Playing hardball with low lifes
The amount of frustration and outrage over the Iranian abduction of 15 Brits is pretty bad. The apparent diplomatic responses by the Brits almost makes them look emasculated. Is there only one alternative to defer to those who have forced the British hand?
Complicating the whole friction is one of American and British cooperation, today, historically in the past, and maybe in the future. That the Iranian dictators have been using the technique of abduction as one of their foreign policy ploys is now founded in history. That we western types have been using our own Geneva convention standards have also been founded in history. The smarter types have even called the friction between the two standards, or methods, asymmetric warfare. I prefer the old fashioned term of low lifes vs. our standards. If you buy this latter argument, then let us go forward.
We must advance our Western culture and values by all means to the rest of the world. I am chauvinistic enough to believe what even the President says, let freedom ring. Thank goodness I will kick the bucket before this argument, if it wins, will assert itself. Then it is the problem of our progeny. Most of us don’t complain as much as offer solutions. Give peace a chance. Let our progeny sort out what we leave them. Again, if you buy this argument, then the Iranian leadership is on the losing end. This idea is not San Francisco politics, it is American.
Translate
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
Monday, April 02, 2007
Exploiting the fault lines in the Democratic party
There are apparently two Democratic parties … one the federal party we people elected last 2006, and the other the Democratic party that represents another part of America, and the majority of us all. This party is closer to the Republicans in the sense of National interests. One might even call this group of politicians a national party. The current buzz word line is “blue dog democrats”.
The federal Democratic party elected in 2006 is out of control. Between party politics and playing up to egos the leadership is playing up to itself, and its minority bases. No problem with that, until it supercedes our national interests. Since we all have families and communities to support, the present Democratic party is becoming intolerable. There are alternatives, thank goodness. Domestic issues like taxes and the good intentions to promote many American values are being subjugated to now decades old issues. When are the dinosaurs going to die? Amplify all this with San Francisco politicians trying to be themselves in national and international politics and one can suspect the grim reaper will have his way.
There are apparently two Democratic parties … one the federal party we people elected last 2006, and the other the Democratic party that represents another part of America, and the majority of us all. This party is closer to the Republicans in the sense of National interests. One might even call this group of politicians a national party. The current buzz word line is “blue dog democrats”.
The federal Democratic party elected in 2006 is out of control. Between party politics and playing up to egos the leadership is playing up to itself, and its minority bases. No problem with that, until it supercedes our national interests. Since we all have families and communities to support, the present Democratic party is becoming intolerable. There are alternatives, thank goodness. Domestic issues like taxes and the good intentions to promote many American values are being subjugated to now decades old issues. When are the dinosaurs going to die? Amplify all this with San Francisco politicians trying to be themselves in national and international politics and one can suspect the grim reaper will have his way.
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Politicians egos do screw up the world
If war is too important to be left to the generals, then peace is too important to be left to the politicians. The world will be better off if left to the majority of citizens in each and every country. After all, they have Families to run.
America certainly has changed since the late 1930s. Congressmen and congresswomen and Senators have always had inflated egos, but none would have chosen to travel to speak with Hitler. Now we have the Speaker of the House going to Syria … what an ego that supercedes our National Interest. And Syria is such a minor player. I only hope here in America that the goal is media soothing of inflated ego vice something more sinister like self-appointed usurping of Constitutional powers for egos sake. Either is despicable, but they have different long term consequences. Both will probably get people killed who would otherwise live. San Francisco politicians playing at the big table in the middle east may not be properly prepared, but don’t expect their ego to admit or even know this.
The middle east certainly has changed during the same period. Massive oil incomes have financed the most repressive and hatred filled Islamic madrasahs that otherwise would be out in left field withering in the hot desert air. Now the egos of these people who would return us to the 7th century have been amplified by para-military and ecomonic actions (don’t forget the oil embargo in the 1970’s). Don’t leave out the massive egos of the Persian theorcratic rulers and puppet presidents who should have been slapped down decades ago, but are now fueled by Western reinforcement of their most heinous public actions that seem to go without public response. Covert action does not make a public relations campaign, and these Persian egos apparently become more inflated, and reckless. Where will this all end … with a nuclear attack somewhere?
The double standard of racism is appalling. Mugabe can assert his terrible ego (now into very old age, like 83) because of his race, and apparently get away with it in the West, and among his fellow African leaders. So while his people go down to ruin, not just economic ruin, but more as in starving, the world apparently turns a blind eye because his ego dominates all in Zimbabwe (formerly Rhodesia). Once he kicks the bucket, or more likely is assasinated, I suppose the world’s do gooders will expect their leadership will step in to unscrew things. Good luck. The opportunity is now … seize it!
Everything China is wearing thin to many. More and more the rampant corruption and neopotism fueled by the rapid economic development, along with the rapid environmental degredations, will bring about a civil war … a revolution, in China. This is one way to check uncontrolled egos, or egos super inflated by their own personal experience. People can “kill the goose that lays the golden egg”.
There is a course of action that may give world peace a chance. Of course it must ignore politician’s egos. It is called western influence. One part of this course is already on auto-pilot. It is called business, and is relentless. The second part is not on auto-pilot. It is called politicians promoting western human values, full well knowing the final product will be some combination of western and eastern. This course is not on auto-pilot because of politicians egos. Depending on where one sits the solutions are voting or revolutions of various kinds to supercede the politicians egos. Don’t expect much compromise with ego driven politicians, especially when their power and money is under duress. Isn’t it funny that the old ideals of storming the Bastille were one of the underclass against the ruling class, and now it is much the same, except those filling the roles have changed.
If war is too important to be left to the generals, then peace is too important to be left to the politicians. The world will be better off if left to the majority of citizens in each and every country. After all, they have Families to run.
America certainly has changed since the late 1930s. Congressmen and congresswomen and Senators have always had inflated egos, but none would have chosen to travel to speak with Hitler. Now we have the Speaker of the House going to Syria … what an ego that supercedes our National Interest. And Syria is such a minor player. I only hope here in America that the goal is media soothing of inflated ego vice something more sinister like self-appointed usurping of Constitutional powers for egos sake. Either is despicable, but they have different long term consequences. Both will probably get people killed who would otherwise live. San Francisco politicians playing at the big table in the middle east may not be properly prepared, but don’t expect their ego to admit or even know this.
The middle east certainly has changed during the same period. Massive oil incomes have financed the most repressive and hatred filled Islamic madrasahs that otherwise would be out in left field withering in the hot desert air. Now the egos of these people who would return us to the 7th century have been amplified by para-military and ecomonic actions (don’t forget the oil embargo in the 1970’s). Don’t leave out the massive egos of the Persian theorcratic rulers and puppet presidents who should have been slapped down decades ago, but are now fueled by Western reinforcement of their most heinous public actions that seem to go without public response. Covert action does not make a public relations campaign, and these Persian egos apparently become more inflated, and reckless. Where will this all end … with a nuclear attack somewhere?
The double standard of racism is appalling. Mugabe can assert his terrible ego (now into very old age, like 83) because of his race, and apparently get away with it in the West, and among his fellow African leaders. So while his people go down to ruin, not just economic ruin, but more as in starving, the world apparently turns a blind eye because his ego dominates all in Zimbabwe (formerly Rhodesia). Once he kicks the bucket, or more likely is assasinated, I suppose the world’s do gooders will expect their leadership will step in to unscrew things. Good luck. The opportunity is now … seize it!
Everything China is wearing thin to many. More and more the rampant corruption and neopotism fueled by the rapid economic development, along with the rapid environmental degredations, will bring about a civil war … a revolution, in China. This is one way to check uncontrolled egos, or egos super inflated by their own personal experience. People can “kill the goose that lays the golden egg”.
There is a course of action that may give world peace a chance. Of course it must ignore politician’s egos. It is called western influence. One part of this course is already on auto-pilot. It is called business, and is relentless. The second part is not on auto-pilot. It is called politicians promoting western human values, full well knowing the final product will be some combination of western and eastern. This course is not on auto-pilot because of politicians egos. Depending on where one sits the solutions are voting or revolutions of various kinds to supercede the politicians egos. Don’t expect much compromise with ego driven politicians, especially when their power and money is under duress. Isn’t it funny that the old ideals of storming the Bastille were one of the underclass against the ruling class, and now it is much the same, except those filling the roles have changed.
Friday, March 30, 2007
Do the federal public servants think of national policy vice domestic and foreign policy?
While a subject such as this could rate many books, the concepts are so simple and so profound that a post such as this can attempt to address the subject. Said another way, it is obvious that domestic and foreign policies are connected. Immigration is a good example. The question still remains, do our public servants think in terms of national policy? Or are they more poll and focus group limited to political actions that gain them perceived votes and power (on more limited domestic and foreign policies)?
Avoidance of any substantive policy action on social security is a domestic example. Passing House and Senate bills about Iraq that cross the line about war powers is a foreign example. How one answers these two questions probably says much about one’s opinion as to how well we citizens are being served by our federal public servants in D.C. It also says legions as to whether these public servants think about our Nation as a whole, and the defense of our Constitution and way of government established in law.
Let’s be more specific about how domestic and foreign are related as part of National policy. Can both Houses of Congress passing bills that set get out-of-Iraq dates (albeit very weakly written to look more like the President’s policy) cause further grief and perhaps greater mayhem in the future to our Country? While the answer is not for sure, the general consensus is yes. Can the foreign policies that promote globalization and free trade bring great stress and ruin to many communities in our Country? Again, while the answer is not for sure, the general consensus is yes. The point of these questions is this. If any policy is conceived and executed in its domestic or foreign policy aspect, then when the law of unintended consequences kicks in there will be adverse domestic or foreign consequences. In this case, it is time for voters to consider newer more enlightened federal servants.
National policies that drive domestic and foreign policies must come first. Defense of our peoples and Country is a national policy. Promotion of public policies that enhance our security, wellbeing, health, good jobs, and education are national policies. Any national policy, frankly speaking, must represent our most selfish interests to preserve and expand our way of life. While the term “selfish” has bad connotations, the application does not. As long as environmentalism is about people, then being selfish is just fine, as an example.
Let this post end with a current events practical application … what should our National response be to the abduction of 15 Brits by the Iranians? Using the lens of National policy, especially applied in a selfish sort of way, then possible courses of actions and perspectives on how to act (or react) become more limited and obvious to many citizens. One course of action is “don’t get mad, get even”. Let our National policy guide us in covert sorts of ways that, while we citizens might not know, the Iranians will know. Hitting them in the pocket book, with some more “detentions” of Iranians will represent our National interests. Whatever course of action our federal public servants do choose, if any, is up to them. One expects that the course of action will be in our National interest, and not some more limited foreign or domestic policy interest.
While a subject such as this could rate many books, the concepts are so simple and so profound that a post such as this can attempt to address the subject. Said another way, it is obvious that domestic and foreign policies are connected. Immigration is a good example. The question still remains, do our public servants think in terms of national policy? Or are they more poll and focus group limited to political actions that gain them perceived votes and power (on more limited domestic and foreign policies)?
