Points to Ponder:

Unless I am at a place like a cigar lounge, I always smoke cigars outside. Its one of my rules if you will. I have rules for a lot of things I do.

As the birther morons have resurfaced like the political herpies that they are, I will at this time repost two threads{1} written in 2012 for social media which were later reposted to this site when after it was reactivated. Without further ado...

On Natural Born Citizenship (circa October 29, 2018)

More on the Subject of Natural Born Citizenship (circa October 31, 2018)

Hopefully the birthtards going after Kamala Harris will stick to areas of legitimate targeting of her{2} and ignore these kinds of idiocies.

Notes:

{1} I wrote a lot on these subjects back in 2012 on social media when this site was suspended. Only a few of the threads have been posted here -two 

{2} Of which there are many.

Points to Ponder:

There is a constant need some have to try and diminish a person or group out there doing good for others. Such attitudes and actions are not part of the solution but instead are part of the problem.

Be part of the solution.

A Plan To Pay Off The National Debt...
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

This is the text of a mostly finished Facebook note from November 4, 2017 which was completed recently for publication.

As of this writing, we are approximately $20 $26 trillion dollars in debt if we talk about the national debt alone.{1} To listen to many folks, the idea of paying this sum off is a pipe dream at best. I will concede that there is a serious lack of political will in both major political parties{2}; however, that does not mean that plans cannot be offered. I will now offer what I hope is a simple plan that everyone can get behind.

To start with, we need to abolish baseline budgeting. I am not going to go into this in detail right now but suffice to say, by statute all budgetary items are automatically increased and right now that is approximately 7% a year on every budgetary item. We then see stupid political fights if say Republicans propose to reduce that 7% on some programs to say 4% and Democrats disingenuously claim Republicans are “cutting spending” or some other stupid claim. Reducing automatic increases is never an actual cut in spending and only morons think it is. However, there are no shortage of morons who do not mind making these sorts of claims to try and score cheap political points by appealing to the rubes amongst the populace who have no idea how any of this works. But to return to the point at hand here: as long as the baseline budgeting model is used, a bias exists in the budgetary calculation method that favours increased spending.{3} And when spending increases are the default mechanism to any budgetary projections, that makes balancing budgets very tough not to mention actually paying down debt
.

So first step in the process is eliminating baseline budgeting and replacing it with zero based budgeting starting from whatever the budget was ten years ago. I picked the figure of ten years ago because the budget was already bloated like a hippo ten years ago at $2.98 trillion. Surely no one would claim the country cannot survive on a mere $2.98 trillion per year, right? So with that in mind, every budgetary item is rolled back to its spending level in 2008 and any items not in the budget at that time are subjected to the rules involved with zero based budgeting.

Zero based budgeting in a nutshell requires that all spending must be automatically 

justified anew each year or it will be eliminated from the budget. Zero based budgeting is not concerned with maintaining previous spending levels and places the default mechanism on budgetary reductions. So the first step in this plan is zero based budgeting so that we nip automatic budget increases in the rump from the get go.{4} The next part concerns actually balancing budgets.

I am going to part ways with many conservatives out there and say forget about a balanced budget amendment. Why? Because it is a true pipe dream. We will never get two thirds of both houses in congress to approve it so why expend energy on it? What we can do however is impose sequestration. And I propose we do this on every single item in the budget. Every budget item no matter what it is gets automatically cut every year. I propose a 5% sequestration on every budget item every year. This would remove the politics from various sides whining about any special favour being shown to one persons sacred cows over another because in this plan, everyone’s sacred cows get a 5% trim automatically.

Now as we start the process of operating with more of a balanced budget mindset, we can turn our attention to the debt itself. For it does not solve the issue of the debt to just run a string of balanced budgets if the overarching debt is not actually paid off. So here is the plan for that: establish a sinking fund. Alexander Hamilton put one in place in 1790 aimed at retiring 5% of the debt every year until it was paid off. And while it took a while to do, the debt was paid off in full by 1835.{5} So using a similar methodology, a sinking fund is established aimed at paying down 5% of debt a year. The money is apart from the budget and used only for paying down debt principal. How does it work?

The sinking fund uses the basic concept of compound interest to eradicate debt quickly. The origins of the idea date back to 14th century Italy, but I will start with 18th century Great Britain and the United States. William Pitt{6} employed the fund in the 1780s as British debt accrued at a rapid rate due to the war, and the US chose a similar path in the 1790s. A set amount of money was put aside every year to redeem outstanding government debt. The money was used to purchase public securities as an investment. Each year the interest gained on public securities was added to the fund. With the simple use of compound interest, the fund could grow significantly.{7}

As far as how the sinking fund would be funded, recourse can be had to what Alexander Hamilton said in The Federalist insofar as the advantages of consumption taxes:

It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption, that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit; which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed, that is, an extension of the revenue. When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty, that, "in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four." If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them. 

Impositions of this kind usually fall under the denomination of indirect taxes, and must for a long time constitute the chief part of the revenue raised in this country. Those of the direct kind, which principally relate to land and buildings, may admit of a rule of apportionment. Either the value of land, or the number of the people, may serve as a standard. The state of agriculture and the populousness of a country have been considered as nearly connected with each other. And, as a rule, for the purpose intended, numbers, in the view of simplicity and certainty, are entitled to a preference. In every country it is a herculean task to obtain a valuation of the land; in a country imperfectly settled and progressive in improvement, the difficulties are increased almost to impracticability. The expense of an accurate valuation is, in all situations, a formidable objection. In a branch of taxation where no limits to the discretion of the government are to be found in the nature of things, the establishment of a fixed rule, not incompatible with the end, may be attended with fewer inconveniences than to leave that discretion altogether at large.{8}

Now one reason why Hamilton’s original sinking fund while successful was at the same time erratic is it was not set aside solely for retiring the public debt. I am proposing therefore a greater restriction on this use of a sinking fund; namely, that it would only be used for retiring public debt. As for funding, I think it could be largely handled the same ways Hamilton funded his: through western land sales and consumption taxes on luxury items. The federal government owns a majority of the land among the western states but they also own land in other states. Perhaps a law that specifies a maximum of say 10% of a state's land in states admitted to the union prior to February 15, 1912{9} and a maximum of 30% of a states land in states admitted subsequent to that time can be held by the federal government with a ten year flex period to sell said land. There could also be specific types of taxes{10} formulated specifically for this purpose and it could be applied specifically and only for retiring public debt.

While far from complete, this is a broad based outline for being able to start the process of getting a handle first on deficits and then on the national debt which is in excess of $20 trillion now. Any solution needs to be bipartisan as well as handle budgetary items across the board so no favourites are played for anyone. And what needs to be recognized is that both budgets need to be cut as well as taxes raised and that the government cannot be trusted without constraints to do the right thing.
We can have contested arguments on a number of issues but the national debt as former Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels liked to say is the new Red Menace and therefore we should agree to fix this bipartisan problem with a bipartisan solution.


Notes:

{1} I have no intention of touching on unfunded liabilities in this note as that is a subject best handled separately.

{2} It may exist in smaller political parties to a certain extent but as they are too insignificant to make a real difference, nothing more needs to be said about them on these matters.

{3} Because the operative presupposition with baseline budgeting is that federal spending keeps pace with inflation.

{4} Considering that the total budget in 2008 was $2.98 trillion and the total revenue from 2018 is projected to be $3.65 trillion, we already start with a $670 billion surplus of funds for immediate debt reduction sans any increased amount needed to service interest on the debt that has increased by roughly ten trillion since that time.

{5} The budget already has funds for servicing the interest on the debt so it need not be dealt with here.

{6} The prime minister of Great Britain.

{7} Which considering the extent of our national debt would be of assistance in tackling it.

{8} Publius: Excerpt from The Federalist #21 (circa December 12, 1787)

{9} This would make the 10% threshold only apply to the lower 48 states.

{10} This would involve consumption taxes on luxury items.

Points to Ponder:

There are a lot of problems in the world but there are also a lot of folks out there. Even if we figure half of them (on a good day) or two thirds of them (on a bad day) are wasting oxygen and earth space, there is still a lot of useful folks left. Each person doing a little on as many fronts as possible would over time help fix a lot of these problems. And there are a lot of ways to help out. Everyone who sincerely wants to help can find a way, even if all they can do is pray.

Find a way.

On the 1945 Atomic Bomb Controversy and A Proposed Ethical Challenge:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

"Critical analysis is not just an evaluation of the means actually employed, but of all possible means---which have to be formulated, that is, invented. One can, after all, not condemn a method without being able to suggest a better alternative." [Carl von Clausewitz]

The kernel or germ of this ethical challenge can be found in the very first thread I ever published on this subject about fifteen years ago. It was an offhand comment on my part at the time and I certainly have in mind a more developed version of it at this time. Without further ado:

I am left wondering if in The Commentator's eyes it would have been less evil to deliberately choose the path of greater carnage (as would have been the case with an invasion of mainland Japan) or that of lessor carnage???{1}

After years of additional observation, I have concluded that the substance of the above question is worth considering. To summarize in a single sentence: is it ethical when presented with options to choose that which causes greater damage and loss of life or that which involves less? That will be what is considered here when addressing this challenge to those who frequently return to the subject of the atomic bombings of 1945 like a drug addict repeatedly returns to their dealer for their latest "fix." At some point, the addict needs to seek treatment for their addiction or it will do them in. Likewise, those who return to this subject again and again need some kind of treatment for both rational as well as spiritual reasons. So to aid in that manner, an ethical challenge will be extended to those with the guts to take it up.

To set up the intention of this posting, it is necessary to encapsulate in a syllabus format, various facts on the subject of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I will not undertake anew the defense of any of these points as they have been often written on and more than adequately sustained by your host in years past. It is not my fault that they have been regularly ignored by the (at best) vincibly ignorant but that is neither here nor there. 

So without further ado, I present the aforementioned syllabus of points:

--The land invasion of Imperial Japan casualty estimates paraded about by some sadly misinformed pundits, agenda provocateurs, and apologists were highly inaccurate on both sides in terms of being so low as to be laughable.{2}

--The targets chosen for bombings were of no small military significance insofar as carriers, munitions, aircrafts, and torpedoes were built there and army divisions were stationed there as well.{3}

--The morally heinous nature of the enemy and the truly brutal nature of their conduct during that war{4} was unique in the modern era of warfare if not in the entire history of war. 

--Reasonable arguments can be made that "Placing American troops at risk in attacking the homeland of such an enemy itself represented an unacceptable moral risk."{5}

--The moral and ethical principle of double effect when all factors are considered was met in the manner whereby the atomic bombs were utilized at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.{6}

--The pundits, agenda provocateurs, and apologists who try to argue this point not infrequently fall into various and sundry argumentation fallacies.{7} 

--Addressing the aforementioned frequent argumentation fallacies of the pundits, agenda provocateurs, and apologists inexorably causes these discussions to spiral down a rabbit hole.{8} Ergo, to attempt to get back on track to any degree of potential usefulness after such an endeavour is just as inevitably a waste of valuable time and effort.{9}

--Just war principles can be plausibly argued to have applied to the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki when all pertinent factors have been taken into consideration.{10}

--The purported military experts whose quotes of opposition are often uncritically peppered throughout these discussions by pundits, agenda provocateurs, and apologists have been meticulously debunked. They were to a man not as familiar with the matter as those who casually throw their names about tend to presume.{11} 

--The conscription element has been badly misunderstood as well as very poorly represented by everyone I have seen who has sought to discuss these subjects.{12} 

--There is no actual Magisterial teaching on this subject despite certain intellectually dependent pundits, agenda provocateurs, and apologists who have desperately tried to manufacture one from stray offhand comments by a pope here or there.{13}  

--The aforementioned pundits, agenda provocateurs, and apologists in their slipshod proof texting of certain magisterial texts have amply demonstrated that they know very little about what does and does not constitute actual magisterial teaching.{14}

--Those same pundits, agenda provocateurs, and apologists are close to universally ignorant of the general norms of theological interpretation necessary to properly interpret the aforementioned matters.{15}

The above syllabus points could continue to be multiplied. However, let us flip the script. Rather than continuing to draw out this list of previously substantiated points from various site treatments{16}, let us approach the matter differently. For too long, those who have prattled on in varying degrees of ignorance on these matters have been allowed to have a free ride in not being told to fish or cut bait insofar as taking a specific moral stand. I do not mean a moral stand on the bombings issue alone for they have obviously done that -however one assesses the quality or lack thereof of their opposition. No, they have not as a rule taken a stand on what they would have done differently. 

In 1945, there were only three options{17} for how to navigate the end of the Second World War. They were as follows:

• The use of atomic bombs 

• A naval blockade of Imperial Japan 

• A land invasion of Imperial Japan

The pundits, agenda provocateurs, and apologists have made clear their opposition to what happened with Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Therefore, they have to if they are to avoid being credibly charged with unethical cowardice man up and tell us which alternative they would have gone with. 

Would they endorse a massive land invasion of Imperial Japan? 

I have gone over in detail in more than one place{18} what would be involved in the latter. If anything I was far too lenient in how that matter was handled insofar as my estimates did not include anything about how Japanese government officials viewed this matter.{19} So I have to ask if knowing the Japanese leaders themselves were estimating twenty million casualties from an invasion of Imperial Japan, would those who spend seemingly every August{20} wailing and gnashing their teeth in a virtue signalling lather over the atomic bombings have preferred a land invasion instead? Inquiring minds want to know.

Or would they favour a naval blockade of Imperial Japan?

The other option on the table if massive land invasions is not your bag was a US naval blockade of Japan, by preventing access to resources. However, there were many problems with an Allied naval blockade of Japan. The ships would be put within striking range of kamikaze planes which would put many American lives in danger. Blocking resources would essentially just be starving the Japanese who were already in the midst of potential starvation{21} after many food rations were diverted away from civilians to military units.

There was no telling how long a blockade would take to force a surrender of a nation that was willing to do whatever it took to avoid what in their minds was a disgraceful action to even contemplate doing{22} and that is apart from the untold millions who would die in the most horrible of ways if a blockade was even remotely successful to begin with.

The Moral and Ethical Challenge

Making a decision on this matter is both logically as well as ethically required for those who wail and gnash their teeth in virtue signalling moral outrage every year when this issue most frequently comes up. They have foreclosed on the approach that was ultimately utilized so they are left with only two other options from which to choose. It is the height of both moral as well as ethical irresponsibility to merely whine about the atomic bombings without being willing to take a public side on what should have been done from the only other real options left. 

Therefore, until the usual suspects on this issue man up, consider all the pertinent factors, recommend an alternative course of action, and be willing to own whatever disastrous results would occur from the choice they would make, no one with a normal intact functioning brain who takes both history as well as ethics and reality seriously needs to pay these folks even the most cursory levels of respect whatsoever.


Notes:

{1} Excerpt from the Rerum Novarum Note On Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and the Profound Problems With Ivory Tower Revisionist Pontifications (circa August 17, 2005)

{2} See the link in footnote one.

{3} See the link in footnote one.

{4} To list some examples:

Kamikaze suicide attacks, the Rape of Nanking, the campaign in Korea, the Bataan Death March and other atrocities in the Philippines, the fierceness of Island warfare, the mobilization of Okinawa civilians -- including women and children -- to offered physical resistance to US troops, and the inhumane treatment of enemy soldiers and civilians in occupied lands. They even tried and executed American POWs in violation of the Geneva Convention for alleged war crimes... 

[The] Japanese had used American and British POWs along with Chinese civilians for weapons experiments at secret facilities in China. BIOLOGICAL weapons experiments. This was confirmed after the war. Many POWs were placed near bombs that were exploded and where the shrapnel contained disease organisms. They were then allowed to die untreated of the diseases that resulted. 

It was known to American intelligence (though kept secret from the American Public) that the Japanese had released long-range balloons into the Jet Stream carrying explosive payloads to be dropped on the American West Coast. Several of these balloons made it to the US and some did explode causing loss of civilian life and limb. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa August 18, 2005)]

{5} See the material in footnote four and footnote six from the link in footnote one.

{6} See this thread for details:

Expanding Further on the Subject of Double Effect Viz. the Atomic Bombings (circa August 26, 2005)

{7} To note one not insignificant example of this, see the following thread:

On Making a Valid Argument and Avoiding Argumentation Fallacies (circa September 11, 2005)

Also worth noting is this example of a common problem with dealing with the more vociferous virtue signalling folks on this kind of subject: 

When you take it down to brass tacks, [Name Redacted] does not make his own arguments on the subjects I raised. Instead, he makes a laundry list of people who agree with him irrespective of their actual agendas or the arguments they advance to arrive at their conclusions and opinions. This is nothing more than the fallacious form of appealing to authority which I pointed out in my last posting. And since [Name Redacted] has not to my knowledge interacted with that criticism, it stands to reason that he does not dispute it. Indeed, it is indisputable as anyone even vaguely familiar with how to construct and present a viable argument is well aware. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa September 6, 2005)]

{8} Hopefully it is clear by what is denoted above why your host and not a few others roll their eyes and have no respect whatsoever for the manner which many ideologues misquote sources to try and fill in for the lacuna of solid arguments for their positions. This is done by neophytes as well as even many seasoned apologists, social commentators, etc so by no means is it a localized problem at all but instead one that is more universal in its scope. And while normally these factors do not come up when dealing with boilerplate issues, with geopolitical matters and more complex moral/ethical matters, there is quite a minefield out there. Far too often (and with an alarming frequency in recent years), seasoned apologists social commentators, etc. have stepped on those mines with regrettable yet predictable results. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa February 4, 2006)]

{9} Thomas a Kempis once noted something akin to the idea that sometimes for the sake of peace we must give up our opinions. I certainly am not doing that but I am recognizing that I played a role (however reluctantly) in perpetuating what could have been an endless series of "he said-she said" responses. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa September 12, 2005)]

{10} This is a matter that was discussed more in a dispersed matter touched upon in various threads than in any focused systematical fashion.

{11} This was dealt with in detail many years ago. For a redacted version retaining much of the original substance but with minimal polemic, see this thread:

Revisiting Material From Years Past (circa August 7, 2020)

{12} See footnote eight.

{13} They seem oblivious to the simple fact that "a simple sentence, even spoken by the Sovereign Pontiff, is not an act of the Magisterium; we know that all statements have different degrees of authority"  (Cardinal Dario Castrillo Hoyos to Bishop Bernard Fellay) and furthermore that though "[i]t is always possible to criticize such a statement, as well as a style of governing" (ibid) that nonetheless "[t]he criticism, however, demands an authentic understanding of the thinking of the other person, and should presuppose that he also possess the Catholic faith" (ibid). 

For more on this subject, see the Rerum Novarum exposition On the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, Obedience, and the Requirements of Faithful Catholics published earlier this year.

{14} See footnote thirteen. To note some additional examples from years past as well in order from newest to oldest:

On Magisterial Interpretation (circa January 4, 2020)

On Veritatis Splendor, Gaudium et Spes, and Intrinsic Evil (circa July 27, 2019)

"Dogmatic Theology Five Cents, The Doctor is In" Dept. (circa February 4, 2006)

{15} See footnotes thirteen and fourteen.

{16} Here is the most recent list of such threads grouped together in sequential order:

Website Threads on the Atomic Bomb Subject and Various Factors Involved in Objectively Assessing the Moral and Ethical Ramifications Thereof (circa August 6, 2020)

{17} Well, four if you count surrendering to Dai Nippon or five if you include the latter and also count complete military withdrawal and allowing for a Soviet invasion and occupation. I frankly wonder sometimes if those who constantly carp on this issue would not have preferred one of those options but to anyone with a normal intact functioning brain, those options are no real options at all.

{18} This is covered in a number of places but see the link in footnote one for some  the details.

{19} It's astounding...While we were looking at some of our own casualty estimates, the Japanese military was doing much the same thing, and the figure of 20 million appears again and again.

Giangreco says just the number '20 million' is horrific — but he is most stunned by the casualness with which it was used by Japanese military leaders who felt that the loss of life was worth it. [Excerpt from the NPR Article Hell To Pay' Sheds New Light On A-Bomb Decision (circa January 16, 2010)]

{20} And not just in the month of August even if that has shown to be the most prevalent time for these kinds of subjects to be brought up.

{21} I say "potential starvation" because there are differing schools of thought on if the Japanese people were actually in a starvation situation or not and (if they were) how much of that was due to blockade efforts on incoming supplies and how much was due to poor crops in the 1945 growing season.

{22} See footnotes one and seventeen.