The end came to Moammar Gadhafi and regardless of who killed him, it was a brutal and violent demise.

The recriminations and accusations that the rebel forces now taking over Libya are on the same moral plane as the tyrant they overthrew are already implied by human rights groups who are demanding investigations into his death.  I must admit that I felt queasy Thursday as I watched reports over the Internet seem to show a certain lawless treatment of the self-anointed “Brother Leader” in his final hours.  The preferred approach by all reasonable people is a due process that includes a trying of alleged facts and application of just law that produces an appropriate punishment, in this case one would presume the gallows.  Obviously that did not happen and Libya’s government, the National Transition Council, will be watched closely to see if Colonel Gadhafi’s treatment was just a one-off event or the same justice that will continue to be meted out, just as the Colonel’s regime did.  I suspect the former.

A look at the man who ruled Libya ruthlessly for over 40 years will certainly put his unseemly demise into context.

To the outside world, including and especially the Arab world, he was a pariah.  He exported terrorism and unrest not only to the western world (see 1986 Berlin disco bombing; Pan Am 103 bombing over Lockerbie Scotland in 1988), but also to neighbors on the African continent.

The uprising that started only 8 months ago was fought relatively honorably by the rebels, as civil wars go. But such can not be said of the Gadhafi  loyalists.  Using a scorched earth policy as they retreated, which included summary executions of suspected rebels that included many innocent civilians, the good Colonel did not go out with a whimper.  And his 40 year reign racked up an even far higher toll of victims.  It was telling that the Arab League endorsed a no-fly zone over Libya in March, clearly challenging his regime.

In light of such, it is hardly surprising, though not necessarily morally justifiable, that those who had been oppressed or had friends or relatives killed by the Brother Leader, would not have had their Miranda card at the ready when they apprehended him.  The passion of the moment, and 40 years, could well have taken hold.

This should be kept in mind as the fledgling government takes control and attempts to bring order from the chaos that the Brother Leader reaped on Libya.

And while on the subject of grizzly demises, perhaps the lemonade from the lemons could be the lesson learned by other would-be or existing dictators (Bashar Assad comes to mind): if you are a dictator and try to fight a rebellion, you could well wind up in a body bag when all is said and done.

As Mr. Assad digs in and decides that brutal force is the most appropriate reaction to the challenges of his regime, he may well look to 2 other fellow dictators who followed such route: Saddam Hussein and Gadhafi ( [Don't] R.I.P.).  If even one life is saved by a dictator capitulating just 1 minute sooner than he would have otherwise, the seemingly gruesome treatment of Gadhafi and temporary vacation from due process can be rationalized, if not justified.

-I.M. Windee

Now that all of the slobbering and adulation over Steve Jobs is ebbing (and some of you in the media need to take a long, hot bath), it is worth pondering automation in our lives, which is what Mr. Jobs specialized in delivering.

I do not wish to sound like the patriarch in The Mosquito Coast nor Ted Kaczynski and I must admit, I have never used any of the I-[products] that Mr. Jobs and the tech industry rolled out, but it is becoming quite apparent that the latest gadgets are not only becoming a part of our lives, but a part of us.  They are our id; our identity; our appendages; who we are, at least in part.

Think about it.  Most people think far more about the device they use than any message they may compose and transmit on it.  I witnessed the newest release of an I-[Latest] with a level of energy and interest that, if focused properly, could solve world peace and the cure for cancer, with some change back.  And how many people can walk a park, down a country (or any) road or in the open fields, and entertain and enjoy their thoughts and ideas without an I-[Whatever]?

None of this is Steve Jobs’ blame any more than the gun manufacturer is responsible for a criminal who misuses its product.

But in lionizing Mr. Jobs, we implicitly condone people being an I-me, instead of the good old-fashion me.

The biggest concern is not that people are becoming robots, but that robots are becoming a part of us.

-I.M. Windee

I sometimes wonder if Liberals and organized labor leaders are speaking to this planet or some alternative universe, especially when discussing how to resolve the current economic challenges we face. At least that seems the case in SEUI President Mary Kay Henry’s missive in the Op-Ed section of The Wall Street Journal last week regarding why the kids protesting in the financial district of New York City should be supported (“Why Labor Backs “Occupy Wall Street”, The Wall Street Journal, Opinion, October 8-9, 2011).

Her trope, for the critical eye, is like fishing by shooting into a barrel.

