fact that the United States is behaving in a way that is sending a signal of future weakness," he said. "In the Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson administrations, we were spending 10 percent of gross domestic product on defense. Today, we're spending less than 4 percent and the entitlements have ballooned."
"There's no way we can keep on spending trillions of dollars we don't have. So that vacuum we're creating is going to be filled, and it'll be filled by countries that don't have our values and clearly are adverse to our interests."
Rumsfeld, who was secretary of defense from 1975 to 1977 under President Gerald Ford, and from 2001 to 2006 under President George W. Bush, said Iran's ayatollahs are determined to build a nuclear weapon, which will set off a dangerous Middle East arms race.
"You very likely are going to end up seeing other countries in the region develop nuclear weapons," Rumsfeld said. "And there are other countries that are perfectly capable of it, and there are countries around the world that are willing to assist them with nuclear programs. And that is not a good thing for the world."
Rumsfeld warned that Saudi Arabia and Egypt would soon want to arm themselves with nuclear bombs.
The former defense secretary also attacked the Obama administration for announcing that it was pulling out all its troops from Afghanistan by the end of this year, sending a message to Taliban terrorists that the war-torn country is ripe for another takeover.
"The president never should have said we'll be leaving on a certain date because it tells the Taliban, wait a while and then you can come in and take over," he told Newsmax TV, adding that the country was "on a good path forward and it has been placed in jeopardy unnecessarily."
He also warned of what life could be like in Afghanistan if the Taliban gains power again. "They used the soccer stadiums to cut off people's heads. Women couldn't go out in the street without a male member of their family, they couldn't go to school. They were a vicious government."
Rumsfeld also said the United States should not have offered to give aid to the Syrian rebels fighting the Assad regime and then gone back on its promise. "Either you keep your mouth shut, [and] if you say something then by golly you'd better live up to it, and we did exactly the wrong thing."
Syria may be a no-win situation because Iran is helping to fight the rebels by supplying fighters to President Bashar Assad's forces while the Russians are selling them arms, he said. "The implication that, when it was over Assad could still be there, is obviously a deterrent to anyone opposing Assad."
But Rumsfeld said the United States can bounce back and become a world leader once again.
"We do not need to go into decline," he said. "I expect that what we'll see is self-correction taking place because we ought not to leave a vacuum that is filled by people that fundamentally don't have our values and are against our interests."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) Another Galling Betrayal
By Thomas Sowell
The Afghanistan government's recent release of dozens of imprisoned terrorists, many of whom had killed Americans, was a galling betrayal of those Americans who died defending Afghanistan against the Taliban terrorists -- as well as those Americans who have returned home with arms or legs missing, or with minds traumatized beyond repair.
If we learn nothing else from the bitter tragedy of the war in Afghanistan, it should be that we should put an end forever to the self-indulgence of thinking that we can engage in "nation-building" and creating "democracy" in countries where nothing resembling democracy has ever existed.
It would be a feat to achieve one of these objectives, but to achieve both at the same time is a gamble that makes playing Russian roulette look like a harmless pastime.
F.A. Hayek said, "We shall not grow wiser until we learn that much that we have done was very foolish." Nothing is more foolish -- and immoral -- than sending men into battle to risk their lives winning victories that are later lost by politicians for political reasons.
That started long before the war in Afghanistan. Vietnam was a classic example. Years after that war was over, the Communist victors themselves admitted that they lost militarily in Vietnam, as they knew they would. But they won politically in America, with the help of Americans, including the media -- as they also knew they would.
The war in Iraq was more of the same. American troops won that war but our politicians lost the peace. Terrorists have now taken over, and raised Al Qaeda flags, in some Iraqi towns that American troops liberated at the cost of many lives.
How did this happen? It happened much the same way it happened in Afghanistan. We insisted on trying to create a "democracy" in the Middle East -- a place with a history going back thousands of years, without a single democracy.
What we created instead was a local ruler, placed in charge as a result of the blood and treasure of Americans, but independent of us, because he won an election that we insisted on holding -- as if there are no prerequisites for democracy.
To compound the problem, we had members of Congress constantly talking about pulling out of Iraq, and demanding a timetable -- despite what military madness it is to tell your enemy when you will be gone.
With American military support likely to be temporary and Iran's military presence next door certain to be permanent, how surprising is it that Iraq's leadership took Iran much more seriously than it took the United States?
Today, the Iraqi government is much more accommodating to Iran than to the United States, despite the fact that Americans put them in power. The very same scenario was repeated in Afghanistan, with President Obama himself announcing a timetable for the withdrawal of American troops.
Afghan President Hamid Karzai saw the handwriting on the wall -- and what it said was that American support was temporary but the Taliban was going to be around long after the Americans were gone. He too decided that it was better to try to get on the good side of our enemies, in this case by turning loose some terrorists.
It doesn't have to be this way.
After World War II, the American military took over the governments of Japan and West Germany. We did not start out by setting up some local leader who would be able to put his own interests above ours and work at cross purposes against us. Nor did we announce to the whole world when we planned to start reducing our troop levels in these countries.
Under the unchallenged supremacy of General Douglas MacArthur, Japan was indeed turned into a very different country, one in which democratic institutions could be phased in, at whatever pace the circumstances made prudent. Something similar happened in West Germany.
But this was not something that could be done quickly or on the cheap, with politicians sounding off in Congress about pulling out, and trying to micromanage from thousands of miles away. If we can't be serious, we have no right to send young Americans out into the hell of war.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Michael Adler
VIENNA: The international atomic watchdog, the IAEA, will have a hard time answering crucial questions about just what Iran is doing at its nuclear facilities despite recently winning better access for its inspectors, its leader, Yukiya Amano, told Breaking Defense in an exclusive interview Monday at the agency’s headquarters here.
Amano said the main problem going forward is that Iran refuses to implement an Additional Protocol that would allow inspections of sites beyond those where the watchdog International Atomic Energy Agency knows nuclear material is used or stored. This protocol is the key to making more rapid progress in verifying the peaceful or military nature of Iran’s nuclear work. “The implementation of the Additional Protocol is very important to provide assurance that all nuclear activity in Iran is for a peaceful purpose but we are not yet at that point. . . . We are at an early stage of clarifying and resolving the issues,” he said.Iran had applied the Additional Protocol in the early days of the crisis that began in 2002 when Iran was discovered to have hidden almost two decades of nuclear work. Iran has signed the Additional Protocol but its parliament has not ratified the measure. Iran stopped applying the protocol when the United Nations Security Council began to move in 2006 to imposing sanctions on the Islamic Republic.
Sanctions from the United Nations and individual countries now target Iran’s oil trade and ability to do business abroad, severely hurting the Iranian economy.
Amano’s comments here, made the day before the start of multilateral talks aimed at a comprehensive agreement to guarantee the Islamic Republic does not build nuclear weapons, add to growing signs that progress will be — at best — slow. Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khameini said Monday that he was not optimistic about the talks, even if he did not oppose them. He said the talks were “of no use and will not lead anywhere,” according to the Iranian news agency IRNA.
A senior US official noted here that President Barack Obama has said the negotiations have only a 50 percent chance of success. Iran and the United States have been adversaries, without diplomatic relations, for over three decades since the Islamic Revolution in 1979.
The choices ahead are “very difficult decisions,” the American official said. “When the stakes are this high, and the devil is truly in the details, one has to take the time to ensure the confidence of the international community in the result,” the official said.
Both US and Iranian officials have said that, while they want to move as quickly as possible on freezing the level of Iran’s nuclear work for the talks to be able to proceed, the initial six-month negotiating period for a comprehensive agreement could very well double.
A major problem is that the technical problems outlined by Amano and the political hurdles referred to by both US and Iranian leaders could lead to increased pressure from hardliners in Israel and the US Congress to impose more sanctions. The clock started ticking on the six-month negotiating process on January 20 when Iran gave UN nuclear inspectors increased monitoring rights, according to the interim agreement known as the Joint Plan of Action.
This plan gave the IAEA more access to Iranian sites and officials. Despite these “steps forward” after years of deadlock, IAEA chief Amano said “more remains to be done.”
The IAEA is settling for smaller steps in order to make some progress. The agency is no longer insisting that new inspections start with a visit to the controversial military site of Parchin, where explosives testing is suspected to have taken place to make the trigger for an atomic bomb. “We have agreed to a step-by-step approach,” Amano said. “I don’t think we have a problem that Parchin is not included on the first step.”
This means that concern over possible military aspects of Iran’s nuclear program will almost certainly not be fully addressed over the next six months. But there has been recent progress. Amano said Iran agreed earlier this month to discuss electronic bridgewires, that can be used as nuclear triggers, part of an agreement on seven “practical” steps reached in Tehran.
The emphasis is on an overall approach that increases transparency, rather than making the military issue a make-it-or-break-it condition. Implementing the seven practical steps, plus six measures agreed to last November, “will give us more knowledge of Iran’s activities,” said Amano, insisting that this would be an achievement, even if not a complete resolution of the IAEA inquest. “Negotiating with Iran is not easy, but we are producing concrete results step by step,” Amano said.
He said there were great “constraints” in technical talks with Iran, as new Iranian leaders President Hassan Rouhani and Foreign Minister Javad Zarif are under pressure from various political factions at home, even as expectations for a positive result in the talks are high. Amano praised the Iranian negotiating team as “very prudent, cautious and intelligent” and echoed comments from other world leaders that this may be the best chance at a comprehensive deal.
