The baby boomers did it
Everything good and sad about our American society today can be linked to this bubble of people in our land.
How the baby boom generation started is pretty simple. It was the birth numbers after World War Two that were way above the average. It resulted in a group of our national population way out of proportion to other groups before and after. This group was so large that it got the name “baby boomers”.
Back in the 1960’s many forces converged on the baby boomers. The rebellious stage of life was entered. Civil rights and the Vietnam war dominated politics, but this time it was not just talked about but applied as in living by example, a very noble course of action it seemed if anti-establishment in perception. Culture was dominated by youth, television and music, prosperity, and security. Individual rights over group rights were celebrated. The birth control pill was invented and used. A soft revolution was underway, and the heady could do their own thing in how they stormed their Bastille, knowing no one would shoot back. The times they were a changing! “If it feels good, do it”; “if you can’t be with the one you love, love the one you’re with” were repeated or sung over and over, often with a wink and a nod.
There was a resistance to all this. “My country right or wrong” and “love it or leave it” gained immense popularity as expressions. “Okie from Muscogee” became a cultural response song. Defamation of the American flag prompted many harsh responses, especially when worn as clothing. Long haired, dope smokin’, and hippy because derisive words at a national level.
Sadly assassinations, and many shootings only added to the turmoil of the times. During this turmoil the ideas of anti-establishment somehow became anti-government.
How the baby boomers sorted all this out took decades. Going to work as in a career, marrying, and having children changed most. And our Country is incredibly large. The academic and religious leaders went off on their own liberal courses inspired by the past soft revolution. Individual rights flourished as the idea of group rights faded in the culture. Intrinsic distrust of government also flourished as if the government was manned by non-Americans. The on-going Cold War seemed to tamper things down on the foreign front, and the draft went away. The rises in crime, out-of-wedlock births, expanded drug use, and sexually transmitted diseases nastier than those in the past were becoming more than hints on the horizon. The declines of educational scores began to appear across the country. The one constant was high school sports which remained as popular and supported as ever.
And now as in the Frank Sinatra song “It Was a Very Good Year” the baby boomers are in the autumn and winter of their lives. The descendents of the baby boomers are beginning to take over.
The idea of group rights, often expressed in National Interests, is coming back. Patriotism is no longer a derisive term. Living and doing by example has an expanded meaning over that introduced by the baby boomers counter culture. Volunteerism and faith-based initiatives are popular for the descendents of the baby boomers. Balancing idealism with practicality in deciding how to vote about solving our problems today is becoming prevalent. The present and future dominate the past. Social engineering must be purposeful, with desired results. The foreign front seems more threatening to most than in the past. The main stream religions are fading as the more independent protestant denominations are rising. The overall trend is that people are going to church in greater numbers than decades ago. The population is more acceptable to change for both foreign and domestic reasons, as long as the government is just, responsible, and listens.
There is an ageless assertion of group think and political correctness that is becoming quasi-religious dogma. Anti-government anything is still alive and well. Political discourse and mutual respect seem like old fashioned terms not useful today. Double standards are justifiable if for the right cause of the deciders. A large portion of the baby boomers still avoid war as in being anti-war. Diplomacy without the threat of war is doable, and the only course of action. The political and financial security of the past is part of their rights as a human. Social engineering is still a noble idea and intent, even if the result is a failure. The rights of humans are much expanded. Even the idea of an airline passenger bill of rights now makes sense. If we can’t change things constitutionally, then we can use the power of the people to make the changes deemed fit by the baby boomers.
So here we are today. What started out so well intended has turned out so terribly wrong in too many ways. When a noble intent applied over decades consumes itself in the end then it is a failed idea. Another course would have been wiser, in hindsight.
Sunday, April 15, 2007
When will comity come back to our federal government?
Where all the lack of comity began, or lack of mutual respect, is not as important as noting things are pitiful in D.C. these days. Lack of comity is not the American way.
Many think President Clinton and his wife introduced the hard core Arkansas State politics and methods to our government and bureaucracy in D.C. Others think he just expanded the potential that already existed. Either way, or other ways, things in D.C. are intolerable these days, spoken as a citizen.
Now we have six years of a President who stated up front that one of his objectives was to change the tone in D.C., and he still is following his stated objective. I still believe it because he seems to do it by example, as in the golden rule, as in show mutual respect to the Democrats, and a few others of his detractors, that he has delivered. That six years of this has not worked nationally is disappointing at worst given all the friction displayed by the Democratic Party, and potentially harmful to our Nation if Party objectives supercede National objectives, and lack of comity is now a political objective. Of course the normal Democratic Party argument is that he, the President personally, is disingenuous and not worth trusting. If this in a correct assessment, then the vote in 2008 should sort all this debate out.
The past can be a burden to most who look forward to our National future. Most citizens demand comity, or mutual respect, in looking forward to our future and the debate about all this. Those that do not get it or get dragged down by the past can go the way of dinosaurs.
Today there is little evidence that national politicians have “got it” about civility, mutual respect, and comity. This is the time to step in with the vote, even trolling for their votes to check their sincerity about comity.
Where all the lack of comity began, or lack of mutual respect, is not as important as noting things are pitiful in D.C. these days. Lack of comity is not the American way.
Many think President Clinton and his wife introduced the hard core Arkansas State politics and methods to our government and bureaucracy in D.C. Others think he just expanded the potential that already existed. Either way, or other ways, things in D.C. are intolerable these days, spoken as a citizen.
Now we have six years of a President who stated up front that one of his objectives was to change the tone in D.C., and he still is following his stated objective. I still believe it because he seems to do it by example, as in the golden rule, as in show mutual respect to the Democrats, and a few others of his detractors, that he has delivered. That six years of this has not worked nationally is disappointing at worst given all the friction displayed by the Democratic Party, and potentially harmful to our Nation if Party objectives supercede National objectives, and lack of comity is now a political objective. Of course the normal Democratic Party argument is that he, the President personally, is disingenuous and not worth trusting. If this in a correct assessment, then the vote in 2008 should sort all this debate out.
The past can be a burden to most who look forward to our National future. Most citizens demand comity, or mutual respect, in looking forward to our future and the debate about all this. Those that do not get it or get dragged down by the past can go the way of dinosaurs.
Today there is little evidence that national politicians have “got it” about civility, mutual respect, and comity. This is the time to step in with the vote, even trolling for their votes to check their sincerity about comity.
The Grim Reaper comes to the Media
How many people expect Katie Couric to have her CBS job in the next ten years? In the next ten years will the New York Times in any written or online mode be here? Will the Washington Post, Newsweek, Time, and other such publications be here in ten years? Will all the printed and television pundits still be getting paid for their opinions in ten years? For those who can retire first, just how secure is their retirement from the Washington Post when it goes under, for example?
Will such media chains as the Associated Press or Reuters, or even publicly supported organizations like BBC and NPR exist in their present form and editorial control in ten years?
In the last ten years, how many people have abandoned the aforementioned publications and chains because they are now editorials for their causes vice the “just the news” types they used to be, or pretended to be? Have the people changed, or has the Media changed? If it is some of both, who has changed more?
The professionalizing of past political campaigns included using media masters, or spin masters. How one said things, and when they said things, could influence the votes of citizens. How many people think this will still work in ten years? How many people think ideas may count more than spinning ideas in the next ten years? Will media spinning be part of governing in ten years? Will winning a war exist only if won in the media?
How many people think the present 24/7 news cycles brought about by the cable news television industry will still be here in ten years? Will 30 and 60 second sound bites and video clips and producer drop dead times still be the news standard compiled by industry networks? For that matter, what happens in ten years when all of the world’s population has access to the media and news than the maybe 1/3 of the population has today?
Things can change quicker than we might imagine. In 1900 one big topic was what to do with all the manure in big cities left by the animals used for transportation. In the next ten years a massive die off of the baby boom generation left by World War II will also bring about surprising changes.
Saturday, April 14, 2007
Wars and diplomacy are about ways of life, not life
There are some things worth fighting and dieing for, and just to preserve life is not one of them.
Wars and diplomacy are practiced by adults who do so from afar. Actual war fighting is done by those who see it more personally, as in love for their buddies.
Wars and diplomacy today are not about apelike chest beating, or egos, or insults, or even payback (at least in the short term). Wars and diplomacy are about protecting, and often advancing one’s way of life, one’s culture, one’s means to protect our families and children. This sounds like defensive war and diplomacy. There is offensive war and diplomacy, but it is seldom even considered in the West these days. Unfortunately, many in the East still do consider it since the idea is primeval in nature. And given the poor understanding of Eastern cultures and values, many in the West are at a disadvantage in defensive war and diplomacy. Forget the offensive part.