For starters, Ms. Henry claims the New York City protests have “captivated the nation” and are “shaking our conscience as a nation and forcing a national conversation about everything that is wrong with our economy.” As someone who works right across the street from their playpen, I can say that I hear little discussion of it back in the suburbs and in my (Non-Wall Street, blue-collar) office it gets only a chuckle and derision.

Ms. Henry drags her narrative on by stating “while students, seniors and workers didn’t cause our economic collapse, we’re the one’s paying the price.” The dirty little not-so secret is that SEIU members, according to its own website, earn over $10,000 per year more than non-union members. Is that paying the price or exacting it? The fact is, she and her union are part of corprate America.

She goes on to say that Wall Street CEOs crashed our economy. Really? You mean they were responsible for paying the mortgages of all the people who willingly entered into them and then defaulted because they were over their heads (read: living beyond their means)?

Then there is her bill of particular that banks refuse to invest in small businesses. She may wish to look to President Obama and her Democrat patrons who are making small businesses skittish with the never-ending threat of tax increases as well a regulatory environment that is presently strangling the economy.

And, of course, comes the class-warfare moldy oldie: “the richest 5% of the population holds 72% of the wealth in our country.” So what? Just for a mental exercise, what if the “poorest” 95% who owned 28% of the wealth in a hypothetical country had a Ferrari in their driveway, and the other 5% were thus able to keep a Rolls-Royce in their driveway. Would there be some “unfairness” or need for the “proletariat” to feel slighted by inequities in our economy?

Ms. Henry goes on to assert that Americans watched in “horror” as Republicans held our country hostage during the debt-ceiling debate to win budget cuts. Was the American public informed of this “horror” that they experienced? No poll I have read about nor discussion I’ve had with anyone has revealed such a reaction from the alleged fiscal draconian measures that Ms. Henry implies was attempted on our profligate federal government.

And Ms. Henry wants President Obama’s American Jobs Act passed, after hundreds of billions of dollars of similar “stimulus” programs. Remind me again what the layman’s definition of insanity is.

Ms. Henry’s directive that we hold “Wall Street and big corporations accountable for the damage they’ve inflicted on us all” is the populist blather that in no way tries to solve the problem but deflect it from big government and the unions who created the problems. It also reminds me of what that great bourgeois President, Abraham Lincoln, once said: “You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich.”

Finally, Ms. Henry goes on to compare the protests of the children in the New York City to various other groups of people who “change the arc of history.” Amongst such groups she mentioned auto workers of 1930s Flint Michigan and civil rights activists. I would also like to add, if alright with her, the air traffic controllers of the early 1980s (I believe Al Gore would call such an inconvenient fact).

Ms. Henry, like all Liberals, is a dinosaur and perhaps she knows such but is just trying to justify her rich paycheck. The bromides she offers are yester-decade and do not apply to 2011 (A.D.).

-I.M. Windee

Almost from the beginning that drones were announced to the public, the usual suspects (read: Liberals) have come out in full-throat against them.

For those unaware, drones are unmanned planes, operated by remote control throughout the world by the U.S. military, which deploy missiles on enemy combatants.  They are very accurate and have little incident of crashing.

Admittedly, I was caught flat-footed and unknowing of why they would be against such.  But now the answer is quite obvious: Liberals hate all warfare, justified or otherwise, at all costs.

So it makes sense that drones would be an unpopular weapon in America’s arsenal.  After all, they are efficient and most important, not human.  To wit, you will never see a funeral for a drone that has crashed nor a distraught mother of a downed drone stating her case that our military efforts should be re-evaluated, if not discontinued altogether, in a theatre of hostilities.

The anti-war wing relies heavily on the graphic nature of war to try to push through their agenda.  Whether it is coffins of deceased servicemen being lowered from transport planes at Dover air-force base, correspondents walking the front lines and interviewing weary infantrymen, or bombed out buildings, the message of ending war is far easier conveyed through such images than stating the case otherwise.  Thank God today’s Liberals were not around during the Civil War when Matthew Brady was publishing his war photos otherwise we’d be negotiating trade agreements with the Confederacy instead of the rest of the world and listening to the national anthem of Dixieland from across the Potomac each evening instead of being one nation.

Such tactic was exposed on the PBS Newshour show Monday night when David Cortright, director of policy studies at the Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies at Notre Dame, discussed the matter of drones.

Mr. Cortright said “We are now at a point where it’s possible for political leaders to think that we can make war cheaply and seemingly easily…………….We can wage war without endangering our troops, at seemingly lower costs. And any development that makes war seem cheaper or easier is morally troubling.”

Mr. Cortright goes on to reveal his agenda by saying “ultimately terrorism is a political phenomenon. It must be defeated by political means, through bargaining and negotiation, through police work, law enforcement.”  Sounds like an episode of Law & Order.

Yes, Mr. Cortright, war can be made cheaper and easier for us, but that does not mean it is unjustified.  Let’s assume, as much as we all wish to question our government, that it thinks long and hard about who the enemy is and treats such accordingly. A logical extension of your “cheaper and easier” argument is that we use muskets or even swords so that we can appreciate the full impact of the wars we are waging, or more accurately, those being waged against us.  But there is no reason to place the U.S. at some competitive warfare equilibrium (if not disadvantage), especially when we are morally justified.  But that is where Mr. Cortright and his ilk part company from mainstream society: they have a major problem with U.S. policy, and perhaps the U.S., in general.  They do not see us as a beacon of freedom and liberty but more as a colonial conqueror.

Mr. Cortright and Liberals should be honest and say that they do not have a problem so much with the weaponry we use than the causes we fight.  Until then, they are playing the invisible (policy debate) warfare that they accuse the drone program of.

-I.M. Windee

Steve Jobs, co-inventor of the personal computer and founder of computer company Apple, died today.

He was the complete entrepreneur in the sense that he had “skin in the game” (Mr. Jobs sold his Volkswagen van to finance the invention of the first personal computer) and a vision to deploy.

The result was not only the Apple I and II but, in his “second” life, iTunes and the iPod and other gadgets.  One can argue the value and cultural worth of his products, but they have become an intrinsic part of today’s society and will have an impact for generations.

This is in sharp contrast to another iconic individual in our time, Warren Buffett, who has thrown himself into the public policy discussion of late.  Mr. Buffett, a stellar stock picker and investor, has also created wealth within our capitalist system, but unlike Mr. Jobs, indirectly through the flow of capital.  Mr. Jobs created wealth outright: not just by aiding the financial environment that allowed capital creation, like Mr. Buffett.

And this might explain that why while Mr. Jobs was thinking of new inventions virtually up to his death, and not fretting over the perceived income and wealth inequalities that supposedly exist, Mr. Buffett threw himself full bore into such debate and offered solutions that would help cure society from ills such as himself.  Think of it as preaching abstinence from the bar-stool.

The unfortunate and, one would like to think, unintended consequence of Mr. Buffett’s awakening of the downside of capitalism is that his efforts would effectively limit the possibilities of future Steve Jobs’.  Through high taxation and its evil twin sister, over-regulation, an individual with a great invention like Mr. Jobs will have a tough time taking such out of their garage and into the stores.

As the trend is going, the future great industrialists and entrepreneurs will not only have to put forth great ideas but possess the resilience and persistence to fight not just market but government forces.

And let us not even think about the “fair share” that the government will take away from Mr. Jobs via the death tax.

-I.M. Windee

Yesterday, American-born terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki, thinly disguised as a Muslim cleric, was decommissioned (killed) as a minister of nihilistic murder.  Unquestionably, the world is a far better place without him.

Among his Islamo-Fascist “accomplishments,” he was tied to the 2009 shooting spree at Ft. Hood that killed 13 as well as the 2009 Christmas “underwear bomber,” and aspired to many other atrocities.

In the usual Liberal precincts in the western world, there is moral hand-wringing over whether Mr. al-Awlaki should have been read his rights and put through the paces of our American legal system.  How wrong they are and how much they miss the point of the challenge western civilization faces.

The Islamic terrorists have been conducting what is best called an “asymmetrical war” which can be described as dirty warfare (to the extent any warfare is clean, even if justifiable).  The terrorists attack soft spots which are quite often civilian sites (see: 9/11, the U.S. Embassy bombings in Africa of the late 1990s).

There has been much debate as to how to treat these attacks.  Generally speaking, Liberals wish to treat such events as a “criminal” happening, kind of like a “Law & Order” episode.  Thus, the “perp” would have the full constitutional protections of a U.S. citizen who acknowledges the U.S. Constitution, as well as the U.S.

Conservatives take the view that people who rise above the level of parochial criminality, that is, who wish to destroy the United States and act on such, are more than just criminals but “enemy combatants.”

It seems fairly straight-forward: an individual, or group, who both abhors and acts to destroy the U.S. or institutions thereof, is an enemy combatant of the U.S.  No need to write tickets or summons.  And in all of the war movies I have seen, I have never viewed either side come ashore with lawyers and legal justification to the enemy combatants; it is presumed that a state of war existst and appropriate action taken.  Only Liberals seem to not understand such.

And while we are on the subject of enemies of the U.S., it is noteworthy to ponder how most Liberals are far more forgiving and understanding of Islamic-Fascists like Anwar al-Awlaki than they are of Dick Cheney.  Who is truly a threat to this country?

-I.M. Windee

The Echo Boomers are out in (less than) full force this week in the financial district in lower Manhattan.  They are here to remind us of the evils of corporate and Wall St. greed.  For those of you older folk, like me, note that proponents of socialism did not end with the collapse of the Soviet Union or the impending implosion of the Europe welfare state.  Undaunted by history, these kids, self-anointed experts in everything from economics to human nature, are determined to make their point, whatever that may be.

As with most revolutionaries, their identity is more of what they are against, than what they stand for.  Wall St. and Corporate America were the main target of their crankiness.

But this is not your father’s 1960s protest.  These kids come prepared with coffee from Starbucks (Nasdaq symbol: SBUX ), footwear by Birkenstock (incorporated in 1972), guitars by Fender (100+ million in revenues) to take their minds off of the depressing thought of corporate oppression of the masses, and blue jeans by Levi’s (55,000 retail locations worldwide).

If these children only realized that they’d have to remain naked and without caffeine to stay true to their anti-corporate trope, perhaps the current state of affairs would not seem as dismal to them.

But the best, and most entertaining part of their carnival, is their posters.  I offer some of their missives and, being a weak person, my comments that I can’t resist giving:

• “FIX ARE SKOOLZ”: Given the byproducts I’ve seen from our educational system, I’m not sure if this was intentionally written incorrectly or not. Enough said.
• “WE ARE THE WINDS OF CHANGE”: Correct: you are windy, and, out of semi-respect, I won’t analogize you to another bodily-function wind.
• “SUPPLY-SIDE ECONOMICS: PONZI SCHEME”: This is a tough one as most credible voices agree that supply-side economics is a reality: the less money (taxes) taken out of private industry, the more private industry produces and benefits everyone.  As this has been generally working since the Pilgrims landed here several hundred years ago, I would hate to have to dig up every generation and tell them they were wrong.  Let’s shelf this one for now.
• “MY CHILD AND I ARE HOMELESS AND IN POVERTY BECAUSE OF THE GREED OF WALL ST. AND CORPORATE AMERICA”: I don’t disbelieve it but all of my schooling and business experience just doesn’t allow me to understand a post-slavery business model that prospers when people are made poor. Quite the opposite, in fact.
• “BAIL OUT STUDENT LOANS”: This one is a slam dunk as I am swimming in such debt myself: GET A JOB!!  That is the best way to address student loans and all other debt, for that matter.  (My apologies for the insensitive forthrightness [read: honesty]).
• “AMERICAN JOBS IN CHINA :(” - Forgive me for my brutal honesty, but most of this guitar-playing, granola-crunching, Kumbaya crowd would be averse to jobs no matter where such are on the globe; and the closer jobs are to them, the more they would be put off: this is not a w-2 crowd.
• “PEOPLE BEFORE PROFITS”: Sounds nifty, but if you start issuing financial statements in terms of human bodies, there is a slight ethical problem; tough to do.
• “ENDING AMERICAN IMPERIALISM IS OUR ONE DEMAND”: What, pray tell, would you suggest take the place of the American lead in this world?

There is much more blather but above gives a flavor of the situation.  And somehow I must believe, given my own early adulthood experiences as well as observing these children, that ignorance is a rite of passage in youth.

Or to put it as Churchill did: “if you are young and not a liberal you have no heart. And if you are old and not a conservative you have no brain.”

-I.M. Windee

Political strategist James Carville, sensing a downward trend in the Democratic party’s fortunes, has an answer to address the negative political results of President Obama’s lousy policies: fire those who faithfully implemented such.  In a “kill the messenger” approach, Mr. Carville suggests that the President fire his economic advisers and maybe his Attorney General.