The question now, as final negotiations begin on an overall settlement that would win nuclear assurances from Iran and result in the lifting of sanctions against it, is whether the IAEA’s success is too little too late or enough to help talks going and avoid a possible US or Israeli military strike against Iran’s atomic facilities.
Michael Adler, an expert on Iranian nuclear issues at the Woodrow Wilson Center, writes regularly on the issue for Breaking Defense.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)The American Public's Indifference to Foreign Affairs
By George Friedman
Last week, several events took place that were important to their respective regions and potentially to the world. Russian government officials suggested turning Ukraine into a federation, following weeks of renewed demonstrations in Kiev. The Venezuelan government was confronted with violent and deadly protests. Kazakhstan experienced a financial crisis that could have destabilized the economies of Central Asia. Russia and Egypt inked a significant arms deal. Right-wing groups in Europe continued their political gains.
Any of these events had the potential to affect the United States. At different times, lesser events have transfixed Americans. This week, Americans seemed to be indifferent to all of them. This may be part of a cycle that shapes American interest in public affairs. The decision to raise the debt ceiling, which in the last cycle gripped public attention, seemed to elicit a shrug.
The Primacy of Private Affairs
The United States was founded as a place where private affairs were intended to supersede public life. Public service was intended less as a profession than as a burden to be assumed as a matter of duty -- hence the word "service." There is a feeling that Americans ought to be more involved in public affairs, and people in other countries are frequently shocked by how little Americans know about international affairs or even their own politics. In many European countries, the state is at the center of many of the activities that shape private life, but that is less true in the United States. The American public is often most active in public affairs when resisting the state's attempts to increase its presence, as we saw with health care reform. When such matters appear settled, Americans tend to focus their energy on their private lives, pleasures and pains.
Of course, there are times when Americans are aroused not only to public affairs but also to foreign affairs. That is shaped by the degree to which these events are seen as affecting Americans' own lives. There is nothing particularly American in this. People everywhere care more about things that affect them than things that don't. People in European or Middle Eastern countries, where another country is just a two-hour drive away, are going to be more aware of foreign affairs. Still, they will be most concerned about the things that affect them. The French or Israelis are aware of public and foreign affairs not because they are more sophisticated than Americans, but because the state is more important in their lives, and foreign countries are much nearer to their homes. If asked about events far away, I find they are as uninterested and uninformed as Americans.
The United States' geography, obviously, shapes American thinking about the world. The European Peninsula is crowded with peoples and nation-states. In a matter of hours you can find yourself in a country with a different language and religion and a history of recent war with your own. Americans can travel thousands of miles using their own language, experiencing the same culture and rarely a memory of war. Northwestern Europe is packed with countries. The northeastern United States is packed with states. Passing from the Netherlands to Germany is a linguistic, cultural change with historical memories. Traveling from Connecticut to New York is not. When Europeans speak of their knowledge of international affairs, their definition of international is far more immediate than that of Americans.
American interest is cyclical, heavily influenced by whether they are affected by what goes on. After 9/11, what happened in the Islamic world mattered a great deal. But even then, it went in cycles. The degree to which Americans are interested in Afghanistan -- even if American soldiers are still in harm's way -- is limited. The war's outcome is fairly clear, the impact on America seems somewhat negligible and the issues are arcane.
It's not that Americans are disinterested in foreign affairs, it's that their interest is finely calibrated. The issues must matter to Americans, so most issues must carry with them a potential threat. The outcome must be uncertain, and the issues must have a sufficient degree of clarity so that they can be understood and dealt with. Americans may turn out to have been wrong about these things in the long run, but at the time, an issue must fit these criteria. Afghanistan was once seen as dangerous to the United States, its outcome uncertain, the issues clear. In truth, Afghanistan may not have fit any of these criteria, but Americans believed it did, so they focused their attention and energy on the country accordingly.
Context is everything. During times of oil shortage, events in Venezuela might well have interested Americans much more than they did last week. During the Cold War, the left-wing government in Venezuela might have concerned Americans. But advancements in technology have increased oil and natural gas production in the United States. A left-wing government in Venezuela is simply another odd Latin government, and the events of last week are not worth worrying about. The context renders Venezuela a Venezuelan problem.
It is not that Americans are disengaged from the world, but rather that the world appears disengaged from them. At the heart of the matter is geography. The Americans, like the British before them, use the term "overseas" to denote foreign affairs. The American reality is that most important issues, aside from Canada and Mexico, take place across the ocean, and the ocean reasonably is seen as a barrier that renders these events part of a faraway realm. Terrorists can cross the oceans, as can nuclear weapons, and both can obliterate the barriers the oceans represent. But al Qaeda has not struck in a while, nuclear threats are not plausible at the moment, and things overseas simply don't seem to matter.
Bearing Some Burdens
During the Cold War, Americans had a different mindset. They saw themselves in an existential struggle for survival with the communists. It was a swirling global battle that lasted decades. Virtually every country in the world had a U.S. and Soviet embassy, which battled each other for dominance. An event in Thailand or Bolivia engaged both governments and thus both publics. The threat of nuclear war was real, and conventional wars such as those in Korea and Vietnam were personal to Americans. I remember in elementary school being taught of the importance of the battle against communism in the Congo.
One thing that the end of the Cold War and the subsequent 20 years taught the United States was that the world mattered -- a mindset that was as habitual as it was reflective of new realities. If the world mattered, then something must be done when it became imperiled. The result was covert and overt action designed to shape events to suit American interests, perceived and real. Starting in the late 1980s, the United States sent troops to Panama, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo and Kuwait. The American public was engaged in all of these for a variety of reasons, some of them good, some bad. Whatever the reasoning, there was a sense of clarity that demanded that something be done. After 9/11, the conviction that something be done turned into an obsession. But over the past 10 years, Americans' sense of clarity has become much more murky, and their appetite for involvement has declined accordingly.
That decline occurred not only among the American public but also among American policymakers. During the Cold War and jihadist wars, covert and overt intervention became a standard response. More recently, the standards for justifying either type of intervention have become more exacting to policymakers. Syria was not a matter of indifference, but the situation lacked the clarity that justified intervention. The United States seemed poised to intervene and then declined. The American public saw it as avoiding another overseas entanglement with an outcome that could not be shaped by American power.
We see the same thing in Ukraine. The United States cannot abide a single power like Russia dominating Eurasia. That would create a power that could challenge the United States. There were times that the Ukrainian crisis would have immediately piqued American interest. While some elements of the U.S. government, particularly in the State Department, did get deeply involved, the American public remained generally indifferent.
From a geopolitical point of view, the future of Ukraine as European or Russian helps shape the future of Eurasia. But from the standpoint of the American public, the future is far off and susceptible to interference. (Americans have heard of many things that could have become a major threat -- a few did, most didn't.) They were prepared to bet that Ukraine's future would not intersect with their lives. Ukraine matters more to Europeans than to Americans, and the United States' ability to really shape events is limited. It is far from clear what the issues are from an American point of view.
This is disconcerting from the standpoint of those who live outside the United States. They experienced the United States through the Cold War, the Clinton years and the post-9/11 era. The United States was deeply involved in everything. The world got used to that. Today, government officials are setting much higher standards for involvement, though not as high as those set by the American public. The constant presence of American power shaping regions far away to prevent the emergence of a threat, whether communist or Islamist, is declining. I spoke to a foreign diplomat who insisted the United States was weakening. I tried to explain that it is not weakness that dictates disengagement but indifference. He couldn't accept the idea that the United States has entered a period in which it really doesn't care what happens to his country. I refined that by saying that there are those in Washington that do care, but that it is their profession to care. The rest of the country doesn't see that it matters to them. The diplomat had lived in a time when everything mattered and all problems required an American position. American indifference is the most startling thing in the world for him.
This was the position of American isolationists of the early 20th century. ("Isolationist" admittedly was an extremely bad term, just as the alternative "internationalist" was a misleading phrase). The isolationists opposed involvement in Europe during World War II for a number of reasons. They felt that the European problem was European and that the Anglo-French alliance could cope with Germany. They did not see how U.S. intervention would bring enough power to bear to make a significant difference. They observed that sending a million men to France in World War I did not produce a permanently satisfactory outcome. The isolationists were willing to be involved in Asia, as is normally forgotten, but not in Europe.
I would not have been an isolationist, yet it is hard to see how an early American intervention would have changed the shape of the European war. France did not collapse because it was outnumbered. After France's collapse, it was unclear how much more the United States could have done for Britain than it did. The kinds of massive intervention that would have been necessary to change the early course of the war were impossible. It would have taken years of full mobilization to be practical, and who expected France to collapse in six weeks? Stalin was certainly surprised.
The isolationist period was followed, of course, by the war and the willingness of the United States to "pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty," in the words of John F. Kennedy. Until very recently, that sweeping statement was emblematic of U.S. foreign policy since 1941.
The current public indifference to foreign policy reflects that shift. But Washington's emerging foreign policy is not the systematic foreign policy of the pre-World War II period. It is an instrumental position, which can adapt to new circumstances and will likely be changed not over the course of decades but over the course of years or months. Nevertheless, at this moment, public indifference to foreign policy and even domestic events is strong. The sense that private life matters more than public is intense, and that means that Americans are concerned with things that are deemed frivolous by foreigners, academics and others who make their living in public and foreign policy. They care about some things, but are not prepared to care about all things. Of course, this overthrows Kennedy's pledge in its grandiosity and extremity, but not in its essence. Some burdens will be borne, so long as they serve American interests and not simply the interests of its allies.