When Western political leaders are 100 % committed to trading our cultures and values and preservation of our way of life just to save one kidnapped person by Eastern people, in order to preserve his or her way of life, then there is a problem. All understand that life is full of compromises, so most understand that sometimes a politician may see advantages in compromising, as in paying money or releasing our own prisoners. It is the 100% factor that most object to. This is not theoretical, some have friends who have been kidnapped and put through mock executions by Eastern valued people.
So in the future is kidnapping by bandits and bad guys in the Middle East going to get a 100% response rate from our Western political leaders and their appointed minions? I hope and expect not. There are billions of us concerned about our progeny, our way of life, and even the wonderful things Western culture and science has brought to the world.
There are some things worth fighting and dieing for, and just to preserve life is not one of them.
Wars and diplomacy are practiced by adults who do so from afar. Actual war fighting is done by those who see it more personally, as in love for their buddies.
Wars and diplomacy today are not about apelike chest beating, or egos, or insults, or even payback (at least in the short term). Wars and diplomacy are about protecting, and often advancing one’s way of life, one’s culture, one’s means to protect our families and children. This sounds like defensive war and diplomacy. There is offensive war and diplomacy, but it is seldom even considered in the West these days. Unfortunately, many in the East still do consider it since the idea is primeval in nature. And given the poor understanding of Eastern cultures and values, many in the West are at a disadvantage in defensive war and diplomacy. Forget the offensive part.
When Western political leaders are 100 % committed to trading our cultures and values and preservation of our way of life just to save one kidnapped person by Eastern people, in order to preserve his or her way of life, then there is a problem. All understand that life is full of compromises, so most understand that sometimes a politician may see advantages in compromising, as in paying money or releasing our own prisoners. It is the 100% factor that most object to. This is not theoretical, some have friends who have been kidnapped and put through mock executions by Eastern valued people.
So in the future is kidnapping by bandits and bad guys in the Middle East going to get a 100% response rate from our Western political leaders and their appointed minions? I hope and expect not. There are billions of us concerned about our progeny, our way of life, and even the wonderful things Western culture and science has brought to the world.
Friday, April 13, 2007
Justice in the world, tip points, and coincidences
Sometimes it all converges for local politicians like myself. My 60’s instincts come to face with truth and justice. What is the balance between good intentions and outrage, and the rule of law.
It as been fun getting older. What I thought 30 years ago about advancing my ideas over the rule of law has been tempered by time. Maybe there is another point of view, inspite of my certainty that I was morally on the right track to the future. And I may have been. Now who cares … I don’t.
What I do care about is my Family, and their kids. Being a father has baggage that I understood during the impregnation process (the sex was fun and good), but I knew what was going on. After the birth, the fatherhood part even got better. This was not a burden, this was privilege. There were disappointments along the way, by the way.
Now all the hoop la ha over the Imus racial comments about the Rutgers team has come up. He got fired by the New York crowd and their advertisers I hear. The details are still not interesting to me as a father. I am interested in how all this applies to my family. In this regard, the double standard of racism statements pops to the top of my antenna list. How does this affect me, and maybe even the types like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are killing the goose that lays the golden egg. Maybe even we have reached a tipping point where pontifications by Sharpton and Jackson don’t gain the traction they used to. Just because you say something does not make it so.
What does count is family, culture, and way of life.
Welcome to the new world, Al and Jesse. That you are passé, you may not know it yet. Many of us do know it.
Sometimes it all converges for local politicians like myself. My 60’s instincts come to face with truth and justice. What is the balance between good intentions and outrage, and the rule of law.
It as been fun getting older. What I thought 30 years ago about advancing my ideas over the rule of law has been tempered by time. Maybe there is another point of view, inspite of my certainty that I was morally on the right track to the future. And I may have been. Now who cares … I don’t.
What I do care about is my Family, and their kids. Being a father has baggage that I understood during the impregnation process (the sex was fun and good), but I knew what was going on. After the birth, the fatherhood part even got better. This was not a burden, this was privilege. There were disappointments along the way, by the way.
Now all the hoop la ha over the Imus racial comments about the Rutgers team has come up. He got fired by the New York crowd and their advertisers I hear. The details are still not interesting to me as a father. I am interested in how all this applies to my family. In this regard, the double standard of racism statements pops to the top of my antenna list. How does this affect me, and maybe even the types like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are killing the goose that lays the golden egg. Maybe even we have reached a tipping point where pontifications by Sharpton and Jackson don’t gain the traction they used to. Just because you say something does not make it so.
What does count is family, culture, and way of life.
Welcome to the new world, Al and Jesse. That you are passé, you may not know it yet. Many of us do know it.
The best and the brightest
What a novel idea! Just what does it mean in the USA when well educated young people get positions of influence inside the Executive part of the D.C. government. If fact, let’s drag in the Congress, and the Judicial.
Let’s take this idea one level further. Education and brains overcome practical experience and operating experience, or are at least more valued. It might even be called the rubber meeting the road, finally. Which is more valuable to our country, smart educated young people, or probably just as smart older people with some road time inside the D.C. cauldron of internecine and bureaucratic warfare. Of course this begs the question, has federal bureaucracy become a force unto itself beyond the control of the best hard working smart “interagency” initiatives by the best and the brightest young Generation X types hired into the interior parts of the government. To continue to a worst case outcome, we may lose in Iraq just because of what happens inside of D.C. If we are to that point, then no initiative will solve the problem. It is time for revolt and revolution just to clean house.
Of course, in the case of Iraq, there is a viable case the President is doing a crummy job at being Commander in Chief, Iraq style. If this is correct, then no amount of best and brightest and good and bad personal assignments will unscrew the President’s performance. If this is wrong, and his Iraq style demands another savvy that may not have been taught in one of academia schools, then other things may be concluded.
So back to the best and the brightest. If one delves down into the bowels of government, more than a few Generation X types, as in their 20’s and 30’s, have been brought into government at all levels, and among the three divisions of government. That is fine until we start losing a simple war against a small country, or try legislate complicated things like health care and social security and medicare reform. Suddenly school education and good ideas fall by the wayside of practical experience included in the mix.
So when is the honeymoon over hiring educated well intentioned and hard working inexperienced people going to end? How many generations of McNamara wiz kids are our elected leaders in the executive and congress going to go with, or even put up with, even if it leads them to foreign defeats. For that matter, when are we going to elect a President and Congress that cleans house in the federal bureaucracy. Most will say, never …this is too hard a nut to crack. If this is the case, revolution may be closer than many can even imagine.
What a novel idea! Just what does it mean in the USA when well educated young people get positions of influence inside the Executive part of the D.C. government. If fact, let’s drag in the Congress, and the Judicial.
Let’s take this idea one level further. Education and brains overcome practical experience and operating experience, or are at least more valued. It might even be called the rubber meeting the road, finally. Which is more valuable to our country, smart educated young people, or probably just as smart older people with some road time inside the D.C. cauldron of internecine and bureaucratic warfare. Of course this begs the question, has federal bureaucracy become a force unto itself beyond the control of the best hard working smart “interagency” initiatives by the best and the brightest young Generation X types hired into the interior parts of the government. To continue to a worst case outcome, we may lose in Iraq just because of what happens inside of D.C. If we are to that point, then no initiative will solve the problem. It is time for revolt and revolution just to clean house.
Of course, in the case of Iraq, there is a viable case the President is doing a crummy job at being Commander in Chief, Iraq style. If this is correct, then no amount of best and brightest and good and bad personal assignments will unscrew the President’s performance. If this is wrong, and his Iraq style demands another savvy that may not have been taught in one of academia schools, then other things may be concluded.
So back to the best and the brightest. If one delves down into the bowels of government, more than a few Generation X types, as in their 20’s and 30’s, have been brought into government at all levels, and among the three divisions of government. That is fine until we start losing a simple war against a small country, or try legislate complicated things like health care and social security and medicare reform. Suddenly school education and good ideas fall by the wayside of practical experience included in the mix.
So when is the honeymoon over hiring educated well intentioned and hard working inexperienced people going to end? How many generations of McNamara wiz kids are our elected leaders in the executive and congress going to go with, or even put up with, even if it leads them to foreign defeats. For that matter, when are we going to elect a President and Congress that cleans house in the federal bureaucracy. Most will say, never …this is too hard a nut to crack. If this is the case, revolution may be closer than many can even imagine.
Iraq, navigating between black and white in a sea of grey
Making sense out of the Iraq situation is difficult at both the political and military level. That the political and military are intermixed is part of the dilemma of deciding which way to think, and go. There is the effort in D.C. that is still muddled at the Executive level even after four years, and all this is further muddled by Democratic Party’s disingenuous double talk under the guise of an election mandate, which did not occur. The Country appears to still be evenly divided on its support for the war in Iraq. And then there is the effort in Iraq which has also been just as muddled as in D.C. due to lack of unity of command, i.e., one person in charge; and then there’s the time (years) that we have allowed our enemies to exploit their strengths and attenuate ours.
Most of us focus on the future out of common sense. Taking the time to focus on the past may have value in lessons learned, but that effort is for the historians and not we citizens concerned for our future here in America. The two black and white questions are: why make the effort today, and is our Country organized and actively prosecuting the war in order to win? The answers to both questions are grey, but they are still the basis for rational decision-making. Confusing the answers is the fact that there is more than one war going on at the same time. There is the war in Iraq, and the Global War on Terror. These are two distinct wars, each with its own strategic goals and forces, and one must try to distinguish between the two during decision-making. That many see these two wars as intertwined only adds to the confusion in many people’s minds.
Why make the effort in Iraq today? There is a threat even today. That threat is one of providing a future base for terrorists to attack the USA (and Western interests throughout the world), and also providing a future Shiite base for Iranian imperial plans in the region. Islamofascist elements cannot exist in a vacuum, they must have a base to operate from. Almost 30 years of Iranian foreign policy has included masking their land as a quasi operating and finance base, and Iraq is just such a good future choice due to Shiite religious identities, geographic collocation, and the opportunity to lessen US influence in the region and the world. If Iran should succeed in its regional imperial ambitions, expect its Sunni neighbors to aggressively fight back, as in regional wars.
There is a stated strategic objective today of democracy in the Middle East and Iraq in particular as a way to guide us in our actions. When there is future discussion and debate about Iraq, it should be about the threat, and the strategic goal. Anything less misses the mark about our National Interests. Even discussions that focus on the President’s mistakes being the reason to leave smack of throwing out the baby with the dirty bath water. These issues are more fundamental to our National Interests and our future. One discussion I still wait to listen to is one of middle eastern style democracy in an Iraq that has broken up into a federation or otherwise of three states.
The really grey area that has provided the greatest distraction from the fundamental questions of threat and national strategy is the second question. Is our Country organized and actively prosecuting the war in order to win? Please note I suggest the term “our Country” and not “our government”. Clearly no effort has been made to organize our Country in a WWII type of national effort. And it is apparent to many that the President and his hired minions have done a poor job up to the 2006 elections in organizing the government to prosecute the war both in D.C., and in Iraq. Hindsight is both wonderful and intellectually cheap, and one famous line in D.C. is “if only they had listened to me”.
But we have what we have, and the President has announced his newer courses of action and people assignments, and left some unannounced when covert in nature. This tells me there are lessons being learned, and something is being done, although most of us armchair Generals, and Secretaries of State and Treasury, and Librarians of Congress would probably do it differently. All this comes across to many as lessons are being learned and applied to the future in pursuit of the strategic objective and recognizing a threat still exists. To suggest otherwise, that good money is being thrown after bad, ignores the second question of whether we are actively organizing and prosecuting a war in Iraq. Any discussion of how well we are doing should always start with acknowledging that the government is actively organizing and prosecuting a war in Iraq. Criticism of how well the Executive has been doing is wasteful of time and effort if it focuses on the past, and not the future, the strategic objective, and the threat. If it does focus on the future, the strategic objective, and the threat, then it is well focused. If it also takes on the second question of how actively and well we are prosecuting the war and trying to win, then it is a well focused debate and discussion. Anything less misses the mark, and truly does threaten our National Interests and future.
Being a retired Marine, let me put this is my terms. A simple litmus type test will work just fine. If any discussion and debate about Iraq includes judgments about the threat and our strategic objective, that’s fair game. Any discussion and debate about the future performance in achieving the strategic objectives, that’s fair game. If any discussion and debate is about the past in all aspects, then it is political doodly squat and threatens our National Interests and future.
Making sense out of the Iraq situation is difficult at both the political and military level. That the political and military are intermixed is part of the dilemma of deciding which way to think, and go. There is the effort in D.C. that is still muddled at the Executive level even after four years, and all this is further muddled by Democratic Party’s disingenuous double talk under the guise of an election mandate, which did not occur. The Country appears to still be evenly divided on its support for the war in Iraq. And then there is the effort in Iraq which has also been just as muddled as in D.C. due to lack of unity of command, i.e., one person in charge; and then there’s the time (years) that we have allowed our enemies to exploit their strengths and attenuate ours.
Most of us focus on the future out of common sense. Taking the time to focus on the past may have value in lessons learned, but that effort is for the historians and not we citizens concerned for our future here in America. The two black and white questions are: why make the effort today, and is our Country organized and actively prosecuting the war in order to win? The answers to both questions are grey, but they are still the basis for rational decision-making. Confusing the answers is the fact that there is more than one war going on at the same time. There is the war in Iraq, and the Global War on Terror. These are two distinct wars, each with its own strategic goals and forces, and one must try to distinguish between the two during decision-making. That many see these two wars as intertwined only adds to the confusion in many people’s minds.
Why make the effort in Iraq today? There is a threat even today. That threat is one of providing a future base for terrorists to attack the USA (and Western interests throughout the world), and also providing a future Shiite base for Iranian imperial plans in the region. Islamofascist elements cannot exist in a vacuum, they must have a base to operate from. Almost 30 years of Iranian foreign policy has included masking their land as a quasi operating and finance base, and Iraq is just such a good future choice due to Shiite religious identities, geographic collocation, and the opportunity to lessen US influence in the region and the world. If Iran should succeed in its regional imperial ambitions, expect its Sunni neighbors to aggressively fight back, as in regional wars.
There is a stated strategic objective today of democracy in the Middle East and Iraq in particular as a way to guide us in our actions. When there is future discussion and debate about Iraq, it should be about the threat, and the strategic goal. Anything less misses the mark about our National Interests. Even discussions that focus on the President’s mistakes being the reason to leave smack of throwing out the baby with the dirty bath water. These issues are more fundamental to our National Interests and our future. One discussion I still wait to listen to is one of middle eastern style democracy in an Iraq that has broken up into a federation or otherwise of three states.
The really grey area that has provided the greatest distraction from the fundamental questions of threat and national strategy is the second question. Is our Country organized and actively prosecuting the war in order to win? Please note I suggest the term “our Country” and not “our government”. Clearly no effort has been made to organize our Country in a WWII type of national effort. And it is apparent to many that the President and his hired minions have done a poor job up to the 2006 elections in organizing the government to prosecute the war both in D.C., and in Iraq. Hindsight is both wonderful and intellectually cheap, and one famous line in D.C. is “if only they had listened to me”.
But we have what we have, and the President has announced his newer courses of action and people assignments, and left some unannounced when covert in nature. This tells me there are lessons being learned, and something is being done, although most of us armchair Generals, and Secretaries of State and Treasury, and Librarians of Congress would probably do it differently. All this comes across to many as lessons are being learned and applied to the future in pursuit of the strategic objective and recognizing a threat still exists. To suggest otherwise, that good money is being thrown after bad, ignores the second question of whether we are actively organizing and prosecuting a war in Iraq. Any discussion of how well we are doing should always start with acknowledging that the government is actively organizing and prosecuting a war in Iraq. Criticism of how well the Executive has been doing is wasteful of time and effort if it focuses on the past, and not the future, the strategic objective, and the threat. If it does focus on the future, the strategic objective, and the threat, then it is well focused. If it also takes on the second question of how actively and well we are prosecuting the war and trying to win, then it is a well focused debate and discussion. Anything less misses the mark, and truly does threaten our National Interests and future.
Being a retired Marine, let me put this is my terms. A simple litmus type test will work just fine. If any discussion and debate about Iraq includes judgments about the threat and our strategic objective, that’s fair game. Any discussion and debate about the future performance in achieving the strategic objectives, that’s fair game. If any discussion and debate is about the past in all aspects, then it is political doodly squat and threatens our National Interests and future.
Thursday, April 12, 2007
There it is … a subject we can vote on
Right or wrong, the Congressman from Illinois is credited with being a guiding light and voter winner in his missives and directives for his party, the Democrats, to both succeed in the votes, and gain power nationally. While Rahm Emanuel may not be the one who guides his party’s policy, many think he is.
Of course the basic question has been missed so far. Does he have influence about Democratic positions? And the follow on question is: is it about the Democrats, or our Country?
By all apparent standards, he is driving the train in the House, and maybe the national party. And by association, he is about his party, not our Nation.
If all this has any credence at all, then our Country is in peril.
Should Rahm Emanuel and his brother in Hollywood, have their way with the Democratic Party, or for that matter, should any brothers have their way with any party trying to govern us citizens? We are better than brothers or other such smart manipulators. Our country is more important any of these types of people. The times have changed. Many politicians just don’t know it yet.
Right or wrong, the Congressman from Illinois is credited with being a guiding light and voter winner in his missives and directives for his party, the Democrats, to both succeed in the votes, and gain power nationally. While Rahm Emanuel may not be the one who guides his party’s policy, many think he is.
Of course the basic question has been missed so far. Does he have influence about Democratic positions? And the follow on question is: is it about the Democrats, or our Country?
