Once again the in-box is brimming full and needs to be emptied to make room for more directed posts in the future. Included under old business will be the first two which were triggered by last week's FEEDBACK post on health care and taxes.
American Health Care: Thanks to one of my good doctor friends with whom I have an on-going exchange on a variety of subjects, he has provided me with the following statistics compiled by the United Nations International Health Organization which makes one once again ponder the question of whether our health care system is "the finest in the world".
1. Percentage of men and women who survived a cancer five years after diagnosis: U.S. - 65%, England - 46% and Canada - 42%.
2. Percentage of patients diagnosed with diabetes who received treatment within six months: U.S. - 93%, England - 15% and Canada 43%.
3. Percentage of seniors needing hip replacement who received it within six months: U.S. - 90%, England - 15% and Canada 43%.
4. Percentage referred to a medical specialist who see one within one month: U.S. - 77%, England - 40% and Canada - 43%.
5. Number of MRI scanners (a prime diagnostic tool) per million people: U.S. 71%, England - 14% and Canada - 18%.
6. Percentage of seniors (65+), with low income, who say they are in "excellent health": U.S. - 12%, England - 2% and Canada - 6%.
When compared with only two other countries on these six criteria, we obviously rate very high, but what about the rest of the world and the many other factors which need to be considered in making this evaluation?
Taxes and Wealth: I am not sure how many went to the link provided by another good friend who posted his comment, but it has a wealth (no pun intended) of information that I found very interesting, but too lengthy to summarize here. Instead, go read the full report "Who Rules America" at http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html.
Elitism: With all of the anger against what some activists on the right call the "elite" of our society only because of their broad intellect and excellent educations at some of our finest universities, I wonder if they have any problem with a small group of conservatives who come from that wealthiest segment of our society, capsulated in the above referenced report, who supposedly will be meeting in California to decide on the destiny of our country as seen through their gilded prism. How elite is that?
Process: One of the interesting facts about watching Sunday morning news shows is that if you wait long enough someone on one network will eventually say something with which you agree that totally contradicts an earlier comment by someone else on another network with which you disagree. Call it balance. Today's subject was "process" in the context of government operations. One talking head on ABC surmised that "No one cares about process", while another talking head on NBC had a "firm belief in process". With almost fifteen years in public service I can say with a high degree of certitude that "process" does matter. Often times it is the only thing that matters, because if the electorate are part of a well established, open and transparent process to determine public policy, they will more often than not buy into the final decision whether it succeeds or fails. I learned the hard way that those public entities which choose to conduct their affairs in secret among a select few will bear the price of such arrogance. The recent revelations about the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission are a case in point.
What Are You?: Thanks again to my good doctor friend mentioned above, I received a link to a really interesting and fun link at http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz where you can take a quick test termed the World's Smallest Political Quiz that helps you determine your political identity if you do not already know it. You might be truly surprised. I was.
Will, I Hardly Knew Ye: Last week while in New York I had the unexpected pleasure of being invited to a screening of a documentary film on Will Barnet, a famous American painter who in 1992 gave 75 pieces of work to the Arkansas Arts Center. The invitation came from my old friend, Tinka, with whom I reconnected in August (re: my post RECONNECTIONS of 08-29-2010), and who was central to its production. While there, I had the added pleasure of meeting Will, who is up in years but still very active, and his lovely and gracious wife, Elena. As a result I have added the following link to his marvelous work at http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&expIds=17259,17315,23628,23670,24472,25834,26095,26328,26562,26637,26761,26790,26849,26992,27095,27126,27139,27147,27178&sugexp=ldymls&xhr=t&q=will+barnet&cp=9&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=univ&ei=xpfETMT1O4L6lwf66ugE&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=2&sqi=2&ved=0CEkQsAQwAQ&biw=1350&bih=501 to the list of featured artists below. Please go there and enjoy!
Growing national debt still at http://usdebtclock.org.