Whether this sentiment is good or bad is debatable. To me, it is simply becoming a fact to be borne in mind. I would argue that it is a luxury, albeit a temporary one, conferred on Americans by geography. Americans might not be interested in the world, but the world is interested in Americans. Until this luxury comes to an end, the United States has ample assistant secretaries to give the impression that it cares. The United States will adjust to this period more easily than other governments, which expect the United States to be committed to undertaking any burden. That may come in the future. It won't come now. But history and the world go on, even overseas.
4a) Why Jordanians Worry about the Two-State Solution
by Shoshana Bryen
It has been said that Jordan is the only Arab country in which Palestinians have "full citizenship." That is less than a complete truth. As Secretary of State John Kerry pursues his plan for a "two state solution," the insecurity of Palestinian legal status in Jordan is emerging.
Israel's vociferous objection to removing the IDF from the Jordan River line in the West Bank is easy to understand. Maj. Gen. Ya'akov Amidror, former National Security Advisor said bluntly, "Only Israeli forces can make us sure that we will not find ourselves living with another Gaza Strip in Ramallah, which is five miles from the Israeli parliament in the city of Jerusalem. This is so important for us that we are not going to give it away."
The Jordanians, too, are adamant about rejecting the proposal. There is close security cooperation between the Israeli and Jordanian security services. The Jordanians are capable and dedicated to preventing infiltration of operatives and weapons into the West Bank through its territory. The Israelis are equally dedicated to border security along the Jordan River that helps keep the Kingdom secure.
But more is at work.
T
he estimable Arab-Israeli journalist Khalid Abu Toameh, senior fellow at the Gatestone Institute, reported this week that a group of retired Jordanian army generals issued a statement warning their government against accepting Kerry's proposals for fear that Palestinians would be "settled" in Jordan. "This is an American-Zionist plot to liquidate the Palestinian cause at the expense of Jordan."A Jordanian columnist wrote, "Jordan's politicians and parties want to alert the world that Jordan is playing host [to Palestinians] and Jordanians believe that Kerry is offering to turn Jordan into a Palestinian state."
MP Abdel Hadi Majali accused Kerry of "diluting the Jordanian national identity by dropping the right of return for Palestinians and granting them Jordanian citizenship."
Why would Israel want to replace its best friend in the Arab world–Jordan–with its worst enemy, a radical Palestinian State with the size, infrastructure, finances, weaponry and international legitimacy of the Kingdom?
It doesn't. The Jordanians are, in fact, reflecting a little-known fact of life east of the River: the shaky legal status of Jordanian Palestinians and the deep desire of East Bank non-Palestinians to be rid of them. A quick recap of Jordanian/Palestinian history:
1949: In the course of its war against Israeli independence, Jordan takes control of most of the area defined by the UN for a Palestinian Arab State.
1950: Jordan formally annexes the West Bank in a move only Britain and Pakistan recognize as legal. All Palestinians are considered Jordanian citizens.
1967: Jordan loses physical control of the West Bank and the people living there, but not the responsibility. The Jordanian Constitution says the West Bank remains part of Jordan.
1983: Jordan introduces color-coded travel cards for West Bank-origin Palestinians:
- Green for Palestinians still living on the West Bank;
- Yellow for Palestinians living on the East Bank, but with substantial material or family assets in the West Bank;
- Blue for Palestinians from Gaza who live in Jordan, essentially permitting them to live only in refugee camps with no political rights. (These cards had preceded the 1983 changes.)
1988: Jordan gives up legal interest in the West Bank and legal control of West Bank Palestinians. Green card holders become essentially stateless; the Jordanian government calls them citizens of "Palestine-in-waiting."
The status of Yellow Card holders is complicated. They can to live in Jordan, but are required to obtain all their documents – identity cards, marriage licenses, car registration, etc. – in the West Bank. This has led many to believe that if a Palestinian State emerges, they will be transferred there.
The closer worry appears to be that Green card holders, plus Palestinian refugees residing in third countries will flood the East Bank, or "Jordan proper." While admitting tens of thousands of Syrian refugees into Jordan, no Palestinian refugees have been permitted to cross the border.
There is no religious rivalry in Jordan as most people are Sunni, but there is a serious ethnic division.
While people of Palestinian origin make up approximately 60% of the residents of Jordan, East Bank non-Palestinians–who call themselves Trans-Jordanians–had seen themselves as the country's elite, serving at the highest echelon of government and the military (which is why retired military officers were part of the protest). The Palestinians, having had many government-related avenues closed to them, became more entrepreneurial. King Abdullah II, in an effort to strengthen the Jordanian economy, modernized the stock market and contract law, opened the Aqaba-Eilat Free Trade Zone with Israel, and introduced other incentives into the system. These primarily benefited Palestinians in business, alienating Trans Jordanians who were already "miffed" by the King's Palestinian wife.
Now the Trans Jordanians are further worried about being swamped by Palestinians from the West Bank and elsewhere, and the transformation of Jordan into the Palestinian State either by legal fiat or by demographic overload.
