The Brexit Vote -What It Means, Including To Your 401k

One of the triggers for the 'Leave' vote in the UK had been images such as this showing migrants near Calais, France ready to bolt across the 'Chunnel" to England.


Back in July, 1978, on my first trip to the UK and London (where we stayed with a friend of Janice's) the character of "old England" was ubiquitous. The beauty of the London transport system was that one could take  the "underground" wherever he or she chose, from Piccadilly Circus, to Earl's Court (where we watched a medieval jousting match) to the Royal Albert Hall where we were privileged to see (and hear!)  a fantastic performance of Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture.  Along the way foreign tongues were seldom heard, either in the tube stations or the venues themselves.

There were no mullahs standing in any area we went (and we covered a lot of London) ordering women to shield their faces with burkas or whatever. The only terror incidents were carried out by the IRA, including one bombing which killed several London police and some of their horses.

Now, flash almost forty years later and all that's changed, the whole UK landscape. Migrants have been pouring in from many nations - particularly Middle Eastern and African - for decades, and the character of the place has altered. One will now often hear as many foreign tongues as native Brit (whether Cockney, Yorkie, or whatever other dialect).

This altered character of the nation, coupled with loss of what is perceived as a British identity since the Maastricht Treaty - otherwise known as the 'Treaty to Integrate Europe' - ultimately drove the "Leave" majority yesterday (winning by 52% to 48% in the "Brexit" vote).  Despite London and Scotland voting to remain, most of the rest of the UK and especially rural or working class areas saw things differently.

Many on the Right, including the odious Nigel Farage (who use scare tactics such as thousands streaming through Slovenia) to depict a direct migrant threat to the UK, are now cheering about "Independence Day".   But as Richard Haas pointed out on MSNBC this morning, it is more akin to dissolution day, given Ireland and Scotland (which voted remain) will now themselves likely call referenda to leave England to itself - dissolving the UK.

Despite the Farage exaggerations, it is true that migrants have been making their way into the UK in greater numbers, often gathering near Calais in France before attempting to bolt across the Channel tunnel otherwise known as the "chunnel".  The spectacle of this happening, added to the existing tensions with mainly Islamic immigrants (recall one of them running amok and chopping off a head barely two years ago)  has enraged many to the point they'd had enough.

Economics was the other rallying point though not as passionately framed as arguments from the anti-migrant segment. Those on this side were basically tired of Brussels calling the shots regarding trade despite the fact the Brits were allowed to keep their own currency (the pound) as opposed to using the euro.  The econ leavers insisted they would carry on just fine, thanks, and no need to worry about repercussions.

But that may be akin to whistling in the dark as the wolf comes to the door.  The fact is the UK had been sending 44 percent of all its exports to the single EU market. That can simply no longer happen any longer since the UK will not have that privileged advantage. They will now have to "go to the end of the line". German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble put it bluntly barely three days ago in The Financial Times: "In is in and out is out". Meaning if the UK votes 'out', they are out of the EU market - no special benefits or advantages conferred. The extreme case? The EU, if it really wanted to be punitive, could force the UK to make separate deals with each of the 27 remaining EU nations.

This means exports will likely shrink and drastically, with whatever factories left shuttered and their workers laid off.  This is what happens when your biggest customer is now effectively taken away, or at least its impact drastically reduced. It will be even worse if Ireland and Scotland themselves vote to leave England al alone, and remain with the EU. Then England will truly be "little England" with an emphasis on little.

This is what caused the  global markets to react badly early this morning, with the German DAX (.GDAX) dropping 731 points and the Nikkei Index more than 1286.  The DOW is expected to take a dump too, and I'd be amazed if is less than 700 points drop. Further, the turmoil could go on for months as the UK attempts to sort out its new position, and get a new government (David Cameron is now out as PM having called the Brexit vote)

In the end, the vote for Brexit means chaos in the short and possibly long term. It means European issues will be roiled and possibly other EU members now also emboldened to try to leave. We already saw last year the fomenting for "Grexit" or Greek exit, but the Greeks eventually came to their senses and realized they might be better in than out, even with a lot of debt. ('Out' and they likely wouldn't even be able to muster a loan)

For your 401k, as financial guest Melanie Hobson noted yesterday on CBS Early show, it will mean a lot of volatility. I myself expect to see massive dives in the stock market in the coming weeks until the issues are resolved to the markets' liking. Remember, that includes all the markets, not just the U.S. ones.  Keep in mind also that Britain's economy is the 5th largest in the world - meaning a "sneeze" in the UK (as with Brexit fallout) could trigger pneumonia in some places. Pneumonia there (in the UK) could trigger....well, you don't want to know!

Anthony Mason, covering the Wall Street markets opening this morning stated a "pretty bleak opening is expected", which may be an understatement.  The main barometer to watch, I think, is the extent of the flight to safety. Already we're hearing about foreigners buying up treasurys which will have implications for the bond markets, and it also could for money markets.

At the very least, given the low global GDP of barely 3%, the Brexit vote likely brings interest rates down further, and slows growth significantly. (Some even warn the UK could go into recession, but we will have to see what happens in any Scottish or Irish separate referenda to leave the UK.)

On the positive side, central banks are still propping up the markets around the world with their next to zero interest rates thereby  providing a "balm" as the turmoil continues over the next  few years. If nothing else, Janet Yellen  will plausibly assert:  "Well, because of the economic uncertainties inherent in the Brexit vote, no more interest rate increases for at least 3 years". This will make Wall Street's day and so provide a counter force to the Brexit negative influences.

So those with 401ks, while they will sustain some stomach-churning days, shouldn't go into hysterics. Yet.....

See also the related articles here: 

http://www.theguardian.com/us

See also:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/bbd593ee-39d4-11e6-9a05-82a9b15a8ee7.html#axzz4CWIGLKRv

A Portrait of 3 Reprobates: Walter Palmer, Tom Brady & Mike Huckabee

A trio of unrepentant slimeballs: Walter Palmer (top left) with a lion he killed in 2008, cell phone evidence destroyer Tom Brady and hate inciter Mike Huckabee.

I decided that rather than deal separately with the reprobates Tom Brady and Walter Palmer (now wanted in Zimbabwe for murdering Cecil the Lion) I'd treat them alongside the rat's ass fool and Über reprobate Mike Huckabee, to show the singular moral blindness that applies to all three. 

I already ripped into Huckabee in an earlier post, e.g.
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/07/mike-huckabee-exposes-himself-as.html

So will not overly dwell on his moral dysfunction seen through the lens of his vicious conflation of the Iran nuke deal with  the Auschwitz ovens.  In the end each of these characters exhibits a separate "lens", for lack of a better term, by which their lack of principled ethics can be seen.

Suffice it to say, all truly principled people (whether conservative or other)  have come out to thrash Huckabee's rhetorical misfire, including the Jewish Anti-Defamation League, the Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. and Richard Haas, President of the Council of Foreign Relations - who observed how it "demeaned" the whole  level of the Iran debate. All three sources emphasized how such calculated, incendiary rhetoric undermined the credibility of those who invoked it - or supported it.  As Haas pointed out, the Holocaust was "a one of a kind historical atrocity" (in terms of magnitude)  and so to invoke any measure of similar outrage at common diplomacy - to conflate it with this singular atrocity-  was to automatically lose the argument.  This Huckabee has done as well as those yapping in his clueless echo chamber.

Even Joe Scarborough, long time conservative mouthpiece on 'Morning Joe' - and vociferous opponent of the Iran nuclear deal -  bemoaned (yesterday morning)  how Huckabee had "cheapened the debate" to below the lowest common denominator. As Scarborough said, "the difference between marching Jews into ovens and negotiating a bad deal is so enormous it's obvious the comments were crass and political".

Mike Barnacle also asserted how the comments "cheapened the debate and also cheapened history in regard to the  purpose for which they were used." That is, for the purpose of political self-promotion. In effect, Huckabee's outrageous "oven" remarks amounted to an insult to all those who perished in Auschwtiz' gas chambers. They'd literally be turning over in their graves with the realization they were being used as rhetorical pawns in a political campaign.

Meanwhile, one of Joe's guests (Sam Stein)  exposed Huckabee as a bald faced hypocrite given he had called for the same balanced measures back in 2008, to bring Iran's nuke aspirations under control. The best ending sound bite from Joe Scarborough?

"Republicans need to be aware that these comments will stay with them"

True, and let's hope that Huck's stupidity sinks them all, especially given 'the Donald' has also chimed in now to support him - disclosing he really is as nutso as many of his earlier comments make him out to be - especially the ones on the Mexicans being "rapists and murderers".


Then there is Bloomington, Minnesota dentist Walter Palmer, currently with less value than the Donald's lickspittle after this jackal (as Jimmy Kimmel called him) lured a majestic and beloved Lion named "Cecil" outside of his game preserve to shoot him on a nearby farm with bow and arrow. Cecil suffered for 40 hours before the vermin pseudo-hunter tracked him down and finished him off - cutting off the beast's head, skinning him and allowing the carcass to rot in the sun.

 The turd is now paying for his crime and being slimed across the internet, as on YELP, where the hate is hot and deep, as well as death threats  e.g.

http://www.yelp.com/biz_photos/river-bluff-dental-bloomington?start=0

Of course, while a bit of net hate can have its therapeutic value, I don't approve of death threats, any more than I did when they were launched against my then pastor brother ('Pastor Mike') after he proposed a "National Atheist Registry".  But there is simply no excuse  for threats,  no matter how enraged one might be at a person's actions and/or proposals.

Anyway, Palmer the big, bad Bwana hunter soon became the hunted,  when  the UK Telegraph identified him as the poacher who  killed Cecil the Lion in Zimbabwe in early July. The Internet, as is typical when its collective ire has been aroused,  responded with such ferocity you'd have thought Cecil was a personal pet of millions. Brutal reviews of Palmer's dental practice and a cavalcade of online threats followed - many of which can be seen at the highlighted links.  (Eventually forcing Palmer to shutter his dental office and go into hiding as protesters post 'Coward!' and 'Killer!' signs on his doors.)

Within an hour of the Telegraph’s report Tuesday, death threats appeared on Twitter and, soon after, on a new Facebook page called "Shame Lion Killer Dr. Walter Palmer and River Bluff Dental," which had more than 1,000 likes as of early Tuesday afternoon. Palmer's name trended worldwide on Twitter, and many of the posts on Facebook are calling for him to be held accountable and imprisoned.

Shamed at being exposed, Palmer took to social media in an attempt to placate the  Internet haters and scribbled:

"In early July, I was in Zimbabwe on a bow hunting trip for big game. I hired several professional guides and they secured all proper permits. To my knowledge, everything about this trip was legal and properly handled and conducted.

"I had no idea that the lion I took was a known, local favorite, was collared and part of a study until the end of the hunt. I relied on the expertise of my local professional guides to ensure a legal hunt. 

"I have not been contacted by authorities in Zimbabwe or in the U.S. about this situation, but will assist them in any inquiries they may have.
"Again, I deeply regret that my pursuit of an activity I love and practice responsibly and legally resulted in the taking of this lion."

 The problem is that the account given here simply isn't credible. As one animal sanctuary keeper and conservationist explained on a CBS News segment, everyone within 1,000 miles of Zimbabwe knew of Cecil's iconic heritage and reputation, and no "guides" could possibly have existed who could claim they were ignorant. It didn't add up.  Worse for Palmer, he'd  already been caught using a similar modus operandi in Wisconsin in luring a black bear to his lair and slaughtering him.

So yeah, Walter can piss and moan all he wants but he's guilty as hell.

Then there is that rascal Brady, who had to face a ten hour appeal with NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, at which time it finally came out he destroyed his cell phone on the same day he was to face investigator Ted Wells. Goodell, no fool, saw this as yet another piece of evidence pointing to Brady's guilt.

