When Israel’s Regime Buys US Weapons, it Buys Them with Your Money

Israeli airstrike on Gaza, May 2021. Screenshot from Voice of America video (public domain).
Israeli airstrike on Gaza, May 2021. Screenshot from Voice of America video (public domain).

On May 5, Hamas commander Mohammed Deif issued a warning to Israel’s government: Unless Israeli police and troops stopped attacking Palestinians in Jerusalem — including not just those protesting against the regime’s theft of their homes in the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood on behalf of Israeli “settlers,” but also worshipers at al-Aqsa mosque, one of Islam’s most sacred sites — rockets would fly.

On the same day, the Biden administration notified Congress of its approval for Boeing’s sale of $735 worth of Joint Direct Attack Munitions to the Israeli regime.

The Israelis ignored Deif’s warning and continued their abuses. The rockets flew. And, in the name “self-defense,” prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu ordered the war he badly needs to distract from his recent election defeat and his ongoing corruption trial.

As I write this, more than 200 Palestinian Arabs (including 59 children) lie dead in Gaza, as do ten Israelis (including two children).

President Biden says he supports a cease-fire, but his UN ambassador blocked a UN Security Council resolution calling for one.  And those Boeing munitions are presumably on their way to help keep up the carnage for as long as possible.

Let’s at least be honest about those weapons. The Israelis aren’t really  buying them. You are.

Each year, the US government dispenses $3.8 billion of your money in “military aid” to the Israeli government. The string attached to that aid is that the Israelis have to use it to buy American (rather than, say, Russian or Chinese) arms.

In fact, that’s one of the main arguments that supporters of the aid put up when people object to the US government handing out such big welfare checks: It’s not really aid to the Israelis, they say, it’s actually just corporate welfare for American “defense” contractors, creating jobs right here in the good ol’ US of A.

This is supposed to make you feel better about the whole thing, I guess. You shouldn’t , though. If you think about it, every dollar funneled into artificially “creating jobs” in the “defense” industry is a dollar that could have instead been used by you to buy the things you actually want and need, creating real jobs providing those goods and services in the process.

But even if the corporate welfare angle did make sense, it also reveals that you, the American taxpayer, are financing the half-filling of body bags with the the bodies of children.

Yep, that’s your tax dollars at work, saving the political neck of Israel’s answer to Saddam Hussein.

I suspect that may not be what Oliver Wendell Holmes had in mind when he told us that “taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society.” If you share my suspicion,  let “your representatives” in Washington know.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

Rumors of Cryptocurrency’s Death Are Still Greatly Exaggerated

 

Elon Musk is a man of many skills. He didn’t just make electric cars sexy, he sent one to space. Perhaps chief among his talents is the ability to roil markets by running his mouth. Lately, he’s aimed that talent at cryptocurrency.

In February, one of Musk’s companies, Tesla, announced that it had purchased $1.5 billion worth of Bitcoin; in March, that it would  accept Bitcoin for purchases of its cars.

Then, in Mid-May, Musk announced that Tesla was suspending vehicle purchases in Bitcoin over “increasing use of fossil fuels for Bitcoin mining and transactions” (while mentioning that “we are also looking at other cryptocurrencies that use <1% of Bitcoin’s energy/transaction”).

Naturally, the price of Bitcoin in dollars crashed — back to the terrible old level of February, only twice what it was worth in December.

And, naturally, the cryptocurrency naysayer chorus emerged from its groundhog hole to yell “told ya so.” Just like they’ve been doing every other week since May 22, 2010, when Laszlo Hanyecz paid 10,000 Bitcoins (current value, nearly half a billion dollars) for two pizzas.

Sorry, guys. Bitcoin’s probably not going away, and cryptocurrency in general certainly isn’t.

Yes, Bitcoin mining (the computer activity involved in processing transactions) is energy-intensive.

No, not all Bitcoin is mined using fossil fuels. In fact, many serious mining outfits specifically look for locations with cheap, plentiful hydroelectric power.

And no, not all cryptocurrency mining is nearly as energy-intensive as Bitcoin mining.

So, what’s Musk up to? Is he just having fun upsetting apple carts? Or is there business method behind his madness?

Financier (and former Trump White House Communications Director) Anthony Scaramucci thinks he knows. Scaramucci suggests (with a small hypothetical wager of  1/200th of a Bitcoin) that Musk’s next big cryptocurrency play will be to send Tesla’s energy subsidiary into “super clean” Bitcoin mining.

That would be a smart move from both directions. It would reduce the financial and environmental costs of mining, while giving solar and wind power a boost in their fight to displace fossil fuels generally.

The technology underlying cryptocurrency is sound. It will survive, and it will become dominant. The only question is whether it will completely displace, or be at least partially co-opted by, government monetary schemes. Hopefully the former. Getting government out of the money business would be a gigantic leap for human freedom and prosperity (and, maybe even a step toward getting government out of business entirely).

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

Contempt for “the Science,” Nancy Pelosi Edition

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) signing the American Rescue Plan Act. Photo by Senate Democrats.  Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) signing the American Rescue Plan Act. Photo by Senate Democrats. Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license.

On April 14, the US Centers for Disease Control issued new guidance for Americans who’ve grabbed their jabs. It’s safe, CDC says, for those fully vaccinated against COVID-19 to  “resume activities without wearing a mask or physically distancing.”

Outdoors. Indoors. Whether everyone present is vaccinated or not. Vaccinated? You’re good to go.

That, presumably, is the science part. The political part is “except where required by federal, state, local, tribal, or territorial laws, rules, and regulations, including local business and workplace guidance.”

Oh, and in the US House of Representatives.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), in her infinite wisdom, hath decreed (through Rear Admiral Brian P. Monahan, US Navy, Attending Physician of the United States Congress and the United States Supreme Court ) that the mask mandate will continue in force on the House floor “until all Members and floor staff are fully vaccinated.”

Last September, Pelosi issued a press release announcing that “we need science, not politics. … The American people need to hear directly from the scientists about how the virus spreads and what precautions are necessary.”

Last October, Pelosi insisted in another press release that “it has always been imperative that we follow the science.”

Last November, Pelosi told NPR’s Ari Shapiro that “the [Trump] Administration has refused to follow the science. They have contempt for science …”

But now that “the science” isn’t saying what she wants it to say, as it’s been energetically massaged to do for more than a year now, she’s got a sudden case of said contempt herself. What’s up with that?

“It’s about control,” says House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA). “She wants to control the House” (as if he doesn’t).

Scalise is right, but he’s not thinking big enough. Pelosi doesn’t just want to control the House. She wants to, along with her party, run the country (and for that matter the world).

The COVID-19 pandemic represented opportunity knocking.

Opportunity  to throw previously unthinkable sums of money at key Democratic constituencies and major Democratic policy priorities.

Opportunity for her fellow Democrats in state governments to seize previously unthinkable powers in the name of “public health,” no matter how specious the justifications.

Opportunity to rule without limits.

It’s easy to see why she’s unwilling to stand aside as that opportunity slips away, why she’s frantically grasping at its remnants.

It was never really about “the science” for Nancy Pelosi. She’s just stopped pretending, that’s all.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY