There STILL Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Lunch! (Even In America)

LeadersTonight, Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly continued to agonize (indignantly) over President Obama’s ongoing failure to put an end to IS. Mr. O’Reilly and his (likely well-compensated) ‘guests’ maunder on about the awfulness of IS behavior (quite correctly) and deplore the President’s evident unwillingness to end it. What Or’Reilly does not do, is explain how the President should accomplish the task and even more important, how that accomplishment should be financed. Some ‘background’ is omitted as well. Bill, that isn’t very professional but we understand it likely sells a lot of sponsors’ products.

Inquiring minds will recall that Iraq was a Shiite country run under dictator Saddam Hussein by Sunni Moslems, a controlling minority. Now, post-U.S. invasion, the majority Shiites rule but the Sunnis aren’t accepting it. They are using IS to put themselves back on top and to grab Sunni Syria while doing so. The Shiite Iraqi government has proved too corrupt to defend itself, at least while there are billions in U.S. money to steal.

Our beleaguered President meanwhile, is blamed for failing to solve the problem resulting from Republican George Bush’s invasion of Iraq. In all of this, Mr. O’Reilly never identifies exactly what he thinks the Prez should do, nor how he should pay for it. One airstrike we have read, runs north of $2 M. The Prez has returned thousands of troops and contractors to Iraq and we have (Plausibly deniable) folks in Syria as well, already. Of course, that can’t be advertised. All the Arab ¬†countries are now anti-IS as well. What more does Mr. O’Reilly expect?

The President is also a target for his failure to date, to persuade Iran to abandon nukes. Again, nobody bothers to detail how our well-vacationed Prez is supposed to prevent Iranian nukes, nobody having prevented Pakistani and North Korean ones. Nuke proliferation is unavoidable and none will gainsay it. Should Japan submit to newly belligerent China, a nuclear power, because it has no nukes of its own? The U.S. deterrence that once protected so much of the world is fading …

Mr. O’Reilly, an evidently erudite and accomplished man, is feathering his commercial nest, for which he can hardly be blamed … but that he opines from a posture of: “No Spin.” That makes him no less hypocritical than those he so often castigates. Given the present Brian Williams scandal, we should not be surprised. Williams, a leading NBC anchor, claimed he was aboard a helicopter forced down by enemy fire when that did not occur and troops on the scene said so, in public. Today’s media are a long way from those who covered WWII.

Mr. Williams and even more Mr. Or’Reilly, are salesmen, not reporters. And because they pose as the latter, they are also hypocrites. Perhaps a little less so than our politicians. But we accept that; we are the market; if we did not accept it, it would change. That’s economics 101. So why should we expect otherwise, these days?

Underlying Western economic success is the Western Christian Ethic, so at variance with the normal corruption of the rest of the world. The West has abandoned that and is receding into the murky, self-serving corruption so accepted elsewhere. Western wealth is receding along with its ethics. TANSTAAFL! (There Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Lunch!) We can ignore annoying religious preachments; economics will not ignore us.


About Jack Curtis

Suspicious of government, doubtful of economics, fond of figure skating (but the off-ice part, not so much)
This entry was posted in Economics, Government, Politics and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to There STILL Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Lunch! (Even In America)

  1. If there was a lesson to be learnt surely that lesson was Iraq. What puzzled me was about the Iraq war thousands of demonstrators marched against that war when at the time the war seemed justified. Saddam had given the weapons inspectors the run around for years and the evidence was clear Saddam was another Hitler. It seemed to me the argument against the war was the fascist viewpoint on that war – don’t fight the war, Hitler is not OK for Westerners, but OK for Middle Easterners. Sadly the aftermath of that war proved the fascist view correct. (We only had one Hitler who everyone wanted shot of, the Middle East has an endless queue of wannabe Hitlers just waiting the opportunity). So why the subsequent wars which have no apparent justification and why no marchers? Clearly the public perception is being stage-managed, but by whom and for what agenda. It seems to me the Arab agenda is getting traction from all this – just who is pulling the strings?

    • Jack Curtis says:

      Excellent questions! I don’t know either; there are some theories however. To wit: 1. Why the wars? President Eisenhower’s warning of the military-industrial complex and it incessant need for wars to consume its products may serve as one. How in peacetime, does one sustain massive military production? 2. Why marchers and no marchers? Say that the marchers are a bought and paid product of Lefty political organization; they appear when wanted and disappear as ordered. A political tool, no more than that. 3. The roiled Middle East in General: It reflects the collision of Islam with modernity — first, the impoverished Arabs now have TV and cell phones; their noses are rubbed in the differences between their and our lives. Second, the Islamic fundamentalists (pursuing genuine, pure Islam as it is written) are rubbing their noses in the massive misfit of their religion with our present reality. For Islam, modernity is a terminal infection; we are watching the onset of its death throes. Summed up: The boiling pot provides an excuse for Western politicians to pay off important support while clamping down on its own citizens for their security. What’s not to like? (Until the bills can no longer be held off.) But as we know: “Apre moi, le deluge!”

      Anyway, that’s how it seems from here.

  2. james teague says:

    Arab nations might get mad enough (like Jordan) to actually squish Daesh, but first they must police their own sponsored terrorists, then rein in their own empire aspirations, then steel themselves for some cost and casualties, then refuse to buy Daesh cheap oil, then… maybe.

    • Jack Curtis says:

      It sounds like a prescription for a revolution! The conservatism of Arab culture reinforces the need for the prescription. And the amount of turmoil in the area hints at a possibility of revolution, too. But it seems to me, that such a revolution awaits a massive abandonment of Islam by the Arab people. It seems to be occurring under the radar and most seem unready to admit it so it seems likely to be much worse before it gets before it improves much in Arabia, so far as I see it anyway.Your comment seems exactly correct from here …

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s