As CBS commentator James Brown pointed out:

"Even though he knew investigators wanted emails and texts from his cell phone, Tom Brady ordered his assistant to destroy it. Something he says he does whenever he gets a new one. Brady had the phone for just four months at that point and Roger Goodell pointedly noted that Brady previous cell phone was still around.

The Commissioner concluded Brady 'made a deliberate effort to ensure the investigators would never have access to information that he had been asked to produce."

As one legal commentator (Nancy Armor) put it, after noting Brady had 10,000 text messages on the phone:

"If you're not guilty, if you had no knowledge and had no role in this then why would you destroy your cell phone? "

Goodell himself added that scientific tests showed the balls did not deflate from natural causes. He added Brady's 4 game suspension was justified because "he was an active participant to tamper with the game balls."

Of course, Brady's lapdog agent Don Yee called the Goodell appeal process a "sham" and asserted Brady was "completely transparent" - which is total bollocks that only a Patsie homer could believe. (Or to quote Boston Globe sports columnist Dan Shaughnessy, "It’s time for local loyalists to parachute down from Planet Patriot and get in touch with reality.".) The biggest joke is Yee calling it "junk science" - based on an "alternative study" by economists at the American Enterprise Institute - when no less a REAL science stalwart than Bill Nye already demonstrated how Bellichick's original theory was full of hot air. No pun intended!  I think Yee needs a crash course in physics.

But as Armor pointed out: "It's not the crime itself, it's the cover up".  Brady could have gotten off with just a slap on the wrist, if he'd just 'fessed up, but he, Robert Kraft and the other Patsy assholes were too damned arrogant and believed they were above the law. Bad mistake.

NY Times sports columnist Bill Rhoden appearing on CBS yesterday morning was even more blunt noting how this "completely changes his legacy". As he put it:

"Once you destroy evidence, in any investigation, I don't care where you are, you cannot do this. This is not about football any more, this is almost borderline criminality. Frankly, it even surprises me this guy's still playing.

If I found out this guy destroyed evidence, I'd cut him. I mean he's disrespecting attorneys, disrespecting the league, he's disrespecting the game. He's basically saying 'I'm larger than the game'. It's one thing to tamper with a football, it's another to tamper with evidence."

Rhoden's take, while vehement, is the ethically correct one - as opposed to bloviators (i.e. on ESPN) who mocked the seriousness based on the original ball deflations. After all, the Patriots did blow out the Colts so what's the big deal? The "big deal" is it doesn't matter if the score was 44-7, 10-7, or 250-3, it was the attempted gaming of the system by breaking the rules.  And as I noted in a post earlier this year, if you endorse cheating of any magnitude you will endorse its use in many others.


What is the unifying moral deficit underlying all of these cases? I believe it is flouting the basic cornerstone principle that "the ends never justifies the means".

In Huckabee's case, he became convinced that in order for him to compete in the presidential polls he had to make an outrageous, slanderous statement comparing Obama to Hitler, and Obama's peace plan to marching Jews to ovens.  In so doing, he may have garnered attention and an added point in the latest Marist poll-  but lost whatever 'soul' he had.

Worse, he revealed himself as the most reviled form of politician:  one who will spew any venomous, inflammatory vitriol in order to incite the hotheads who perpetually feed on indignation and anger. Knowing he'd draw them in just as moths to a flame, but not so much light emitted here as incendiary rhetoric that demeans and distorts political debate - with potential poll numbers purchased by cynical manipulation.

In Palmer's case, he became convinced from decades ago the only way to become the big game hunter he fancied was to lure majestic animals to a place outside their protected environments  and then kill them in a canned "turkey shoot" setup.   Whereas a real man would go toe to toe with a predator and not try to bag or kill endangered species, and certainly not take out iconic members of a species like Cecil.

But Palmer, who fancied himself a macho hunter because he could lure big cats or other predators into a trap - was really a coward. In many ways his tactics reminded me of former NFL safety Darren Sharper's who had to resort to putting pills in women's drinks to induce them to have sexual relations with him. He didn't have the manly courage to enter into a conscious relationship to fulfil the sexual ends and face the possible consequence of rejection.