Avoidance of any substantive policy action on social security is a domestic example. Passing House and Senate bills about Iraq that cross the line about war powers is a foreign example. How one answers these two questions probably says much about one’s opinion as to how well we citizens are being served by our federal public servants in D.C. It also says legions as to whether these public servants think about our Nation as a whole, and the defense of our Constitution and way of government established in law.
Let’s be more specific about how domestic and foreign are related as part of National policy. Can both Houses of Congress passing bills that set get out-of-Iraq dates (albeit very weakly written to look more like the President’s policy) cause further grief and perhaps greater mayhem in the future to our Country? While the answer is not for sure, the general consensus is yes. Can the foreign policies that promote globalization and free trade bring great stress and ruin to many communities in our Country? Again, while the answer is not for sure, the general consensus is yes. The point of these questions is this. If any policy is conceived and executed in its domestic or foreign policy aspect, then when the law of unintended consequences kicks in there will be adverse domestic or foreign consequences. In this case, it is time for voters to consider newer more enlightened federal servants.
National policies that drive domestic and foreign policies must come first. Defense of our peoples and Country is a national policy. Promotion of public policies that enhance our security, wellbeing, health, good jobs, and education are national policies. Any national policy, frankly speaking, must represent our most selfish interests to preserve and expand our way of life. While the term “selfish” has bad connotations, the application does not. As long as environmentalism is about people, then being selfish is just fine, as an example.
Let this post end with a current events practical application … what should our National response be to the abduction of 15 Brits by the Iranians? Using the lens of National policy, especially applied in a selfish sort of way, then possible courses of actions and perspectives on how to act (or react) become more limited and obvious to many citizens. One course of action is “don’t get mad, get even”. Let our National policy guide us in covert sorts of ways that, while we citizens might not know, the Iranians will know. Hitting them in the pocket book, with some more “detentions” of Iranians will represent our National interests. Whatever course of action our federal public servants do choose, if any, is up to them. One expects that the course of action will be in our National interest, and not some more limited foreign or domestic policy interest.
Thursday, March 29, 2007
The east west dance continues…
The frustration and moral outrage over the Iranian abduction of the 15 Brits touches the most sensitive of western nerves. But the world also has other terrible things going on to include genocide in Dafur, blatant thuggery in Zimbabwe, small wars in the southern Philippines, Thailand, Sri Lanka, the Horn of Africa, and the narco-state areas in southwest Asia and South America. And this is the short list. How about gang warfare in L.A. and the 20,000 person riots in China to begin to expand the list?
Having been on the pointy end of the spear (though back on the blade) one might consider balancing emotional outrage and frustration with a cold hard look at our National Interests, and deciding what courses of action should be applied. And of course where you are on the spear also depends on where one is during a career. And the period of a career often includes increasing exposures to how others think, to include many in the more eastern third world part of the world. Knowing how others think is important, and some westerners don’t get it. The most classic example of this in the last 50 years is the failed Limited War Doctrine: one premise was that others would think and respond like we would.
Most outraged western people look to a military response for all the right reasons. It might succeed, it certainly sends a political message, and if anybody can do it, the military can. Unfortunately, this is all too often too hopeful since the bad guys don’t cooperate, the locations and distances are extreme, and the supporter suggestions often sound like off or on, with no in-between.
Of course the bad guys are not 10 feet tall, though one might question this if reading all the western media reports. The most obvious example of this in the last 15 years is nuclear weapons. There are more than two open source reports of the Iranians buying 3 or 4 Russian nukes in 1991 from Kazakhstan. I’ll leave the details out because it is worth noting they have not used them since. Why? Perhaps it has to do with shelf-life problems, maintenance skills, PAL (unlocking codes), or Russian political control? Something similar probably applies to the recent North Korean nuclear fizzle. And don’t leave out the Iranian very senior physicist who died mid-January at the Natanz atomic facility due to gas-poisoning (he may have been assassinated). Bottom line, these fellows are not 10 feet tall, and the western press may not report it all. And we Americans or Europeans are not the only ones knocking down these people to less than 10 feet tall. Give the Turks credit last summer during 2006 when they turned back an Iranian flight into Syria. Why the Iranians turned around on this, their third flight over Turkish airspace, nobody knows at the citizen level.
Let’s advance to today’s world, the real world. That which is going on in so many places is just outrageous, morally repugnant, and deserving of a response. The normal hand wringing feel good response is to do something like our former Secretary of State writes about: talking, protesting, and other do-gooder things. She even has included Bishop Desmond Tutu, who I hope lives in the west since the Xhosa are running South Africa into the ground. And, in an opinion, this is the best course of action because it is not in almost all nations’ National Interests to do otherwise. Bitch but let them hang out in the wind.
And so it comes to this … National Interest. What is worth fighting for, and worth sending our children to fight for. The world is both ugly, and not so simple. There are alternatives to on-or-off to our public servants. I hope they choose them. This especially applies to the east west dance.
Do we have political and military leaders who know how to listen and respect those we try to dominate in pursuit of National Interest? I think the militaries have the word, do the politicians? This applies to politicians from America and Europe and Japan. As the environmentalists say: “we have concerns”.
The frustration and moral outrage over the Iranian abduction of the 15 Brits touches the most sensitive of western nerves. But the world also has other terrible things going on to include genocide in Dafur, blatant thuggery in Zimbabwe, small wars in the southern Philippines, Thailand, Sri Lanka, the Horn of Africa, and the narco-state areas in southwest Asia and South America. And this is the short list. How about gang warfare in L.A. and the 20,000 person riots in China to begin to expand the list?
Having been on the pointy end of the spear (though back on the blade) one might consider balancing emotional outrage and frustration with a cold hard look at our National Interests, and deciding what courses of action should be applied. And of course where you are on the spear also depends on where one is during a career. And the period of a career often includes increasing exposures to how others think, to include many in the more eastern third world part of the world. Knowing how others think is important, and some westerners don’t get it. The most classic example of this in the last 50 years is the failed Limited War Doctrine: one premise was that others would think and respond like we would.
Most outraged western people look to a military response for all the right reasons. It might succeed, it certainly sends a political message, and if anybody can do it, the military can. Unfortunately, this is all too often too hopeful since the bad guys don’t cooperate, the locations and distances are extreme, and the supporter suggestions often sound like off or on, with no in-between.
Of course the bad guys are not 10 feet tall, though one might question this if reading all the western media reports. The most obvious example of this in the last 15 years is nuclear weapons. There are more than two open source reports of the Iranians buying 3 or 4 Russian nukes in 1991 from Kazakhstan. I’ll leave the details out because it is worth noting they have not used them since. Why? Perhaps it has to do with shelf-life problems, maintenance skills, PAL (unlocking codes), or Russian political control? Something similar probably applies to the recent North Korean nuclear fizzle. And don’t leave out the Iranian very senior physicist who died mid-January at the Natanz atomic facility due to gas-poisoning (he may have been assassinated). Bottom line, these fellows are not 10 feet tall, and the western press may not report it all. And we Americans or Europeans are not the only ones knocking down these people to less than 10 feet tall. Give the Turks credit last summer during 2006 when they turned back an Iranian flight into Syria. Why the Iranians turned around on this, their third flight over Turkish airspace, nobody knows at the citizen level.
Let’s advance to today’s world, the real world. That which is going on in so many places is just outrageous, morally repugnant, and deserving of a response. The normal hand wringing feel good response is to do something like our former Secretary of State writes about: talking, protesting, and other do-gooder things. She even has included Bishop Desmond Tutu, who I hope lives in the west since the Xhosa are running South Africa into the ground. And, in an opinion, this is the best course of action because it is not in almost all nations’ National Interests to do otherwise. Bitch but let them hang out in the wind.
And so it comes to this … National Interest. What is worth fighting for, and worth sending our children to fight for. The world is both ugly, and not so simple. There are alternatives to on-or-off to our public servants. I hope they choose them. This especially applies to the east west dance.
Do we have political and military leaders who know how to listen and respect those we try to dominate in pursuit of National Interest? I think the militaries have the word, do the politicians? This applies to politicians from America and Europe and Japan. As the environmentalists say: “we have concerns”.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Is ruling America a political sport, or something more serious?
Just who is in charge? The politicians and pundits, or citizens who vote and read and listen and watch? Another way to ask is: are we citizens or politicians?
Then there is the fear of many that silliness from many fellow citizens will allow themselves to be led astray. The corollary is that many self appointed elites will assume the mantle of overseer, and govern us as best they see fit. Somehow, I think the whole situation is much better than that, though some may not have the word, be they silly citizens or elites assuming the mantles.
It is distressing that virtually all pundit and media reports have an underlying theme of political sport or even political war in covering the many frictions in our country. It is as if that is the way things are and always have been, and upon this assumption, one can comment much as an expert ESPN sports commentator. One analogy that works for many is comfort with the way we grew up: keep the weather and environment the same since it was good enough for me. How naïve since the world went on before us, and there were some pretty good things going on then that benefit us today, and should in the future. This applies to animals and humans, by the way.
America is a big deal in the world, and the world’s history. The immigration stats alone say so. Those social scientists and politicians with the best intentions and theories can try to have their way, but so can we citizens as a whole in doing more fundamental things like advancing our families and jobs and communities. Ruling America is not a political sport, it is much more important than that … to us as citizens, and to the world as a whole.
For those who think this is noble political diatribe, they may be correct. For those that think there are fundamental shifts about that changes how things are thought about and voted on, they may be correct, too. While I go with the latter, our country’s future is more important than the political sport of today.
Just who is in charge? The politicians and pundits, or citizens who vote and read and listen and watch? Another way to ask is: are we citizens or politicians?
Then there is the fear of many that silliness from many fellow citizens will allow themselves to be led astray. The corollary is that many self appointed elites will assume the mantle of overseer, and govern us as best they see fit. Somehow, I think the whole situation is much better than that, though some may not have the word, be they silly citizens or elites assuming the mantles.
It is distressing that virtually all pundit and media reports have an underlying theme of political sport or even political war in covering the many frictions in our country. It is as if that is the way things are and always have been, and upon this assumption, one can comment much as an expert ESPN sports commentator. One analogy that works for many is comfort with the way we grew up: keep the weather and environment the same since it was good enough for me. How naïve since the world went on before us, and there were some pretty good things going on then that benefit us today, and should in the future. This applies to animals and humans, by the way.
America is a big deal in the world, and the world’s history. The immigration stats alone say so. Those social scientists and politicians with the best intentions and theories can try to have their way, but so can we citizens as a whole in doing more fundamental things like advancing our families and jobs and communities. Ruling America is not a political sport, it is much more important than that … to us as citizens, and to the world as a whole.
For those who think this is noble political diatribe, they may be correct. For those that think there are fundamental shifts about that changes how things are thought about and voted on, they may be correct, too. While I go with the latter, our country’s future is more important than the political sport of today.
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
The best of all worlds … and the future of humanity
This is both a serious article and a bit tongue-in-cheek. After all it is about the female right to vote. The discussion can go both ways. Since I am a male writing this article, expect both my prejudice, and subjugation to female beating about the head and shoulders, at least felicitously. Life may not by fair, but it does have serious purposes. All males and females know this. Let me go forward to the obvious.
