Wasted Lives in Vietnam

An op-ed in the WP by Harold Meyerson laments the embrace by American business of manufacturing in Vietnam because the quasi-Communist government there keeps wages low. What was the point of fighting for democracy there, if we prefer a non-democratic government? The Republicans talk a good game of loving democracy, but a dollar trumps politics for a Republican any day.

A lot of Vietnam veterans have embraced the new Vietnam, but there is a difference between loving your enemies and making a buck off of them because they are being kept in poverty by their government. On the other hand, the lives of many Vietnamese are clearly better today than they were years ago.

We've been through this before, when both Germany and Japan came back from defeat in WW II to challenge the US economically. But in that case we defeated the governments, and the challenge came from western style government that we liked. That's not the case in Vietnam.

For Vietnam veterans, an additional cut is that the people making money from Vietnam tend to be people or children of people who avoided service in Vietnam. I guess this proves to them that they were right -- that the war was evil and that Vietnam veterans were sadistic baby-killers. But as a Vietnam veteran, I don't think that was the case. In most cases those who went to Vietnam were just submitting to the rule of law by submitting to the draft. Others believed the idealistic vision of stopping Communism and creating a better world. Both are being stomped on by American businessmen today. They wear American flag lapel pins and profit from the hardships imposed by the government that defeated America because these money-grubbing businessmen opposed the war and would not serve. They and their children by and large do not serve in the military today in Afghanistan or Iraq.

Swift Boat Veterans Still An Issue

The Swift Boat issue refuses to go away, probably because of Obama's decision to refuse Federal campaign funding, as the NYT reports. The Swift Boat 527 probably played a big role in defeating Kerry in 2004, and Obama doesn't want to get caught in the same bind, without money to challenge whatever the Republican dirty-tricksters come up with to attack him.

It still rankles me as a Vietnam veteran that Kerry's service in Vietnam was used against him. He may not have been the best example of a veteran, but at least he went, unlike George Bush, Dick Cheney, Bill Clinton, and many other leading politicians. Ironically, Al Gore also served in Vietnam; so, clearly this country hates veterans. It can kiss up to veterans now, because without the draft no one is in danger of going to Iraq or Afghanistan unless they volunteer. But McCain's opposition to the new, improved GI Bill of Rights shows that caring about veterans is not widespread.

I can only conclude that Swift Boat veterans are unpatriotic, America haters. It's probably an over generalization, but the image of a whole group of veterans has been sullied as far as I am concerned.

Anschutz Like Plato's Unjust Man

In the Republic, one of Socrates' students, Thrasymachus, argues that the "unjust" person is more successful:

"My most simple Socrates, you must see that a just man always comes off worst than an unjust. Take first, the case of commercial dealing, when a just and an unjust man are partners. At the dissolution of the partnership you will never find the just man with more than the unjust, but always less. Then in politics, where there are taxes to pay, out of equal incomes the just man pays more, the unjust less; where there is money to be got, the just man gets nothing, the unjust much. Then, again, when they are in office, the just man, apart from other losses, ruins his own business by neglect, while his justice prevents his making a profit out of the public; and in addition he incurs the dislike of his kinsfolk and acquaintances by refusing to be unjust for their advantage. With the unjust man it is the opposite in every particular."

But Socrates, like the Bible, doesn't think that acting unjustly works out in the end.

Not only does Anschutz not pay taxes, as noted previously, but he spoiled the retirement of many Qwest workers, who had spent most of their careers working for US West, by destroying the value of Qwest stock, which many of the retirees held.

The Rich Don't Pay Taxes

The Bush tax cuts greatly reduced the taxes that the rich have to pay, but apparently not enough. Phil Anschutz is in trouble with IRS for some tax scheme that avoids his recognizing a taxable gain (and then having to pay taxes on it) for years and years, according to a number of papers, including the Rocky Mountain News.

The rich who balk at paying taxes are mostly Republicans. Rich Democrats, like Warren Buffett, tend to say the rich should pay more taxes. Thus, it's the Republicans who object to paying for government, including things like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the soldiers fighting them. No armor for troops if it means you have to share your private jet!

People will argue we have to reduce American taxes because we are competing for business headquarters with other countries, like the Cayman Islands, who have lower taxes. It's a race to the bottom. I say, let them go. If Anschutz wants to move to the Canary Islands, good riddance to him and his filthy money. He can go join (Clinton Democrat) Marc Rich in Switzerland, but don't let him come back here to stay at some luxury vacation home or spa. He's scum, a traitor. We don't need people like him. It will be a tough adjustment for America to lose wealthy freeloaders like Anschutz, but while we're having a recession, let's bite the bullet and take on a little more misery to clean up the country.

I have been down on the New York Wall Street types for living large off of America without paying their fair share, and now it turns out that one of the worst offenders is right here in Colorado.