With the moral imperative, if not justification, of a Churchill or Lincoln, Mssr. Carville pronounces “The course we are on is not working. The hour is late, and the need is great.  Fire. Indict. Fight.”

But who exactly are these people who should be fired?  The answer is simple: those who faithfully carried out the President’s policies that have simply not worked.  One would think that the firing of congressional Blue Dog Democrats, in last November’s elections, would have satisfied Liberals’ frustrations with their own failures.  But apparently not.  And if Mr. Obama does fire people carrying out his policies, is he not sending a message to the electorate that he, too, should be fired in next November’s election for the same policies?

***********************

James Fallows of The Atlantic weighed in on NPR this weekend about what Obama needs to do to right the ship: his political and the national economy.  He said the president who Mr. Fallows once worked for, Jimmy Carter, was “in a real situation of malaise in 1979.”  Putting aside the difference between “real” malaise and all other flavors, it seems that Mr. Fallows is implying that Mr. Carter was given quite a bit on his plate that was either well beyond his control or at least far more cha;llenging than what President Obama faces.  Such is true as the late 1970s saw the U.S. embroiled in a Cold War and mired in national self-doubt resulting from Vietnam falling in 1975, the social convulsions of the 1960s and failed economic policies from several administrations.

Such also reminds us of the “transformative President”, Ronald Reagan, who Candidate Obama admired on the campaign trail in 2008.  Unfortunately, Mr. Obama is learning that not only did Mr. Reagan have great communication skills, but he communicated great ideas, as President Reagan often said.  Unless Mr. Obama wishes to abandon his failed approaches to the economy, he will merely aspire to the Gipper’s success, but not achieve such.

*************************

As reported on NPR, a study this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences says that when men become fathers, their testosterone levels drop precipitously.

Dr. Lee Gettler at Northwestern University checked the testosterone levels of 624 Filipino men when they were 21 and found them high.

But five years after becoming fathers, their testosterone levels had dipped as much as 34 percent. The steepest decreases occurred among men who reported that they spent time caring for and palling around with their children.  “There’s something about being an active father that’s contributing to these dramatic declines,” said Dr. Gettler, who headed the study.

No kidding.

I’ve seen the commercials regarding low testosterone (“LT”) and as a (bedraggled) father of 2 (3 if you include the wife), this comes as little surprise.

Stumbling home each week night and expected to have the energy level of the family that has been home for hours and bored over such, playing chauffeur, financier, and cruise director every weekend (all weekend long), and then repeating the week night wash/rinse cycle Monday morning, it is a wonder that the modern father/husband register a blood pressure, let alone one of testosterone.

And for the medical world, “Dr. Windee” has a new label for this male hormone phenomena: “BT” (Beaten Testosterone).

-I.M. Windee

I, like most Americans from the line worker to the boardroom, have been desperately searching for good news in light of our ongoing anemic job and economic growth along with a stagnation in income based upon inflation-adjusted dollars.  I believe I have found a beacon in the fog of our economic despair and am somewhat surprised that more learned minds have not.  Namely, the number of “rich” has risen greatly since President Obama and Liberals took control of government these last several years.

Think about it.  According to President Obama’s latest economic stimulus plan, those earning more than $200,000 ($250,000 for couples) should have their deductions limited (read: taxes increased) as, presumably, they are at least well off, if not rich and thus can afford it.

And in Minnesota, the legislature proposed a bill last year which would have raised the top income tax rate from 7.85% to 9.1% for single taxpayers making over $113,110 per year (or married couples over $200,000). Oregon has a Millionaire’s Tax threshold of $125,000, followed by Hawaii and  Maryland at $150,000.

Since 2008,  California raised rates on all tax brackets, Delaware raised  income tax for people making more than $60,000, and Ohio cancelled a scheduled  income tax cut.  New York raised its top rate for taxpayers earning over $500,000 from 6.85% to 8.97%.

And on my Planet Jersey, earning $500,000 or more in taxable income gets you the top tax rate of 8.97%.  Presumably, 1/2 millionaires and multi-millionaires are of the same cut of cloth: that dreaded “rich” of Dickensian caricature.

The good news is that, as the federal and state budget deficits will continue for the foreseeable future, politicians will need to raise taxes from those on lower income levels which will classify even more of us as “rich.”

Now that’s rich.

-I.M. Windee