And before we get too carried away by Palmer's transgressions, let's bear in mind there are dozens of rich guy pseudo-hunters just like him still out there, who - according to stats released last night on the news- bag 600-800 lions a year. They pay $50,000 each for a lion, for example, which basically entails setting the lion up for a kill that is near 100 percent assured.  They call this "hunting" but it's a mockery of actual hunting. We need to ferret out these other degenerates and shame them like millions have Walter Palmer.

Then there is Tom Brady, who became fully convinced he was bigger than the game itself, so could justify the ends of trying to spare his reputation and that of his team by using the means of destroying his cell phone - and all the evidence on it.  An act of bankrupt morality which only ensured his rep is tarnished in perpetuity.

As I said, a trio of slime balls.

See also:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/07/28/shaughnessy/T32IKjU6IVYjEWml2YfrMI/story.html

And:

http://www.salon.com/2015/07/30/fox_news_and_the_batsht_bump_trump_huckabee_and_the_real_reason_why_the_gop_is_a_national_punch_line/

And:

http://www.salon.com/2015/07/30/the_world_of_trophy_hunting_cecil_the_lions_killing_shines_a_light_on_a_business_rife_with_unscrupulous_conduct/

Again - Why Gov. Brownback's Welfare Decision Is Wrong and Could Rebound On Other Gov't Benefit Recipients

I know the hard hearts, austerity hawks and "entitlement" haters won't like this, but it is time to return to Sam Brownback's ill -conceived notion for limiting what Kansas food stamp-welfare recipients can purchase.  I am hoping this time around something sticks to their craniums and shows - especially if they are receiving any kind of government largesse- including Social Security or VA benefits, they ought not to be so quick to hurl stones at others living in "glass houses". (Which umbrella covers all who get benefits of ANY kind)

A must -read op-ed here is that by Emily Badger of the Washington Post ('What Kansas Gets Wrong with Welfare Decision').  She comes right out by saying "the logic behind the decision is problematic in at least three really big ways"  after already observing the canard of framing the decision in terms of "protection for the taxpayer who shouldn't be asked to help people who squander gov't money on 'vices'".

This was also exactly the point made by Bill Maher's 'Real Time' guest Michelle Caruso-Cabrera of CNBC on Friday night's  discussion panel. She noted that  exactly the same case could be made concerning Social Security recipients - hence not being able to splurge their benefits on whatever they desired,  including giant burgers and fries  This case would be made, of course, by the same austerity hawks who already believe Social Security to be a "welfare" program and they inhabit both parties but especially the GOP. They include:  former Comptroller David M. Walker, CFR hotshot Richard Haas, the Fix the Debt people, as well as all those who subscribe to Peter G. Peterson's "entitlement" cuts enclave.

This is why - she insisted - it is better to "privatize" Social Security - as Gee Dumbya wanted to do back in 2005, so then taxpayers of the austerity mold would have no comeback. "Social Security beneficiaries would then be able to spend their money on whatever they wanted" she said, "because it would be their own money from their own private accounts". Of course, when Bill pressed her on what would have happened had such private accounts (mainly invested in the stock market) been around in '08 when the market crashed  -she couldn't offer much of a retrospective defense.

But her argument struck me forcefully, because if one considered it carefully, this is exactly the sort of reverse argument the austerity fetishists could summon against any form of gov't benefit. Where it came from or why wouldn't matter to them (as Caruso asserted) you were receiving taxpayer -funded benefits and you ought not be able to blow it on any damned thing you wanted, including pot, booze, porno flicks, or giant Five Guys burgers. The fact the origin of the benefits didn't matter was the major point and showed why the hard hearts supporting Brownback needed to back away- for their own future protection if nothing else!

Anyway, moving on to Emily Badger's other reasons, these include:

1) Economic: There's virtually no evidence that the poor actually spend their money in the rash ways advertised by Brownback.  The poor are actually much more savvy about how they spend their money because they have much less of it - as Gweneth Paltrow learned when she tried the "SNAP Challenge" and gave up after 4 days. (She'd already exceeded the $29/ week  limit.)