ARTISTS
Laura Raborn at http://paintingsofhome.com and http://claygifts.com
Jim Johnson at http://yessy.com/jimjohnson/gallery.html
Russ Powell at http://powellphotos.com
Linda Flake at http://lindaflake.com
Tom Herrin at http://tommysart.blogspot.com
Matt McLeod at http://matt@mattmcleod.com
Artists Registry at http://www.arkansasarts.org/programs/registry/default.aspx
Sandy Hubler Fine Art at http://sandyhublerfineart.com
George Wittenberg at http://postcard-art-gallery.com
Will Barnet at http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&expIds=17259,17315,23628,23670,24472,25834,26095,26328,26562,26637,26761,26790,26849,26992,27095,27126,27139,27147,27178&sugexp=ldymls&xhr=t&q=will+barnet&cp=9&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=univ&ei=xpfETMT1O4L6lwf66ugE&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=2&sqi=2&ved=0CEkQsAQwAQ&biw=1350&bih=501
GALLERIES
Local Colour Gallery at http://localcolourgallery.com
Chroma Gallery at http://chromagallery.com
Cantrell Gallery at http://cantrellgallery.com
Greg Thompson Fine Art at http://gregthompsonfineart.com
Red Door Gallery at http://reddoorgalleryonline.com
M2 Gallery at http://m2lr.com
UALR Gallery Program at http://ualr.edu/art
Gallery 26 at http://gallery26.com
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Feedback
Since one never knows exactly what the general reaction to these weekly posts is, as they may go unread, be quickly discarded or sent to Spam, reply e-mails and published comments are always welcomed and appreciated. However, when readers go to the trouble to mail printed documentation to either support or refute a point made in my postings, it signals that I have hit a nerve. Such was the case recently when issue was taken with my thoughts on heath care ("American Health Care - Laudatory But Extravagant" on 09/06/10) and taxes ("Ironies of Ironies" on 09/26/10).
In the first instance, my dear friend Judy was quick to challenge my statement that our health care system "was the finest in the world". To support her thesis that it is not, she sent me a copy of an article by T.R. Reid from the August 23, 2009, edition of The Washington Post entitled "5 Myths About Health Care Around the World" which are summarized below based on the author's worldly travels, with #5 presenting the most salient argument against the above characterization.
1. It's all socialized medicine out there. Not so.
2. Overseas, care is rationed through limited choices or long lines. Generally no.
3. Foreign health-care systems are inefficient, bloated bureaucracies. Much less so than here.
4. Cost controls stifle innovation. False.
5 Health care has to be cruel. Not really. Here the author concludes that due to the patch-work for profit nature of our health care system in the U.S. compared to others around the world, which are designed "only to pay people's medical bills", we have ended up with a system that "punctures the most persistent myth of all that America has the finest health care in the world". The rationale is that "almost all advanced countries have better national health care statistics than the United States where "700,000 Americans are forced into bankruptcy each year because of medical bills". My definition was more centered on physical facilities, doctors and technology with no consideration as to the cost burden, but you be the judge.
Now to taxes, a more complex and arcane subject to debate. Another old and dear friend, Charlie, sent me a packet of graphs, statistics and newspaper articles that I am still digesting, but I think his main rebuttal is that based on the latest IRS tax data of 2007, which predates the latest economic downtown, the top one percent of taxpayers paid over 40% of the federal income taxes collected, the highest among all groups, even though it was at an average effective tax rate of only 22.45% (see comment on effective versus applied tax rates below). Further, this data also points out that the top 50% of all taxpayers paid over 97% of all taxes collected, with the bottom half paying only 3% of the total taxes at an effective tax rate rate of the same 3%. So what? Isn't that the purpose of a progressive income tax schedule - i.e. for higher income earners to pay a higher rate of tax? That is exactly Warren Buffett's argument which was referenced in the Irony of Ironies blog of September 26th. Also, the above data just confirm another point made in that same blog that the effective tax rate paid by the wealthy is much lower than the applied tax rate because of tax credits and deductions allowable under the tax code. However, if you go to their website at http://taxfoundation.org you will see that based on the most current data of 2008 that previous 40% of total tax paid by the top 1% dropped to 38%.
Another point made by my friend came from an article by Walter Williams in the October 5th issue from I assume the Wall Street Journal, his favorite publication, that makes the case that all corporate tax increases and policies which restrict capital formation ultimately hit the middle class in the form of either increased prices, reduced dividends or layoffs. Consequently, Mr. Williams' opinion is that capital gains taxes, low depreciation and corporate taxes do not "serve the interests of workers, investors and consumers", and, therefore, we might be "much richer" without them. He may be right if getting rich is the main purpose in life, but what's not mentioned in that article are the other alternatives corporations have to the three options he mentions including reducing extraordinarily high executive compensation which is now a reportedly 300 times that of the average worker, curbing extravagant and unnecessary business expenditures and investing some of the trillions of dollars they have now accumulated in R&D and new technologies to enhance productivity.
All of this is to say that health care and taxes are tough issues to get one's head around, and there are many differing opinions as to the best approach for structuring both.
Growing national debt still at http://usdebtclock.org.
ARTISTS
Laura Raborn at http://paintingsofhome.com and http://claygifts.com
Jim Johnson at http://yessy.com/jimjohnson/gallery.html
Russ Powell at http://powellphotos.com
Linda Flake at http://lindaflake.com
Tom Herrin at http://tommysart.blogspot.com
Matt McLeod at http://matt@mattmcleod.com
Artists Registry at http://www.arkansasarts.org/programs/registry/default.aspx
Sandy Hubler Fine Art at http://sandyhublerfineart.com
George Wittenberg at http://postcard-art-gallery.com
GALLERIES
Local Colour Gallery at http://localcolourgallery.com
Chroma Gallery at http://chromagallery.com
Cantrell Gallery at http://cantrellgallery.com
Greg Thompson Fine Art at http://gregthompsonfineart.com
Red Door Gallery at http://reddoorgalleryonline.com
M2 Gallery at http://m2lr.com
UALR Gallery Program at http://ualr.edu/art
Gallery 26 at http://gallery26.com
In the first instance, my dear friend Judy was quick to challenge my statement that our health care system "was the finest in the world". To support her thesis that it is not, she sent me a copy of an article by T.R. Reid from the August 23, 2009, edition of The Washington Post entitled "5 Myths About Health Care Around the World" which are summarized below based on the author's worldly travels, with #5 presenting the most salient argument against the above characterization.
1. It's all socialized medicine out there. Not so.
2. Overseas, care is rationed through limited choices or long lines. Generally no.
3. Foreign health-care systems are inefficient, bloated bureaucracies. Much less so than here.
4. Cost controls stifle innovation. False.
5 Health care has to be cruel. Not really. Here the author concludes that due to the patch-work for profit nature of our health care system in the U.S. compared to others around the world, which are designed "only to pay people's medical bills", we have ended up with a system that "punctures the most persistent myth of all that America has the finest health care in the world". The rationale is that "almost all advanced countries have better national health care statistics than the United States where "700,000 Americans are forced into bankruptcy each year because of medical bills". My definition was more centered on physical facilities, doctors and technology with no consideration as to the cost burden, but you be the judge.
Now to taxes, a more complex and arcane subject to debate. Another old and dear friend, Charlie, sent me a packet of graphs, statistics and newspaper articles that I am still digesting, but I think his main rebuttal is that based on the latest IRS tax data of 2007, which predates the latest economic downtown, the top one percent of taxpayers paid over 40% of the federal income taxes collected, the highest among all groups, even though it was at an average effective tax rate of only 22.45% (see comment on effective versus applied tax rates below). Further, this data also points out that the top 50% of all taxpayers paid over 97% of all taxes collected, with the bottom half paying only 3% of the total taxes at an effective tax rate rate of the same 3%. So what? Isn't that the purpose of a progressive income tax schedule - i.e. for higher income earners to pay a higher rate of tax? That is exactly Warren Buffett's argument which was referenced in the Irony of Ironies blog of September 26th. Also, the above data just confirm another point made in that same blog that the effective tax rate paid by the wealthy is much lower than the applied tax rate because of tax credits and deductions allowable under the tax code. However, if you go to their website at http://taxfoundation.org you will see that based on the most current data of 2008 that previous 40% of total tax paid by the top 1% dropped to 38%.
Another point made by my friend came from an article by Walter Williams in the October 5th issue from I assume the Wall Street Journal, his favorite publication, that makes the case that all corporate tax increases and policies which restrict capital formation ultimately hit the middle class in the form of either increased prices, reduced dividends or layoffs. Consequently, Mr. Williams' opinion is that capital gains taxes, low depreciation and corporate taxes do not "serve the interests of workers, investors and consumers", and, therefore, we might be "much richer" without them. He may be right if getting rich is the main purpose in life, but what's not mentioned in that article are the other alternatives corporations have to the three options he mentions including reducing extraordinarily high executive compensation which is now a reportedly 300 times that of the average worker, curbing extravagant and unnecessary business expenditures and investing some of the trillions of dollars they have now accumulated in R&D and new technologies to enhance productivity.
All of this is to say that health care and taxes are tough issues to get one's head around, and there are many differing opinions as to the best approach for structuring both.
Growing national debt still at http://usdebtclock.org.
ARTISTS
Laura Raborn at http://paintingsofhome.com and http://claygifts.com
Jim Johnson at http://yessy.com/jimjohnson/gallery.html
Russ Powell at http://powellphotos.com
Linda Flake at http://lindaflake.com
Tom Herrin at http://tommysart.blogspot.com
Matt McLeod at http://matt@mattmcleod.com
Artists Registry at http://www.arkansasarts.org/programs/registry/default.aspx
Sandy Hubler Fine Art at http://sandyhublerfineart.com
George Wittenberg at http://postcard-art-gallery.com
GALLERIES
Local Colour Gallery at http://localcolourgallery.com
Chroma Gallery at http://chromagallery.com
Cantrell Gallery at http://cantrellgallery.com
Greg Thompson Fine Art at http://gregthompsonfineart.com
Red Door Gallery at http://reddoorgalleryonline.com
M2 Gallery at http://m2lr.com
UALR Gallery Program at http://ualr.edu/art
Gallery 26 at http://gallery26.com
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Reeling in the Big Ones
On November 2nd the voters of Arkansas will once again be asked to address the issue of providing government incentives to attract businesses to our state under the auspices of creating jobs by modifying the existing language of Amendment 82 passed in 2004. The tag line in this morning's ADMZ labeled it "Toss business-lure rules, voters urged". Specifically, under proposed Issue 3, the current requirement that target companies spend at least $500 million in capital expenditures and create at least 500 new jobs would be eliminated, thus allowing greater flexibility in appealing to a wider range of businesses, as few companies can meet the above criteria. The exact language can be found at http://votenaturally.org/2010_elections/hjr1007.html.
While such corporate subsidies have been used successfully in Arkansas, as well as surrounding states, I have always been struck by the irony of how readily corporations are to accept these gifts, more commonly termed "incentives", from the taxpayers while at the same time the business world in general seems to always decry taxes of any kind. In addition some of these arrangements appear to be disproportionate to the size of the investment. For example, it was recently announced that the City of Fort Smith is getting ready to pony up $80 million in incentives including bonds and infrastructure improvements, to attract a $100 million wind turbine plant. Gosh, what business wouldn't love to have that same level of help. And then there is the validity of the impact studies themselves that are made to justify these commitments which, we assume, are based on realistic and supportable data. Since there is virtually no public transparency about these deals, even though public funds are used to finance them, it's impossible to know. (This same argument was made for government contributions to local Chambers of Commerce in great detail in an April 4th article in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, but that's a possible issue for another day). The absence of transparency is, in fact, exactly why the Arkansas Public Policy Panel refuses to take a position on Issue 3. And, finally, what follow-up is made after these funds are expended to verify those impact studies, and what happens if the level of job creation on which they were based does not materialize? Or what happens if there are general employment layoffs after the fact as has occurred during this economic downturn? Does the state get its money back? Also, there are the contemporaneous "incentives" from cities and counties which historically are offered, too, which need the same level of scrutiny and safeguards, not to mention the $1.6 trillion in cash corporations are now sitting on which raises the question of why they even need financial help in the first place.
No one, including me, will argue with the need for governments at all level (i.e. city, county and state) to create a business friendly environment to attract companies and create jobs. My only point is that the taxpayers within those government locals need to be assured that the highest level of economic justification is made before doling out those dollars, as well as a continued assessment of that investment to ensure that all job creation benefits actually accrue to the city, county and/or state as proposed. If not, then there should be a mechanism to recoup that taxpayer investment, in my view. That said, I am confident that Issue 3 will no doubt pass, as the need to keep up with the competition and pressure to address employment issues are simply too great.
ARTISTS
Laura Raborn at http://paintingsofhome.com and http://claygifts.com
Jim Johnson at http://yessy.com/jimjohnson/gallery.html
Russ Powell at http://powellphotos.com
Linda Flake at http://lindaflake.com
Tom Herrin at http://tommysart.blogspot.com
Matt McLeod at http://matt@mattmcleod.com
Artists Registry at http://www.arkansasarts.org/programs/registry/default.aspx
Sandy Hubler Fine Art at http://sandyhublerfineart.com
George Wittenberg at http://postcard-art-gallery.com
GALLERIES
Local Colour Gallery at http://localcolourgallery.com
Chroma Gallery at http://chromagallery.com
Cantrell Gallery at http://cantrellgallery.com
Greg Thompson Fine Art at http://gregthompsonfineart.com
Red Door Gallery at http://reddoorgalleryonline.com
M2 Gallery at http://m2lr.com
UALR Gallery Program at http://ualr.edu/art
Gallery 26 at http://gallery26.com
While such corporate subsidies have been used successfully in Arkansas, as well as surrounding states, I have always been struck by the irony of how readily corporations are to accept these gifts, more commonly termed "incentives", from the taxpayers while at the same time the business world in general seems to always decry taxes of any kind. In addition some of these arrangements appear to be disproportionate to the size of the investment. For example, it was recently announced that the City of Fort Smith is getting ready to pony up $80 million in incentives including bonds and infrastructure improvements, to attract a $100 million wind turbine plant. Gosh, what business wouldn't love to have that same level of help. And then there is the validity of the impact studies themselves that are made to justify these commitments which, we assume, are based on realistic and supportable data. Since there is virtually no public transparency about these deals, even though public funds are used to finance them, it's impossible to know. (This same argument was made for government contributions to local Chambers of Commerce in great detail in an April 4th article in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, but that's a possible issue for another day). The absence of transparency is, in fact, exactly why the Arkansas Public Policy Panel refuses to take a position on Issue 3. And, finally, what follow-up is made after these funds are expended to verify those impact studies, and what happens if the level of job creation on which they were based does not materialize? Or what happens if there are general employment layoffs after the fact as has occurred during this economic downturn? Does the state get its money back? Also, there are the contemporaneous "incentives" from cities and counties which historically are offered, too, which need the same level of scrutiny and safeguards, not to mention the $1.6 trillion in cash corporations are now sitting on which raises the question of why they even need financial help in the first place.
No one, including me, will argue with the need for governments at all level (i.e. city, county and state) to create a business friendly environment to attract companies and create jobs. My only point is that the taxpayers within those government locals need to be assured that the highest level of economic justification is made before doling out those dollars, as well as a continued assessment of that investment to ensure that all job creation benefits actually accrue to the city, county and/or state as proposed. If not, then there should be a mechanism to recoup that taxpayer investment, in my view. That said, I am confident that Issue 3 will no doubt pass, as the need to keep up with the competition and pressure to address employment issues are simply too great.
ARTISTS
Laura Raborn at http://paintingsofhome.com and http://claygifts.com
Jim Johnson at http://yessy.com/jimjohnson/gallery.html
Russ Powell at http://powellphotos.com
Linda Flake at http://lindaflake.com
Tom Herrin at http://tommysart.blogspot.com
Matt McLeod at http://matt@mattmcleod.com
Artists Registry at http://www.arkansasarts.org/programs/registry/default.aspx
Sandy Hubler Fine Art at http://sandyhublerfineart.com
George Wittenberg at http://postcard-art-gallery.com
GALLERIES
Local Colour Gallery at http://localcolourgallery.com
Chroma Gallery at http://chromagallery.com
Cantrell Gallery at http://cantrellgallery.com
Greg Thompson Fine Art at http://gregthompsonfineart.com
Red Door Gallery at http://reddoorgalleryonline.com
M2 Gallery at http://m2lr.com
UALR Gallery Program at http://ualr.edu/art
Gallery 26 at http://gallery26.com
Monday, October 4, 2010
WOW! WOW! WOW! WOW!
"WOW!" That was the expression used by Lesley Stahl in her interview with the departed commander in Iraq, Gen. Raymond Odierno, on 60 MINUTES yesterday when he told her that "it is yet to be determined" whether Iran will become the biggest beneficiary of the Iraq war. This was after it was reported in the New York Times that the newest attempt to form a coalition government in Iraq now includes the supporters of Moktada al-Sadar against whom American and Iraqi troops fought so violently in 2007, and who the current administration feels would have strong ties with Iran, thus increasing their influence in Iraq. So, after seven years, 4,500+ lives lost, no telling how many hundreds of billions of dollars spent and a Middle East now more fragile than ever, we learn that the very country we would least want to rise in influence in that region is now on the verge of doing that very thing. I agree - WOW!
As that conflict supposedly winds down with the largest movement of troops and material since WWII, we find just the reverse in the war de jour - Afghanistan, geographically separated from Iraq by only one country. Guess who? Iran. Just this past weekend I was privileged to hear an officer in our armed forces, who had just returned from Afghanistan, describe first hand what's going on there. Obviously, we all know about the surge which brings with it another significant movement of troops and material, but under much more difficult circumstances than moving out of Iraq including weather, lack of infrastructure in many places, multi-tribalism, corruption and the absence of a strong central government. What was news to me, however, is the apparent fragmentation and friction among our individual "coalition" forces (e.g. Britain, Germany, Italy, etc.), as well as with NATO itself. Much like Berlin after WWII, the country has been divvied up between coalition forces where each force is responsible for its own sector to the extent that there are sometimes even communication problems between these forces, caused not by language barriers but, rather, hardware incompatibility. While hopeful, this young man did not seem very encouraged by his experience. So, at a time we are winding down in one theater where the measure of success is very much in doubt, we're cranking it up in another where there may be even less chance to achieve a meaningful purpose, particularly if we continue to alienate Pakistan. This was another WOW moment for me.
And then there was the report in yesterday's Arkansas Democrat-Gazette by David Zucchino of the Los Angeles Times that the U.S. military is now going "back to basics" and concentrate on fighting big wars. To quote that article: "Drained of grueling efforts to win over civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, the military is refocusing on fighting and killing the enemy, not nation-building". In the words of Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, "The United States is unlikely to repeat a mission on the scale of those in Iraq or Afghanistan anytime soon. Instead, U.S. forces will probably be called on to help other countries' armies defend themselves, particularly against terrorist attacks, but also against conventional armies". To further quote Lawrence Korb, Assistant Secretary of Defense, "We aren't going to be doing counterinsurgency again.... We're not good at it". WOW again! What a great time to figure that out, just as we today absorb the latest travel alert for Americans going anywhere in Europe as a direct result of another more general terrorist threat.
And, finally, while we have been bogged down with these two conflicts for almost a decade, excluding Iraq 1, we now learn that China has cornered the market on rare-earth oxides that are essential in building the very arms necessary for our defense weapons to fight these wars, as well as building electric vehicles and wind turbines, both elements of our transition to a green economy. And this latest revelation is on top of them buying up all of the conventional minerals they can world-wide, purchasing billions of dollars of our debt, manufacturing a slew of our imported products which are apparently subsidized with currency manipulation and more recently slapping a tariff on our poultry exported to China. WOW! WOW! WOW! WOW! We need to get "back to basics" all right, but in more ways than one, in my view.
ARTISTS
Laura Raborn at http://paintingsofhome.com and http://claygifts.com
Jim Johnson at http://yessy.com/jimjohnson/gallery.html
Russ Powell at http://powellphotos.com
Linda Flake at http://lindaflake.com
Tom Herrin at http://tommysart.blogspot.com
Matt McLeod at http://matt@mattmcleod.com
Artists Registry at http://www.arkansasarts.org/programs/registry/default.aspx
Sandy Hubler Fine Art at http://sandyhublerfineart.com
George Wittenberg at http://postcard-art-gallery.com
GALLERIES
Local Colour Gallery at http://localcolourgallery.com
Chroma Gallery at http://chromagallery.com
Cantrell Gallery at http://cantrellgallery.com
Greg Thompson Fine Art at http://gregthompsonfineart.com
Red Door Gallery at http://reddoorgalleryonline.com
M2 Gallery at http://m2lr.com
UALR Gallery Program at http://ualr.edu/art
Gallery 26 at http://gallery26.com
As that conflict supposedly winds down with the largest movement of troops and material since WWII, we find just the reverse in the war de jour - Afghanistan, geographically separated from Iraq by only one country. Guess who? Iran. Just this past weekend I was privileged to hear an officer in our armed forces, who had just returned from Afghanistan, describe first hand what's going on there. Obviously, we all know about the surge which brings with it another significant movement of troops and material, but under much more difficult circumstances than moving out of Iraq including weather, lack of infrastructure in many places, multi-tribalism, corruption and the absence of a strong central government. What was news to me, however, is the apparent fragmentation and friction among our individual "coalition" forces (e.g. Britain, Germany, Italy, etc.), as well as with NATO itself. Much like Berlin after WWII, the country has been divvied up between coalition forces where each force is responsible for its own sector to the extent that there are sometimes even communication problems between these forces, caused not by language barriers but, rather, hardware incompatibility. While hopeful, this young man did not seem very encouraged by his experience. So, at a time we are winding down in one theater where the measure of success is very much in doubt, we're cranking it up in another where there may be even less chance to achieve a meaningful purpose, particularly if we continue to alienate Pakistan. This was another WOW moment for me.
And then there was the report in yesterday's Arkansas Democrat-Gazette by David Zucchino of the Los Angeles Times that the U.S. military is now going "back to basics" and concentrate on fighting big wars. To quote that article: "Drained of grueling efforts to win over civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, the military is refocusing on fighting and killing the enemy, not nation-building". In the words of Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, "The United States is unlikely to repeat a mission on the scale of those in Iraq or Afghanistan anytime soon. Instead, U.S. forces will probably be called on to help other countries' armies defend themselves, particularly against terrorist attacks, but also against conventional armies". To further quote Lawrence Korb, Assistant Secretary of Defense, "We aren't going to be doing counterinsurgency again.... We're not good at it". WOW again! What a great time to figure that out, just as we today absorb the latest travel alert for Americans going anywhere in Europe as a direct result of another more general terrorist threat.
And, finally, while we have been bogged down with these two conflicts for almost a decade, excluding Iraq 1, we now learn that China has cornered the market on rare-earth oxides that are essential in building the very arms necessary for our defense weapons to fight these wars, as well as building electric vehicles and wind turbines, both elements of our transition to a green economy. And this latest revelation is on top of them buying up all of the conventional minerals they can world-wide, purchasing billions of dollars of our debt, manufacturing a slew of our imported products which are apparently subsidized with currency manipulation and more recently slapping a tariff on our poultry exported to China. WOW! WOW! WOW! WOW! We need to get "back to basics" all right, but in more ways than one, in my view.
ARTISTS
Laura Raborn at http://paintingsofhome.com and http://claygifts.com
Jim Johnson at http://yessy.com/jimjohnson/gallery.html
Russ Powell at http://powellphotos.com
Linda Flake at http://lindaflake.com
Tom Herrin at http://tommysart.blogspot.com
Matt McLeod at http://matt@mattmcleod.com
Artists Registry at http://www.arkansasarts.org/programs/registry/default.aspx
Sandy Hubler Fine Art at http://sandyhublerfineart.com
George Wittenberg at http://postcard-art-gallery.com
GALLERIES
Local Colour Gallery at http://localcolourgallery.com
Chroma Gallery at http://chromagallery.com
Cantrell Gallery at http://cantrellgallery.com
Greg Thompson Fine Art at http://gregthompsonfineart.com
Red Door Gallery at http://reddoorgalleryonline.com
M2 Gallery at http://m2lr.com
UALR Gallery Program at http://ualr.edu/art
Gallery 26 at http://gallery26.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