Jordanians reject Secretary Kerry's proposals because they are only "playing host" to Palestinians who they believe should not be not full citizens. And they believe only the IDF, not the U.S. or the UN, will protect them from an unwelcome influx of more.
4b) It’s the Iranian Constitution, Stupid
by BILL SIEGEL
Announcing the November 24th agreement between Iran and the P5 plus 1, President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry repeatedly touted that the world is now safer. As Neville Chamberlain, ridiculed by Adolph Hitler as "that silly old man," eventually found out, it was the leadership, not the piece of paper, that determined his country's fate. The same applies to today's Iranian regime.
4b) It’s the Iranian Constitution, Stupid
by BILL SIEGEL
Announcing the November 24th agreement between Iran and the P5 plus 1, President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry repeatedly touted that the world is now safer. As Neville Chamberlain, ridiculed by Adolph Hitler as "that silly old man," eventually found out, it was the leadership, not the piece of paper, that determined his country's fate. The same applies to today's Iranian regime.
There is, however, one piece of paper that should be trusted for what it says- the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran, including its expository preamble. It is beyond perplexing that among the "expert" analyses and media reports about Iran, there is rarely any exploration of the principles that underlie the Islamic Republic's policies.
The preamble of the 1979 (as amended in 1989) Constitution recaps the roots of the Iranian Revolution. It cites that previous revolutionary attempts to defeat the "despotic rule" of the Shah's White Revolution backed by "world imperialism" failed because they lacked an ideological basis and Islamic nature. Those prior periods produced a "streamline motive" for "militant and committed Muslims both within the country and abroad" (italics added). The subsequent takeover by the Ayatollah Khomeini institutionalized the initiation of the "process of intellectual and ideological evolution towards the final goal, i.e. movement towards Allah." Its mission is to "realize the ideological objectives of the movement and to create conditions conducive to the development of man in accordance with the noble and universal values of Islam."
The document references the cries of the people for "Independence! Freedom! Islamic Government!" These words, used differently here than in the West, reference the desire to be independent of non-Islamic rule and to be free to pursue the path of Allah. As the preamble states, "the Constitution will strive with other Islamic and popular movements to prepare the way for the formation of a single world community (in accordance with the Koranic verse ‘This your community is a single community, and I am your Lord, so worship Me' [21:92]), and to assure the continuation of the struggle for the liberation of all deprived and oppressed peoples in the world.."
The Iranian regime is dedicated to these principles and, ultimately, to establish a worldwide Islamic community which is the ultimate goal of its expression of Islam. While our diplomats and media "experts" try to cast at least some members of the regime, such as newly elected President Hassan Rouhani and negotiating partner Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, as "moderates" and "pragmatics," the Constitution demonstrates there is an Islamic foundation for all the regime does. Failure to recognize this ideological framework in a nuclear age will likely lead to even greater calamity than Chamberlain helped facilitate.
And as Iran's Revolutionary Guards have become the primary stewards of the nation's economy, we must look at the provisions within the Constitution that underlie its foundation. The preamble states, "In the formation and equipping of the country's defence forces, due attention must be paid to faith and ideology as the basic criteria. Accordingly, the Army of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps are to be organized in conformity with this goal, and they will be responsible not only for guarding and preserving the frontiers of the country, but also for fulfilling the ideological mission of jihad in God's way; that is, extending the sovereignty of God's law throughout the world (this in accordance with the Koranic verse ‘Prepare against them whatever force you are able to muster, and strings of horses, striking fear into the enemy of God and your enemy, and others besides them'[8:60])"(italics added).
Note that the goal is global- the worldwide extension of jihad. The preamble states, "With due attention to the Islamic content of the Iranian Revolution, the Constitution provides the necessary basis for ensuring the continuation of the Revolution at home and abroad" (italics added).Guarding the Revolution is as offensive as it is defensive. Later, in Article 150, the Revolutionary Guards are tasked with "guarding the revolution and its achievements." Any notion that this unit will transform into a more cooperative Westernized organization is wishful thinking. Against whom are they guarding? The forces of "imperialism" and "foreign domination" which in all cases refers to the US. Note also that, contrary to those Muslims apologists who argue that Koranic verses should interpreted solely as guidance for the historical events in Mohammad's time period, this Constitution uses these verses timelessly, to apply to today's events as well as the future.
This global reach is further claimed in the Article 3 stated goal of "framing the foreign policy of the country on the basis of Islamic criteria, fraternal commitment to all Muslims, and unsparing support to the freedom fighters of the world." Article 11 cites the Koranic verse, "This your community is a single community, and I am your Lord, so worship Me" [21:92] and continues that the government "must constantly strive to bring about the political, economic, and cultural unity of the Islamic world."