Women run the world. Depending on the society and culture, how they do it varies. This is so historically based, I challenged my political opponents to disagree using facts (I hope), or even fiction (I do not hope). If this premise is correct, then maybe this is how somehow we humans have both survived on the earth, and maybe even socially changed.
That history has kept women in “political chains”, denied the vote, put them on a pedestal, restricted their and their men’s behavior, all in the pursuit of advancing Families that are the tribe, is, well, normal for most of the world. If you buy this line, or premise, than you are thinking more eastern like. Just don’t ignore the obvious that somehow women run the world, even in this age old system.
OK, let’s go western. The historical pretenses have been superceded by western thoughts, and in the first 50 years of this change, it appears the women’s vote can “kill the goose that lays the golden egg” in the west. In America, it is especially disturbing to read polls about women voting as to how they feel, or how cute the candidate is. Barf. How about the old days of facts and National interest?
Jump to the next 100 years in the West, and I think somehow in the East. One half of humanity, women, will have more political power. And they will probably screw up humanity about the same. Maybe the old cultures of women running the world, indirectly of course, worked as well, or maybe better?
This is both a serious article and a bit tongue-in-cheek. After all it is about the female right to vote. The discussion can go both ways. Since I am a male writing this article, expect both my prejudice, and subjugation to female beating about the head and shoulders, at least felicitously. Life may not by fair, but it does have serious purposes. All males and females know this. Let me go forward to the obvious.
Women run the world. Depending on the society and culture, how they do it varies. This is so historically based, I challenged my political opponents to disagree using facts (I hope), or even fiction (I do not hope). If this premise is correct, then maybe this is how somehow we humans have both survived on the earth, and maybe even socially changed.
That history has kept women in “political chains”, denied the vote, put them on a pedestal, restricted their and their men’s behavior, all in the pursuit of advancing Families that are the tribe, is, well, normal for most of the world. If you buy this line, or premise, than you are thinking more eastern like. Just don’t ignore the obvious that somehow women run the world, even in this age old system.
OK, let’s go western. The historical pretenses have been superceded by western thoughts, and in the first 50 years of this change, it appears the women’s vote can “kill the goose that lays the golden egg” in the west. In America, it is especially disturbing to read polls about women voting as to how they feel, or how cute the candidate is. Barf. How about the old days of facts and National interest?
Jump to the next 100 years in the West, and I think somehow in the East. One half of humanity, women, will have more political power. And they will probably screw up humanity about the same. Maybe the old cultures of women running the world, indirectly of course, worked as well, or maybe better?
The best of all worlds … and the future of humanity
This is both a serious article and a bit tongue-in-cheek. After all it is about the female right to vote. The discussion can go both ways. Since I am a male writing this article, expect both my prejudice, and subjugation to female beating about the head and shoulders, at least felicitously. Life may not by fair, but it does have serious purposes. All males and females know this. Let me go forward to the obvious.
Women run the world. Depending on the society and culture, how they do it varies. This is so historically biased, I challenged my political opponents to disagree using facts (I hope), or even fiction (I do not hope). If this premise is correct, then maybe this is how somehow we humans have both survived on the earth, and maybe even socially changed.
That history has kept women in “political chains”, denied the vote, put them on a pedestal, restricted their and their men’s behavior, all in the pursuit of advancing Families that are the tribe, is, well, normal for most of the world. If you buy this line, or premise, than you are thinking more eastern like. Just don’t ignore the obvious that somehow women run the world, even in this age old system.
OK, let’s go western. The historical pretenses have been superceded by western thoughts, and in the first 50 years of this change, it appears the women’s vote can “kill the goose that lays the golden egg” in the west. In America, it is especially disturbing to read polls about women voting as to how they feel, or how cute the candidate is. Barf. How about the old days of facts and National interest?
Jump to the next 100 years in the West, and I think somehow in the East. One half of humanity, women, will have more political power. And they will probably screw up humanity about the same. Maybe the old cultures of women running the world, indirectly of course, worked as well, or maybe better?
This is both a serious article and a bit tongue-in-cheek. After all it is about the female right to vote. The discussion can go both ways. Since I am a male writing this article, expect both my prejudice, and subjugation to female beating about the head and shoulders, at least felicitously. Life may not by fair, but it does have serious purposes. All males and females know this. Let me go forward to the obvious.
Women run the world. Depending on the society and culture, how they do it varies. This is so historically biased, I challenged my political opponents to disagree using facts (I hope), or even fiction (I do not hope). If this premise is correct, then maybe this is how somehow we humans have both survived on the earth, and maybe even socially changed.
That history has kept women in “political chains”, denied the vote, put them on a pedestal, restricted their and their men’s behavior, all in the pursuit of advancing Families that are the tribe, is, well, normal for most of the world. If you buy this line, or premise, than you are thinking more eastern like. Just don’t ignore the obvious that somehow women run the world, even in this age old system.
OK, let’s go western. The historical pretenses have been superceded by western thoughts, and in the first 50 years of this change, it appears the women’s vote can “kill the goose that lays the golden egg” in the west. In America, it is especially disturbing to read polls about women voting as to how they feel, or how cute the candidate is. Barf. How about the old days of facts and National interest?
Jump to the next 100 years in the West, and I think somehow in the East. One half of humanity, women, will have more political power. And they will probably screw up humanity about the same. Maybe the old cultures of women running the world, indirectly of course, worked as well, or maybe better?
Facts and fictions in USA politics
I never thought it could get to the silliness going on in D.C. and the media reporting thereof. I had always thought facts, and objective reporting, would trump all, including slippery politicians. Now it is most obvious that fictions can become “facts” in D.C., and many, including fellow Americans and many in the rest of the world just shake their head in disbelief. How can so many people allow themselves to be duped, or even more minimally, want to be duped? In fairness, many may resent the tag of being duped, and prefer the cover of accepting, and often reinforcing the fictions as a way to advance their politics. Given the many serious problems our Nation does have, this is a heck of a way to try run a country. One might even say people like this are playing with fire. Even if the present Republican President is a poor manager, etc, (which he is not), there is no excuse for using fictions over facts. Even if many Americans have a visceral dislike of Bush (much like I had of Clinton), there is no excuse for using fictions over facts.
I always enjoyed my version of joking about facts and fiction when making fun of my group, the military, though it could apply to any group. It was: Never ever let the truth interfere with a good story. (And the corollary was: Nothing screws up a good story like an eyewitness). Now my version of joking seems to have a basis in fact, at least in D.C. and the media. Said another way, many were introduced to the idea of propaganda by studying Nazi techniques, and later Stalin’s techniques. The basic idea was: if you say white is black often enough and in enough ways, eventually it will be accepted as fact.
Most of the world accepts that Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) sometime before our attack in 2003. Depending on the WMD, they had buried (at land and sea) or evacuated to Syria, some of them during our lead up to our attack. The locations then in Syria are known. And during earlier times they had used WMDs against citizens, so we know they had them earlier. And as part of the attack into Kuwait in 1991, we expected (in my unit) 30% casualties from chemical weapons. And we knew the Iraqi’s were not 10 feet tall, so said another way, the threat and probability was not over exaggerated. Yet now the accepted facts in D.C. is not only that WMDs never existed, but Bush led some kind of charade to fool his fellow public servants in their votes. All this after the CIA Director announced a “slam dunk” on the subject; and then after all, Bush had kept Tenet as the CIA Director even if Clinton had nominated him based on his professional qualification as a Democratic Intelligence Committee staffer.
The other propaganda type silliness is the whole affair over Plame and Libby, etc. Now fiction has been extended to politics in supporting the most outlandish claims by this most disreputable politically oriented couple; and even now she can testify as to the facts without objective media challenge, even if her words have changed 180 degrees. This is so outlandish, it is silly. While it succeeds in D.C. and the media, I don’t think the rest of the world is buying it. Somebody has to say “the king has no clothes”.
Most adults are willing to let the chips fall where they may. And most will not tolerate fictions over facts. Most demand elected public servants address our many National problems. If this is not a message from outside of D.C., then stand by for heavy rolls.
I never thought it could get to the silliness going on in D.C. and the media reporting thereof. I had always thought facts, and objective reporting, would trump all, including slippery politicians. Now it is most obvious that fictions can become “facts” in D.C., and many, including fellow Americans and many in the rest of the world just shake their head in disbelief. How can so many people allow themselves to be duped, or even more minimally, want to be duped? In fairness, many may resent the tag of being duped, and prefer the cover of accepting, and often reinforcing the fictions as a way to advance their politics. Given the many serious problems our Nation does have, this is a heck of a way to try run a country. One might even say people like this are playing with fire. Even if the present Republican President is a poor manager, etc, (which he is not), there is no excuse for using fictions over facts. Even if many Americans have a visceral dislike of Bush (much like I had of Clinton), there is no excuse for using fictions over facts.
I always enjoyed my version of joking about facts and fiction when making fun of my group, the military, though it could apply to any group. It was: Never ever let the truth interfere with a good story. (And the corollary was: Nothing screws up a good story like an eyewitness). Now my version of joking seems to have a basis in fact, at least in D.C. and the media. Said another way, many were introduced to the idea of propaganda by studying Nazi techniques, and later Stalin’s techniques. The basic idea was: if you say white is black often enough and in enough ways, eventually it will be accepted as fact.
Most of the world accepts that Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) sometime before our attack in 2003. Depending on the WMD, they had buried (at land and sea) or evacuated to Syria, some of them during our lead up to our attack. The locations then in Syria are known. And during earlier times they had used WMDs against citizens, so we know they had them earlier. And as part of the attack into Kuwait in 1991, we expected (in my unit) 30% casualties from chemical weapons. And we knew the Iraqi’s were not 10 feet tall, so said another way, the threat and probability was not over exaggerated. Yet now the accepted facts in D.C. is not only that WMDs never existed, but Bush led some kind of charade to fool his fellow public servants in their votes. All this after the CIA Director announced a “slam dunk” on the subject; and then after all, Bush had kept Tenet as the CIA Director even if Clinton had nominated him based on his professional qualification as a Democratic Intelligence Committee staffer.
The other propaganda type silliness is the whole affair over Plame and Libby, etc. Now fiction has been extended to politics in supporting the most outlandish claims by this most disreputable politically oriented couple; and even now she can testify as to the facts without objective media challenge, even if her words have changed 180 degrees. This is so outlandish, it is silly. While it succeeds in D.C. and the media, I don’t think the rest of the world is buying it. Somebody has to say “the king has no clothes”.
Most adults are willing to let the chips fall where they may. And most will not tolerate fictions over facts. Most demand elected public servants address our many National problems. If this is not a message from outside of D.C., then stand by for heavy rolls.
Monday, March 26, 2007
Kurds are people too
Most know this often quoted line: be careful because you may get what you asked for
Let’s start with the Kurds. They should have their own country, but they don’t thanks to British and Russian diplomats last century. This can apply also to ideas such as Baluchistan and even what is called in today’s press Waziristan. More to come on these later in this post.
Let’s deal with what has resulted. In American terms, let’s deal with reality. The Kurds are a very decent tribe and people more like the best part that we Americans got from our European ancestors. They also ended up in their part of the world, which includes parts of Turkey, Iraq, and Iran. But they are a tribe with objectives, often anti-arab. OK, so far. But if you are a US Marine as part of the western occupation of northern Iraq after Desert Storm, you know the Kurds will try to trick you into shooting artillery into the Iraqi’s. One of the leaders then was a Marine named Jones, who later the SecDef selected to be the first Marine to lead NATO. But I digress. There is another point of view vis-à-vis the Kurds, if you are a Turk. Turkey has a military draft, and Kurds who are also Turkish citizens, are routinely drafted. The notable point is that this group is routinely assigned away from the Kurdish areas, including the border area with Iraq.
Let me continue. The frustration over blaming the failure to capture Bin Laden is well deserved, up to a point, especially those who bad mouth the leader of Pakistan. Allegedly, Bin Laden is hiding in the border area know by many names. In the western press I think it is called Waziristan. But do your history, and one may find that a Brit fellow by the name of Durand using a paper map did a “line” about 1921 that divided the Pashtuns in just the area that Bin Laden is hiding in. Of course, the locals did not get the word, and even if they did, they didn’t and don’t care what some Brit diplomat did in 1921.
For the most bellicose of my fellow citizens who say send in the special forces or Marines, I say, you go. The other side is not so stupid when they see I look “different”. It is not an easy world. But given the political priorities, they will go. Unfortunately, the bad guys are not cooperating. And maybe the President of Pakistan is not as dumb as the western press reports.
Most know this often quoted line: be careful because you may get what you asked for
Let’s start with the Kurds. They should have their own country, but they don’t thanks to British and Russian diplomats last century. This can apply also to ideas such as Baluchistan and even what is called in today’s press Waziristan. More to come on these later in this post.
Let’s deal with what has resulted. In American terms, let’s deal with reality. The Kurds are a very decent tribe and people more like the best part that we Americans got from our European ancestors. They also ended up in their part of the world, which includes parts of Turkey, Iraq, and Iran. But they are a tribe with objectives, often anti-arab. OK, so far. But if you are a US Marine as part of the western occupation of northern Iraq after Desert Storm, you know the Kurds will try to trick you into shooting artillery into the Iraqi’s. One of the leaders then was a Marine named Jones, who later the SecDef selected to be the first Marine to lead NATO. But I digress. There is another point of view vis-à-vis the Kurds, if you are a Turk. Turkey has a military draft, and Kurds who are also Turkish citizens, are routinely drafted. The notable point is that this group is routinely assigned away from the Kurdish areas, including the border area with Iraq.
Let me continue. The frustration over blaming the failure to capture Bin Laden is well deserved, up to a point, especially those who bad mouth the leader of Pakistan. Allegedly, Bin Laden is hiding in the border area know by many names. In the western press I think it is called Waziristan. But do your history, and one may find that a Brit fellow by the name of Durand using a paper map did a “line” about 1921 that divided the Pashtuns in just the area that Bin Laden is hiding in. Of course, the locals did not get the word, and even if they did, they didn’t and don’t care what some Brit diplomat did in 1921.
For the most bellicose of my fellow citizens who say send in the special forces or Marines, I say, you go. The other side is not so stupid when they see I look “different”. It is not an easy world. But given the political priorities, they will go. Unfortunately, the bad guys are not cooperating. And maybe the President of Pakistan is not as dumb as the western press reports.
Why a Jerusalem?
The world is filled with great cities. Most great cities seem to arise from geography that includes ports and trade. A smaller number of great cities seem to arise from geography that seems to be religiously blessed, often by erection of temples associated with heavenly implications. And is a city great because of its physical size and population, or is the power of why humans founded it a factor? Political centers are a good example. Of course most of us do not live in great cities.
And time marches on. Some great cities are now dust in the sand, covered over by the march of time, or forgotten by history, especially western history. Xian, China with its great pyramids is a good example, but others are out there, also. The apparent great climatic changes precipitated by the end of the last great ice age, great volcanic activity, and some human activity have erased many great cities. Even some great cities may now be under coastal waters or in rain forests these days. Much on this subject is still being discovered. Just what places were cradles of civilization is a good example of this discovery going on.
Even the subject of the world’s great religions is cantankerous. Is a great religion great because of the numbers of worshipers, the power of its ideas, the association with the heavens, or some combination of these ideas and other ideas? One list of great religions based on ideas and history includes: Hinduism, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, Shinto, Confucianism, Jainism, Taoism, Christianity, Islam, Sikhism, Bahá'í, and Paganism and Animism.
All the preceding leads to the question of “why a Jerusalem?” Jerusalem is a very holy city to three of the world’s great religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Why did it become this way? The question is quite powerful because of all the wars and frictions that come out of this one great city. And while many humans prefer to act, rather than react, why are many humans preordained to perpetuate the past about Jerusalem? And for the other great religions, one might surmise that many don’t care much about Jerusalem, one way or the other.
Books upon books have been written about this subject, and associated themes. Yet the basic question applied to we masses seems to be too often neglected to the level it ought to be at. Again, “why a Jerusalem?” Why is it a very holy city for three of the world’s great religions? And why have so many wars been fought over and about it, with full expectation this will continue in the future?
Certain things about Jerusalem do stick out. Its geography places it by water transportation. It sits on top of a crossroads of history that includes trade and invasions, and the many great ideas brought by these traders and invaders. Many other religious ideas have been introduced by those such as: the Romans, the Assyrians, and the Babylonians. Yet somehow, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have made it a very holy city; holy enough to fight over and about. Why?
Following the preceding logic tree, perhaps it has something to do with the three religions. This begs the questions about the peculiarity of the location, or the other reasons to fight over it, or some combination thereof. An ancillary question might be: are there any other “Jerusalems” elsewhere in the world? The usual answer is no.
There are things worth fighting and dieing for. And going to war is still an option, especially as an extension of politics by other means. The world is still an ugly place. But why Jerusalem in the historical sense of three major religions? Maybe one can be too focused on today’s times, and the frictions between the State of Israel and the Arab world, and some of the rest of the Islamic world. Perhaps if the UN had placed the State of Israel elsewhere it would render the question about Jerusalem moot. Most don’t think so given the recent rise of Islamic fascism fueled by the vast oil incomes. It all comes back to Jerusalem, many think. And as one of many who prefer to act, rather than react, why continue the historical frictions between three of the world’s great religions over Jerusalem? What is it about Jerusalem that continues to dictate so many foreign policies? What is it about Jerusalem?
The world is filled with great cities. Most great cities seem to arise from geography that includes ports and trade. A smaller number of great cities seem to arise from geography that seems to be religiously blessed, often by erection of temples associated with heavenly implications. And is a city great because of its physical size and population, or is the power of why humans founded it a factor? Political centers are a good example. Of course most of us do not live in great cities.
And time marches on. Some great cities are now dust in the sand, covered over by the march of time, or forgotten by history, especially western history. Xian, China with its great pyramids is a good example, but others are out there, also. The apparent great climatic changes precipitated by the end of the last great ice age, great volcanic activity, and some human activity have erased many great cities. Even some great cities may now be under coastal waters or in rain forests these days. Much on this subject is still being discovered. Just what places were cradles of civilization is a good example of this discovery going on.
Even the subject of the world’s great religions is cantankerous. Is a great religion great because of the numbers of worshipers, the power of its ideas, the association with the heavens, or some combination of these ideas and other ideas? One list of great religions based on ideas and history includes: Hinduism, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, Shinto, Confucianism, Jainism, Taoism, Christianity, Islam, Sikhism, Bahá'í, and Paganism and Animism.
All the preceding leads to the question of “why a Jerusalem?” Jerusalem is a very holy city to three of the world’s great religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Why did it become this way? The question is quite powerful because of all the wars and frictions that come out of this one great city. And while many humans prefer to act, rather than react, why are many humans preordained to perpetuate the past about Jerusalem? And for the other great religions, one might surmise that many don’t care much about Jerusalem, one way or the other.
Books upon books have been written about this subject, and associated themes. Yet the basic question applied to we masses seems to be too often neglected to the level it ought to be at. Again, “why a Jerusalem?” Why is it a very holy city for three of the world’s great religions? And why have so many wars been fought over and about it, with full expectation this will continue in the future?
Certain things about Jerusalem do stick out. Its geography places it by water transportation. It sits on top of a crossroads of history that includes trade and invasions, and the many great ideas brought by these traders and invaders. Many other religious ideas have been introduced by those such as: the Romans, the Assyrians, and the Babylonians. Yet somehow, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have made it a very holy city; holy enough to fight over and about. Why?
Following the preceding logic tree, perhaps it has something to do with the three religions. This begs the questions about the peculiarity of the location, or the other reasons to fight over it, or some combination thereof. An ancillary question might be: are there any other “Jerusalems” elsewhere in the world? The usual answer is no.
There are things worth fighting and dieing for. And going to war is still an option, especially as an extension of politics by other means. The world is still an ugly place. But why Jerusalem in the historical sense of three major religions? Maybe one can be too focused on today’s times, and the frictions between the State of Israel and the Arab world, and some of the rest of the Islamic world. Perhaps if the UN had placed the State of Israel elsewhere it would render the question about Jerusalem moot. Most don’t think so given the recent rise of Islamic fascism fueled by the vast oil incomes. It all comes back to Jerusalem, many think. And as one of many who prefer to act, rather than react, why continue the historical frictions between three of the world’s great religions over Jerusalem? What is it about Jerusalem that continues to dictate so many foreign policies? What is it about Jerusalem?
Sunday, March 25, 2007
US National interests applied to hostages
1. Bottom line: exchanging hostages taken expressly for that purpose is a proven successful tactic by tribes and some nation-states. In modern history (relatively) this goes back to the Barbary Pirates.
2. Second bottom line: it is an ugly world out there.
3. Third bottom line: What do we do when our National interests are not threatened, but we are outraged and morally appalled. This circumstance applies to hostages, and genocide.
4. Fourth bottom line: How dirty are we (in the west) willing to get in playing the game?
The preceding questions are prompted by the present British hostage abduction by the Iranians. This is a repeat performance between tribes and nations (in the traditional guise of ideologies mixed with some hardball retribution) it seems. Recently a BBC fellow was taken in Gaza, and also recently 5 Italians were taken in Afghanistan. It has gone on before, and may well continue, since it has worked in the past in achieving the results of the abductors. Now 15 Brits are abducted by the Iranians.
Much as men and women court, something similar has been going on in the middle east for decades. Most of it is business, oil and military weapons come to mind; but it has also been cold war competition for benefits to the region (as in the big Nile River dam); and also it has been supporting the many arab dictatorships in support of our national objectives when it coincides with their objectives. Many call this “realism”. Whatever it was, there were the “courters”, and the “courtees”, and both did the dance. When one thinks they are “pursued”, they often imbue themselves with extra advantages. It seems like those practicing abduction as a tactic still think this way. Maybe it is older than that.