2) Moral principle of equivalence:  Similar to the point CNBC's Michelle Caruso made - we "rarely make similar demands of other recipients of government aid", including VA benefits and Social Security.  She observes: "We also don't require Pell Grant recipients to prove they are pursuing a degree that will get them a real job as opposed to say philosophy or English Lit. We don't require wealthy families who cash in on the home interest deduction to prove they're not using their homes as brothels."   In other words, the strings we attach to gov't aid are uniquely for the poor - as if being poor itself is somehow immoral-  requiring criminal monitoring- like for a felon wearing an ankle bracelet.

3) Prejudicial perceptions:  In many ways the lack of application of a moral principle of equivalence (2) arises because Americans who receive other government benefits fail to see they are also in the recipient class. They don't recognize that, like the poor, they are also getting something from the government and hence - at taxpayer expense.  The issue, again, isn't the specific benefit form - whether Medicare, VA benefits, or Social Security - but that ALL come at taxpayer expense.

But this is covered up in two ways: (i) the belief that their benefits are different because they are "special" or "earned" so can't be classed with SNAP or welfare, and (ii) their benefits are always "submerged" (hidden or more concealed) than compared with a SNAP recipient who must actually produce a special card (see image) at the grocer's so is immediately recognized as "on welfare".  Thus, the SNAP card inadvertently becomes a "badge" of shame that enables other gov't beneficiaries to instantly make judgments.

Political scientist Suzanne Mettler, cited by Ms. Badger, calls the judgmental gov't  beneficiaries part of the "submerged benefits state". This means their own benefits are more "out of sight, out of mind". Thus a SNAP card and a welfare check are "incredibly visible ...while tuition tax breaks and Medicare are not".   This submerged state, then,  is evidence of a basic and pervasive double standard.

How to get around it? Various solutions have been proposed including direct deposit of welfare monies  as well as food stamp monies,  into special bank accounts,. The poverty -stricken person then gets a regular debit card that doesn't stand out like some shameful "scarlet letter"  the next time she goes to the supermarket. It's only fair, and it ceases to tar people on account of being in poverty - likely through no fault of their own. (E.g. contracting a chronic disease, or sustaining a severe disability that forces them from the work force.)

Let's also bear in mind the words of author Charles Reich ('Opposing the System', pp. 125-26):

"The claim that government is free to reduce or cut off welfare and other forms of support for people in economic need is totally mistaken. Welfare is not a gift, nor is it, despite frequent assertions, a transfer from those who earn a living to those who are not.  Welfare is rather an obligation from society – and from those who are working- to those who have been deprived of work and the opportunity to earn a living. If we want to speak of transfers, it would be more accurate to say that those with a secure place in the economic system are enjoying a transfer of wealth from those who have been excluded from the economic system. Welfare then is partial compensation for a deprivation of livelihood that allows others to work"


The hard hearts who would deny the poor some minor pleasures, even playing an arcade game or two, buying a lotto ticket (they can dream, can't they?) , a bag of M&Ms  or a swim, need to process that or else possibly admit to being hypocrites in favor of a double moral standard. Because in others' eyes (e.g. austerity hawks), THEY may well be seen as the ones on "welfare"!

Richard Haas and Michael Hayden - Two Nitwits Who Don't Get It

President Obama made almost the exact right call yesterday in terms of  announcing the troop drawdown in Afghanistan - leaving 10,000 by the end of the year (I believe it ought to be ZERO), half that number by 2015 and all out by 2016. As Obama put it, almost echoing the words of JFK in Sept. 1963 on Vietnam, ultimately it is their country and they have to use their own forces to defend it - the U.S. can't be the cop of the world.

Bingo!

But the militarists and their sycophants don't get that, and don't want it. This morning on MSNBC ('Morning Joe'),  Richard Haas called it "policy by calendar". Well, uh duh - yuh think! Ultimately, not so much "by calendar" but the understanding by Obama that this country doesn't have the infinite resources to keep troops all over the damned planet forever (we currently have 4,417 bases worldwide at a cost of nearly $1 trillion annually).  In a low- tax nation, that refuses to even pay for the two wars of choice instigated over 10 yrs. ago,  how does this make sense? It doesn't.

The fact is we simply can't afford nation building as Haas wants us to keep doing, nor does he have a clue of the ongoing costs. Maybe he needs to look more closely at how the VA can't even care for the mass of existing vets, because of the lack of resources, money to fund doctors, staff - and then he wants many more thousands to remain in harm's way? And who will ensure they get the care they need when they return maimed or with PTSD?

Gen, Michael Hayden (Ret.) is also not much better as he chimed in this morning on the same program arguing that the number remaining is "at the low end of what should be" and compared Obama's Afghan drawdown plan to leaving zero troops behind in Iraq (forgetting that Iraq was an illegal war to begin with and we had no business barging in there.)

Hayden complained - as pertaining to Iraq:  "You don't have the Americans as a dampening effect. You can't guarantee that the worst won't happen."

Well, maybe it will! But again - we can't control the world, or what happens in every nation - nor should we try to! We can't control what happens in the Central African Republic with hundreds of thousands already slaughtered there - but then we never ever considered barging in. Why Iraq and not the Central African Republic? Well because there are no oil fields in the latter!

Hayden's argument that Obama is about to make the same mistake in Afghanistan as in Iraq is just plain bollocks and balderdash on its face. His premise is that we will have to leave a troop presence there, come hell or high water. The other nitwit, Haas, agreed -  asserting that troops "ought to be left in  place so long as conditions merit."

So long as conditions merit? Hello! Conditions will always merit because the Taliban isn't going away any more than the Viet Cong were going away in 'Nam. You can't just try to control an entire nation in perpetuity when our own is falling apart at the seams. Hence, Haas'  blather about staying on to provide security and "nation building" is plain nuts. No sane person is going to take you seriously about "nation building" when your own country is coming apart and you've manifestly shown you can't even nation build at home!

MSNBC's Willie Geist actually asked Haas if he was really prepared to "keep troops in Afghanistan in perpetuity", given if they're even left there until 2016 it will have been 15 years which "ought to be long enough" and "besides I don't think at any point we leave it will ever be a perfect place".

Haas, moron that he is, actually replied "As long as it made sense. We've kept troops in Korea now for 60 years and Americans are comfortable with that."

But no intelligent American should be comfortable with that because it means accepting a diversion of badly needed resources away from domestic needs to outposts that have no direct impact on our own security - no matter what the hyper-militarists claim. For perspective, South Korea now has all the wherewithal it needs to fend off any North Korean attack, so we are effectively redundant.

"Oh but wait, if South Korea needs us we have to wade in".

No, because then China will weigh in and we're in no more shape to take on China than we are Russia no matter what pissants like McCain or John Bolton claim. We have to leave the Koreas to resolve their issues just like we have to leave Ukraine to resolve its, and Europe to resolve its -  hence the need to get U.S. bases out of Germany that have been there since the end of WWII. As my German friend Reinhardt put it: "We Germans no longer need American babysitters!"

People need to grasp that the military overstretch we see is directly connected to economic misfortune and regression at home. The terribly low minimum wage, the massive student debt, the growing inequality, the VA's inability to care for vets are all tied to our overwhelming military presence around the world consuming precious resources - and basically, something has to give. If we aren't prepared to cut back our yen for empire, we will see ever more suffering at home....and even....as author David Cay Johnston put it in a recent salon.com interview, civil distress so severe it might even incite a revolution  that will be "the bloodiest the world has ever seen".

(See: http://www.salon.com/2014/05/22/bloodiest_thing_the_world_has_seen_david_cay_johnston_on_inequalitys_looming_disaster/

Is this what we really want? To go the way of Rome? If not, we better get control of the military bullshitters and their lackeys soon....very soon...and put this nation back on its own path to nation building for the future instead of squandering blood and treasure trying to be the cop of the world.