By all apparent standards, he is driving the train in the House, and maybe the national party. And by association, he is about his party, not our Nation.
If all this has any credence at all, then our Country is in peril.
Should Rahm Emanuel and his brother in Hollywood, have their way with the Democratic Party, or for that matter, should any brothers have their way with any party trying to govern us citizens? We are better than brothers or other such smart manipulators. Our country is more important any of these types of people. The times have changed. Many politicians just don’t know it yet.
Cooking is not a girl thing
Having babies is.
The thoughts about cooking are all over the place. I recently had a granddaughter tell me men don’t cook, as I made her a meal. About the same time a pre teen daughter went about making a meal for her teenage brother, whom she hates. And as one who watches the cooking channels, most chefs are men. Good grief, what is one to think?
This is what many think, men and women. Men can cook, and often both choose to do so and are very good at it. Maybe it reverts back to the primeval cooking of the game hunted. Maybe it is just because girls have not been taught how to cook. Nobody is born knowing how to cook, we have to be trained and taught.
Of course this is mostly a western argument. Most eastern women are taught to cook by their mothers, and other matriarchs.
So is cooking a presentation type of meal to impress the other sex a means to get laid. Yes. Is cooking the most bland type of meal for kids a way just to grow them without complaint. Yes.
Is anything different?
Having babies is.
The thoughts about cooking are all over the place. I recently had a granddaughter tell me men don’t cook, as I made her a meal. About the same time a pre teen daughter went about making a meal for her teenage brother, whom she hates. And as one who watches the cooking channels, most chefs are men. Good grief, what is one to think?
This is what many think, men and women. Men can cook, and often both choose to do so and are very good at it. Maybe it reverts back to the primeval cooking of the game hunted. Maybe it is just because girls have not been taught how to cook. Nobody is born knowing how to cook, we have to be trained and taught.
Of course this is mostly a western argument. Most eastern women are taught to cook by their mothers, and other matriarchs.
So is cooking a presentation type of meal to impress the other sex a means to get laid. Yes. Is cooking the most bland type of meal for kids a way just to grow them without complaint. Yes.
Is anything different?
The law of unintended consequences is alive and well a.k.a. the Imus’ events
Days after the actual event many things are coming out that my more liberal friends may not have intended.
· The terrible impact in our Country of the hip hop music industry is getting increased public exposure.
· The rank hypocrisy of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton is out in public again.
· MSNBC is losing additional income as part of their downward income spiral.
· Advertisers going along with this hypocrisy can expect repercussions in their pocket book.
· Rational black leaders and pundits are getting public exposure that had previously escaped them.
· Imus’s conduct and response is exposing the double standards of most of the media and entertainment industry.
· The Rutgers' news conference was embarrassing to watch.
· The coincidence of timing with the Duke rape scandal story has really exposed the double standard of what is ethically important in media reporting, media management, and university priorities.
And I don’t even watch MSNBC or listen to Don Imus.
No wonder many of the professed offended are going down the tubes, financially speaking. Many of us have been voting with our pocketbooks and viewing habits for years. Others may join.
Days after the actual event many things are coming out that my more liberal friends may not have intended.
· The terrible impact in our Country of the hip hop music industry is getting increased public exposure.
· The rank hypocrisy of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton is out in public again.
· MSNBC is losing additional income as part of their downward income spiral.
· Advertisers going along with this hypocrisy can expect repercussions in their pocket book.
· Rational black leaders and pundits are getting public exposure that had previously escaped them.
· Imus’s conduct and response is exposing the double standards of most of the media and entertainment industry.
· The Rutgers' news conference was embarrassing to watch.
· The coincidence of timing with the Duke rape scandal story has really exposed the double standard of what is ethically important in media reporting, media management, and university priorities.
And I don’t even watch MSNBC or listen to Don Imus.
No wonder many of the professed offended are going down the tubes, financially speaking. Many of us have been voting with our pocketbooks and viewing habits for years. Others may join.
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
The difference between revolutionaries and thug bandits
When we ever learn.
There is culturally an appeal in my western lifetime to glamorize bandits. Why I do not know. In movies they look glamorous after the scripts are written and directed and acted. It is well beyond the Robin Hood type of stuff … this is glamorizing bandits of the worst kind, as in low lifes with big egos who murder and maim and rape. Yet the movies happen, presumably because the investors expect to make money, and apparently they do based on the repetition of these kinds of movies. So maybe the problem is us, those who pay to see such movies. Is it the action and violence and sex, or is it a cultural association with revolution against the reigning government? I still don’t know.
What I do know is the difference. Thieves and bandits through history and cultures are often smart enough to wrap their practices in social causes, there by disguising their basic behavior.
We, the victims, should be smarter than this. It appears we are becoming smarter throughout the world. Banditry that subjugates our families will lose. Nobody is smarter and more political than a mother or father.
When we ever learn.
There is culturally an appeal in my western lifetime to glamorize bandits. Why I do not know. In movies they look glamorous after the scripts are written and directed and acted. It is well beyond the Robin Hood type of stuff … this is glamorizing bandits of the worst kind, as in low lifes with big egos who murder and maim and rape. Yet the movies happen, presumably because the investors expect to make money, and apparently they do based on the repetition of these kinds of movies. So maybe the problem is us, those who pay to see such movies. Is it the action and violence and sex, or is it a cultural association with revolution against the reigning government? I still don’t know.
What I do know is the difference. Thieves and bandits through history and cultures are often smart enough to wrap their practices in social causes, there by disguising their basic behavior.
We, the victims, should be smarter than this. It appears we are becoming smarter throughout the world. Banditry that subjugates our families will lose. Nobody is smarter and more political than a mother or father.
Just who’s driving the train in the Middle East?
Actually the correct question is even worse. Who’s building the train track? After five years in Afghanistan and Iraq, why is no one person yet assigned to be in charge of building the track and driving the train? In practical words, who is in charge to provide unity of effort, also called directing and coordinating the efforts of Defense, State, and other agencies like the CIA, USAID, and even Treasury, to name a few. It is as if even if we know which way we want to go, but we still don’t have a coherent way to get there.
This post is not about the strategic goal of democracy in the Middle East, middle east style of course. This post is about setting up a process to accomplish the strategic goal. It includes hindsight as to our failures so far, and foresight as to one possible favorable future.
Most agree that “hating George Bush” is not a policy, though many (mostly Democrats) seem to ignore this maxim. Most will probably agree that “we cannot afford to lose” is also not a policy. Operators know there has to be a plan, and unity of effort, to even have a chance of democracy in the middle east. Absent this, many have stepped up to the plate, and we seem to have ended up with many train tracks going in many directions driven by engineers with various speeds and start and stop points. And here we are five years into the Middle East with little end in sight and domestic fears that this has become a slow bleed process.
Of course we do have a Commander in Chief who has apparently not filled this most basic function of being the one person in charge who provides unity of effort and knocks heads as need be. It seems that the need has been earlier recognized, but the delegations of responsibility done to date have not even approached that necessary to gain the unity of effort between the various competing factions within the Executive necessary to build one train track to the strategic goal.
And this post is not about the many other lower level errors that have been committed. The friction between Defense and State over who is in charge off winning the peace, the CYA point papers, the de-Baathification policy adopted, the use of D.C. funding rules by the CPA, the overall poor performance by State, and the emphasis of national army over local gendarme rebuilding have all become lessons learned, at least to some. The past hands-off policy towards Iran is above the minor level, but also has had an impact. I use history to summarize all this by referring to all the pundits back in 2004 who kept saying the “window of opportunity” was closing if we don’t change our ways. And the window did close.
The loyal opposition (the Democrats) seem less loyal and more opportunistic to seek political advantage out of this mess we are in. This at a time when the Country does need real leadership and courses of action to solve our problems. To this citizen, the Democratic performance to date in regards the middle east has become just one more obstacle to overcome because they have not stepped up to the plate. The voters have provided them the opportunity.
There is one group who has stepped up to the plate. It is the people who live in the Middle East. They have implemented their own policies that are best called national policies, though tribal and religious policies are often also appropriate. If we can’t knock heads, and deal with Iran, they can, or think they can. In this mostly uncoordinated effort the strategic goal of democracy in the Middle East, middle east style again, may be advanced. One good example is the apparent Arab Sunni efforts to financially undermine the Persian Shiite regime in Iran, the result of which will be some kind of quasi democracy. Or the financial power of the various oil oligarchies will do much to quell the Syrian and Hamas and Hezbollah mischief constantly at play. If we the USA are up to old fashioned diplomacy, maybe even we can participate.
There are also reports of good things going on from the USA point of view . We have a “new” strategy and military leader in Iraq who has let the Iraqi leadership know this is their final bit of help from us; we have a new Iraqi ambassador who is a practical leader with much experience in the Middle East; we have a new number two in State who also knows how to knock heads; we have a President trying to find one person to be in charge, finally; and we have an increasingly frustrated public who wants to see the strategic goal becoming accomplished, and our American military coming home. And the so called loyal opposition party seems to be marginalizing itself on this issue. What people expect, and many people demand, is that there must be one main railroad to the strategic goal, and one main engineer driving the train. And while the engineer may stop in Iraq, it is not the final stop.
If we can accomplish this, then we will have built a template to achieving another strategic goal, winning the global war on terror. This strategic goal is different, and harder to achieve, than democracy in the Middle East. Operators, and citizens, can better think in chunks of what is doable. One chunk at a time, we say.
Actually the correct question is even worse. Who’s building the train track? After five years in Afghanistan and Iraq, why is no one person yet assigned to be in charge of building the track and driving the train? In practical words, who is in charge to provide unity of effort, also called directing and coordinating the efforts of Defense, State, and other agencies like the CIA, USAID, and even Treasury, to name a few. It is as if even if we know which way we want to go, but we still don’t have a coherent way to get there.
This post is not about the strategic goal of democracy in the Middle East, middle east style of course. This post is about setting up a process to accomplish the strategic goal. It includes hindsight as to our failures so far, and foresight as to one possible favorable future.
Most agree that “hating George Bush” is not a policy, though many (mostly Democrats) seem to ignore this maxim. Most will probably agree that “we cannot afford to lose” is also not a policy. Operators know there has to be a plan, and unity of effort, to even have a chance of democracy in the middle east. Absent this, many have stepped up to the plate, and we seem to have ended up with many train tracks going in many directions driven by engineers with various speeds and start and stop points. And here we are five years into the Middle East with little end in sight and domestic fears that this has become a slow bleed process.
Of course we do have a Commander in Chief who has apparently not filled this most basic function of being the one person in charge who provides unity of effort and knocks heads as need be. It seems that the need has been earlier recognized, but the delegations of responsibility done to date have not even approached that necessary to gain the unity of effort between the various competing factions within the Executive necessary to build one train track to the strategic goal.
And this post is not about the many other lower level errors that have been committed. The friction between Defense and State over who is in charge off winning the peace, the CYA point papers, the de-Baathification policy adopted, the use of D.C. funding rules by the CPA, the overall poor performance by State, and the emphasis of national army over local gendarme rebuilding have all become lessons learned, at least to some. The past hands-off policy towards Iran is above the minor level, but also has had an impact. I use history to summarize all this by referring to all the pundits back in 2004 who kept saying the “window of opportunity” was closing if we don’t change our ways. And the window did close.
The loyal opposition (the Democrats) seem less loyal and more opportunistic to seek political advantage out of this mess we are in. This at a time when the Country does need real leadership and courses of action to solve our problems. To this citizen, the Democratic performance to date in regards the middle east has become just one more obstacle to overcome because they have not stepped up to the plate. The voters have provided them the opportunity.
There is one group who has stepped up to the plate. It is the people who live in the Middle East. They have implemented their own policies that are best called national policies, though tribal and religious policies are often also appropriate. If we can’t knock heads, and deal with Iran, they can, or think they can. In this mostly uncoordinated effort the strategic goal of democracy in the Middle East, middle east style again, may be advanced. One good example is the apparent Arab Sunni efforts to financially undermine the Persian Shiite regime in Iran, the result of which will be some kind of quasi democracy. Or the financial power of the various oil oligarchies will do much to quell the Syrian and Hamas and Hezbollah mischief constantly at play. If we the USA are up to old fashioned diplomacy, maybe even we can participate.
There are also reports of good things going on from the USA point of view . We have a “new” strategy and military leader in Iraq who has let the Iraqi leadership know this is their final bit of help from us; we have a new Iraqi ambassador who is a practical leader with much experience in the Middle East; we have a new number two in State who also knows how to knock heads; we have a President trying to find one person to be in charge, finally; and we have an increasingly frustrated public who wants to see the strategic goal becoming accomplished, and our American military coming home. And the so called loyal opposition party seems to be marginalizing itself on this issue. What people expect, and many people demand, is that there must be one main railroad to the strategic goal, and one main engineer driving the train. And while the engineer may stop in Iraq, it is not the final stop.
If we can accomplish this, then we will have built a template to achieving another strategic goal, winning the global war on terror. This strategic goal is different, and harder to achieve, than democracy in the Middle East. Operators, and citizens, can better think in chunks of what is doable. One chunk at a time, we say.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Education is a public policy
Most parents want and work towards their children having a better life than they. And education is usually thought of as one way to achieve this for their children. Here in the USA we have a long history of making education of our children a public policy. The common objective has been to make good citizens.
Just who controls education these days? Is it the federal politicians, the local politicians, someone else, or the parents? Just who should control education these days? Perhaps it is divided in terms of money and influence, and certainly it varies geographically. The division in public policy objectives makes sense … most parents want all their kids to go to college while a national politician might set objectives that recognizes our society needs all levels of education … from high school graduate to community college technician to college graduate doing something else.
And degrees do represent more than a level of education and knowledge. Degrees may be looked at as a willingness to do work and persevere. Hence the military requires a high school degree or GED to be a private, and a college degree to be an officer. And degrees often correlate to income levels, and most people think increased income levels bring more happiness, though that is debatable to most.
In the last 50 years another friction has been added to the public policy of education. That has been social engineering by social scientists using our children (us not too long ago) to do what they do. Just where they got their vote and influence I am not sure, but the earlier question still remains … just who is in charge, and who should be in charge?
Another debate in the public policy about education has to do with private vs. public education, and the argument in earlier times (like 40 years ago) that private and Catholic school educations were superior. I personally believe this, but these days the issue is in doubt, depending where one may live. Today’s private K-12 schools are not all what they used to be. And gifted and talented in the public schools is not what it used to be. Both the aforementioned tend to lead impressionable young children to believe that they may be better than they are. This smacks of the old English school system which we must avoid at all political costs. The idea of the American schools is that one learns an education along with the rough and tumble of life. This is not to imply sending one’s kids to ghetto schools since no one wants this for their kids, but the English vs. American system of education is different, and our American system is better suited for us who will work and lead lives in the USA.
Another debate in the public policy about education is where do the workers come from? If everyone has a college degree, just who will do the work? Thank goodness not everyone has a college degree, and the USA does grow good and smart workers. What appears to be happening in the income disparity between college graduates and non-college graduates is shifting towards equality, and more favorably towards the skilled workers and technicians. The old days of comparing education level with intelligence are fast falling by the wayside. People have to pay for skills and services that require intelligence and competency, not a college degree. And never discount those with a college degree doing well in the service sector.
The USA military recognizes this idea in that it has established professional education for all levels of leadership from NCO through officer.
It also sure looks like those south of the border, as well as others like the Chinese and Indians are exploiting the gaps our present public policy about education has led to. The USA lives on educated hard working family oriented people, and some are immigrants.
Last any discussion of public policy and education must discuss the 3 out of 10 who enter the ninth grade who never graduate from high school. My discussion is simple, I think we should focus on the 7 out of 10 who do graduate. The principle is as old as life … take care of the winners and hard workers first … do not be distracted by the 3 out of 10 until we can promote the 7 out of 10. Said another way, focus on the winners, not the losers, in setting priorities and public policy. People are watching and voting, and will respond to public policies that take care of winners and hard workers, first. This especially applies to education policies.
Most parents want and work towards their children having a better life than they. And education is usually thought of as one way to achieve this for their children. Here in the USA we have a long history of making education of our children a public policy. The common objective has been to make good citizens.
Just who controls education these days? Is it the federal politicians, the local politicians, someone else, or the parents? Just who should control education these days? Perhaps it is divided in terms of money and influence, and certainly it varies geographically. The division in public policy objectives makes sense … most parents want all their kids to go to college while a national politician might set objectives that recognizes our society needs all levels of education … from high school graduate to community college technician to college graduate doing something else.
And degrees do represent more than a level of education and knowledge. Degrees may be looked at as a willingness to do work and persevere. Hence the military requires a high school degree or GED to be a private, and a college degree to be an officer. And degrees often correlate to income levels, and most people think increased income levels bring more happiness, though that is debatable to most.
In the last 50 years another friction has been added to the public policy of education. That has been social engineering by social scientists using our children (us not too long ago) to do what they do. Just where they got their vote and influence I am not sure, but the earlier question still remains … just who is in charge, and who should be in charge?
Another debate in the public policy about education has to do with private vs. public education, and the argument in earlier times (like 40 years ago) that private and Catholic school educations were superior. I personally believe this, but these days the issue is in doubt, depending where one may live. Today’s private K-12 schools are not all what they used to be. And gifted and talented in the public schools is not what it used to be. Both the aforementioned tend to lead impressionable young children to believe that they may be better than they are. This smacks of the old English school system which we must avoid at all political costs. The idea of the American schools is that one learns an education along with the rough and tumble of life. This is not to imply sending one’s kids to ghetto schools since no one wants this for their kids, but the English vs. American system of education is different, and our American system is better suited for us who will work and lead lives in the USA.
Another debate in the public policy about education is where do the workers come from? If everyone has a college degree, just who will do the work? Thank goodness not everyone has a college degree, and the USA does grow good and smart workers. What appears to be happening in the income disparity between college graduates and non-college graduates is shifting towards equality, and more favorably towards the skilled workers and technicians. The old days of comparing education level with intelligence are fast falling by the wayside. People have to pay for skills and services that require intelligence and competency, not a college degree. And never discount those with a college degree doing well in the service sector.
The USA military recognizes this idea in that it has established professional education for all levels of leadership from NCO through officer.
It also sure looks like those south of the border, as well as others like the Chinese and Indians are exploiting the gaps our present public policy about education has led to. The USA lives on educated hard working family oriented people, and some are immigrants.
Last any discussion of public policy and education must discuss the 3 out of 10 who enter the ninth grade who never graduate from high school. My discussion is simple, I think we should focus on the 7 out of 10 who do graduate. The principle is as old as life … take care of the winners and hard workers first … do not be distracted by the 3 out of 10 until we can promote the 7 out of 10. Said another way, focus on the winners, not the losers, in setting priorities and public policy. People are watching and voting, and will respond to public policies that take care of winners and hard workers, first. This especially applies to education policies.
Monday, April 09, 2007
It’s a little frustrating
How does a citizen compare all the frustration over the war in Iraq? More specifically, why are we still there after four years, with no end in sight, maybe. Even the Democrats are claiming the 2006 elections represent an American instinct to “fish or cut bait”. And it looks like “cut bait” time. I personally agree.
Back to frustration. After Vietnam, I assumed only Democratics could be poor war managers. Now I know the Republicans can be just as big a bunch of losers. One on the outside of D.C, might assume a cabal of hired minions really run D.C. And they lose equally. Ask Harriet Myers as a non-cabal type.
So the convergence of D.C. types and anti-war types and just frustrated citizens have come to a head. What way to go?
It’s a little frustrating. And in the American way, it will take time.
Throw out the bums. They should grovel at our citizens’ altar, not the other way around.
We should not confuse our President’s mismanagement of the Iraq war with the purposes, which I still believe promote our American families, in the long run. We do have something worth fighting for.
And so how does a citizen compare the mismanagement in the prosecution of the war, as compared to the bad guys wanting to harm us, and our families? My solutions are obvious, hire the right people to kill the bad guys. Along the way, replace the leaders who are losers. This course of action is both military and political.
How does a citizen compare all the frustration over the war in Iraq? More specifically, why are we still there after four years, with no end in sight, maybe. Even the Democrats are claiming the 2006 elections represent an American instinct to “fish or cut bait”. And it looks like “cut bait” time. I personally agree.
Back to frustration. After Vietnam, I assumed only Democratics could be poor war managers. Now I know the Republicans can be just as big a bunch of losers. One on the outside of D.C, might assume a cabal of hired minions really run D.C. And they lose equally. Ask Harriet Myers as a non-cabal type.
So the convergence of D.C. types and anti-war types and just frustrated citizens have come to a head. What way to go?
It’s a little frustrating. And in the American way, it will take time.
Throw out the bums. They should grovel at our citizens’ altar, not the other way around.
We should not confuse our President’s mismanagement of the Iraq war with the purposes, which I still believe promote our American families, in the long run. We do have something worth fighting for.
And so how does a citizen compare the mismanagement in the prosecution of the war, as compared to the bad guys wanting to harm us, and our families? My solutions are obvious, hire the right people to kill the bad guys. Along the way, replace the leaders who are losers. This course of action is both military and political.
Public policy and social engineering are different
Public policy, the idea, implies practical solutions to advance humans. Social engineering , the idea, implies theories and good intentions to advance humans. While the two purposes may be close to many, the histories and pedigrees are vastly different.
Public policy is associated with poorer countries in that they have to do more with less. More with less includes time, as in saving lives from malaria with the means and knowledge at hand. Or electrifying a country, to include rural electrification, is public policy, to include making the electricity. Clean water, and cleaning waste water, is public policy because it benefits us all. And last, heating without all the coal pollution in the cities that blighted all our buildings and lungs was considered public policy. The theme is clear; public policy practices and decisions were intended to benefit us all, collectively.
Social engineering is a more recent occurrence in history, as in the last 100 years. Social engineering can be associated with social “scientists” and the many theories and intents to improve human kind, and the social scientists’ country in particular. We in the west seem to have more than our fair share of social scientists. Social engineering has brought us in the USA ideas like affirmative action, income taxes and redistribution of income for social engineering intents, equality of outcome in education, and environmentalism for the sake of all creatures with humans latter in the order of good intents.
If one believes that the pendulum swings in history, then the pendulum has swung too far towards the social engineering side. While the pendulum will enviably swing back the other way towards the public policy idea, a little pushing from us western types is in order. The eastern types in humanity may be too busy right now trying to do the basics like protecting their family. In fact, they are probably trying to advance their families' life style to something like we enjoy in the west, albeit their version.
Many may prefer to let the third world go down the tubes, which may be as simple as preserve the status quo. This idea is called benign neglect, and it is a course of action. Those in the State Department and other similar types may call this a “realist policy”. Call this a contradiction of terms, but realism is accepting that change is enviable, and cannot be legislated or managed. Postponed, maybe.
If one does not buy this argument, then thank you for reading. If one does buy this argument, then leadership by citizens and their politicians is the obvious solution. If only life were so easy. Promoting ideas is key, but so is voting. Numbers count.
Public policy, the idea, implies practical solutions to advance humans. Social engineering , the idea, implies theories and good intentions to advance humans. While the two purposes may be close to many, the histories and pedigrees are vastly different.
Public policy is associated with poorer countries in that they have to do more with less. More with less includes time, as in saving lives from malaria with the means and knowledge at hand. Or electrifying a country, to include rural electrification, is public policy, to include making the electricity. Clean water, and cleaning waste water, is public policy because it benefits us all. And last, heating without all the coal pollution in the cities that blighted all our buildings and lungs was considered public policy. The theme is clear; public policy practices and decisions were intended to benefit us all, collectively.
Social engineering is a more recent occurrence in history, as in the last 100 years. Social engineering can be associated with social “scientists” and the many theories and intents to improve human kind, and the social scientists’ country in particular. We in the west seem to have more than our fair share of social scientists. Social engineering has brought us in the USA ideas like affirmative action, income taxes and redistribution of income for social engineering intents, equality of outcome in education, and environmentalism for the sake of all creatures with humans latter in the order of good intents.
If one believes that the pendulum swings in history, then the pendulum has swung too far towards the social engineering side. While the pendulum will enviably swing back the other way towards the public policy idea, a little pushing from us western types is in order. The eastern types in humanity may be too busy right now trying to do the basics like protecting their family. In fact, they are probably trying to advance their families' life style to something like we enjoy in the west, albeit their version.
Many may prefer to let the third world go down the tubes, which may be as simple as preserve the status quo. This idea is called benign neglect, and it is a course of action. Those in the State Department and other similar types may call this a “realist policy”. Call this a contradiction of terms, but realism is accepting that change is enviable, and cannot be legislated or managed. Postponed, maybe.
If one does not buy this argument, then thank you for reading. If one does buy this argument, then leadership by citizens and their politicians is the obvious solution. If only life were so easy. Promoting ideas is key, but so is voting. Numbers count.
Saturday, April 07, 2007
Pax Americana … is there a better way of life
The argument one hears mostly is that the American way in the world has become immoral … it is immoral in their idea. Those who buy this argument, and some even force their opinions, are sincere I think, and certainly hope they have a better way. So do I. Those who I most identify with are on the environmental bent. But there are many others who would rule the world another way. They come across to me as in our time people willing to pursue their goals by all means, to include usurping the votes of their fellow citizens. If this is the case, then they must be stomped down, politically, and in the realm of ideas. My vote counts, also.
Back to the idea of Pax Americana and a way of life. We are so far ahead of the world that it is something to be proud of. Just compare the environmental impacts of the rapid capitalism in China (with terrible water pollution and birth defects) compared to all the frictions here at home, and maybe our way of government and life has advantages. Go farther. All the aforementioned may be too idealistic. How about local men and women raising a family in an area they are proud of? This is America, and our politicians better protect and promote all this.
Those inside the D.C. circuit think, properly, the world is about them. After all, fabulous amounts of public money are being thrown about and traded off, and their decisions do affect us. In retrospect, this reminds me of all the stories about Rome. But we are different from Rome. I hope we in America are better than the roman citizens. I think we are.
The argument one hears mostly is that the American way in the world has become immoral … it is immoral in their idea. Those who buy this argument, and some even force their opinions, are sincere I think, and certainly hope they have a better way. So do I. Those who I most identify with are on the environmental bent. But there are many others who would rule the world another way. They come across to me as in our time people willing to pursue their goals by all means, to include usurping the votes of their fellow citizens. If this is the case, then they must be stomped down, politically, and in the realm of ideas. My vote counts, also.
Back to the idea of Pax Americana and a way of life. We are so far ahead of the world that it is something to be proud of. Just compare the environmental impacts of the rapid capitalism in China (with terrible water pollution and birth defects) compared to all the frictions here at home, and maybe our way of government and life has advantages. Go farther. All the aforementioned may be too idealistic. How about local men and women raising a family in an area they are proud of? This is America, and our politicians better protect and promote all this.
Those inside the D.C. circuit think, properly, the world is about them. After all, fabulous amounts of public money are being thrown about and traded off, and their decisions do affect us. In retrospect, this reminds me of all the stories about Rome. But we are different from Rome. I hope we in America are better than the roman citizens. I think we are.
The democratic position, the republican position, and the American position
It is frustrating to observe the political discussions these days as they mostly seem to be about power, winning in 2008, political sport, and other such machinations that have little to do with life in the USA. An outside observer could conclude all that is going on is controlled and reported on by everybody but those most affected, the people, the voters. It even seems that most citizens are assumed to be stupid, or at least able to manipulated as to our vote. Maybe the observation is right on, but then, maybe it is not. Maybe the old ways have changed because the citizens have changed in how they listen and vote? Maybe even "the citizens" may take more time to listen and think about how to vote. Maybe core values, American values, have been threatened by what the political system has evolved to these days? Maybe, maybe, maybe?
What is good for the goose is good for the gander. What a wonderful expression as it is a practical way of restating the Golden Rule. While I believe President Bush does his best to apply this idea as part of his long stated idea of changing the tone in D. C., it appears too many still consider this idea a weakness, and perpetuate the status quo, which is at best disdainful public conduct which has gone on far too long. This old conduct is not the American way, though it may still be a republican or democratic way.
Change is good. Most are uncomfortable with change because of its volativity. But change is an American way, and thank goodness it it through the vote and the rule of law, and not revolution and assumption of powers by those who assign themselves such powers. We are still "new enough" to be part of the New World, and should never let ourselves be drawn back to the Old World and all its failed ideas that sent our ancestors to this New World. The best example today is our New World way of dealing with the horrible institution of slavery when we dragged many Africans and some Asians to our (that is all of us) shores. The other New World idea is that those who take oaths do so to a Constitution, not an individual.
So why is there still this division going on in this New World country called the USA? Well believe it or not, many of us do think differently about our USA and how things should go. Fair enough. This division is normal, What is not normal is how we Americans sort it all out, foreign and domestic. Our system of government is not normal in the context of human history. We and our government are special, unique if you will. We have a government style embodied in a Constitution that is worth defending.
That we have enemies is obvious. The foreign enemies are very obvious. The domestic enemies are in the eye of the citizen. I would define enemy as anyone who wants to rule the USA another way. In simpler terms, an enemy is anyone who will mess with my family and my expectations for my progenies' future.
Some of us will fight for our future. The method will be to use our established system of government, and the vote. Any others who do things, like assume a mandate from the 2006 elections to usurp the present method of government, will find they have stirred up a hornet's nest. Maybe they will even find themselves out of elected office. This idea is one of an American position. And we have so many American problems that need solving at the government level.
It is frustrating to observe the political discussions these days as they mostly seem to be about power, winning in 2008, political sport, and other such machinations that have little to do with life in the USA. An outside observer could conclude all that is going on is controlled and reported on by everybody but those most affected, the people, the voters. It even seems that most citizens are assumed to be stupid, or at least able to manipulated as to our vote. Maybe the observation is right on, but then, maybe it is not. Maybe the old ways have changed because the citizens have changed in how they listen and vote? Maybe even "the citizens" may take more time to listen and think about how to vote. Maybe core values, American values, have been threatened by what the political system has evolved to these days? Maybe, maybe, maybe?
What is good for the goose is good for the gander. What a wonderful expression as it is a practical way of restating the Golden Rule. While I believe President Bush does his best to apply this idea as part of his long stated idea of changing the tone in D. C., it appears too many still consider this idea a weakness, and perpetuate the status quo, which is at best disdainful public conduct which has gone on far too long. This old conduct is not the American way, though it may still be a republican or democratic way.
Change is good. Most are uncomfortable with change because of its volativity. But change is an American way, and thank goodness it it through the vote and the rule of law, and not revolution and assumption of powers by those who assign themselves such powers. We are still "new enough" to be part of the New World, and should never let ourselves be drawn back to the Old World and all its failed ideas that sent our ancestors to this New World. The best example today is our New World way of dealing with the horrible institution of slavery when we dragged many Africans and some Asians to our (that is all of us) shores. The other New World idea is that those who take oaths do so to a Constitution, not an individual.
So why is there still this division going on in this New World country called the USA? Well believe it or not, many of us do think differently about our USA and how things should go. Fair enough. This division is normal, What is not normal is how we Americans sort it all out, foreign and domestic. Our system of government is not normal in the context of human history. We and our government are special, unique if you will. We have a government style embodied in a Constitution that is worth defending.
That we have enemies is obvious. The foreign enemies are very obvious. The domestic enemies are in the eye of the citizen. I would define enemy as anyone who wants to rule the USA another way. In simpler terms, an enemy is anyone who will mess with my family and my expectations for my progenies' future.
Some of us will fight for our future. The method will be to use our established system of government, and the vote. Any others who do things, like assume a mandate from the 2006 elections to usurp the present method of government, will find they have stirred up a hornet's nest. Maybe they will even find themselves out of elected office. This idea is one of an American position. And we have so many American problems that need solving at the government level.
Friday, April 06, 2007
Our future looks better than our past
We are way better off than the Reagan line about a room full of manure meaning there is a pony in there somewhere. And his line was optimistic, and our USA future applies to the world, also. We are way past “the end of the world as we know it”. This all is because of humans and families and business … the politicians have little to do with all this, thank goodness. If the politicians were really in charge, it might be time to roll over and let the barbarians rule we people.
A short version of the 50 year past means the cold war, communist gulags, third world repressions, expanding western cultural values, naivety and idealism born of personal security, expansion of personal wealth to more of we masses, and of course hot wars prosecuted by the have nots against the haves. A short version of the next 50 year history suggests a rise of the mercantile class in Asia and Europe, the slow decline of the oil funded Islamic fascism, the power and influence of the information age making English the universal language, and the news and real events driving politicians from all cultures in a shared manner. Nation-states will wilt towards tribes as a way for families to promote and protect their progeny. The bottom line is our Families. Compared to the past (which we did survive), today’s parents have more hope for their progeny than I suggest our parents had for us.
Astute leadership is required to avoid devolving into barbarism, which we are more than capable of doing. The obvious leadership principle is one of knowing the difference between idealism (only if the world were perfect) and practicality that we all live in, be it the USA or Sri Lanka, as examples. It is the simple aforementioned comparison that provides hope for the future of our progeny. The hard and cold human politician instincts for power and influence have always been balanced out by simple human greed at the local levels … we all want to take care of our families, and provide them an opportunity!
So who should worry us most about our Family’s future? A Nancy Pelosi from a District in California or a warlord in Moro land in the southern Philippines. In the greater scheme of things they (both egos) have as much to do with our own families as anyone other politician.
So in the great miasma of today’s events, we citizens still have choices that will affect our families. In this our future looks better than our past. Much work and fighting will still need to be done to make it be our outcome. In all this peoples and families will lead, like always; and politicians will catch up, like always.
We are way better off than the Reagan line about a room full of manure meaning there is a pony in there somewhere. And his line was optimistic, and our USA future applies to the world, also. We are way past “the end of the world as we know it”. This all is because of humans and families and business … the politicians have little to do with all this, thank goodness. If the politicians were really in charge, it might be time to roll over and let the barbarians rule we people.
A short version of the 50 year past means the cold war, communist gulags, third world repressions, expanding western cultural values, naivety and idealism born of personal security, expansion of personal wealth to more of we masses, and of course hot wars prosecuted by the have nots against the haves. A short version of the next 50 year history suggests a rise of the mercantile class in Asia and Europe, the slow decline of the oil funded Islamic fascism, the power and influence of the information age making English the universal language, and the news and real events driving politicians from all cultures in a shared manner. Nation-states will wilt towards tribes as a way for families to promote and protect their progeny. The bottom line is our Families. Compared to the past (which we did survive), today’s parents have more hope for their progeny than I suggest our parents had for us.