The hard nut to crack is one of National interest, and our moral outrage at hostage abduction and genocide. The courses of action are all over the place, but this one citizen has made his peace. It is one being selfish, and unless my idea of our National interest is threatened, I expect my federal public servants to do the best they can with what they’ve got. That’s it! President Jefferson reached this point with the Barbary Pirates when our payments to them in tribute became intolerable, and he and the Congress did the best they could with what they got. I expect our present President and Congress to do something similar in the present circumstances. I have no idea what they may come up with, and I think they share the same frustration. And the poor anti-war types may have other “problems”. Even Jimmy Carter is weighing in, I hear.
Just how “dirty” are we willing to get. Let me not mince words. Are we willing to let hostages die for a greater cause? Are we willing to use covert operations to kill or kidnap enemies? Are we willing to use bribes to influence our enemies? Are we willing to deal with the most disreputable and despicable individuals if it benefits our National interest? Again, this citizen has made his peace. The answer is yes. I am willing to get “dirty”, as long as some public servants have oversight review limited to our American values not being abused. If this sounds political, it is. The old days of Senator Church’s and Admiral Turner’s wave of wand, and law’s that limited our getting “dirty” may have been well intentioned, but the bottom line result has been to force our present public servants into decisions that look more like: “go to war” or “back off”. This citizen thinks our public servants need more “tricks” in their “bag of tricks” if we, as a Nation, are to avoid war, and pursue our National interests by other means.
1. Bottom line: exchanging hostages taken expressly for that purpose is a proven successful tactic by tribes and some nation-states. In modern history (relatively) this goes back to the Barbary Pirates.
2. Second bottom line: it is an ugly world out there.
3. Third bottom line: What do we do when our National interests are not threatened, but we are outraged and morally appalled. This circumstance applies to hostages, and genocide.
4. Fourth bottom line: How dirty are we (in the west) willing to get in playing the game?
The preceding questions are prompted by the present British hostage abduction by the Iranians. This is a repeat performance between tribes and nations (in the traditional guise of ideologies mixed with some hardball retribution) it seems. Recently a BBC fellow was taken in Gaza, and also recently 5 Italians were taken in Afghanistan. It has gone on before, and may well continue, since it has worked in the past in achieving the results of the abductors. Now 15 Brits are abducted by the Iranians.
Much as men and women court, something similar has been going on in the middle east for decades. Most of it is business, oil and military weapons come to mind; but it has also been cold war competition for benefits to the region (as in the big Nile River dam); and also it has been supporting the many arab dictatorships in support of our national objectives when it coincides with their objectives. Many call this “realism”. Whatever it was, there were the “courters”, and the “courtees”, and both did the dance. When one thinks they are “pursued”, they often imbue themselves with extra advantages. It seems like those practicing abduction as a tactic still think this way. Maybe it is older than that.
The hard nut to crack is one of National interest, and our moral outrage at hostage abduction and genocide. The courses of action are all over the place, but this one citizen has made his peace. It is one being selfish, and unless my idea of our National interest is threatened, I expect my federal public servants to do the best they can with what they’ve got. That’s it! President Jefferson reached this point with the Barbary Pirates when our payments to them in tribute became intolerable, and he and the Congress did the best they could with what they got. I expect our present President and Congress to do something similar in the present circumstances. I have no idea what they may come up with, and I think they share the same frustration. And the poor anti-war types may have other “problems”. Even Jimmy Carter is weighing in, I hear.
Just how “dirty” are we willing to get. Let me not mince words. Are we willing to let hostages die for a greater cause? Are we willing to use covert operations to kill or kidnap enemies? Are we willing to use bribes to influence our enemies? Are we willing to deal with the most disreputable and despicable individuals if it benefits our National interest? Again, this citizen has made his peace. The answer is yes. I am willing to get “dirty”, as long as some public servants have oversight review limited to our American values not being abused. If this sounds political, it is. The old days of Senator Church’s and Admiral Turner’s wave of wand, and law’s that limited our getting “dirty” may have been well intentioned, but the bottom line result has been to force our present public servants into decisions that look more like: “go to war” or “back off”. This citizen thinks our public servants need more “tricks” in their “bag of tricks” if we, as a Nation, are to avoid war, and pursue our National interests by other means.
Saturday, March 24, 2007
Iran, Iranians, and the threats to us
First of all give them credits. They love their country, their society, their families, and their way of life. It is all they have. They even have a long Persian history that would make all proud. And even the Persian prehistory, and for that matter the whole transcaucus prehistory, is a whole rich history of tribes migrating into this area from and to Europe. Yes it is tribal dependent, and yes, there are many blonde blue eyed tribes in remote valleys in Afghanistan. We are all relatives, somehow.
More credits, first. Go to school with Iranians (not the politicians) and they are the same as us; many are good academics, as in hard working. This is normal. Go relatives, albeit, very distant.
And Iran is a country about twice the size of Idaho, with a population of about 70 million. Again, on the credit side, we are talking about relatives, albeit distant.
In the end, if attacked, the Iranians will defend themselves as a civilization, a nation, and as relatives of ours. We have much in common since we will do the same.
On the bad credit downside is the present political leadership that does, in fact, run the country. Their running the country includes killing and oppressing their opposition. They are imbued with enough Eastern thought processes to denigrate the value of human life, and women. Most of the leadership is the theocratic and unelected ruling class. They do have a present puppet acting as the technically and legally (rigged election) President. He’s the one we read about in the press. He was one of student leaders during the U.S. Embassy takeover in 1979 (according to many reputable sources).
He, and they, the theocratic dictators, have many political and financial problems that will bring them down (most predict). It is a matter of when, not if. The when is very frustrating to the impatient, myself included. They have had to create their own extra military loyal to them and not the nation, and then finance it. Their Army of God (with its naval element) competes with the normal Iranian military for funds, etc. It is a repeat of Hitler and the Nazi Party having its SS, which was a competitor of their military. And Hitler and the Germans lost the war…bad plan for a war.
And then they have their other problems. Their version of Islam is a minority in the regional world where they live. How their future leaders sort out all the frictions between their religious and family values, regional religious competitors, and outsider western type values, is their problem. Does one wish these egomaniacs luck? I don’t. Neither do their regional enemies, and opponents, especially given the Iranian nuclear pursuits.
With the recent Brit problem, one might use the military approach of focusing on capabilities vice intents. Judging intents is always difficult and usually a waste of time. In the capabilities area, the Iranians have recently lost (to defections or kidnapping) more than a few senior military leaders (Army of God and regular military). They have promised to kidnap others in retaliation. Now they have. Their President has just canceled his visit to the U.N. and U.S. soil. We still can take more Iranians into “custody”, as well as continue whatever we are doing covertly. We are a bigger dog than they are. Their leadership (religious, political, and military) knows this, and we know this. We have been war gaming Iran for decades. They know that. Some Iranians used to participate in these war games since sometimes it was to defend Iran from the Russians during the Cold War (as well as other scenarios). The Russians are pulling out of Busheur, much like the French did at Osirak before the Israeli attack in 1981. The new CENTCOM is a Navy fellow with proconsul-like experience with China and other regional powers, and users of Persian Gulf oil energy and their economics for doing so. A second carrier battle group is forming up in the regional area. The President is changing other people in his team affecting the area, and is reported to be changing his strategy, and maybe even his tactics.
Diplomacy is most effective in the Eastern world with a big stick included in the process.
First of all give them credits. They love their country, their society, their families, and their way of life. It is all they have. They even have a long Persian history that would make all proud. And even the Persian prehistory, and for that matter the whole transcaucus prehistory, is a whole rich history of tribes migrating into this area from and to Europe. Yes it is tribal dependent, and yes, there are many blonde blue eyed tribes in remote valleys in Afghanistan. We are all relatives, somehow.
More credits, first. Go to school with Iranians (not the politicians) and they are the same as us; many are good academics, as in hard working. This is normal. Go relatives, albeit, very distant.
And Iran is a country about twice the size of Idaho, with a population of about 70 million. Again, on the credit side, we are talking about relatives, albeit distant.
In the end, if attacked, the Iranians will defend themselves as a civilization, a nation, and as relatives of ours. We have much in common since we will do the same.
On the bad credit downside is the present political leadership that does, in fact, run the country. Their running the country includes killing and oppressing their opposition. They are imbued with enough Eastern thought processes to denigrate the value of human life, and women. Most of the leadership is the theocratic and unelected ruling class. They do have a present puppet acting as the technically and legally (rigged election) President. He’s the one we read about in the press. He was one of student leaders during the U.S. Embassy takeover in 1979 (according to many reputable sources).
He, and they, the theocratic dictators, have many political and financial problems that will bring them down (most predict). It is a matter of when, not if. The when is very frustrating to the impatient, myself included. They have had to create their own extra military loyal to them and not the nation, and then finance it. Their Army of God (with its naval element) competes with the normal Iranian military for funds, etc. It is a repeat of Hitler and the Nazi Party having its SS, which was a competitor of their military. And Hitler and the Germans lost the war…bad plan for a war.
And then they have their other problems. Their version of Islam is a minority in the regional world where they live. How their future leaders sort out all the frictions between their religious and family values, regional religious competitors, and outsider western type values, is their problem. Does one wish these egomaniacs luck? I don’t. Neither do their regional enemies, and opponents, especially given the Iranian nuclear pursuits.
With the recent Brit problem, one might use the military approach of focusing on capabilities vice intents. Judging intents is always difficult and usually a waste of time. In the capabilities area, the Iranians have recently lost (to defections or kidnapping) more than a few senior military leaders (Army of God and regular military). They have promised to kidnap others in retaliation. Now they have. Their President has just canceled his visit to the U.N. and U.S. soil. We still can take more Iranians into “custody”, as well as continue whatever we are doing covertly. We are a bigger dog than they are. Their leadership (religious, political, and military) knows this, and we know this. We have been war gaming Iran for decades. They know that. Some Iranians used to participate in these war games since sometimes it was to defend Iran from the Russians during the Cold War (as well as other scenarios). The Russians are pulling out of Busheur, much like the French did at Osirak before the Israeli attack in 1981. The new CENTCOM is a Navy fellow with proconsul-like experience with China and other regional powers, and users of Persian Gulf oil energy and their economics for doing so. A second carrier battle group is forming up in the regional area. The President is changing other people in his team affecting the area, and is reported to be changing his strategy, and maybe even his tactics.
Diplomacy is most effective in the Eastern world with a big stick included in the process.
Friday, March 23, 2007
Public service and charity and thank you
We all serve in our own way. Most service is local, as in church or other type charitable service that is inspirational in its golden rule orientation and limited expectations for a thank you from those that benefit. Most of this service is from a wellspring of good intentions, often with a religious base, and from those who have the time. In most cases all monies go towards the intended people (and sometimes animals and other causes) without any payment to the volunteers. It is enough to make any observer proud. In Aussie talk, they “done good”. This system is as old as history, but is alive and well in today’s times.
Then there are the more business like charities that take a cut of the collections to pay themselves and the overhead. Again, most deserve our support, but the buyer must beware when contributing since some are more money income machines or politically oriented in their distributions. Even our government gets involved in these types of charities if you accept that the old Combined Federal Campaign exhibits such characteristics, or something similar for the old United Fund. That the Boy Scouts have been cut out of the old United Fund unless I take special actions to counteract it, and we have to trust them to do so, is an example of others using my money for their purposes. Suddenly local looks better and better, even if it takes more work on the citizen’s part. By the way, in the case of the Boy Scouts, I have nothing against homosexuality since I know it goes on. I just want to promote citizenship and scout values that I feel benefit our American society, locally, and as a Nation. And those Boy Scout public service leaders need all the financial help we can give them, I think.
Another very admirable group of public servants is those that seek public office. It might be local as in the school board, or county, or state, or regional, or even federal. I admire them all, albeit some more than others. Yes, there are bad apples in the barrel, but the vast majority serve out of public interests, even if it is their version of public interests, but then that is why they ran for the vote, and in turn, why we can vote for the public servants we choose. While I am throwing roses, we should respect those who serve in the more administrative positions to administer what the public servants dictate and vote on. This includes teachers, public, and private. I don’t believe in shooting the messenger. No body wakes up in the morning wanting to do a bad job. So what we voters should do is vote for our public servants. And this is where this article is leading.
Our public servants in Washington D.C. are in a mess. One should not expect any leadership or moral example out of anyone in D.C, other than maybe President Bush. Even his style has been overwhelmed. Some of us more naive types expected the 2006 elections to offer some semblance of our national interests coming back into the game they play there. Alas, it is not happening. In fact, to me, what is happening is third world in quality.
We cannot ignore the whole world going on around us, and we still do have a nation and culture to run, and defend. In this vein, the politics of criminalizing political differences must come to an end if we are to have public service citizens to come forward. This is in our National interest. The tactic of criminalizing politics is a loser, nationally speaking. While it may work in the short run (or so it seemed in the recent past), we are a long run Nation, and “where do we get back our reputation” still applies. We are full of the best and the brightest (and also some the worst and dumbest), and must nurture this wonderful group of public service Americans. Tough love will apply.
We all serve in our own way. Most service is local, as in church or other type charitable service that is inspirational in its golden rule orientation and limited expectations for a thank you from those that benefit. Most of this service is from a wellspring of good intentions, often with a religious base, and from those who have the time. In most cases all monies go towards the intended people (and sometimes animals and other causes) without any payment to the volunteers. It is enough to make any observer proud. In Aussie talk, they “done good”. This system is as old as history, but is alive and well in today’s times.
Then there are the more business like charities that take a cut of the collections to pay themselves and the overhead. Again, most deserve our support, but the buyer must beware when contributing since some are more money income machines or politically oriented in their distributions. Even our government gets involved in these types of charities if you accept that the old Combined Federal Campaign exhibits such characteristics, or something similar for the old United Fund. That the Boy Scouts have been cut out of the old United Fund unless I take special actions to counteract it, and we have to trust them to do so, is an example of others using my money for their purposes. Suddenly local looks better and better, even if it takes more work on the citizen’s part. By the way, in the case of the Boy Scouts, I have nothing against homosexuality since I know it goes on. I just want to promote citizenship and scout values that I feel benefit our American society, locally, and as a Nation. And those Boy Scout public service leaders need all the financial help we can give them, I think.
Another very admirable group of public servants is those that seek public office. It might be local as in the school board, or county, or state, or regional, or even federal. I admire them all, albeit some more than others. Yes, there are bad apples in the barrel, but the vast majority serve out of public interests, even if it is their version of public interests, but then that is why they ran for the vote, and in turn, why we can vote for the public servants we choose. While I am throwing roses, we should respect those who serve in the more administrative positions to administer what the public servants dictate and vote on. This includes teachers, public, and private. I don’t believe in shooting the messenger. No body wakes up in the morning wanting to do a bad job. So what we voters should do is vote for our public servants. And this is where this article is leading.
Our public servants in Washington D.C. are in a mess. One should not expect any leadership or moral example out of anyone in D.C, other than maybe President Bush. Even his style has been overwhelmed. Some of us more naive types expected the 2006 elections to offer some semblance of our national interests coming back into the game they play there. Alas, it is not happening. In fact, to me, what is happening is third world in quality.
We cannot ignore the whole world going on around us, and we still do have a nation and culture to run, and defend. In this vein, the politics of criminalizing political differences must come to an end if we are to have public service citizens to come forward. This is in our National interest. The tactic of criminalizing politics is a loser, nationally speaking. While it may work in the short run (or so it seemed in the recent past), we are a long run Nation, and “where do we get back our reputation” still applies. We are full of the best and the brightest (and also some the worst and dumbest), and must nurture this wonderful group of public service Americans. Tough love will apply.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Ice Cream Socials
The days of loose girls, free love, and let it all hang out is on the way out. The free ride for guys enjoying sex from “liberated” girls is on the way out. Political and societal liberation never translated to sexual liberation. It never would. Sex drives it all…boys and girls want to get together, on their own rules which are driven by biological imperatives. The societal change will take decades to occur, as did the present state of affairs. But the times they are a changing, and the pendulum is swinging as always. The days of group dating and special friends “with privileges” are on the wane. Boys and girls have different objectives, and that has never changed. How they got there, and how they tolerated the process during their times, has changed. They are and have been part of how American society survives, and goes forward.
One idea that succeeds is that the demographics decide in the end. Birth rates of sub-elements of society is the usual basis of this idea, which is numerically correct for these days. Somehow I believe that the future American experience will lower sex out of wedlock, and birth rates out of wedlock, that will naturally change the course of our culture for all elements. To follow on, few expect boys and girls to change their behavior; it will be how we change our adult behavior and impose ourselves on their opportunities to have sex. Call it two faced, call it censorship, call it unfair; most parents call it supervision for our kids benefit, and society’s benefits along the way. Even sexually transmitted diseases and their consequences should drop in a way that allows more married couples to have kids.
Society, in our case American society, has an interest in itself. In the case of sex, imposing our standards usually applies to girls being in charge. It does work both ways, but generally we are most rigid with girls. Since mothers and fathers are not stupid, this often means both training, and rigid supervision and rules since this will benefit their daughters, and sons, in the end.
Imposing our standards is both cheap talk, and hard to do given today’s times. But then we are talking about the future, also. In both cases the idea of “shame” needs refurbishment, as well as ideas of limiting the government paying for abortions or child support. If mom and dad have to pay in the latter two cases, the social justice and retribution will far exceed anything well intentioned social scientists can legislate. We do have the means to begin to change course, if we choose to do so. Lest this seems another well intentioned idea, I can report I am a father of both girls and boys, and at least one has bred, albeit married first.
And then there are the alternatives that demand work on the part of parents imposing both standards and non-sex alternatives on boys and girls. Here moms and dads are smarter than any one writing an article such as this. Just don’t forget Ice Cream Socials.
The days of loose girls, free love, and let it all hang out is on the way out. The free ride for guys enjoying sex from “liberated” girls is on the way out. Political and societal liberation never translated to sexual liberation. It never would. Sex drives it all…boys and girls want to get together, on their own rules which are driven by biological imperatives. The societal change will take decades to occur, as did the present state of affairs. But the times they are a changing, and the pendulum is swinging as always. The days of group dating and special friends “with privileges” are on the wane. Boys and girls have different objectives, and that has never changed. How they got there, and how they tolerated the process during their times, has changed. They are and have been part of how American society survives, and goes forward.
One idea that succeeds is that the demographics decide in the end. Birth rates of sub-elements of society is the usual basis of this idea, which is numerically correct for these days. Somehow I believe that the future American experience will lower sex out of wedlock, and birth rates out of wedlock, that will naturally change the course of our culture for all elements. To follow on, few expect boys and girls to change their behavior; it will be how we change our adult behavior and impose ourselves on their opportunities to have sex. Call it two faced, call it censorship, call it unfair; most parents call it supervision for our kids benefit, and society’s benefits along the way. Even sexually transmitted diseases and their consequences should drop in a way that allows more married couples to have kids.
Society, in our case American society, has an interest in itself. In the case of sex, imposing our standards usually applies to girls being in charge. It does work both ways, but generally we are most rigid with girls. Since mothers and fathers are not stupid, this often means both training, and rigid supervision and rules since this will benefit their daughters, and sons, in the end.
Imposing our standards is both cheap talk, and hard to do given today’s times. But then we are talking about the future, also. In both cases the idea of “shame” needs refurbishment, as well as ideas of limiting the government paying for abortions or child support. If mom and dad have to pay in the latter two cases, the social justice and retribution will far exceed anything well intentioned social scientists can legislate. We do have the means to begin to change course, if we choose to do so. Lest this seems another well intentioned idea, I can report I am a father of both girls and boys, and at least one has bred, albeit married first.
And then there are the alternatives that demand work on the part of parents imposing both standards and non-sex alternatives on boys and girls. Here moms and dads are smarter than any one writing an article such as this. Just don’t forget Ice Cream Socials.
Is environmentalism a symptom, or a societal disease?
When Barry Commoner made the cover of Time Magazine back in the 60’s many poo-pooed him some, and mostly his cause. Even if some of his ideas were credible, which they were, the ideas of law and owned property were also credible. Just who were those who would take over or dictate to an upstream polluter without buying them out. There were other ways to deal with an upstream polluter, to include shaming them in the cases of overzealous development. The response to, say for example, a paper mill on the North Fork of the Potomac River that polluted locally and regionally, was a combination of local, regional, and state action, as well as public shaming. In this whole process people and their jobs were a big factor, since we all lived and worked together, and sent our kids to school together. Bottom line, there were recourses to dealing with polluters, and they were practiced as part of the then American way.
Politically, this whole idea of environmentalism was probably advanced in time by above ground testing of nuclear weapons. The regional, national, and international effects of radiation pollution from the 50’s became well published. Even kids read about the possible effects of Strontium 90 ingested through cow’s milk (it acts like calcium to our little bodies). Back then reading was the usual way of getting news and information; facts, propaganda, or even comic book versions of it all.
The evolution of environmentalism continued to a new status that had more political bite. Local land owners and citizens jobs began to lose control to environmental and OSHA federal and later state laws that evolved from obvious polluters to “I have concerns” about species and job safety. In the latter case, most of the jobs people knew more about their job safety than those becoming their unelected representatives. And during this period, it seems the standards of scientific research began to decline to producing output based on funding and political objectives. Not just the scientists changed, so did our society. Kids who might have pursued educational lines that tended towards education, engineering, mathematics, or business, found another popular line of environmental “this and that” to pursue. Theory and good intentions were everything; even computer modeling (often unchallenged do to ignorance by the user) went unchallenged. Along the way there were exceptions. The recovery of the RCW (red cockaded woodpecker) in the eastern coastal plain, led by Ralph Costa and the FWS, was brilliant. Common sense, working together, and patience, made for a brilliant campaign, and a win-win. The opposite, unfortunately, has also happened, vis-a-vis the spotted owl debacle.
The evolution continued. Nothing's wrong with that except for the fear that this unchecked evolution may have even more economic impact, as in put now millions of peoples out of their jobs. The trip wire for this author was hearing “some environment types” proposing to take over the entire Rocky Mountain chain to form a movement corridor for wolves. The alarming part was the proposal to use “law” and not money to take over this huge area to use their idea, or theory. And later, and more locally, we have the NRDC (which spreads itself very thin) proposing to take over the Cumberland Plateau in the east to promote the most naïve and wildlife destructive ideas to the more informed, all without paying a penny. Now the antennas are up.
One should never take their pack off. Now those who wrap themselves in the environmental cause have gone global. The most recent issue is one of global warming. The science debate has much published about it, thank goodness. The reader can make up their own mind. One does not need to be a computer engineer, or any of the others who offer “expert” opinion, to know the ideas of “garbage in, garbage out”, or the influence of billions of public dollars of funding on decisions about what to research, and expected outcomes. Add in the popular culture ideas on the subject, even movie reviewers are weighing in, and what has the world come to.
And this is the point of this article. This is the most difficult point. Is environmentalism today an out of control societal disease that manifests itself as a religion, or even worse, an unchecked theocracy? Or is it more simple, a symptom of American and western do-gooderism? In either question, and answer, the author suggests considering the following. Is environmentalism about humans, or not?
When Barry Commoner made the cover of Time Magazine back in the 60’s many poo-pooed him some, and mostly his cause. Even if some of his ideas were credible, which they were, the ideas of law and owned property were also credible. Just who were those who would take over or dictate to an upstream polluter without buying them out. There were other ways to deal with an upstream polluter, to include shaming them in the cases of overzealous development. The response to, say for example, a paper mill on the North Fork of the Potomac River that polluted locally and regionally, was a combination of local, regional, and state action, as well as public shaming. In this whole process people and their jobs were a big factor, since we all lived and worked together, and sent our kids to school together. Bottom line, there were recourses to dealing with polluters, and they were practiced as part of the then American way.
Politically, this whole idea of environmentalism was probably advanced in time by above ground testing of nuclear weapons. The regional, national, and international effects of radiation pollution from the 50’s became well published. Even kids read about the possible effects of Strontium 90 ingested through cow’s milk (it acts like calcium to our little bodies). Back then reading was the usual way of getting news and information; facts, propaganda, or even comic book versions of it all.
The evolution of environmentalism continued to a new status that had more political bite. Local land owners and citizens jobs began to lose control to environmental and OSHA federal and later state laws that evolved from obvious polluters to “I have concerns” about species and job safety. In the latter case, most of the jobs people knew more about their job safety than those becoming their unelected representatives. And during this period, it seems the standards of scientific research began to decline to producing output based on funding and political objectives. Not just the scientists changed, so did our society. Kids who might have pursued educational lines that tended towards education, engineering, mathematics, or business, found another popular line of environmental “this and that” to pursue. Theory and good intentions were everything; even computer modeling (often unchallenged do to ignorance by the user) went unchallenged. Along the way there were exceptions. The recovery of the RCW (red cockaded woodpecker) in the eastern coastal plain, led by Ralph Costa and the FWS, was brilliant. Common sense, working together, and patience, made for a brilliant campaign, and a win-win. The opposite, unfortunately, has also happened, vis-a-vis the spotted owl debacle.
The evolution continued. Nothing's wrong with that except for the fear that this unchecked evolution may have even more economic impact, as in put now millions of peoples out of their jobs. The trip wire for this author was hearing “some environment types” proposing to take over the entire Rocky Mountain chain to form a movement corridor for wolves. The alarming part was the proposal to use “law” and not money to take over this huge area to use their idea, or theory. And later, and more locally, we have the NRDC (which spreads itself very thin) proposing to take over the Cumberland Plateau in the east to promote the most naïve and wildlife destructive ideas to the more informed, all without paying a penny. Now the antennas are up.
One should never take their pack off. Now those who wrap themselves in the environmental cause have gone global. The most recent issue is one of global warming. The science debate has much published about it, thank goodness. The reader can make up their own mind. One does not need to be a computer engineer, or any of the others who offer “expert” opinion, to know the ideas of “garbage in, garbage out”, or the influence of billions of public dollars of funding on decisions about what to research, and expected outcomes. Add in the popular culture ideas on the subject, even movie reviewers are weighing in, and what has the world come to.
And this is the point of this article. This is the most difficult point. Is environmentalism today an out of control societal disease that manifests itself as a religion, or even worse, an unchecked theocracy? Or is it more simple, a symptom of American and western do-gooderism? In either question, and answer, the author suggests considering the following. Is environmentalism about humans, or not?
It’s time for the Democrats to change their congressional leadership
It may already be too late. Even though they have had power only 10 weeks, they may have already changed enough voters to ensure they are voted out in 2008. The raw arithmetic seems obvious to many. They got control in Congress in 2006, albeit barely, by the voters who voted “in” more “blue-dog” type congressmen and congresswomen. People wanted change in D.C. As low as the hyped approval ratings of the President are, those of Congress are even lower. And it appears the present Congressional leaders still believe their multiple campaign plans of obstruction and manufactured corruptions of the week worked as evidenced by the continued practices today. But what is happening is that voters are switching opinions quickly, and even beginning to laugh at the haphazardness of the Congressional Democrats’ conduct given the serious problems our Nation does have. What’s next on their part … pitchforks and torches in the streets? Actually, vandalism and office invasions are already beginning as a political tactic. Pardon me, but this looks Nazi-like to many.
In a most simple arithmetic, the anti-war (any war not just Iraq) types in the House add up to 70, or 16% of the House. Not only should any minority not dominate a party or either house of Congress, they certainly should not have the literally billions of dollars of public monies offered as bribes to gain their vote on the Iraq war funding. Where are the Congressional leaders who look out for the majority’s interests, the National interests, the interests for the common good, the articulation of policy alternatives. These types of national leaders are certainly not the ones filling the leadership positions at this time. The voters sent enough of these types of people to Congress. The Democrats just have not elected them to positions of leadership.
The present Democratic leaders seem especially good at producing rhetoric, obstruction, crises of the week, and other such ineffectual masquerades for governing. Nothing substantial has been accomplished, not does it seem likely in the future leading up to 2008. Yet Congress is a co-equal branch of government that has serious responsibilities in governing our Nation. Yet the present leaders seem stuck in the past, as if for not knowing what to do, they do what they know, which is not substantially much. And even if a third of our voters are silly enough to allow all this, the other two-thirds won’t keep allowing this most transparent type of behavior and governance to continue.
It may already be too late. Even though they have had power only 10 weeks, they may have already changed enough voters to ensure they are voted out in 2008. The raw arithmetic seems obvious to many. They got control in Congress in 2006, albeit barely, by the voters who voted “in” more “blue-dog” type congressmen and congresswomen. People wanted change in D.C. As low as the hyped approval ratings of the President are, those of Congress are even lower. And it appears the present Congressional leaders still believe their multiple campaign plans of obstruction and manufactured corruptions of the week worked as evidenced by the continued practices today. But what is happening is that voters are switching opinions quickly, and even beginning to laugh at the haphazardness of the Congressional Democrats’ conduct given the serious problems our Nation does have. What’s next on their part … pitchforks and torches in the streets? Actually, vandalism and office invasions are already beginning as a political tactic. Pardon me, but this looks Nazi-like to many.
In a most simple arithmetic, the anti-war (any war not just Iraq) types in the House add up to 70, or 16% of the House. Not only should any minority not dominate a party or either house of Congress, they certainly should not have the literally billions of dollars of public monies offered as bribes to gain their vote on the Iraq war funding. Where are the Congressional leaders who look out for the majority’s interests, the National interests, the interests for the common good, the articulation of policy alternatives. These types of national leaders are certainly not the ones filling the leadership positions at this time. The voters sent enough of these types of people to Congress. The Democrats just have not elected them to positions of leadership.
The present Democratic leaders seem especially good at producing rhetoric, obstruction, crises of the week, and other such ineffectual masquerades for governing. Nothing substantial has been accomplished, not does it seem likely in the future leading up to 2008. Yet Congress is a co-equal branch of government that has serious responsibilities in governing our Nation. Yet the present leaders seem stuck in the past, as if for not knowing what to do, they do what they know, which is not substantially much. And even if a third of our voters are silly enough to allow all this, the other two-thirds won’t keep allowing this most transparent type of behavior and governance to continue.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Getting back our Nation
In the greater scheme of things, getting older has its advantages. I can remember ideas like national interest, common interests, public policy, civility in political debate, and the seriousness of it all felt by citizens. Since we all remember the good more than the bad, all was not perfect in our past, it was just…different. And time only goes forward so there is no return to whatever existed in our past. But ideas can be timeless, it is only the societies that change.
For the slightly younger challenged, the present political society has not always existed. The raw adversarial relations between the press and the Republicans, the two national parties acrimonious fights, the politics of personal destruction, the atmosphere of political blood sport, the schemes to gain political advantage, and so on, are more products of recent times than our American way of government. Even President Bush has done his best to lead by example in the idea of civility in discourse. And even in my time I can remember when Time Magazine seemed like an arm of conservative political thought rather than the opposite it seems to be today. So things do change, at least in my experience.
Some things do not change. We still have a constitution, and oaths are sworn to the constitution, not any individual or vision. Those who use more democratic principals of political leader visions of a perfect future, with polling data to support it, and a willingness to subvert basic principals of our country to advance their cause are in the wrong place. Either move elsewhere to countries that use this method of government, try change the constitution by legal means, or enter the constitutional process. Legalisms to try subvert the electoral process, or even the basic legal process by arguing over what the meaning of “is” is are alive and well today. But many less age challenged remember other more fundamental and constitutional processes that are in need of restoring, or at least refurbishing.
Sometimes one wonders if a majority of the USA citizens today know when they have been attacked by foreigners, as in destroy them and their way of life? And one wonders if a majority of USA citizens are so confident about their way or life that they think we are always going to be here as we are today. I even wonder if a majority are willing to fight for their way of life, even if the issue is in doubt? And I wonder if the majority of the politicians we elect today care more about themselves and their parties and mining our national wealth than they do about our Nation? All these doubts and worries are about we, the USA, today.
Again, getting older has its advantages. What political society exists today is not as it always has been, even in my lifetime. And again, ideas are timeless, though societies are not. The question I have is: how do we get back our Nation? The historical solutions are obvious, at least to me. They are: 1) we go down the tubes of history; 2) we have a civil war or another revolution; or 3) we citizens take back our Nation using our Constitution, and hard work. We do have something that is special in world history. The immigration patterns confirm that others know this.
In the greater scheme of things, getting older has its advantages. I can remember ideas like national interest, common interests, public policy, civility in political debate, and the seriousness of it all felt by citizens. Since we all remember the good more than the bad, all was not perfect in our past, it was just…different. And time only goes forward so there is no return to whatever existed in our past. But ideas can be timeless, it is only the societies that change.
For the slightly younger challenged, the present political society has not always existed. The raw adversarial relations between the press and the Republicans, the two national parties acrimonious fights, the politics of personal destruction, the atmosphere of political blood sport, the schemes to gain political advantage, and so on, are more products of recent times than our American way of government. Even President Bush has done his best to lead by example in the idea of civility in discourse. And even in my time I can remember when Time Magazine seemed like an arm of conservative political thought rather than the opposite it seems to be today. So things do change, at least in my experience.
Some things do not change. We still have a constitution, and oaths are sworn to the constitution, not any individual or vision. Those who use more democratic principals of political leader visions of a perfect future, with polling data to support it, and a willingness to subvert basic principals of our country to advance their cause are in the wrong place. Either move elsewhere to countries that use this method of government, try change the constitution by legal means, or enter the constitutional process. Legalisms to try subvert the electoral process, or even the basic legal process by arguing over what the meaning of “is” is are alive and well today. But many less age challenged remember other more fundamental and constitutional processes that are in need of restoring, or at least refurbishing.
Sometimes one wonders if a majority of the USA citizens today know when they have been attacked by foreigners, as in destroy them and their way of life? And one wonders if a majority of USA citizens are so confident about their way or life that they think we are always going to be here as we are today. I even wonder if a majority are willing to fight for their way of life, even if the issue is in doubt? And I wonder if the majority of the politicians we elect today care more about themselves and their parties and mining our national wealth than they do about our Nation? All these doubts and worries are about we, the USA, today.
Again, getting older has its advantages. What political society exists today is not as it always has been, even in my lifetime. And again, ideas are timeless, though societies are not. The question I have is: how do we get back our Nation? The historical solutions are obvious, at least to me. They are: 1) we go down the tubes of history; 2) we have a civil war or another revolution; or 3) we citizens take back our Nation using our Constitution, and hard work. We do have something that is special in world history. The immigration patterns confirm that others know this.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
The practical side of life…as compared to the emotional side of life
The only surprise at all since the November 2006 congressional elections has been the eruption of vitriolic written and public behavior of a small portion of our population. I just had not known or imagined how suppressed this group must have felt. Politicians lying and misrepresenting I understood. Even during the times when I despised Clinton and what he was to doing to our Country I always used decorum and fair debate as guideposts. That was the American way, at least to me. Now, as a member of the “chattering class”, I take the time to say to my fellow chatterers that the practical side of life still does predominate in our Country.
Most citizens are just too busy in life; business, family, and such things to care, or know, about day-to-day politics and its affect on them. Most are middle of the road types that just want to get on with things. In the case of Iraq, most understand war as way to preserve our way of life, but also have no patience for the old prosecution of this war if it keeps us in Iraq forever. At home populist issues that affect jobs and families predominate what I hear in Tennessee and North Carolina and Georgia. Most care less about what foreigners think, in general. This includes immigration. In sum, what I hear and read and sense is that most Americans are middle of the road types in life, and at times of voting. Our government seems to represent all this. So maybe the voters are in charge.
Like I suspect about many other chatterers, I both have the time to read, and do so. But I try to keep in mind that, like my small vitriolic group aforementioned, I may also be part of another small portion of our population. The difference between we chatterers and them is one of being practical vs. emotional, and in using decorum and fair debate to advance ideas of our Country’s future.
Does anyone even listen? I mean beside fellow chatterers? The answer is yes. The professional pundits and media writers out of D.C. and other such centers of influence have to mine most of their ideas from somewhere, besides each other, which is the old way of things. And almost all care about our Country, one way or the other. They are practical as compared to emotional. And so are most of Americans, if they can be reached in their busy schedules.
The craziness that seems to be erupting politically is just that, crazy. It reflects both a small portion of our population, and the mainstream media that seems to report it without the most basic investigative work. Even the journalistic ideas of emotional reporting vs. facts reporting will sink naturally as people turn away and journalists lose jobs. After all, it is about our Country, not them and their politics and jobs. As part of terminating journalists jobs by poor ratings on their part, I have voted with my feet. I encourage others to do the same. Vote with your feet for those journalists who do facts and real investigative reporting. By the way, I think this is on auto-pilot as young people grow and reject the baby boomer generation idealistic nonsense for more practical values that will allow them to have a way of life that they support.
As a tolerant American who seeks to both listen and try convert the vitriolic side of my fellow citizens, I have made my peace. They don’t deserve the time of day. Some are just anarchists, some are spoiled anti-Americans and anti-Western value types, most probably don’t have families with kids, and whatever, I have bigger fish to fry. This sub-element of society is a normal and pervasive part of humanity. I choose to be American practical, not emotional. And I only have one political vote, which I appreciate as a citizen.
The only surprise at all since the November 2006 congressional elections has been the eruption of vitriolic written and public behavior of a small portion of our population. I just had not known or imagined how suppressed this group must have felt. Politicians lying and misrepresenting I understood. Even during the times when I despised Clinton and what he was to doing to our Country I always used decorum and fair debate as guideposts. That was the American way, at least to me. Now, as a member of the “chattering class”, I take the time to say to my fellow chatterers that the practical side of life still does predominate in our Country.
Most citizens are just too busy in life; business, family, and such things to care, or know, about day-to-day politics and its affect on them. Most are middle of the road types that just want to get on with things. In the case of Iraq, most understand war as way to preserve our way of life, but also have no patience for the old prosecution of this war if it keeps us in Iraq forever. At home populist issues that affect jobs and families predominate what I hear in Tennessee and North Carolina and Georgia. Most care less about what foreigners think, in general. This includes immigration. In sum, what I hear and read and sense is that most Americans are middle of the road types in life, and at times of voting. Our government seems to represent all this. So maybe the voters are in charge.
Like I suspect about many other chatterers, I both have the time to read, and do so. But I try to keep in mind that, like my small vitriolic group aforementioned, I may also be part of another small portion of our population. The difference between we chatterers and them is one of being practical vs. emotional, and in using decorum and fair debate to advance ideas of our Country’s future.
Does anyone even listen? I mean beside fellow chatterers? The answer is yes. The professional pundits and media writers out of D.C. and other such centers of influence have to mine most of their ideas from somewhere, besides each other, which is the old way of things. And almost all care about our Country, one way or the other. They are practical as compared to emotional. And so are most of Americans, if they can be reached in their busy schedules.
The craziness that seems to be erupting politically is just that, crazy. It reflects both a small portion of our population, and the mainstream media that seems to report it without the most basic investigative work. Even the journalistic ideas of emotional reporting vs. facts reporting will sink naturally as people turn away and journalists lose jobs. After all, it is about our Country, not them and their politics and jobs. As part of terminating journalists jobs by poor ratings on their part, I have voted with my feet. I encourage others to do the same. Vote with your feet for those journalists who do facts and real investigative reporting. By the way, I think this is on auto-pilot as young people grow and reject the baby boomer generation idealistic nonsense for more practical values that will allow them to have a way of life that they support.
As a tolerant American who seeks to both listen and try convert the vitriolic side of my fellow citizens, I have made my peace. They don’t deserve the time of day. Some are just anarchists, some are spoiled anti-Americans and anti-Western value types, most probably don’t have families with kids, and whatever, I have bigger fish to fry. This sub-element of society is a normal and pervasive part of humanity. I choose to be American practical, not emotional. And I only have one political vote, which I appreciate as a citizen.
Friday, March 16, 2007
Politics is nasty business, but our Nation is not
The only analogy that comes from my experience is one of watching the swirls and eddy’s of a whitewater rapids. It is both navigable to the savvy boater, and very scary to the neophyte, which I am. And the volume of river flow is often influenced by humans, but in the end mother nature and rain and other such things have much to do with this flow.
So how does one common citizen try to grab all the swirling issues… local, national, and world? Maybe things are more predictable than it seems, although not predictable enough to become a religious leader, or someone similar. For sure our Country is recognized by its citizens as special in human history. That it can be improved is also believed in, I think. In both of the preceding is the beauty of we Americans. We are optimistic about our future, cynical about our past, and intolerant about manipulators of what drives our votes. In the latter is a cosmic shift. Today much of what goes on in D.C. and the mainstream media reflects the present dominant group…the baby boomers. But their time is coming to an end from aging, death, and voting by other citizens.
Maybe the baby boomers don’t have the best solutions as to interpreting and running the whitewater rapids. Maybe they don’t even have the experience (though many will say having gone through the history, that is good enough)…and I am sure they will try to go downriver through the rapids. Lack of practical experience will kill some of them. Should I, an old baby boomer neophyte, follow them towards possible doom? No!
In this river of politics and our County’s future there are many other river runners. These days, many are “younger” than baby boomers, and they bring their own experience to the going down the river. For those that think this is just an analogy only, just look at the whitewater boats used today compared to the past boats, and one will see there is more than one way to “go down the river”.
So why are politicians being “nasty”? What is the advantage for our Country? In the end I do not know, and there are a bunch of books on this subject, but in the end we should be selfish…our future is about us, and not the politicians and those who report. The most recently reported national politician (Democrat-Waxman) holding hearings that set up the whole charade of giving we citizens “facts” sound like he is the dinosaur that he is. Pardon me, but where is our “national interest” in his egotistical pursuit. Thank goodness he is old enough to pass on soon enough.
For those Republicans who read this article as a “hit piece”, don’t. Politics may be a nasty business, but our Country is not.
The only analogy that comes from my experience is one of watching the swirls and eddy’s of a whitewater rapids. It is both navigable to the savvy boater, and very scary to the neophyte, which I am. And the volume of river flow is often influenced by humans, but in the end mother nature and rain and other such things have much to do with this flow.
So how does one common citizen try to grab all the swirling issues… local, national, and world? Maybe things are more predictable than it seems, although not predictable enough to become a religious leader, or someone similar. For sure our Country is recognized by its citizens as special in human history. That it can be improved is also believed in, I think. In both of the preceding is the beauty of we Americans. We are optimistic about our future, cynical about our past, and intolerant about manipulators of what drives our votes. In the latter is a cosmic shift. Today much of what goes on in D.C. and the mainstream media reflects the present dominant group…the baby boomers. But their time is coming to an end from aging, death, and voting by other citizens.
Maybe the baby boomers don’t have the best solutions as to interpreting and running the whitewater rapids. Maybe they don’t even have the experience (though many will say having gone through the history, that is good enough)…and I am sure they will try to go downriver through the rapids. Lack of practical experience will kill some of them. Should I, an old baby boomer neophyte, follow them towards possible doom? No!
In this river of politics and our County’s future there are many other river runners. These days, many are “younger” than baby boomers, and they bring their own experience to the going down the river. For those that think this is just an analogy only, just look at the whitewater boats used today compared to the past boats, and one will see there is more than one way to “go down the river”.
So why are politicians being “nasty”? What is the advantage for our Country? In the end I do not know, and there are a bunch of books on this subject, but in the end we should be selfish…our future is about us, and not the politicians and those who report. The most recently reported national politician (Democrat-Waxman) holding hearings that set up the whole charade of giving we citizens “facts” sound like he is the dinosaur that he is. Pardon me, but where is our “national interest” in his egotistical pursuit. Thank goodness he is old enough to pass on soon enough.
For those Republicans who read this article as a “hit piece”, don’t. Politics may be a nasty business, but our Country is not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)