Further, the preamble states that the Constitution was framed "with the hope that this century will witness the establishment of a universal holy government and the downfall of all others" (italics added). While the goal was not reached by the end of the 20th Century, the regime and its nuclear program can only be seen as actively trying to make up for lost time.
The General Principles section states that the Islamic Republic is based on belief, in part, in "the return to God in the Hereafter, and the constructive role of this belief in the course of man's ascent towards God." This reflects the Twelver Ja'fari Shiite school's (designated as the "official" and "eternally immutable" religion and principles of Iran in Article 12) desire to witness the return of the Twelfth Imam and is consistent with the claim of many that the key movers in the regime, including Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, believe that it is their duty to bring about the chaos necessary to cause the Imam to come forward out of his current Occultation. While the office of President is powerful, all branches of the government function "under the supervision of the absolute religious Leader and the Leadership of the Ummah..."
It is also important to note that a catalytic event to most Islamic concepts concerning the return of the Mahdi (read for these purposes Messiah) is that the last Jew is killed. Based on a famous Hadith of Mohammad, this notion is thoroughly consistent with the hatred of Jews deeply entrenched throughout the Koran, Islamic law and primary teachings throughout Islamic history. The constant call for the destruction of Israel and the Jews is not simple ranting to please some presumed fanatical Iranian domestic audience. (Much of that domestic population allegedly seeks a civilized relationship with the West and Israel). Rather, it represents a critical foundational goal of the principles institutionalized throughout the Constitution. The Jews, along with Israel and the imperialist US are necessary foes critical to the structure of this ideology for there must be enemies that account for the delay in reaching a worldwide Islamic community. Failure to recognize it as such only more dangerously entrenches the West's willful blindness.
While the negotiations between the West and Iran focus on how many centrifuges, if any, should be allowed to spin, to what degree uranium may be enriched, what portion of plutonium reactors can be left operative and so forth, the glaring principles that motivate the regime are overlooked. To be clear, the US is at war with the Islamic Republic and has been for over three decades. This is not because it chooses to be but because the regime has declared it so and has acted to the best of its relative power to prosecute that war. The US recently has been able to avert its eyes, in part because a cowardly liberal press has repeatedly declared it "war weary" so often that polls regurgitate the ingested narrative in an endless loop. Consequently, the public "conversation" has narrowed the scope of alternatives considered to range between some agreement such as the November 24th interim arrangement and military action to bomb nuclear sites. Narrower yet, while Obama asserts that "all options are on the table," he clearly will never seat himself at that end of the table. Still, even successful bombing will only yield temporary relief.
Meanwhile, the regime understands that there is nothing it can extract today through negotiation that it will not be able to obtain with exponentially more once it acquires nuclear weapons- other than the time necessary to complete those weapons. Nuclear weapons will uniquely empower the regime to "guard" and globally "extend" its revolution and seek the "downfall of all others" as its Constitution instructs. Due to in part to Western negligence and weakness, the regime has been fortunate to come so close to its goal. It will not forfeit this opportunity to substantially advance its foundational ideological pursuit.
Instead, not only must this regime be prevented at all costs from obtaining nuclear weapons, it must be dismantled along with its Constitution. Whether we face it now or not, regime change, preferably through some peaceful internal political process, is ultimately the only appropriate policy. "Expert" references to "containment" and "mutually assured destruction" ultimately amount to surrender on our part. As the Constitution shows, it is the ideology and mission, not the weapons, which truly threaten.
Unfortunately, Obama appears to be moving in precisely the opposite direction. The only regimes he seeks to dismantle, besides the sanctions regime that forced Iran into negotiations in the first place, are those of our former allies such as Egypt's Hosni Mubarak. He now seems destined to turn Iran into his critical ally (as he has done with the Muslim Brotherhood), while concurrently turning our key allies into foes. Simultaneously, Obama is neutering critical ally Israel by making an Israeli raid on Iranian nuclear sites nearly impossible, politically and practicably, to execute. Worse, as the Jerusalem Post's Caroline Glick has pointed out, Obama appears headed toward pressuring Israel to accept a destructive agreement on a Palestinian state and, down the road, to disclose and forfeit any nuclear arsenal it might possess.
There is no margin for error left in preventing the regime's pursuit of nuclear weapons. Anything short of fighting this war and bringing about the end of the leadership of the Islamic Republic along with its system of government will lead to global disaster as this regime, empowered with nuclear weapons, will have the edge in fulfilling the goals and Islamic principles which bred its Constitution. Just as the West ignored Hitler's Mein Kampf as well as the writings of other 20th Century totalitarian and terrorist leaders that thoroughly outlined future intentions, shame on us if we do not thoroughly absorb the threat as stated so clearly in this document.
Bill Siegel is the author of The Control Factor - Our Struggle to See the True Threat published by Hamilton Books.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5)If you ever lived in snow—
December 8: 6:00 PM.