Astute leadership is required to avoid devolving into barbarism, which we are more than capable of doing. The obvious leadership principle is one of knowing the difference between idealism (only if the world were perfect) and practicality that we all live in, be it the USA or Sri Lanka, as examples. It is the simple aforementioned comparison that provides hope for the future of our progeny. The hard and cold human politician instincts for power and influence have always been balanced out by simple human greed at the local levels … we all want to take care of our families, and provide them an opportunity!
So who should worry us most about our Family’s future? A Nancy Pelosi from a District in California or a warlord in Moro land in the southern Philippines. In the greater scheme of things they (both egos) have as much to do with our own families as anyone other politician.
So in the great miasma of today’s events, we citizens still have choices that will affect our families. In this our future looks better than our past. Much work and fighting will still need to be done to make it be our outcome. In all this peoples and families will lead, like always; and politicians will catch up, like always.
Thursday, April 05, 2007
What is Speaker Pelosi’s objective these days?
As one who tends to focus on capabilities vice intents, here’s the facts, first.
Nancy Pelosi was elected Speaker of the House on January 3, 2007 by a vote of 233 to 202, and after the 2006 congressional elections.
During the same election period, 129,000 people from the 8th District in California elected her to be their congressional representative. The 8th District is mainly San Francisco city.
She was the House Minority Leader from 2002 to 2007. This was a position elected by the then Democratic minority in the House.
Here’s some fact based reports.
· None of the promised first 100 hours House programs have become law, or even made it through the Senate.
· The House bill raising the national minimum wage had only one exception, and that was for a constituent in her District. The press called this episode Tunagate.
· Her assumption of the Speaker duties was orchestrated like a multi-day coronation.
· Her choices (nominations) for various Committee heads raised many alarms within her party and the nation as a whole.
· The recent House vote to set a timetable in Iraq along with funding for the troops is loaded with pork, or bribes using taxpayer money to many.
· During the spring recess in the House, she is on a middle east trip that appears to be less fact finding (a congressional prerogative) than assuming foreign policies of the United States and her alternatives to the President’s (not a congressional prerogative).
· During her time as the House Minority Leader she showed herself to be a very hard worker and a within-the-House vote getter.
· Her main strategy in the past (when she was in the minority) seems to be one of obstructionism. It is interesting to see how she tries to lead (when she is in the majority). This will be most difficult, I believe, and assuming leading our Nation is an objective of hers.
Here’s some report based opinions that seem like capabilities.
· She possesses a powerful ego that she does not restrain.
· She is asserting her personal politics through the Speakership, a national position.
· She is not as powerful within the Democratic Party as many are led to believe.
· She may be leading the Party to national ruin. There is a viable analogy to what Clinton did when his ego and politics superceded national politics, and the Democratic 40 years of control of the House ended in 1994. That the Democrats got control back in 2006 may have more to do with Blue-Dog Democrats than Pelosi’s brand of 8th District politics.
· She has assigned herself national responsibilities not inherent in the Speakership.
o Foreign policy
o Alternative commander in chief of the military
o Alternative presidency
So just what is her objective or objectives these days? Just because she assigns herself extra national responsibilities does not make it so. Or is she running for President at taxpayer expense?
Most people focus on the intents of others. This is most difficult. Focusing on capabilities is simpler. Speaker Pelosi’s actions and capabilities suggest she is running for President. Whether it is the USA, or the World, is still up for grabs. And all this speculation is from a base of 129,000 San Francisco fellow citizens, amplified by the Democratic Party in our House of Representatives.
As one who tends to focus on capabilities vice intents, here’s the facts, first.
Nancy Pelosi was elected Speaker of the House on January 3, 2007 by a vote of 233 to 202, and after the 2006 congressional elections.
During the same election period, 129,000 people from the 8th District in California elected her to be their congressional representative. The 8th District is mainly San Francisco city.
She was the House Minority Leader from 2002 to 2007. This was a position elected by the then Democratic minority in the House.
Here’s some fact based reports.
· None of the promised first 100 hours House programs have become law, or even made it through the Senate.
· The House bill raising the national minimum wage had only one exception, and that was for a constituent in her District. The press called this episode Tunagate.
· Her assumption of the Speaker duties was orchestrated like a multi-day coronation.
· Her choices (nominations) for various Committee heads raised many alarms within her party and the nation as a whole.
· The recent House vote to set a timetable in Iraq along with funding for the troops is loaded with pork, or bribes using taxpayer money to many.
· During the spring recess in the House, she is on a middle east trip that appears to be less fact finding (a congressional prerogative) than assuming foreign policies of the United States and her alternatives to the President’s (not a congressional prerogative).
· During her time as the House Minority Leader she showed herself to be a very hard worker and a within-the-House vote getter.
· Her main strategy in the past (when she was in the minority) seems to be one of obstructionism. It is interesting to see how she tries to lead (when she is in the majority). This will be most difficult, I believe, and assuming leading our Nation is an objective of hers.
Here’s some report based opinions that seem like capabilities.
· She possesses a powerful ego that she does not restrain.
· She is asserting her personal politics through the Speakership, a national position.
· She is not as powerful within the Democratic Party as many are led to believe.
· She may be leading the Party to national ruin. There is a viable analogy to what Clinton did when his ego and politics superceded national politics, and the Democratic 40 years of control of the House ended in 1994. That the Democrats got control back in 2006 may have more to do with Blue-Dog Democrats than Pelosi’s brand of 8th District politics.
· She has assigned herself national responsibilities not inherent in the Speakership.
o Foreign policy
o Alternative commander in chief of the military
o Alternative presidency
So just what is her objective or objectives these days? Just because she assigns herself extra national responsibilities does not make it so. Or is she running for President at taxpayer expense?
Most people focus on the intents of others. This is most difficult. Focusing on capabilities is simpler. Speaker Pelosi’s actions and capabilities suggest she is running for President. Whether it is the USA, or the World, is still up for grabs. And all this speculation is from a base of 129,000 San Francisco fellow citizens, amplified by the Democratic Party in our House of Representatives.
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
An outline of history
Just who runs the world today, who should run the world today, and who should run the world in the future?
Going to work today is as always, a family experience. We all advance our progeny, as best we can. Most in all places in the world just let the world’s politics and heavy weights go by as the real world of families and getting by bubble to the top of priorities. Health and survival issues are top issues to most of the people of our world. USA media headlines that focus on female and male bimbos, dead and alive; or more substantial issues like the most outrageous kidnappings of 15 Brits to advance Iranian foreign policy, predominate today. It seems most of today’s media types in the west have joined the wrong corps based on business principles mostly. Others in this world have other business plans, and courses of action. All this varies quite a bit, but nothing changes the interests of mothers and fathers and their families, their kids.
I think most of the western businessmen run the world today (be they Chinese, European, or American). They deserve to based on hard work. Politicians are a cost of doing business. Some politicians just expect to be bribed for their vote, others follow their egos and personal experience.
Who should run the world today is a really hard question, especially for an American. Of course the obvious question is should somebody or group run the world? The obvious answer is no one … but there will be humans always trying to dominate our world. Back to the question about today. It is obvious to this citizen of the world that western values are the path to the future of humans on this earth.
As to the future, I say to the revolutionary egomaniacs and warlords in the third world in Sri Lanka, southern Thailand, Columbia, etc, there is another way based on families. To the western politicians and media types, Bob Dylan may be right: the times they are a’changin. To American politicians, the same applies to our families’ futures. Set us up for the future … don’t guide us into your past.
Just who runs the world today, who should run the world today, and who should run the world in the future?
Going to work today is as always, a family experience. We all advance our progeny, as best we can. Most in all places in the world just let the world’s politics and heavy weights go by as the real world of families and getting by bubble to the top of priorities. Health and survival issues are top issues to most of the people of our world. USA media headlines that focus on female and male bimbos, dead and alive; or more substantial issues like the most outrageous kidnappings of 15 Brits to advance Iranian foreign policy, predominate today. It seems most of today’s media types in the west have joined the wrong corps based on business principles mostly. Others in this world have other business plans, and courses of action. All this varies quite a bit, but nothing changes the interests of mothers and fathers and their families, their kids.
I think most of the western businessmen run the world today (be they Chinese, European, or American). They deserve to based on hard work. Politicians are a cost of doing business. Some politicians just expect to be bribed for their vote, others follow their egos and personal experience.
Who should run the world today is a really hard question, especially for an American. Of course the obvious question is should somebody or group run the world? The obvious answer is no one … but there will be humans always trying to dominate our world. Back to the question about today. It is obvious to this citizen of the world that western values are the path to the future of humans on this earth.
As to the future, I say to the revolutionary egomaniacs and warlords in the third world in Sri Lanka, southern Thailand, Columbia, etc, there is another way based on families. To the western politicians and media types, Bob Dylan may be right: the times they are a’changin. To American politicians, the same applies to our families’ futures. Set us up for the future … don’t guide us into your past.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)