It started to snow. The first snow of the season and the wife and I took our cocktails and sat for hours by the window watching the huge soft flakes drift down from heaven. It looked like a Grandma Moses Print. So romantic we felt like newlyweds again. I love snow!
December 9:
We woke to a beautiful blanket of crystal white snow covering every inch of the landscape. What a fantastic sight! Can there be a more lovely place in the Whole World? Moving here was the best idea I've ever had. Shoveled for the first time in years, felt like a boy again. I did both our driveway and the sidewalks. This afternoon the snowplow came along and covered up the sidewalks and closed in the driveway, so I got to shovel again. What a perfect life.
December 12:
The sun has melted all our lovely snow. Such a disappointment. My neighbor tells me not to worry, we'll definitely have a white Christmas. No snow on Christmas would be awful! Bob says we'll have so much snow by the end of winter, that I'll never want to see snow again. I don't think that's possible. Bob is such a nice man, I'm glad he's our neighbor.
December 14:
Snow, lovely snow! 8" last night. The temperature dropped to -20. The cold makes everything sparkle so. The wind took my breath away, but I warmed up by shoveling the driveway and sidewalks. This is the life! The snowplow came back this afternoon and buried everything again. I didn't realize I would have to do quite this much shoveling, but I'll certainly get back in shape this way. I wish I wouldn't huff and puff so.
December 15:
20 inches forecast. Sold my van and bought a 4x4 Blazer. Bought snow tires for the wife's car and two extra shovels. Stocked the freezer. The wife wants a wood stove in case the electricity goes out. I think that's silly. We are not in Alaska, after all.
December 16:
Ice storm this morning. Fell on the ice in the driveway putting down salt. Hurt like hell. The wife laughed for an hour, which I think was very cruel.
December 17:
Still way below freezing. Roads are too icy to go anywhere. Electricity was off for five hours. I had to pile the blankets on to stay warm. Nothing to do but stare at the wife and try not to irritate her. Guess I should've bought a wood stove, but won't admit it to her. God I hate it when she's right. I can't believe I'm freezing to death in my own living room.
December 20:
Electricity's back on, but had another 14" of the darn stuff last night. More shoveling. Took all day. Goshdarn snowplow came by twice. Tried to find a neighbor kid to shovel, but they said they're too busy playing hockey. I think they're lying. Called the only hardware store around to see about buying a snow blower, and they're out. Might have another shipment in March. I think they're lying. Bob says I have to shovel or the city will have it done and bill me. I think he's lying.
December 22:
Bob was right about a white Christmas, because 13 more inches of the white stuff fell today, and it's so cold it probably won't melt 'til August. Took me 45 minutes to get all dressed up to go out to shovel, and then I had to pee. By the time I got undressed, peed and dressed again, I was too tired to shovel! Tried to hire Bob, who has a plow on his truck, for the rest of the winter; but he says he's too busy. I think he is lying.
December 23:
Only 2" of snow today, and it warmed up to "0". The wife wanted me to decorate the front of the house this morning. What, is she nuts!!! Why didn't she tell me to do that a month ago? She says she did, but I think she's lying.
December 24:
6" Snow packed so hard by snowplow, I broke the shovel. Thought I was having a heart attack. If I ever catch the son-of-a-gun who drives that snowplow, I'll drag him through the snow and beat him to death with my broken shovel. I know he hides around the corner and waits for me to finish shoveling and then he comes down the street at a 100 miles an hour and throws snow all over everywhere I've just been! Tonight the wife wanted me to sing Christmas carols with her and open our presents, but I was too busy watching for the snowplow.
December 25:
Merry Christmas. 20 more inches of the !=3D@x@!x!x1 slop tonight. Snowed in. The idea of shoveling makes my blood boil. Gosh, I hate the snow! Then the snowplow driver came by asking for a donation and I smacked him. The wife says I have a bad attitude. I think she's a freeking idiot. If I have to watch "It's a Wonderful Life" one more time, I'm going to stuff her into the microwave.
December 26:
Still snowed in. Why the heck did I ever move here? It was all HER idea. She's really getting on my nerves.
December 27:
Temperature dropped to -10, and the pipes froze. Plumber came after 14 hours of waiting for him; he only charged me $1,400 to replace all my pipes.
December 28:
Warmed up to above -5. Still snowed in. The WITCH is driving me crazy!!!!!
December 29:
10 more inches. Bob says I have to shovel the roof or it could cave in. That's the silliest thing I ever heard. How dumb does he think I am?
December 30:
Roof caved in. I yelled at the snow plow driver (called him a few choice names). He is now suing me for a million dollars; not for only the names I called him, but also for trying to shove the broken snow shovel up his …. The wife went home to her mother. 9" predicted.
December 31:
I set fire to what's left of the house! No more shoveling!!
January 8:
Feel so good. I just love those little white pills they keep giving me. Why am I tied to the bed?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment