The inevitable flow of time
Our nation needs leadership. Our nation needs policies that will benefit us, foreign-wise and domestically. If we are to go forward, we expect political leaders that step up to the national plate. Give us the good news, or the bad news, but by golly lead. Call it tough love, if you would like.
Lack of leadership leads to withering on the vine. It also leads to conceding leadership ideas to lessers, to include our foreign enemies and even today’s Islamic terrorists so full of initiative.
Now that the Democrats have a majority in both Houses, I expect some leadership from them to guide our future. Yes both houses have to pass the final law, and the President has to sign or veto it, but leadership has to start in the House and Senate, or that is what the Democratic party ran on.
Now I hear that after the so called 100 House legislative hours in the Pelosi lead group, that’s it. This includes the smoke and mirrors. There are two future exceptions: energy independence and health care for children. Maybe the unelected media are in control now?
There is no mention of other national political problems. It gets worse. Democratic strategy wants to avoid ideas that may be overambitious or even potentially unpopular. Immigration reform, real control of spending, gay marriage, abortion, stem cell research, Iraq, social security, all are off the table for real substance. The democratic priority seems to be the 2008 elections.
Now I am distressed. I care more about my nation than I care about any national political party. And I am not full of myself like so many politicians and media I read about.
By personality, I am always optimistic. In this vein, I can expect the newly elected members of both houses of congress to be both intimidated by old time party leaders, and even to toe the line in the first 100 hours’ votes. But now is the time in the follow-on to see if they are patriots, or democratic lemmings. This applies to many republicans, also.
If I am wrong about my hopes and expectations for many of our elected leaders in both houses of congress, then the inevitable flow of time will send them packing. We voters want leaders to address our nation’s problems, with the emphasis on Nation. Old time politics are just that…old.
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
How many is too many people in the world?
Is the idea of man induced global warming a symptom of a bigger problem…too many people?
After all, more people mean more of everything and that will affect our world. Even “pollution free” fuel cells for cars emit water vapor, the world’s biggest greenhouse gas. If all cars were hydrogen powered, then water vapor becomes a man induced problem. And even our present day 1.2 billion cattle (forget pigs, sheep, and domestic birds) fart methane out in ever increasing and threatening volumes. Add in manmade septic systems generation of methane (including the high tech ones), and numbers start to add up…in the wrong direction.
Can you imagine the world being exposed to the equivalent of two suns worth of energy coming into our world, every day? It’s coming.
Even renewable sources of energy have limits. Imagine a solar field covering the size of Montana to make enough electricity for some of us. A good idea maybe, unless you are from Montana. And all of us that use electricity are subject to the natural restrictions of power line losses, which is why power sources have to be somewhat close to the user. In other words, the Montana solar field is not a viable energy source for the east coast, and vise versa if some kind of ocean based renewable source comes online.
Geothermal and fusion energy appeals to me. Imagine two times, then three times, then so on more energy plants to satisfy an ever increasing number of people who need energy (and transmission lines) to live on this earth.
Maybe we can export our people to other worlds, if we can even keep up with population growth. Maybe we will become like the aliens in the movie Independence Day who use up a planet’s resources and then move on.
Estimating population growth is a nebulous science at best. Assumptions about natural and unnatural factors vary all over the place. But most agree that the world’s number of people will grow, not decline. And catastrophic end of the world scenarios like a comet strike, massive nuclear war, or plague are ignored for good and bad reasons.
Establishing public policies to control population growth, like all other social science policies, is subject to the law of unintended consequences. Just look at China’s one couple one child policy and the increased number of aborted females, and its consequences.
And so, we in the world just do nothing for now. This is too tough a nut to crack for now. But the problem is not going away, as much as we hope it will. In the meantime, I suggest that we focus on the public policy problem, and not symptoms like the idea of man induced global warming.
Using the analogy of a leaking dike, using more and more fingers to plug an increasing number of holes in the leaking dike does not address the problem that the dike is leaking.
Is the idea of man induced global warming a symptom of a bigger problem…too many people?
After all, more people mean more of everything and that will affect our world. Even “pollution free” fuel cells for cars emit water vapor, the world’s biggest greenhouse gas. If all cars were hydrogen powered, then water vapor becomes a man induced problem. And even our present day 1.2 billion cattle (forget pigs, sheep, and domestic birds) fart methane out in ever increasing and threatening volumes. Add in manmade septic systems generation of methane (including the high tech ones), and numbers start to add up…in the wrong direction.
Can you imagine the world being exposed to the equivalent of two suns worth of energy coming into our world, every day? It’s coming.
Even renewable sources of energy have limits. Imagine a solar field covering the size of Montana to make enough electricity for some of us. A good idea maybe, unless you are from Montana. And all of us that use electricity are subject to the natural restrictions of power line losses, which is why power sources have to be somewhat close to the user. In other words, the Montana solar field is not a viable energy source for the east coast, and vise versa if some kind of ocean based renewable source comes online.
Geothermal and fusion energy appeals to me. Imagine two times, then three times, then so on more energy plants to satisfy an ever increasing number of people who need energy (and transmission lines) to live on this earth.
Maybe we can export our people to other worlds, if we can even keep up with population growth. Maybe we will become like the aliens in the movie Independence Day who use up a planet’s resources and then move on.
Estimating population growth is a nebulous science at best. Assumptions about natural and unnatural factors vary all over the place. But most agree that the world’s number of people will grow, not decline. And catastrophic end of the world scenarios like a comet strike, massive nuclear war, or plague are ignored for good and bad reasons.
Establishing public policies to control population growth, like all other social science policies, is subject to the law of unintended consequences. Just look at China’s one couple one child policy and the increased number of aborted females, and its consequences.
And so, we in the world just do nothing for now. This is too tough a nut to crack for now. But the problem is not going away, as much as we hope it will. In the meantime, I suggest that we focus on the public policy problem, and not symptoms like the idea of man induced global warming.
Using the analogy of a leaking dike, using more and more fingers to plug an increasing number of holes in the leaking dike does not address the problem that the dike is leaking.
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Are men and women different?
No poo poo?
Is our American method of idiocy obvious?
Just be a parent and you know the answer.
Before I was a parent I bought the line that we humans were all unisexual until puberty kicked in during the teens.
Now that I am a parent, I know that theory is BS. Boys and girls are different from the git go. Ask any parent. We are born our sexual way.
For those politically correct parents who think about making daughters into boys (it seldom works the other way), good luck. Time and hormones will take care of you. This is bad news by the way. Girls will be girls. Along the way deny any pink blue clothing influences mothers choose right after birth, and subsequent baby room girl or boy stuff. Hormones will sort it out over time, and in the end.
And then when I tone down my enthusiasm on this subject, I become political. No wonder much of the other world thinks we USA citizens are silly. They don’t need a college study or Time Magazine story to recognize the obvious. Men and women are different.
Thank goodness.
And can a female be President of the USA. Of course! Just recognize boys and girls are different.
There is only one real reason, and then there are many good reasons
The dilemma for citizens is in figuring out the real reason.
In a world where media advocacy, internet news releases, political statements, biased reporting, propaganda, spinning, media masters, and 24/7 news cycles all merge the principle, it is even harder to discern. Even phrases such as “for the children” and “for the public good” and “death to the infidels” have been abused to become good reasons, not the real reason. Yes, even the war between civilization and barbarism has seen use of this principle of obfuscation.
It is distressing to me that this principle is used more often for so many political causes. It is more and more difficult and time consuming to filter the wheat from the chafe, that is, to determine the real reason for the political cause being suggested or sold to we voting citizens. Maybe I am wrong that the dilemma is worse now, than say the Civil War or pre-WWII timeframe. Yet I think it is because communications are more universal now than then, and thus subject to the aforementioned methods now more than then.
The abuse of the public policy forum is particularly distressing to me. The “forum’s” traditional purposes have been to decide health and sanitation issues, rural electrification, disease control such as malaria, flood and water control, postal service, public education, and promoting transportation for business and public use. Whatever these purposes may be for, they are certainly uniting purposes at the most basic human level. Now more political and divisive issues such as control of the radio media, protecting us from ourselves, control of illegal immigration, and universal health care have been rolled into this forum. But is this the real reason, or just a good reason? No I am not cynical, but also did not fall off the turnip truck yesterday.
I think most consider politicians to be necessary evils. I don’t personally know a better way to try run a nation-state, tribe, state, province, prefecture, or city. And I think most Americans hope for elected politicians, but don’t expect this at the world wide level. And most us expect politicians to use obfuscation as one of their working tools. Often this translates to plain lying, or promising one thing while doing another, or more recently setting lofty goals with no hope of achieving them or even setting enforcement provisions to get to these goals. And I don’t think many of us expect politicians to be knowledgeable in all the areas they assert control and policy making. Sad, but true. And I think most Americans expect part of a politician’s obfuscation method to be telling us good reasons, but seldom the real reason.
Along the way one thing about politics in America has changed, and recently, as in the last 50 years. There is more division between the parties that has focused on party first, and nation second. This is a nation killing malady if not excised. And there have been rancorous and crooked times in our nation’s past. Then, and now, the dilemma has been for voting citizens to figure out the real reason, not the good reasons offered up by politicians and unfortunately, much of the media today.
Any ambitious national party political operative will see the excising of the nation killing malady as another opportunity. The good reason we will hear is that “partisan politics must end”. The real reason is to gain another political advantage over the opposing party. What I mean is for us voters to end it.
Last, much has been said that the two national political parties have become versions of the same flavor. What these citizens say is that another national political party alternative is needed, and on the horizon. I personally don’t buy this argument. I think there are plenty of differences between the two national parties on the issues when I discern the real reason, not the good reasons on each issue.
The dilemma for citizens is in figuring out the real reason.
In a world where media advocacy, internet news releases, political statements, biased reporting, propaganda, spinning, media masters, and 24/7 news cycles all merge the principle, it is even harder to discern. Even phrases such as “for the children” and “for the public good” and “death to the infidels” have been abused to become good reasons, not the real reason. Yes, even the war between civilization and barbarism has seen use of this principle of obfuscation.
It is distressing to me that this principle is used more often for so many political causes. It is more and more difficult and time consuming to filter the wheat from the chafe, that is, to determine the real reason for the political cause being suggested or sold to we voting citizens. Maybe I am wrong that the dilemma is worse now, than say the Civil War or pre-WWII timeframe. Yet I think it is because communications are more universal now than then, and thus subject to the aforementioned methods now more than then.
The abuse of the public policy forum is particularly distressing to me. The “forum’s” traditional purposes have been to decide health and sanitation issues, rural electrification, disease control such as malaria, flood and water control, postal service, public education, and promoting transportation for business and public use. Whatever these purposes may be for, they are certainly uniting purposes at the most basic human level. Now more political and divisive issues such as control of the radio media, protecting us from ourselves, control of illegal immigration, and universal health care have been rolled into this forum. But is this the real reason, or just a good reason? No I am not cynical, but also did not fall off the turnip truck yesterday.
I think most consider politicians to be necessary evils. I don’t personally know a better way to try run a nation-state, tribe, state, province, prefecture, or city. And I think most Americans hope for elected politicians, but don’t expect this at the world wide level. And most us expect politicians to use obfuscation as one of their working tools. Often this translates to plain lying, or promising one thing while doing another, or more recently setting lofty goals with no hope of achieving them or even setting enforcement provisions to get to these goals. And I don’t think many of us expect politicians to be knowledgeable in all the areas they assert control and policy making. Sad, but true. And I think most Americans expect part of a politician’s obfuscation method to be telling us good reasons, but seldom the real reason.
Along the way one thing about politics in America has changed, and recently, as in the last 50 years. There is more division between the parties that has focused on party first, and nation second. This is a nation killing malady if not excised. And there have been rancorous and crooked times in our nation’s past. Then, and now, the dilemma has been for voting citizens to figure out the real reason, not the good reasons offered up by politicians and unfortunately, much of the media today.
Any ambitious national party political operative will see the excising of the nation killing malady as another opportunity. The good reason we will hear is that “partisan politics must end”. The real reason is to gain another political advantage over the opposing party. What I mean is for us voters to end it.
Last, much has been said that the two national political parties have become versions of the same flavor. What these citizens say is that another national political party alternative is needed, and on the horizon. I personally don’t buy this argument. I think there are plenty of differences between the two national parties on the issues when I discern the real reason, not the good reasons on each issue.
Monday, January 22, 2007
America at a crossroads…not yet
The Civil War was a crossroads. The writing of the Constitution was a crossroads. Maybe the American cultural revolution in the 1960’s was a crossroads. But 2007 is not a crossroads.
Another crossroads is coming. Two visions of America are competing for the vote and the politicians that emerge will take us one way or the other. And we voters are in charge.
Today’s discussion is skewed by both political parties, but they seem bogged down in party politics, greed, power, and egos; and not the nations’ interests. The big media has taken a participatory role with one of the parties, and in the reporting of same, foreign and domestic.
That sides have been drawn does not change the importance of which path we Americans take at the crossroads.
The crossroads include how insular we will want to be to foreign challenges to our national security, how much we are willing to mortgage our financial future to achieving a more perfect state for our citizens, and how much we will demand of our future politicians’ honesty in leading us.
How soon will the crossroads be here? There are two schemes. One is evolutionary over the next 50 years. The other is catastrophic, as some challenge to our national existence will coalesce us. I buy the latter, and think it will be financial, but that is my guess only.
Can all the preceding discussion help guide we citizens today. Yes!
Again there are two schemes. One is to fight like hell for my party, my politician, and in real time today. Don’t give any quarter. The other is to vote for the longer term, and the more visionary politicians who exhibit some focus on national interests and honesty, at least more than the first option.
Last, while I don’t think of myself as very religious, certain biblical analogies taught me by my father still lurk in my mind. The idea of our Nation becoming fat and lazy and being overwhelmed by enemies has happened before in world history. Another analogy is that “we can kill the goose that lays the golden egg”. All these ideas will be in my mind when we come to the crossroads.
Let me end on an up note that has nothing to do with the crossroads. Today, young Americans are stepping up to the plate in all ways imaginable. Apparently, some of our younger citizens are already voting in many ways, to include their feet.
The Civil War was a crossroads. The writing of the Constitution was a crossroads. Maybe the American cultural revolution in the 1960’s was a crossroads. But 2007 is not a crossroads.
Another crossroads is coming. Two visions of America are competing for the vote and the politicians that emerge will take us one way or the other. And we voters are in charge.
Today’s discussion is skewed by both political parties, but they seem bogged down in party politics, greed, power, and egos; and not the nations’ interests. The big media has taken a participatory role with one of the parties, and in the reporting of same, foreign and domestic.
That sides have been drawn does not change the importance of which path we Americans take at the crossroads.
The crossroads include how insular we will want to be to foreign challenges to our national security, how much we are willing to mortgage our financial future to achieving a more perfect state for our citizens, and how much we will demand of our future politicians’ honesty in leading us.
How soon will the crossroads be here? There are two schemes. One is evolutionary over the next 50 years. The other is catastrophic, as some challenge to our national existence will coalesce us. I buy the latter, and think it will be financial, but that is my guess only.
Can all the preceding discussion help guide we citizens today. Yes!
Again there are two schemes. One is to fight like hell for my party, my politician, and in real time today. Don’t give any quarter. The other is to vote for the longer term, and the more visionary politicians who exhibit some focus on national interests and honesty, at least more than the first option.
Last, while I don’t think of myself as very religious, certain biblical analogies taught me by my father still lurk in my mind. The idea of our Nation becoming fat and lazy and being overwhelmed by enemies has happened before in world history. Another analogy is that “we can kill the goose that lays the golden egg”. All these ideas will be in my mind when we come to the crossroads.
Let me end on an up note that has nothing to do with the crossroads. Today, young Americans are stepping up to the plate in all ways imaginable. Apparently, some of our younger citizens are already voting in many ways, to include their feet.
Racial descriptions
In America, of all places, why is this still a discussion?
After all the federal government and census still have “categories” like the old days, with some upgrades to things like Hispanic. If I were a kid whose mom and dad were from two different races, or two different tribes, I would resent many of the words and categories where mixed kids are categorized. After all, I am part Mom and part Dad, not some term like Latino, or Black (or African American today). I am an American. So are most of us. I do applaud the government census people for doing the best they could with what the politicians have dictated. http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2001/raceqandas.html
Now for the fun part. I always enjoy the arguments about beauty for females. Halle Berry and Mariah Carey come to mind. Do I claim them for Caucasian, as I do, or do I write them off as Negro (which I don’t). I really don’t care; they are female beauties, and talented.
Now the not so fun part. It tears me apart to think kids of mixed race marriages are often supposed to choose between their Mom and Dad. This is wrong to ask them to declare a race. After all, they are Americans.
Most of us are mixed, be it racial, tribal, or some other worldly variation.
And the politicians in pursuit of public monies and affirmative action goals that depend on racial declarations are part of the problem, not the solution. That they defend themselves comes across to me as self serving to generate income and influence for themselves. How about their constituents, but wait a minute, no constituent voted for them.
And let me proceed to be really politically incorrect. It is about America.
Like the story of the wise blind men describing an elephant to a village of blind people, another racial/tribal question of who is a native american and who is an immigrant or explorer from the old world comes up. In the story, all the blind men were correct in what they felt.
If an old world european comes to the USA area in 1600, and in my question intermarries with local indigenous people, are their offspring native americans or old world europeans? Using my 30 years per generation belief, if we continue for 6 generations (180 years), is one progeny who is 1/64 old european a native american or an old european?
There is no "official" answer best I can figure. The rules for tribal membership for the 500(+) native American tribes vary all over the place. And tribes can be thought of as states, so their rules are similar to states' rules.
Now we come to a potential candidate for President, Barack Obama. He is being advanced as a Negro. That’s BS. He is either ‘mixed” to the race mongers, or just an American to me. I still can’t believe he is being represented as a Negro. When are we finally going to break all the old molds?
There are many present day real world analogies. For example, many christian and muslim missionaries in the past have "converted" third world indigenous peoples only to find today that the converted people practice a combination of the "new" religion and the previous animist religion(s). How does a politician or society categorize these people?
America is the new world. We are different. And it is not racially described. There is something else going on. And it is good.
In America, of all places, why is this still a discussion?
After all the federal government and census still have “categories” like the old days, with some upgrades to things like Hispanic. If I were a kid whose mom and dad were from two different races, or two different tribes, I would resent many of the words and categories where mixed kids are categorized. After all, I am part Mom and part Dad, not some term like Latino, or Black (or African American today). I am an American. So are most of us. I do applaud the government census people for doing the best they could with what the politicians have dictated. http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2001/raceqandas.html
Now for the fun part. I always enjoy the arguments about beauty for females. Halle Berry and Mariah Carey come to mind. Do I claim them for Caucasian, as I do, or do I write them off as Negro (which I don’t). I really don’t care; they are female beauties, and talented.
Now the not so fun part. It tears me apart to think kids of mixed race marriages are often supposed to choose between their Mom and Dad. This is wrong to ask them to declare a race. After all, they are Americans.
Most of us are mixed, be it racial, tribal, or some other worldly variation.
And the politicians in pursuit of public monies and affirmative action goals that depend on racial declarations are part of the problem, not the solution. That they defend themselves comes across to me as self serving to generate income and influence for themselves. How about their constituents, but wait a minute, no constituent voted for them.
And let me proceed to be really politically incorrect. It is about America.
Like the story of the wise blind men describing an elephant to a village of blind people, another racial/tribal question of who is a native american and who is an immigrant or explorer from the old world comes up. In the story, all the blind men were correct in what they felt.
If an old world european comes to the USA area in 1600, and in my question intermarries with local indigenous people, are their offspring native americans or old world europeans? Using my 30 years per generation belief, if we continue for 6 generations (180 years), is one progeny who is 1/64 old european a native american or an old european?
There is no "official" answer best I can figure. The rules for tribal membership for the 500(+) native American tribes vary all over the place. And tribes can be thought of as states, so their rules are similar to states' rules.
Now we come to a potential candidate for President, Barack Obama. He is being advanced as a Negro. That’s BS. He is either ‘mixed” to the race mongers, or just an American to me. I still can’t believe he is being represented as a Negro. When are we finally going to break all the old molds?
There are many present day real world analogies. For example, many christian and muslim missionaries in the past have "converted" third world indigenous peoples only to find today that the converted people practice a combination of the "new" religion and the previous animist religion(s). How does a politician or society categorize these people?
America is the new world. We are different. And it is not racially described. There is something else going on. And it is good.
Sunday, January 21, 2007
The real world, conjecture, and religious belief
I believe all of us seek the best for our children in the USA. Along the way, we disagree how to do it. But the focus is the USA. The rest of the world is a distant second.
We are all experts at what we believe, and write. Yet I remind all of one famous line inside D.C. pundits is: “if only they had listened to me”.
The real world is not the USA. The real world frictions are way beyond the people inside the D.C. beltway. The real world is all the friction we read about today, and all efforts to contain it or express it in D.C. terms is self-serving.
The real world problems are many. Those that expect the USA to be the super power arbiter are too full of themselves, I think. Our national concerns in the southern Philippines, or the trans-caucus, or Ecuador, or Cypress, or the Sudan are too minor to the USA to be distracted as a national concern. Life is not fair, but I do not want to commit my military to these causes. If this sounds cruel, it is. There are some GWOT accomodations. Let’s not mince words.
If one believes in conspiracies, especially about politicians, then I guess I might as well quit right now. But there are other things in history to consider that may think my line of thought has missed something. The census method is my example. Before I proceed, let me say that after my homework, I am proud of my government employees trying to satisfy all that our politicians have required. http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2001/raceqandas.html
So now I think the race mongers are my political enemy, as if they have some financial incentive to make we Americans look different, as in this case racial. There is much to be said for this opinion.
Now I have faith. As in we Americans are Americans first, self-centered second, and stupid voters third. Most of us are disgusted at the acrimony between the two political parties when it comes across as parties first, advantage second, and assuming ignorance of most of us voters.
In the end, we are in charge. Not the political parties. We get what we vote for. Charge. Having the advantage is huge.
I believe all of us seek the best for our children in the USA. Along the way, we disagree how to do it. But the focus is the USA. The rest of the world is a distant second.
We are all experts at what we believe, and write. Yet I remind all of one famous line inside D.C. pundits is: “if only they had listened to me”.
The real world is not the USA. The real world frictions are way beyond the people inside the D.C. beltway. The real world is all the friction we read about today, and all efforts to contain it or express it in D.C. terms is self-serving.
The real world problems are many. Those that expect the USA to be the super power arbiter are too full of themselves, I think. Our national concerns in the southern Philippines, or the trans-caucus, or Ecuador, or Cypress, or the Sudan are too minor to the USA to be distracted as a national concern. Life is not fair, but I do not want to commit my military to these causes. If this sounds cruel, it is. There are some GWOT accomodations. Let’s not mince words.
If one believes in conspiracies, especially about politicians, then I guess I might as well quit right now. But there are other things in history to consider that may think my line of thought has missed something. The census method is my example. Before I proceed, let me say that after my homework, I am proud of my government employees trying to satisfy all that our politicians have required. http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2001/raceqandas.html
So now I think the race mongers are my political enemy, as if they have some financial incentive to make we Americans look different, as in this case racial. There is much to be said for this opinion.
Now I have faith. As in we Americans are Americans first, self-centered second, and stupid voters third. Most of us are disgusted at the acrimony between the two political parties when it comes across as parties first, advantage second, and assuming ignorance of most of us voters.
In the end, we are in charge. Not the political parties. We get what we vote for. Charge. Having the advantage is huge.
Friday, January 19, 2007
The drug war is not futile
Terrible, yes. Tough, yes. Losing it right now, maybe. Corrupting to law enforcement, probably. A war worth fighting, yes.
If you read an article about one former law enforcement officer speaking about the corrupting influence of drug money on his profession, then it will probably appeal to many of us. The effect is horrible. http://www.reason.com/news/show/117956.html
When will someone write something similar for we citizens who have been subject to burglary or worse. Where are the stories of those who steal to get drug money. And I really want to read about who are those who buy these stolen goods at 10 cents on the dollar; and who then buys this stolen property from them. This is the drug war story I want to hear more about.
Along the way, instead of hearing about the corrupting influence on cops, how about hearing about the influence on those of us who been stolen from, or worse. Wait till your car has been broken into in your driveway to see what I mean. Now multiply it several times in the same place, again as on your land.
National property crime rates (burglary, larceny/theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson) since 1960 say as much. That there has been a small decline since the 1990’s shows some progress, but it is still twice the 1960 rate. It has been almost three times as high.
The article I mentioned earlier included the corrupting influence of alcohol during prohibition. At least that problem went away with the end of prohibition. But nowhere did the alcohol prohibition problems include the high amount of burglary that comes from our drug problem today. Does anyone believe that if we make all drugs legal, then the burglary, and worse, problems will end? I know some do, but they are wrong, in my opinion.
And of course this article was about domestic problems. How about our nation’s apparently insatiable use of drugs that has corrupted entire nation-states, say Columbia. Other than controlling their capital, what else does the elected government control? Apply this to the U.S. How many assassinated judges, legislators, and executives will it take to get the message that something is wrong there and here?
What is sad and pitiful in this round of national drug problems (yes it has happened before) is the innocence at the beginning, when marijuana was a personal drug that was impact free to the rest of us, or so the theory went. Those that argued otherwise, that marijuana would lead to worse things, turned out to be right.
I define right as: the driveway burglary in Atlanta at 3:45 A.M. to steal a DVD setup. I define right as: an old time rural ebony black SC person who now locks his house because he fears known drug people from up north, and knows why do to murder and less. The article did not talk about these problems and these people.
Terrible, yes. Tough, yes. Losing it right now, maybe. Corrupting to law enforcement, probably. A war worth fighting, yes.
If you read an article about one former law enforcement officer speaking about the corrupting influence of drug money on his profession, then it will probably appeal to many of us. The effect is horrible. http://www.reason.com/news/show/117956.html
When will someone write something similar for we citizens who have been subject to burglary or worse. Where are the stories of those who steal to get drug money. And I really want to read about who are those who buy these stolen goods at 10 cents on the dollar; and who then buys this stolen property from them. This is the drug war story I want to hear more about.
Along the way, instead of hearing about the corrupting influence on cops, how about hearing about the influence on those of us who been stolen from, or worse. Wait till your car has been broken into in your driveway to see what I mean. Now multiply it several times in the same place, again as on your land.
National property crime rates (burglary, larceny/theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson) since 1960 say as much. That there has been a small decline since the 1990’s shows some progress, but it is still twice the 1960 rate. It has been almost three times as high.
The article I mentioned earlier included the corrupting influence of alcohol during prohibition. At least that problem went away with the end of prohibition. But nowhere did the alcohol prohibition problems include the high amount of burglary that comes from our drug problem today. Does anyone believe that if we make all drugs legal, then the burglary, and worse, problems will end? I know some do, but they are wrong, in my opinion.
And of course this article was about domestic problems. How about our nation’s apparently insatiable use of drugs that has corrupted entire nation-states, say Columbia. Other than controlling their capital, what else does the elected government control? Apply this to the U.S. How many assassinated judges, legislators, and executives will it take to get the message that something is wrong there and here?
What is sad and pitiful in this round of national drug problems (yes it has happened before) is the innocence at the beginning, when marijuana was a personal drug that was impact free to the rest of us, or so the theory went. Those that argued otherwise, that marijuana would lead to worse things, turned out to be right.
I define right as: the driveway burglary in Atlanta at 3:45 A.M. to steal a DVD setup. I define right as: an old time rural ebony black SC person who now locks his house because he fears known drug people from up north, and knows why do to murder and less. The article did not talk about these problems and these people.
Thursday, January 18, 2007
The Democrats and the main stream media are not ten feet tall
A citizen trying hard to be informed is reminded of the preceding saying. It is a good time to do so since the recent period full of Democratic Party pronouncements and main stream media (MSM) reporting of same seems to have no bounds. It is shameful. Where are the nation’s interests and investigative reporting. The unchallenged journalistic malpractices, and even calls for executions of those who question global warming are out of control. It is as though the dam of responsible statements and reporting has been breeched by the November congressional elections and President Bush’s recent Iraq speech to the Nation.
But these people are not ten feet tall. Recent layoffs at NBC, Time Warner, and even the reduction of the Newsweek publishing schedule provide good hints that the real world still applies to these media people. And that is just what I know.
And the Democratic Party is not ten feet tall, either. In fact what it is doing now appears to be a party in its last hurrah, right before the light goes out. It seems to be “A National Party No More” as Senator Zell Miller wrote not long ago. And to over react to all this is “tilting at windmills”. Let those who promote party over nation go down to the end they will come to by the vote.
A good deception has many layers. Since the truth itself is multifaceted, deception must also be multifaceted. To successfully pierce a veil of lies it is necessary to know why the lies were told. Unless we know the full truth, which must include the reasons behind the lies, we remain in the dark. The Democrats have a track record of successful deceptions. Do we have the courage to connect the dots on this? Or will somebody send us scurrying for cover by uttering the word "paranoid" or "conspiracist" or “childless”? The weaknesses of the Democratic Party have been masked. If we apply common sense to penetrate this mask we can readily see that the Party has purposely attempted to mislead us.
Now why would they do that? Think it over.
(1) The previous two paragraphs are adapted from a J.R. Nyquist article published in 2000, and about the Soviet Union’s military.
A citizen trying hard to be informed is reminded of the preceding saying. It is a good time to do so since the recent period full of Democratic Party pronouncements and main stream media (MSM) reporting of same seems to have no bounds. It is shameful. Where are the nation’s interests and investigative reporting. The unchallenged journalistic malpractices, and even calls for executions of those who question global warming are out of control. It is as though the dam of responsible statements and reporting has been breeched by the November congressional elections and President Bush’s recent Iraq speech to the Nation.
But these people are not ten feet tall. Recent layoffs at NBC, Time Warner, and even the reduction of the Newsweek publishing schedule provide good hints that the real world still applies to these media people. And that is just what I know.
And the Democratic Party is not ten feet tall, either. In fact what it is doing now appears to be a party in its last hurrah, right before the light goes out. It seems to be “A National Party No More” as Senator Zell Miller wrote not long ago. And to over react to all this is “tilting at windmills”. Let those who promote party over nation go down to the end they will come to by the vote.
A good deception has many layers. Since the truth itself is multifaceted, deception must also be multifaceted. To successfully pierce a veil of lies it is necessary to know why the lies were told. Unless we know the full truth, which must include the reasons behind the lies, we remain in the dark. The Democrats have a track record of successful deceptions. Do we have the courage to connect the dots on this? Or will somebody send us scurrying for cover by uttering the word "paranoid" or "conspiracist" or “childless”? The weaknesses of the Democratic Party have been masked. If we apply common sense to penetrate this mask we can readily see that the Party has purposely attempted to mislead us.
Now why would they do that? Think it over.
(1) The previous two paragraphs are adapted from a J.R. Nyquist article published in 2000, and about the Soviet Union’s military.
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
The forest for the trees
It’s time to consider another 1815 style Congress of Vienna…for the third world.
Said another way, present day borders in the third world often reflect colonial and empire imposed boundaries that often ignored historical tribal frictions. Many of today’s 100+ wars in the third world are the result. These tend to be small wars, and can be either internal to a nation-state, or external between nation-states. Some have become genocide.
The forest for the trees idea implies many leaders are so involved in the details of a problem that they can fail to see the situation as a whole. An American example is: “The congressman became so involved in the wording of his bill that he couldn’t see the forest for the trees; he did not realize that the bill could never pass.”
Before one shoots this idea down do to the difficulty, let us proceed further on the idea.
Many of today’s third world boundaries clearly were drawn by colonial administrators; or Russian, Ottoman, and British empire diplomats. The histories of such map making includes those who did it in offices using existing paper maps. Considerations of races, religions, cultures, politics, and tribal affiliations and animosities tended to be ignored on these maps. During the period after WWII, many of these colonial boundaries remained in place. Russian, Ottoman, and British boundaries were also quickly supported.
One should consider the idea of a nation-state as an idea, not an historical given. After all the idea is just that. It is a western construct that became a way to organize and maintain the status quo. In the same way, one must consider the idea of a “failed nation-state” as one which no longer meets the standards of the western construct, and not some historically established state with hundreds or more years of history.
Perhaps the third world nation-states are the trees in a forest of humanity’s small wars.
Much as the Congress of Vienna was an assembly of volunteers, any such future equivalent must be much the same. Continental or regional based efforts make more sense than some World approach. And such assemblies’ results cannot be dictated since any such method requires enforcement efforts beyond any voluntary enforcement efforts.
The difficulties of having a third world set of Congress of Vienna assemblies are enormous. If the difficulties are such that they never happen, then so be it. Or if such assemblies maintain the present boundaries, so be it. If some succeed, and some fail, so be it.
At least we will have moved past the boundaries of the colonial times, and those of past empires.
It’s time to consider another 1815 style Congress of Vienna…for the third world.
Said another way, present day borders in the third world often reflect colonial and empire imposed boundaries that often ignored historical tribal frictions. Many of today’s 100+ wars in the third world are the result. These tend to be small wars, and can be either internal to a nation-state, or external between nation-states. Some have become genocide.
The forest for the trees idea implies many leaders are so involved in the details of a problem that they can fail to see the situation as a whole. An American example is: “The congressman became so involved in the wording of his bill that he couldn’t see the forest for the trees; he did not realize that the bill could never pass.”
Before one shoots this idea down do to the difficulty, let us proceed further on the idea.
Many of today’s third world boundaries clearly were drawn by colonial administrators; or Russian, Ottoman, and British empire diplomats. The histories of such map making includes those who did it in offices using existing paper maps. Considerations of races, religions, cultures, politics, and tribal affiliations and animosities tended to be ignored on these maps. During the period after WWII, many of these colonial boundaries remained in place. Russian, Ottoman, and British boundaries were also quickly supported.
One should consider the idea of a nation-state as an idea, not an historical given. After all the idea is just that. It is a western construct that became a way to organize and maintain the status quo. In the same way, one must consider the idea of a “failed nation-state” as one which no longer meets the standards of the western construct, and not some historically established state with hundreds or more years of history.
Perhaps the third world nation-states are the trees in a forest of humanity’s small wars.
Much as the Congress of Vienna was an assembly of volunteers, any such future equivalent must be much the same. Continental or regional based efforts make more sense than some World approach. And such assemblies’ results cannot be dictated since any such method requires enforcement efforts beyond any voluntary enforcement efforts.
The difficulties of having a third world set of Congress of Vienna assemblies are enormous. If the difficulties are such that they never happen, then so be it. Or if such assemblies maintain the present boundaries, so be it. If some succeed, and some fail, so be it.
At least we will have moved past the boundaries of the colonial times, and those of past empires.
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
The trends of history and we Americans
There comes a time in one’s life when one commits to a belief in their life.
For me it was my countries ideals expressed through the 1960’s cultural revolution that turned many things upside down. It made things ride side up for me.
Much good and bad has occurred in the period from the 1960’s to today.
It has been an “opportunity rich” environment for those who believe in change for making things better, in their mind. Along the way some egomaniacs got involved and came to believe that marching equaled winning. Also along the way, some others did their best to accomplish the mission, and “make things better”. Many of them went to Vietnam. It was a hodgepodge in American terms.
Fast forward to today. There are so many Americans voting with their feet to serve our country in their way. It may be military, or the CIA, or even economic and environmental, but they have stepped up to the plate to serve with purpose and in their own way. In this there is hope for the country’s future.
Two comments come to mind right now.
If you are the President, you have a group to corral. Good luck. And they don’t all agree with you and the Republican Party.
If you are one of present National Democratic Party leaders, as in Pelosi, Reid, or Rangel, the picture is even worse. You got your position of power by the vote, but the elected representatives will send you another message. Old time politics the present leaders have grown up in have changed; they just don’t know it yet.
Trends of history as we live it today still wash over us. Much of the old world still living with its present problems are aggressively dragged over us. For me in Tennessee, I really don’t care as much about French problems, or even Philippine problems. We have enough new world problems. I especially resent the UN’s cover up of the oil for food program. It was just old fashioned graft stuck in our face, and inanely postponed in its present outcome by Kofi Anan.
Rejoining history, much has happened in the world to give us hope and not despair. The flow of information will: inhibit dictatorships, enhance reporting of environmental frictions, and allow women the vote. The last should change many things…I hope for the better, but doubt it during the next 100 years. And America will still be a bright shining beacon for the masses. This idea is from our idealists, not our realists.
Welcome to life and the ride. Only time will tell.
There comes a time in one’s life when one commits to a belief in their life.
For me it was my countries ideals expressed through the 1960’s cultural revolution that turned many things upside down. It made things ride side up for me.
Much good and bad has occurred in the period from the 1960’s to today.
It has been an “opportunity rich” environment for those who believe in change for making things better, in their mind. Along the way some egomaniacs got involved and came to believe that marching equaled winning. Also along the way, some others did their best to accomplish the mission, and “make things better”. Many of them went to Vietnam. It was a hodgepodge in American terms.
Fast forward to today. There are so many Americans voting with their feet to serve our country in their way. It may be military, or the CIA, or even economic and environmental, but they have stepped up to the plate to serve with purpose and in their own way. In this there is hope for the country’s future.
Two comments come to mind right now.
If you are the President, you have a group to corral. Good luck. And they don’t all agree with you and the Republican Party.
If you are one of present National Democratic Party leaders, as in Pelosi, Reid, or Rangel, the picture is even worse. You got your position of power by the vote, but the elected representatives will send you another message. Old time politics the present leaders have grown up in have changed; they just don’t know it yet.
Trends of history as we live it today still wash over us. Much of the old world still living with its present problems are aggressively dragged over us. For me in Tennessee, I really don’t care as much about French problems, or even Philippine problems. We have enough new world problems. I especially resent the UN’s cover up of the oil for food program. It was just old fashioned graft stuck in our face, and inanely postponed in its present outcome by Kofi Anan.
Rejoining history, much has happened in the world to give us hope and not despair. The flow of information will: inhibit dictatorships, enhance reporting of environmental frictions, and allow women the vote. The last should change many things…I hope for the better, but doubt it during the next 100 years. And America will still be a bright shining beacon for the masses. This idea is from our idealists, not our realists.
Welcome to life and the ride. Only time will tell.
Monday, January 15, 2007
Why do some Americans want us to lose in Iraq?
Do they understand the consequences to them and me and my progeny? I hope so in a negative sort of way.
Back to the subject. Help me on this as if I am missing something.
Good reasons to lose in Iraq.
A. We deserve to
B. I hate George Bush and anything he does
a. I especially despise his domestic agenda
C. The bad guys want it more than we do
D. Our American way of war is a loser
a. This especially applies to Iraq
E. One more time the 60’s marchers can have their way.
F. Our legal domestic defenses are not worth what we are giving up
G. He deceived us
Good reasons to win in Iraq
A. We deserve to
B. George Bush is a non politician President admired by many
a. I admire his legal domestic agenda
C. If 911 did not get our attention, just wait
D. Our “limited war” “best and the brightest” strategy is a loser
a. I agree. A new/old time strategy is obvious.
E. The 60’s types have confused ego from the past
F. Our legal domestic defenses are legal and well focused
G. He did not deceive us, and went through the UN and Congress process
Does anyone even remember and recognize that we have been attacked? Does anyone even feel threatened as to national existence, mostly our lives and our kids lives?
Does anyone accept the political rewrites of history and intentions and votes supporting the war in Iraq. This is like propaganda 101 practiced by the Nazis. I am especially disgusted at the National Democratic Party. Criticism is fine, but what is the alternative? The campaign idea of criticism to gain political power has now come home. So put up, or shut up. For me, 2008 is not too far away.
Does the National Democratic Party want us to lose in Iraq?
If not, how do we win?
I’ll listen to all, to include smooth talking devils and media masters.
Do they understand the consequences to them and me and my progeny? I hope so in a negative sort of way.
Back to the subject. Help me on this as if I am missing something.
Good reasons to lose in Iraq.
A. We deserve to
B. I hate George Bush and anything he does
a. I especially despise his domestic agenda
C. The bad guys want it more than we do
D. Our American way of war is a loser
a. This especially applies to Iraq
E. One more time the 60’s marchers can have their way.
F. Our legal domestic defenses are not worth what we are giving up
G. He deceived us
Good reasons to win in Iraq
A. We deserve to
B. George Bush is a non politician President admired by many
a. I admire his legal domestic agenda
C. If 911 did not get our attention, just wait
D. Our “limited war” “best and the brightest” strategy is a loser
a. I agree. A new/old time strategy is obvious.
E. The 60’s types have confused ego from the past
F. Our legal domestic defenses are legal and well focused
G. He did not deceive us, and went through the UN and Congress process
Does anyone even remember and recognize that we have been attacked? Does anyone even feel threatened as to national existence, mostly our lives and our kids lives?
Does anyone accept the political rewrites of history and intentions and votes supporting the war in Iraq. This is like propaganda 101 practiced by the Nazis. I am especially disgusted at the National Democratic Party. Criticism is fine, but what is the alternative? The campaign idea of criticism to gain political power has now come home. So put up, or shut up. For me, 2008 is not too far away.
Does the National Democratic Party want us to lose in Iraq?
If not, how do we win?
I’ll listen to all, to include smooth talking devils and media masters.
Don’t ya know?
I had an Uncle who used to say this idiom all the time. He was the Bursar at Vanderbilt University.
Now no one says this. The closest I can find is in “black talk” when people say “you know”.
Most of the responses to today’s “thank you” are “thank you”. Where I presently live in rural Tennessee the response is “you’re welcome”.
Playing Scrabble can be tough when the challenge dictionary is one from 1928. The astute player can challenge a present day word hoping it was not a word in 1928. While winning in my challenge, my mother’s threat to disinherit me got my attention.
Using another similarly aged trivia reference book was interesting. The question about the number of planets in the book’s time was answered with “eight”, as Pluto had not been discovered. Now in 2007 that is the correct answer again. Interesting.
If language and the number of planets can change, what else can change?
I had an Uncle who used to say this idiom all the time. He was the Bursar at Vanderbilt University.
Now no one says this. The closest I can find is in “black talk” when people say “you know”.
Most of the responses to today’s “thank you” are “thank you”. Where I presently live in rural Tennessee the response is “you’re welcome”.
Playing Scrabble can be tough when the challenge dictionary is one from 1928. The astute player can challenge a present day word hoping it was not a word in 1928. While winning in my challenge, my mother’s threat to disinherit me got my attention.
Using another similarly aged trivia reference book was interesting. The question about the number of planets in the book’s time was answered with “eight”, as Pluto had not been discovered. Now in 2007 that is the correct answer again. Interesting.
If language and the number of planets can change, what else can change?
Give Congress a chance
It’s too early to form a reliable opinion about this Congress’s personality. Maybe by this summer there may be indicators and trends.
Until then, the focus today on the liberal old time Democratic leaders who assumed mantles of leadership is missing the mark. It is all a monumental mistake of historic proportions that this is happening. The transparent political hypocrisy of Speaker Pelosi is the obvious distracter right now.
The Congress we elected is full of patriots from both Parties who will vote for the country first, then their local constituency, then their personal beliefs, and then their Party. They will not be blind lemmings who march in lock step with their old time national Party leaders. Hardball will always be played. But plots and shenanigans to gain Party political advantage will be superceded by focus on National strategies that benefit we the people.
Call me naïve. Call me practical. Call me a listener and watcher. There is something different about this Congress, and the body politic who elected them.
It’s too early to form a reliable opinion about this Congress’s personality. Maybe by this summer there may be indicators and trends.
Until then, the focus today on the liberal old time Democratic leaders who assumed mantles of leadership is missing the mark. It is all a monumental mistake of historic proportions that this is happening. The transparent political hypocrisy of Speaker Pelosi is the obvious distracter right now.
The Congress we elected is full of patriots from both Parties who will vote for the country first, then their local constituency, then their personal beliefs, and then their Party. They will not be blind lemmings who march in lock step with their old time national Party leaders. Hardball will always be played. But plots and shenanigans to gain Party political advantage will be superceded by focus on National strategies that benefit we the people.
Call me naïve. Call me practical. Call me a listener and watcher. There is something different about this Congress, and the body politic who elected them.
Sunday, January 14, 2007
Want went wrong since WWII in the UN?
This was the second war that should have ended all wars. And it should have. Then the UN was created as a better version of the earlier and failed League of Nations. And then wars continued, and the UN suffered much as the League did. Then it got worse.
Other than good USA maneuvering in the UN circa 1951, the UN had avoided intervention. What a change when Secretary General Javier Pérez de Cuéllar assumed his position. Until then, I never thought of the UN intervening, anywhere, anytime. What a politician. And the UN intervened in places he lead us to.
The UN and USA had friction. We withheld our significant “voluntary” payments under Regan and a democratic congress.
The US with its economic vote made sure the Egyptian Secretary General, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boutros_Boutros-Ghali did not receive a second term.
The US went with another UN candidate, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kofi_Annan
In his time, he has self decidedly become more than an administrative secretary, and become some kind of unelected moral leader President of the World. Unfortunately for him, graft and UN politics have dragged him down to embarrassing levels.
So where to we go from here.
The UN has a new Secretary General, from Korea. Let’s see.
This was the second war that should have ended all wars. And it should have. Then the UN was created as a better version of the earlier and failed League of Nations. And then wars continued, and the UN suffered much as the League did. Then it got worse.
Other than good USA maneuvering in the UN circa 1951, the UN had avoided intervention. What a change when Secretary General Javier Pérez de Cuéllar assumed his position. Until then, I never thought of the UN intervening, anywhere, anytime. What a politician. And the UN intervened in places he lead us to.
The UN and USA had friction. We withheld our significant “voluntary” payments under Regan and a democratic congress.
The US with its economic vote made sure the Egyptian Secretary General, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boutros_Boutros-Ghali did not receive a second term.
The US went with another UN candidate, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kofi_Annan
In his time, he has self decidedly become more than an administrative secretary, and become some kind of unelected moral leader President of the World. Unfortunately for him, graft and UN politics have dragged him down to embarrassing levels.
So where to we go from here.
The UN has a new Secretary General, from Korea. Let’s see.
Armchair generals and naivety.
At the expense of sounding like my idea of a democrat, I do have good intentions. And my intentions count in this logic, whether they work or not, or become subject to the law of unintended consequences.
As I read criticism of our President’s recent change in course in Iraq, I admire him as a person just because he stepped up to the plate. Good, bad, or indifferent, we have a course of action to review by all: to include the enemy, the Democratic opposition, pundits, and maybe even professionals.
Can you believe the enemy can participate? This makes us weaker, not stronger, I think. In this is not the Internet, but the trend in America is towards democracy and away from our Constitution and a republican system. For those who do not know, republican is a method of the people expressing themselves; it has nothing to do with the present political party by the republican name.
So now we can all critique the President, his government, and his minions he hired.
I hope they are correct for our sake.
I hope all the critics are correct , just in case the President is wrong.
The enemy’s media based critiques are pretty obvious. The others take a little more savvy on our part.
I want my way to life to survive for me and my progeny. Is this too obvious? This is a modern update of “my country, right or wrong”. I am comfortable in writing this to all the arm chair generals, secretaries of state, and librarians of congress.
At the expense of sounding like my idea of a democrat, I do have good intentions. And my intentions count in this logic, whether they work or not, or become subject to the law of unintended consequences.
As I read criticism of our President’s recent change in course in Iraq, I admire him as a person just because he stepped up to the plate. Good, bad, or indifferent, we have a course of action to review by all: to include the enemy, the Democratic opposition, pundits, and maybe even professionals.
Can you believe the enemy can participate? This makes us weaker, not stronger, I think. In this is not the Internet, but the trend in America is towards democracy and away from our Constitution and a republican system. For those who do not know, republican is a method of the people expressing themselves; it has nothing to do with the present political party by the republican name.
So now we can all critique the President, his government, and his minions he hired.
I hope they are correct for our sake.
I hope all the critics are correct , just in case the President is wrong.
The enemy’s media based critiques are pretty obvious. The others take a little more savvy on our part.
I want my way to life to survive for me and my progeny. Is this too obvious? This is a modern update of “my country, right or wrong”. I am comfortable in writing this to all the arm chair generals, secretaries of state, and librarians of congress.
The evolution of Iraq political thought
First there came the 911 attacks.
Then there came the need for national revenge; and also national fear of the unknown future.
Then there came the recognition of an Islamic fascist cultural/religious attack on the West and the USA.
Then there came the USA (and its coalition) attack into Iraq, and Afghanistan (to include NATO).
Then there came the UN and European and Democratic Party political attacks on the President.
Then there came the analogies to the late 1930’s responses to Nazi fascism.
Then there came a 2005 National Democratic Party change in strategy to become obstructionists to the Republican Party and its President.
Then winning the peace in Iraq, was being replaced by the media with reporting losing the peace.
Then Iraq did go to hell, and we were losing the peace in some of Iraq, mostly in the capital and Anbar province.
Then our President admitted mistakes as he changed how he will try win the peace.
In all of this everyone is an arm chair general and secretary of state and librarian of congress in deciding the past, and divining our future.
First there came the 911 attacks.
Then there came the need for national revenge; and also national fear of the unknown future.
Then there came the recognition of an Islamic fascist cultural/religious attack on the West and the USA.
Then there came the USA (and its coalition) attack into Iraq, and Afghanistan (to include NATO).
Then there came the UN and European and Democratic Party political attacks on the President.
Then there came the analogies to the late 1930’s responses to Nazi fascism.
Then there came a 2005 National Democratic Party change in strategy to become obstructionists to the Republican Party and its President.
Then winning the peace in Iraq, was being replaced by the media with reporting losing the peace.
Then Iraq did go to hell, and we were losing the peace in some of Iraq, mostly in the capital and Anbar province.
Then our President admitted mistakes as he changed how he will try win the peace.
In all of this everyone is an arm chair general and secretary of state and librarian of congress in deciding the past, and divining our future.
Saturday, January 13, 2007
Iran and the Middle East
Is there anyone who does not think that some of the Iranians have been killing us Americans for a long time, usually as part of their hegemonic policies of restoring the Persian past and their Shiite religious glory in the region. Of course, not all Iranians think the same, so this thought is best focused on the ruling elite since the Shah was overthrown in early 1979.
Now we are up to 2007. Does anyone think that the present “president” of Iran was not one of the young student leaders who did illegal and cruel things during the U.S. Embassy take over in Tehran in 1979. Author Mark Bowden presents a very good case for this. I agree.
To follow on, success breeds success. Later on the Iranians or their proxies killed 241 Americans in the Beirut bombing, plus another 58 Frenchmen in a similar bombing. Later they murdered by hanging Col. Rich Higgins doing UN Palestine duty. Now they are asserting themselves by killing many of us by IED’s funded, designed, and often built in their country and exploded in Iraq.
This is so typical of a cabal of Islamic fascists that takes advantage of western nation-state ideals to pursue their objectives. Given their unchallenged earlier successes, it even makes sense to keep it up. Their abuse of western nation-state practices includes using diplomatic bags for smuggling. These bags deliver IEDs, and this includes the goods, the ideas, and the planning. Ringleaders and subordinates are provided western style diplomatic immunity, as in a “get home free card”. Consulates are an especially good base from which to accomplish the cabal’s missions, since not all Iraqi neighborhoods and regions are friendly to them. Shiite mosques are another preferred choice of where to base.
We Americans often wring our hands out of frustration. We feel honor bound to things like the Geneva Conventions, our own ethics, and our just plain sense of good intentions and respect for others not like us. And we will continue to be frustrated because others do not always think like us, to include this cabal in Iran. Their normal thought is to see us as morally weak, or just plain stupid.
It’s a big world, and full of people, tribes, and nation-states that do think differently, have different standards of ethics, different standards of honor and respect, and different standards of warfighting. Add in the witches brew of the Arab world’s cauldron of problems, the dedication and megalomania of many of our Islamic fascist enemies, and even the cabal in Persian Iran has used its oil power to assert itself. But unlike many others, this cabal has felt emboldened enough to now become more overt, to include sending thousands into Iraq, and creating nuclear power without oversight and monitors.
Our previous American governments have kicked this problem downstream to where we are left holding the bag. And yes, the earlier policies that bring us to today had some good points, as well as bad points. We didn’t get here by accident.
The President’s strategy of establishing a democratic government in the Middle East is a good strategy for protecting our national interests here at home. It is a bad strategy if you are one of the numerous cabals, tribes, and nation-states in the Middle East because it changes everything in the region; and that change is threatening to these ruling people, and their business and energy partners in the rest of the world. This includes the cabal in Iran.
So where do we go from here? This especially means winning the peace in Iraq. To this simple male, peace is a local term, and simply means my family’s safety while I have a job. Other things like running water and electricity are nice to have’s. It was not too long ago that rural electrification was a big deal in America.
The President has announced a new course of action, strategy, and list of appointed players. So the answer as to which way to go has been answered for now. Let’s see if almost 50 years of “limited war” American “best and brightest” assumptions have finally been reverted and reinvented to just warfighting to accomplish a mission assigned by the President. To say my academic think tank and politician ancestors were wrong is not my intent right now. There are other ways to think.
Forget D.C. intentions. As a local Iraqi, I just want to see results that benefit my family.
The President’s changes in Iraq include dealing with the cabal in Iran, and that also answers that question. If he does what he says, then after decades of the Iranian cabal’s interference and killing in the region and the world, this cabal will come to an end. We will threaten, and destroy their continued existence. And perhaps the long awaited Iranian counter-revolution will finally occur.
Is there anyone who does not think that some of the Iranians have been killing us Americans for a long time, usually as part of their hegemonic policies of restoring the Persian past and their Shiite religious glory in the region. Of course, not all Iranians think the same, so this thought is best focused on the ruling elite since the Shah was overthrown in early 1979.
Now we are up to 2007. Does anyone think that the present “president” of Iran was not one of the young student leaders who did illegal and cruel things during the U.S. Embassy take over in Tehran in 1979. Author Mark Bowden presents a very good case for this. I agree.
To follow on, success breeds success. Later on the Iranians or their proxies killed 241 Americans in the Beirut bombing, plus another 58 Frenchmen in a similar bombing. Later they murdered by hanging Col. Rich Higgins doing UN Palestine duty. Now they are asserting themselves by killing many of us by IED’s funded, designed, and often built in their country and exploded in Iraq.
This is so typical of a cabal of Islamic fascists that takes advantage of western nation-state ideals to pursue their objectives. Given their unchallenged earlier successes, it even makes sense to keep it up. Their abuse of western nation-state practices includes using diplomatic bags for smuggling. These bags deliver IEDs, and this includes the goods, the ideas, and the planning. Ringleaders and subordinates are provided western style diplomatic immunity, as in a “get home free card”. Consulates are an especially good base from which to accomplish the cabal’s missions, since not all Iraqi neighborhoods and regions are friendly to them. Shiite mosques are another preferred choice of where to base.
We Americans often wring our hands out of frustration. We feel honor bound to things like the Geneva Conventions, our own ethics, and our just plain sense of good intentions and respect for others not like us. And we will continue to be frustrated because others do not always think like us, to include this cabal in Iran. Their normal thought is to see us as morally weak, or just plain stupid.
It’s a big world, and full of people, tribes, and nation-states that do think differently, have different standards of ethics, different standards of honor and respect, and different standards of warfighting. Add in the witches brew of the Arab world’s cauldron of problems, the dedication and megalomania of many of our Islamic fascist enemies, and even the cabal in Persian Iran has used its oil power to assert itself. But unlike many others, this cabal has felt emboldened enough to now become more overt, to include sending thousands into Iraq, and creating nuclear power without oversight and monitors.
Our previous American governments have kicked this problem downstream to where we are left holding the bag. And yes, the earlier policies that bring us to today had some good points, as well as bad points. We didn’t get here by accident.
The President’s strategy of establishing a democratic government in the Middle East is a good strategy for protecting our national interests here at home. It is a bad strategy if you are one of the numerous cabals, tribes, and nation-states in the Middle East because it changes everything in the region; and that change is threatening to these ruling people, and their business and energy partners in the rest of the world. This includes the cabal in Iran.
So where do we go from here? This especially means winning the peace in Iraq. To this simple male, peace is a local term, and simply means my family’s safety while I have a job. Other things like running water and electricity are nice to have’s. It was not too long ago that rural electrification was a big deal in America.
The President has announced a new course of action, strategy, and list of appointed players. So the answer as to which way to go has been answered for now. Let’s see if almost 50 years of “limited war” American “best and brightest” assumptions have finally been reverted and reinvented to just warfighting to accomplish a mission assigned by the President. To say my academic think tank and politician ancestors were wrong is not my intent right now. There are other ways to think.
Forget D.C. intentions. As a local Iraqi, I just want to see results that benefit my family.
The President’s changes in Iraq include dealing with the cabal in Iran, and that also answers that question. If he does what he says, then after decades of the Iranian cabal’s interference and killing in the region and the world, this cabal will come to an end. We will threaten, and destroy their continued existence. And perhaps the long awaited Iranian counter-revolution will finally occur.
Friday, January 12, 2007
The American political world has changed, and is changing
Do our political leaders know it? Does the world sense it?
We are more than a run of the mill nation-state in our world’s history. The present immigration rates say it all. What our ancestors assembled on and wrote about as a Constitution is unique and special in human history on our planet. Now we get to live it in our time.
I suspect most of today’s immigrants come here for jobs. As always they bring along their culture. What has changed in this aspect? Little I think, since most are from south of the border, but at least 15% or so are from Asia.
Unless one is racially, or more commonly culturally prejudiced, America has a good deal. That is why we are the new world.
The implications to today’s political leaders are obvious. They may be superseded in time. Assuming they want to be reelected, compromises locally are expected.
What does all this mean to you and me today?
I especially resented our President Clinton bragging about this, since the horse was out of the barn, and he was in front of the wave he bragged about.
The world in America has changed. Our young and regular voting citizens are beginning to assert themselves. This is new to me. In the old days, the old people predominated the vote.
So what is new, and what is old?
Here lies the good news. One can read it today, but I will summarize. Our young people are stepping up to the plate to contribute to our way of life. In this there is hope for our future. And it is egalitarian. By the way, just like in WWII, our society needs all the help and brains it can get.
Here lies the bad news. Our old marchers who equate 60’s style marching with winning whatever the cause is, still get publicity in California.
What a waste of their old time and our present time.
Do our political leaders know it? Does the world sense it?
We are more than a run of the mill nation-state in our world’s history. The present immigration rates say it all. What our ancestors assembled on and wrote about as a Constitution is unique and special in human history on our planet. Now we get to live it in our time.
I suspect most of today’s immigrants come here for jobs. As always they bring along their culture. What has changed in this aspect? Little I think, since most are from south of the border, but at least 15% or so are from Asia.
Unless one is racially, or more commonly culturally prejudiced, America has a good deal. That is why we are the new world.
The implications to today’s political leaders are obvious. They may be superseded in time. Assuming they want to be reelected, compromises locally are expected.
What does all this mean to you and me today?
I especially resented our President Clinton bragging about this, since the horse was out of the barn, and he was in front of the wave he bragged about.
The world in America has changed. Our young and regular voting citizens are beginning to assert themselves. This is new to me. In the old days, the old people predominated the vote.
So what is new, and what is old?
Here lies the good news. One can read it today, but I will summarize. Our young people are stepping up to the plate to contribute to our way of life. In this there is hope for our future. And it is egalitarian. By the way, just like in WWII, our society needs all the help and brains it can get.
Here lies the bad news. Our old marchers who equate 60’s style marching with winning whatever the cause is, still get publicity in California.
What a waste of their old time and our present time.
An American Media Manifesto
A manifesto is a public declaration of principles and intentions, often political in nature.
If the media could live up to its published ethics standards, I would be a satisfied citizen. The ethics standards are published at the end of this article as a link.
If Ted Turner could deliver on his goals after his bruising battles to make CNN and TBS recognizable, I would be happy. His version of history is published at the end of this article, also as a link.
Recently, Ted Turner has even given a speech that says journalists ( mostly CNN types in his case) should hold no allegiances, period. We are all morally equivalent, as I listened to him. American flags in the background are only appropriate to American media.
Last on my Ted Turner fixation, he is admirable in many ways. But when he puts his latest main squeeze on TV news, he is mixing business with pleasure. He is almost as bad as the Playboy fellow who still plays with girls who are his grandaughters age, and still thinks and sells this as normal. When do such moguls begin acting their age?
Then there is the government funded news reporting, as opposed to government controlled news reporting. Dictatorships practice government controlled news reporting. Most American news businesses are profit oriented and not government funded. It is a business with a business plan or model. It is sink or swim, and we have seen some sink. How some of the news businesses gained government funding both BBC-style and USA-public-broadcasting-style is another history. How these organizations keep getting government funding is also another history.
And all I want is to know the news: world, national, and local.
The term main stream media (MSM) is a derisive term these days in America. It was not made up by opponents; it was historically earned by those in the MSM. Obvious frustrations by citizens who just want the news include: selective coverage that seems based on political parties, selective coverage based on the reporters or their producer or editor’s politics, selective coverage based on what will sell best, and selective coverage based on convienience, budget, and wartime exengiencies that soldiers routinely live with. In other words, not the news. Along the way integrity violations have appeared. This is a career stopper to most of us.
Perhaps the problem is us, the USA and our society. Perhaps our communications connectivity as a society has made us more like a democracy than the republic we are, constitutionally speaking. Maybe quickie news and polls are challenging how representatives are guided as our leaders. I hope not. Our political leaders must act in our national interests, not the interests as suggested by the lastest instant report, or poll.
Perhaps my frustration is part of this time in history that I live in, and the post WWII baby boom influence on history and societies. My perceived old time standards of the media reporting just the news, mostly from an American and western point of view, may be wrong, naive, or both. The old time standards of separating the front page from the editorial page, and knowing the differences and why, seem forgotten or ignored. Today’s news reporting appears to be some flash in the pan from news academia, news businesses, and just spoiled and protected Americans in the news businesses that are inflated by their present day power and influence.
Protection, by the way, does not extend to protection from unethical, ill informed, and biased reporting. We can vote with our feet as to what we read, listen to, and watch.
Having been a Marine, complaints require a proposed solution. Don’t bitch without proposing a solution.
Here is my point of view and suggestions to improve today’s situation, that is to make things better. By better I mean we being more informed citizens. I don’t mean kissing the tail of reporters, editors, and producers. And I don’t imply the American cultural predeliction to try legislate or dictate a perfect world. We all know that will never happen.
The industry must require all media types at the reporter, editor, producer, and business manager level to sign the published ethics standards, and post their signatures on the internet. I would define media types as anyone who publishes news. All editorial and opinion writers and TV pundits are also media people, and would have to include a “discloser” statement that this is opinion, not simple facts.
Establish a career professional education program like the military’s. In fact, include media types in the various level military schools at an appropriate level to make them more subject matter trained for those that report military news. Media businesses must educate their up and coming types, or do an up and out method for world, national, and local media types.
Establish a clearing house on the Internet that posts all media type’s resumes, experiences, and educations. Just give me, John Q Citizen, another tool to evaluate what I am reading or hearing or seeing.
All of the preceding can be summed up as letting us know about the ethics, education, and training of the person doing the reporting.
Let me expect that some will not go along with this. This will be another decision factor for us in deciding what to read, listen to, or watch.
Media standards of conduct: http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp
Ted Turner’s history of his startup: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0407.turner.html
A manifesto is a public declaration of principles and intentions, often political in nature.
If the media could live up to its published ethics standards, I would be a satisfied citizen. The ethics standards are published at the end of this article as a link.
If Ted Turner could deliver on his goals after his bruising battles to make CNN and TBS recognizable, I would be happy. His version of history is published at the end of this article, also as a link.
Recently, Ted Turner has even given a speech that says journalists ( mostly CNN types in his case) should hold no allegiances, period. We are all morally equivalent, as I listened to him. American flags in the background are only appropriate to American media.
Last on my Ted Turner fixation, he is admirable in many ways. But when he puts his latest main squeeze on TV news, he is mixing business with pleasure. He is almost as bad as the Playboy fellow who still plays with girls who are his grandaughters age, and still thinks and sells this as normal. When do such moguls begin acting their age?
Then there is the government funded news reporting, as opposed to government controlled news reporting. Dictatorships practice government controlled news reporting. Most American news businesses are profit oriented and not government funded. It is a business with a business plan or model. It is sink or swim, and we have seen some sink. How some of the news businesses gained government funding both BBC-style and USA-public-broadcasting-style is another history. How these organizations keep getting government funding is also another history.
And all I want is to know the news: world, national, and local.
The term main stream media (MSM) is a derisive term these days in America. It was not made up by opponents; it was historically earned by those in the MSM. Obvious frustrations by citizens who just want the news include: selective coverage that seems based on political parties, selective coverage based on the reporters or their producer or editor’s politics, selective coverage based on what will sell best, and selective coverage based on convienience, budget, and wartime exengiencies that soldiers routinely live with. In other words, not the news. Along the way integrity violations have appeared. This is a career stopper to most of us.
Perhaps the problem is us, the USA and our society. Perhaps our communications connectivity as a society has made us more like a democracy than the republic we are, constitutionally speaking. Maybe quickie news and polls are challenging how representatives are guided as our leaders. I hope not. Our political leaders must act in our national interests, not the interests as suggested by the lastest instant report, or poll.
Perhaps my frustration is part of this time in history that I live in, and the post WWII baby boom influence on history and societies. My perceived old time standards of the media reporting just the news, mostly from an American and western point of view, may be wrong, naive, or both. The old time standards of separating the front page from the editorial page, and knowing the differences and why, seem forgotten or ignored. Today’s news reporting appears to be some flash in the pan from news academia, news businesses, and just spoiled and protected Americans in the news businesses that are inflated by their present day power and influence.
Protection, by the way, does not extend to protection from unethical, ill informed, and biased reporting. We can vote with our feet as to what we read, listen to, and watch.
Having been a Marine, complaints require a proposed solution. Don’t bitch without proposing a solution.
Here is my point of view and suggestions to improve today’s situation, that is to make things better. By better I mean we being more informed citizens. I don’t mean kissing the tail of reporters, editors, and producers. And I don’t imply the American cultural predeliction to try legislate or dictate a perfect world. We all know that will never happen.
The industry must require all media types at the reporter, editor, producer, and business manager level to sign the published ethics standards, and post their signatures on the internet. I would define media types as anyone who publishes news. All editorial and opinion writers and TV pundits are also media people, and would have to include a “discloser” statement that this is opinion, not simple facts.
Establish a career professional education program like the military’s. In fact, include media types in the various level military schools at an appropriate level to make them more subject matter trained for those that report military news. Media businesses must educate their up and coming types, or do an up and out method for world, national, and local media types.
Establish a clearing house on the Internet that posts all media type’s resumes, experiences, and educations. Just give me, John Q Citizen, another tool to evaluate what I am reading or hearing or seeing.
All of the preceding can be summed up as letting us know about the ethics, education, and training of the person doing the reporting.
Let me expect that some will not go along with this. This will be another decision factor for us in deciding what to read, listen to, or watch.
Media standards of conduct: http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp
Ted Turner’s history of his startup: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0407.turner.html
Thursday, January 11, 2007
The world does not stop while the United States is distracted by Iraq
Or, while the cat is away, the mice will play.
In the history of the world, no country or regime has been omnipresent forever. Even Rome (600 years) and Byzantium (1,000 years) are now history book subjects. The same may happen to the United States. I hope our new world status and culture may help us in surviving. Who knows.
It is times like today that make me more concerned that some leader of some country, tribe, or cause will feel emboldened to act because our country is presently distracted by events in Iraq. This idea presumes if the USA was not distracted by Iraq, such leaders might be more intimidated and restrained.
The world is always in turmoil. The offensive conflicts are normally some combination of military, economic, religious, and megalomaniacal pursuit of objectives, perceived or real. The defensive conflicts often revolve around maintenance of the status quo, protection of nation-state, tribe, and families, and preserving earlier gains, which can be recent or even very old.
Do we deserve to be more concerned during this period? Does a healthy united USA that is also not distracted have an intimidation effect on our enemies, foreign and domestic? And in reverse, are our political leaders going to respond the same whether we are distracted or not? The answer to all is that I do not know.
I do know it is in our national interest to preserve our new world country and its way of life. That we will fight for. Don’t tread on me.
I also think that we all recognize we cannot conquer the world, nor do we want to do such. That is not us.
Where are the potential world locations or people that make me concerned during this period?
A. Iran and its slightly lunatic president, its theocratic dictators, and their proxies in Iraq and Lebanon
B. North Korea and its dangerous criminal leader who inherited his job
C. Venezuela and its ego driven leader
D. Russia and its energy policies as a state diplomatic tool
E. Civil war in China
F. Control of our USA borders
G. Islamic terrorism as a tool of these fascists
H. Syrian left-over Baathist leaders who ignore their present “president”
I. Oil barons and their energy funded policies
J. Left over 60’s types in the USA who seek to tear us down internally.
K. Japan going nuclear. It already has, I think, but now it will say so. And going nuclear is easier than you think. A USA test in 1962 using power plant uranium is a good example. This is all open source, by the way.
L. State Department types who have always ignored the vote of the people and the directions of their current political leaders
M. Civil war in Pakistan
N. Things I have not imagined, but wish I had.
There are many other problems, foreign and domestic, but I don’t think of them as being more exploitable during this Iraq distraction. The Hamas-Fatah friction in Palestine will go on in all cases, for example. The pursuit of affordable universal health care is another.
Being concerned is one thing. Even recognizing the potential problems is another. But so what if one cannot act on these concerns. Yet we can. There are three courses of action to consider.
A. Make an example of one concern. That will send a message to the others.
B. Warn each foreign concern through any means. The obvious means are diplomatic, economic, and military that there will be consequences. This tells our enemies we have not let down our guard during the Iraq distraction.
C. Warn each domestic concern that while civility reigns, action counts. All actions will be exposed to the light of day, and we citizens who vote. In other words, there can be honest differences of opinion, and these opinions and underhanded actions will both get equal exposure. Include the President's veto power as part of this. Give the main stream media and the blogosphere the same information.
a. Clean house in the State Department. The recovery should take 5 or more years. The benefit will be for over a 100 years.
We, the USA, have a long history of threatening consequences, then doing little. This goes back a long way to include our cultural disposition to isolationism, use of diplomacy always and first in foreign frictions, and compromise always in domestic frictions. Given all this, the threat of consequences by the executive must be real, as in a follow-up if required. This will be a change. I believe the option of making an example will occur just for that reason.
Last I am concerned about the potential consequences of the last 2006 congressional elections. It appears, to me, that many people were elected to make things happen from the country’s point of view. Yet many elected congressional leaders still seem to act from their party and their agenda’s point of view. They seem like the old time politicians from the 60’s and 70’s who wish to tear down our country, or more often, exploit it. My cause for concern in this period of “not-knowing” is what the newly elected people will do. I am apprehensively hopeful. The aforementioned is a good example of why times like this are cause for concern.
What can we do, collectively, as American citizens. My view is that we listen, observe, read, communicate with our local politicians, and then vote in 2008. This course of action is not too shabby, however it turns out. And it is much preferable to civil war, or revolution.
Or, while the cat is away, the mice will play.
In the history of the world, no country or regime has been omnipresent forever. Even Rome (600 years) and Byzantium (1,000 years) are now history book subjects. The same may happen to the United States. I hope our new world status and culture may help us in surviving. Who knows.
It is times like today that make me more concerned that some leader of some country, tribe, or cause will feel emboldened to act because our country is presently distracted by events in Iraq. This idea presumes if the USA was not distracted by Iraq, such leaders might be more intimidated and restrained.
The world is always in turmoil. The offensive conflicts are normally some combination of military, economic, religious, and megalomaniacal pursuit of objectives, perceived or real. The defensive conflicts often revolve around maintenance of the status quo, protection of nation-state, tribe, and families, and preserving earlier gains, which can be recent or even very old.
Do we deserve to be more concerned during this period? Does a healthy united USA that is also not distracted have an intimidation effect on our enemies, foreign and domestic? And in reverse, are our political leaders going to respond the same whether we are distracted or not? The answer to all is that I do not know.
I do know it is in our national interest to preserve our new world country and its way of life. That we will fight for. Don’t tread on me.
I also think that we all recognize we cannot conquer the world, nor do we want to do such. That is not us.
Where are the potential world locations or people that make me concerned during this period?
A. Iran and its slightly lunatic president, its theocratic dictators, and their proxies in Iraq and Lebanon
B. North Korea and its dangerous criminal leader who inherited his job
C. Venezuela and its ego driven leader
D. Russia and its energy policies as a state diplomatic tool
E. Civil war in China
F. Control of our USA borders
G. Islamic terrorism as a tool of these fascists
H. Syrian left-over Baathist leaders who ignore their present “president”
I. Oil barons and their energy funded policies
J. Left over 60’s types in the USA who seek to tear us down internally.
K. Japan going nuclear. It already has, I think, but now it will say so. And going nuclear is easier than you think. A USA test in 1962 using power plant uranium is a good example. This is all open source, by the way.
L. State Department types who have always ignored the vote of the people and the directions of their current political leaders
M. Civil war in Pakistan
N. Things I have not imagined, but wish I had.
There are many other problems, foreign and domestic, but I don’t think of them as being more exploitable during this Iraq distraction. The Hamas-Fatah friction in Palestine will go on in all cases, for example. The pursuit of affordable universal health care is another.
Being concerned is one thing. Even recognizing the potential problems is another. But so what if one cannot act on these concerns. Yet we can. There are three courses of action to consider.
A. Make an example of one concern. That will send a message to the others.
B. Warn each foreign concern through any means. The obvious means are diplomatic, economic, and military that there will be consequences. This tells our enemies we have not let down our guard during the Iraq distraction.
C. Warn each domestic concern that while civility reigns, action counts. All actions will be exposed to the light of day, and we citizens who vote. In other words, there can be honest differences of opinion, and these opinions and underhanded actions will both get equal exposure. Include the President's veto power as part of this. Give the main stream media and the blogosphere the same information.
a. Clean house in the State Department. The recovery should take 5 or more years. The benefit will be for over a 100 years.
We, the USA, have a long history of threatening consequences, then doing little. This goes back a long way to include our cultural disposition to isolationism, use of diplomacy always and first in foreign frictions, and compromise always in domestic frictions. Given all this, the threat of consequences by the executive must be real, as in a follow-up if required. This will be a change. I believe the option of making an example will occur just for that reason.
Last I am concerned about the potential consequences of the last 2006 congressional elections. It appears, to me, that many people were elected to make things happen from the country’s point of view. Yet many elected congressional leaders still seem to act from their party and their agenda’s point of view. They seem like the old time politicians from the 60’s and 70’s who wish to tear down our country, or more often, exploit it. My cause for concern in this period of “not-knowing” is what the newly elected people will do. I am apprehensively hopeful. The aforementioned is a good example of why times like this are cause for concern.
What can we do, collectively, as American citizens. My view is that we listen, observe, read, communicate with our local politicians, and then vote in 2008. This course of action is not too shabby, however it turns out. And it is much preferable to civil war, or revolution.
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
For lack of knowing what to do, we do what we know.
We are a sharp nation and possess a sharp military. The old Vietnam term the “best and the brightest” could readily be applied to our military today, the American citizen military. Mostly the “best and the brightest” term reflects many citizen’s resolve to “serve” our country and “personally contribute” to our country’s future.
Education levels count. As a former recruiter, education levels show resolve and hard work as an indicator of the ability to succeed. Add in the actual education, and the bad guys are in trouble.
Watching a History Channel show recently about our medical people serving in Iraq and taking care of our heroes who have been hurt so badly by the bad guys, just makes me proud to be an American. I am proud of the heroes, their families, wives and kids, and the medical people who serve over there, in Germany, and here.
I also know to ignore the media reports about the bad news in Iraq. I hope you do the same. There are better ways to find out what is really going on, and where.
Our military and other militaries of the world all have created officer corps for a good reason. While the real gunfighters of the military are led and motivated by Staff Non-Commissioned Officers and Non-Commissioned Officers, regular Commissioned Officers also serve a purpose. Military air and naval forces have their similar versions, by the way.
It is tough being a Commissioned Officer in the Marines. Those who serve under the officer in the chain of command often look in a derisible way upon whether he is up to their standards. This is fair, by the way.
But standards, and military education, do apply. And at this time I can say that having officer corps’ and educating them is not an “elitist” idea where power and ideas are a means to control. This is more simply another case, where we are all working together to accomplish the mission, and in this we all serve in our own way.
The preceding is all-basic, so far.
Our officers go through a career path process that includes much education paramount to advanced college educations. We the country are the beneficiaries.
But as in the old days, then and now, our best educators deliver the past, the educational fad of the decade, or often some other last war principles.
And often these schools have educated their officers to prosecute and fight wars, and not lesser levels of politics and war, often called small wars or even counter insurgency. Later our officers during a campaign reflect this in often doing what they know and are trained for. We dance with who we brought.
All of our military officer schools are different. They should and do reflect their service culture, missions, and histories. One service cannot do it all.
At the expense of over generalizing, in the past the Army has had a heavy mechanized and European defense focus. The Air Force has had a focus on strategic missions. The Navy and Marines have focused on third world littoral missions locally, and a world mission globally. And this is in the past.
All services are constantly changing for the better we hope as we continue to educate our officer corps for the future. This is where the expression “for lack of knowing what to do, we do what we know” applies.
Our Naval and Marine Corps’ schools have been and still tend to be more third world oriented, and their graduates will benefit when appropriate.
The catch is that the people we assign to lead our militaries went through this school education process in their past. We can only hope they are better prepared for the future conflicts they get involved in. And then there is much we learn out of school, and we expect learning during this time also. Another example of learning out of school is the Professional Reading Lists of each of the services.
Of course, the schooling process is not everything, thank goodness. But as always, for lack of knowing what to do, we do what we know.
I just wish we had education schools for our President, the Secretaries of Defense and State, their appointed minions, and national political and media leaders. I’ll bet most of them wish that, too. I think JFK even said this, in his words.
We are a sharp nation and possess a sharp military. The old Vietnam term the “best and the brightest” could readily be applied to our military today, the American citizen military. Mostly the “best and the brightest” term reflects many citizen’s resolve to “serve” our country and “personally contribute” to our country’s future.
Education levels count. As a former recruiter, education levels show resolve and hard work as an indicator of the ability to succeed. Add in the actual education, and the bad guys are in trouble.
Watching a History Channel show recently about our medical people serving in Iraq and taking care of our heroes who have been hurt so badly by the bad guys, just makes me proud to be an American. I am proud of the heroes, their families, wives and kids, and the medical people who serve over there, in Germany, and here.
I also know to ignore the media reports about the bad news in Iraq. I hope you do the same. There are better ways to find out what is really going on, and where.
Our military and other militaries of the world all have created officer corps for a good reason. While the real gunfighters of the military are led and motivated by Staff Non-Commissioned Officers and Non-Commissioned Officers, regular Commissioned Officers also serve a purpose. Military air and naval forces have their similar versions, by the way.
It is tough being a Commissioned Officer in the Marines. Those who serve under the officer in the chain of command often look in a derisible way upon whether he is up to their standards. This is fair, by the way.
But standards, and military education, do apply. And at this time I can say that having officer corps’ and educating them is not an “elitist” idea where power and ideas are a means to control. This is more simply another case, where we are all working together to accomplish the mission, and in this we all serve in our own way.
The preceding is all-basic, so far.
Our officers go through a career path process that includes much education paramount to advanced college educations. We the country are the beneficiaries.
But as in the old days, then and now, our best educators deliver the past, the educational fad of the decade, or often some other last war principles.
And often these schools have educated their officers to prosecute and fight wars, and not lesser levels of politics and war, often called small wars or even counter insurgency. Later our officers during a campaign reflect this in often doing what they know and are trained for. We dance with who we brought.
All of our military officer schools are different. They should and do reflect their service culture, missions, and histories. One service cannot do it all.
At the expense of over generalizing, in the past the Army has had a heavy mechanized and European defense focus. The Air Force has had a focus on strategic missions. The Navy and Marines have focused on third world littoral missions locally, and a world mission globally. And this is in the past.
All services are constantly changing for the better we hope as we continue to educate our officer corps for the future. This is where the expression “for lack of knowing what to do, we do what we know” applies.
Our Naval and Marine Corps’ schools have been and still tend to be more third world oriented, and their graduates will benefit when appropriate.
The catch is that the people we assign to lead our militaries went through this school education process in their past. We can only hope they are better prepared for the future conflicts they get involved in. And then there is much we learn out of school, and we expect learning during this time also. Another example of learning out of school is the Professional Reading Lists of each of the services.
Of course, the schooling process is not everything, thank goodness. But as always, for lack of knowing what to do, we do what we know.
I just wish we had education schools for our President, the Secretaries of Defense and State, their appointed minions, and national political and media leaders. I’ll bet most of them wish that, too. I think JFK even said this, in his words.
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
What is the National Interest?
First there are current events.
The war in Iraq and the Global War on Terrorism take much of our best people’s time in figuring out a best course of action for our nation. Our best people are both elected politicians and their appointed minions, and then we citizens. None of them or us wake up in the morning wanting to do a bad job.
Often, as humans do, these people can be distracted by too many things on their plate at one time. Our National Interest can get short shrift in their thought processes.
Then there are future events.
The past is, the past. Most of us focus on the future.
The future for our National Interest has both domestic and foreign impacts on us, we the people.
To take the time to back off and consider what is our National Interest brings up the fact that there are differences of opinion.
Many differences are honest, as in our heart and minds.
Other differences are political, mostly from politicians from our national past.
Some differences are from political scientists who would impose their vision on us.
There are historical analogies.
One is the “fat and lazy” theme that suggests why tribes and civilizations have been superseded, often by barbarians.
Another is the “kill the goose that lays the golden egg” theme. In this scheme, too much of a good thing can kill or replace the tribe or civilization.
If we the people understand and believe in and dictate what is our National Interest, then the elected politicians and their appointed minions should have an easy time of deriving policies and laws that give us what we vote for. Don’t we wish it were this easy. But between the honest differences, the politician motivated differences, and the social do gooder differences, it is confusing and full of friction. There is hope for the future, however.
I have several suggestions about our National Interest. What follows is my definition of our National Interest.
We must do everything we can to preserve our new world special experiment and country.
We must defend our experiment against all enemies, foreign and domestic. That our founders included the term “foreign and domestic” says much about their concern about the fragility of our government based on a constitution. Our enemies, in my opinion, are either overt, covert, or coincidental.
We must be prepared to use all means available to achieve our National Interest.
Is there anything new in this discussion. YES! That there is always friction in the world is normal. What is new is US, the experiment, the country, we the new world people. The rest of the world’s people pouring towards the USA says our National Interest is important to them. We have something worth preserving, and that is the National Interest.
None of the preceding suggests either an offensive or defensive implementation of policies in support of our National Interest. To me it is as simple as an old historical term…don’t tread on me.
First there are current events.
The war in Iraq and the Global War on Terrorism take much of our best people’s time in figuring out a best course of action for our nation. Our best people are both elected politicians and their appointed minions, and then we citizens. None of them or us wake up in the morning wanting to do a bad job.
Often, as humans do, these people can be distracted by too many things on their plate at one time. Our National Interest can get short shrift in their thought processes.
Then there are future events.
The past is, the past. Most of us focus on the future.
The future for our National Interest has both domestic and foreign impacts on us, we the people.
To take the time to back off and consider what is our National Interest brings up the fact that there are differences of opinion.
Many differences are honest, as in our heart and minds.
Other differences are political, mostly from politicians from our national past.
Some differences are from political scientists who would impose their vision on us.
There are historical analogies.
One is the “fat and lazy” theme that suggests why tribes and civilizations have been superseded, often by barbarians.
Another is the “kill the goose that lays the golden egg” theme. In this scheme, too much of a good thing can kill or replace the tribe or civilization.
If we the people understand and believe in and dictate what is our National Interest, then the elected politicians and their appointed minions should have an easy time of deriving policies and laws that give us what we vote for. Don’t we wish it were this easy. But between the honest differences, the politician motivated differences, and the social do gooder differences, it is confusing and full of friction. There is hope for the future, however.
I have several suggestions about our National Interest. What follows is my definition of our National Interest.
We must do everything we can to preserve our new world special experiment and country.
We must defend our experiment against all enemies, foreign and domestic. That our founders included the term “foreign and domestic” says much about their concern about the fragility of our government based on a constitution. Our enemies, in my opinion, are either overt, covert, or coincidental.
We must be prepared to use all means available to achieve our National Interest.
Is there anything new in this discussion. YES! That there is always friction in the world is normal. What is new is US, the experiment, the country, we the new world people. The rest of the world’s people pouring towards the USA says our National Interest is important to them. We have something worth preserving, and that is the National Interest.
None of the preceding suggests either an offensive or defensive implementation of policies in support of our National Interest. To me it is as simple as an old historical term…don’t tread on me.
Monday, January 08, 2007
The Iraq analogy, and how do I explain?
There is much friction in our country about how things have gone in our campaign in Iraq. I think most would say things could be better from our USA point of view, and I am being kind.
The more I read the more I don’t know whether to assign my venom to the President, or to his hired (appointed well educated fools) who have done their best in Iraq. In the end, the President did hire them, and it is his problem in the end.
I do think the President has gone through a thought process, and things will change for the USA advantage. We will see.
Does anyone think we are winning the peace in the Baghdad/Sunni area? And yes, we are winning the peace in Kurdistan, and southern Iraq. Thank goodness the Brits are being themselves in the Basra city area of southern Iraq.
The way I grew up was to reinforce success, not failure. If our President does not or can not do this, then we and he are dead in the water. There is much hope given our President’s style that he will reinforce success.
Let me describe reinforcing success to the layman. This means about three things, to make it sound simple.
A. Change the military rules of engagement so we can go on the offense in the bad Iraqi areas. Not only seek out and destroy the people who oppose us, but impose our own solution and strategic goals. If the present Iraqi government doesn’t get it, then so be it. “Surge” is fine, but unless we unlease our military to fight, we are doomed by the present strategy.
B. Put one person in charge of the effort (assuming the President will not step up the plate, as he should). The State Department and all the D.C. procurement rules be damned. Let the military and CIA spread money around to accomplish the mission, which is the establishment of a democracy in the middle of the middle east. If I had a family to support, any money would help me, my family, and my loyalty.
C. Go regional. Apply all our national resources to accomplishing regime change in Iran and Syria. I think we are doing this already, and times are ripe, from their point of view. But in the meantime, change the military rules of engagement along the borders to let our people to take control of the borders (not the Iraqis), and then kill or confine the invaders from Iran and Syria. It will be a shock if finally some government from the west finally tells these eastern governments to quit.
Back to trying to explain. My opinion is that our strategy and resulting rules of engagement are part of why we are losing in Baghdad and the Sunni Triangle. When we let go captured bad guy leaders to satisfy our newly installed/elected Iraqi leaders for their problems, we are not in control. Control was earned by war, not by other means.
Let’s go to our local city for another analogy. If our local police seek out and find and arrest some bad guys, we expect the justice system to follow up. If local politics let’s them go, then we will lose faith in our system.
Enough said.
There is much friction in our country about how things have gone in our campaign in Iraq. I think most would say things could be better from our USA point of view, and I am being kind.
The more I read the more I don’t know whether to assign my venom to the President, or to his hired (appointed well educated fools) who have done their best in Iraq. In the end, the President did hire them, and it is his problem in the end.
I do think the President has gone through a thought process, and things will change for the USA advantage. We will see.
Does anyone think we are winning the peace in the Baghdad/Sunni area? And yes, we are winning the peace in Kurdistan, and southern Iraq. Thank goodness the Brits are being themselves in the Basra city area of southern Iraq.
The way I grew up was to reinforce success, not failure. If our President does not or can not do this, then we and he are dead in the water. There is much hope given our President’s style that he will reinforce success.
Let me describe reinforcing success to the layman. This means about three things, to make it sound simple.
A. Change the military rules of engagement so we can go on the offense in the bad Iraqi areas. Not only seek out and destroy the people who oppose us, but impose our own solution and strategic goals. If the present Iraqi government doesn’t get it, then so be it. “Surge” is fine, but unless we unlease our military to fight, we are doomed by the present strategy.
B. Put one person in charge of the effort (assuming the President will not step up the plate, as he should). The State Department and all the D.C. procurement rules be damned. Let the military and CIA spread money around to accomplish the mission, which is the establishment of a democracy in the middle of the middle east. If I had a family to support, any money would help me, my family, and my loyalty.
C. Go regional. Apply all our national resources to accomplishing regime change in Iran and Syria. I think we are doing this already, and times are ripe, from their point of view. But in the meantime, change the military rules of engagement along the borders to let our people to take control of the borders (not the Iraqis), and then kill or confine the invaders from Iran and Syria. It will be a shock if finally some government from the west finally tells these eastern governments to quit.
Back to trying to explain. My opinion is that our strategy and resulting rules of engagement are part of why we are losing in Baghdad and the Sunni Triangle. When we let go captured bad guy leaders to satisfy our newly installed/elected Iraqi leaders for their problems, we are not in control. Control was earned by war, not by other means.
Let’s go to our local city for another analogy. If our local police seek out and find and arrest some bad guys, we expect the justice system to follow up. If local politics let’s them go, then we will lose faith in our system.
Enough said.
Saturday, January 06, 2007
Kids can be mean to each other, and devious…what’s new mom and dad?
Getting older can have advantages such as having heard it before. Such is the subject of this article. Since all of us were kids we all know about the experience and what I speak about.
People are people, to include kids.
Technology does change. For example, some private academies have wi-fi umbrellas over the campus to help teach kids about computers.
All this technology, after listening, is that it offers new ways for kids to be kids, often being mean to each other. Nothing has changed, but for the method to be mean to each other. Insults to egos, sex, drugs, and standards are the norm. Thank goodness for parents who monitor all this, and can talk to their kid.
I am prejudiced about young girls’ vulnerability in their formulative years, in all means. But this also applies to boys who go through the same dimulative process. Bottom line for this article, all the computer type stuff we parents advance for our kids does not include the costs and problems of kids being mean to each other. Again, all that has changed is ways in how to be mean, kid to kid.
And then is there is technology gone awry another way, as it applies to kids. Even in private Christian academies in Tennessee, kids are required to turn off their cell phones to prevent them from using text messaging during exams to pass answers.
Is anything new in this report?
Getting older can have advantages such as having heard it before. Such is the subject of this article. Since all of us were kids we all know about the experience and what I speak about.
People are people, to include kids.
Technology does change. For example, some private academies have wi-fi umbrellas over the campus to help teach kids about computers.
All this technology, after listening, is that it offers new ways for kids to be kids, often being mean to each other. Nothing has changed, but for the method to be mean to each other. Insults to egos, sex, drugs, and standards are the norm. Thank goodness for parents who monitor all this, and can talk to their kid.
I am prejudiced about young girls’ vulnerability in their formulative years, in all means. But this also applies to boys who go through the same dimulative process. Bottom line for this article, all the computer type stuff we parents advance for our kids does not include the costs and problems of kids being mean to each other. Again, all that has changed is ways in how to be mean, kid to kid.
And then is there is technology gone awry another way, as it applies to kids. Even in private Christian academies in Tennessee, kids are required to turn off their cell phones to prevent them from using text messaging during exams to pass answers.
Is anything new in this report?
Let’s wait and see about the new democratic control of congress
Here’s why. We the people have elected many new representatives to the congress, both in the house and the senate. I believe most are more USA country oriented than party oriented. In English, these new people who changed control of the congress will seek and vote the country first, then their party, and then their ego. Right or wrong, that is what I think.
Never the less, the old time democratic leaders who get to assume the mantel of control in both houses appear to be out of touch. By that I mean, they can no longer dictate their politics and policies and votes to their minions, even if they think so based on the old days. In turn, many democrats (and republicans) are from a newer school of politics that thinks of our nation’s interests first. That there are differences of politics is obvious; that representatives will vote their personal and local politics is the change from the past. Intimidation from the leaders will fail, or at least be diminished.
This idea is not a fluff piece, as in a Rodney King “can we all just get along?” idea.
It is about the serious issues of our country, which is the best in the world’s history, but also can fail like Rome.
I am hopeful, but let’s wait and see. If things do not sort out, then we can vote again in two years. Hopefully our country will still be around.
Here’s why. We the people have elected many new representatives to the congress, both in the house and the senate. I believe most are more USA country oriented than party oriented. In English, these new people who changed control of the congress will seek and vote the country first, then their party, and then their ego. Right or wrong, that is what I think.
Never the less, the old time democratic leaders who get to assume the mantel of control in both houses appear to be out of touch. By that I mean, they can no longer dictate their politics and policies and votes to their minions, even if they think so based on the old days. In turn, many democrats (and republicans) are from a newer school of politics that thinks of our nation’s interests first. That there are differences of politics is obvious; that representatives will vote their personal and local politics is the change from the past. Intimidation from the leaders will fail, or at least be diminished.
This idea is not a fluff piece, as in a Rodney King “can we all just get along?” idea.
It is about the serious issues of our country, which is the best in the world’s history, but also can fail like Rome.
I am hopeful, but let’s wait and see. If things do not sort out, then we can vote again in two years. Hopefully our country will still be around.
Thursday, January 04, 2007
Thrashing back at our politicians
Our national politicians in congress have alarmed me. Mostly it is the old time democrats who have assumed control of the senate and house based on election results.
Yet I also think we Americans have voted for our country first, to include at the local congressional level. I used to think I was a republican, but often the local democrat says what I want to hear. It is our country first. And what I really expect is the proclaimed “let’s debate and vote on the issues”.
There are I think dinosaur-type politicians from the past that still think their time is finally here. I disagree. The country has changed, but they may not have changed. Only time will tell.
Then there is the American character that believes in individuals and ideas and elections and debating ideas. That the George Washington idea of avoiding royalty pretensions may be superseded by the oncoming Speaker of the House going through anointing ceremonies tells me she has other agendas and personal defects. Again, what a dinosaur.
I think most politicians of the old times don’t get it. It is the change of our body politic. Whoa be to those who don’t figure it out. I think the new representatives do get it.
As much as I can’t believe it, there are different visions for our country’s future. That we are still the “new world” in the idea category is the hope for most of the world peoples. That many politicians seek to mine the wealth is something to vote against when the privilege to serve is abused.
Talk is cheap. And there are those who “talk the talk” but do not “walk the walk”. We shall see, and then vote.
Our national politicians in congress have alarmed me. Mostly it is the old time democrats who have assumed control of the senate and house based on election results.
Yet I also think we Americans have voted for our country first, to include at the local congressional level. I used to think I was a republican, but often the local democrat says what I want to hear. It is our country first. And what I really expect is the proclaimed “let’s debate and vote on the issues”.
There are I think dinosaur-type politicians from the past that still think their time is finally here. I disagree. The country has changed, but they may not have changed. Only time will tell.
Then there is the American character that believes in individuals and ideas and elections and debating ideas. That the George Washington idea of avoiding royalty pretensions may be superseded by the oncoming Speaker of the House going through anointing ceremonies tells me she has other agendas and personal defects. Again, what a dinosaur.
I think most politicians of the old times don’t get it. It is the change of our body politic. Whoa be to those who don’t figure it out. I think the new representatives do get it.
As much as I can’t believe it, there are different visions for our country’s future. That we are still the “new world” in the idea category is the hope for most of the world peoples. That many politicians seek to mine the wealth is something to vote against when the privilege to serve is abused.
Talk is cheap. And there are those who “talk the talk” but do not “walk the walk”. We shall see, and then vote.
Tuesday, January 02, 2007
America is the future, bumpy though the road may be
This article is about all our personal and national integration efforts of bringing former slaves from Africa into our national fabric.
We are great as a country. No other country in the world has done integration of former slaves in the way we have, and are doing. There have been bumps in the road along the way, to include a civil war and Jim Crow laws where integrating slaves was a factor.
My major bump today is quotas; mostly called racial preferences and set asides and even called affirmative action.
From my point of view, this often becomes a lowering of standards to achieve a social goal. While well intentioned, it denigrates the standards that our American society demands, and gets. For example, when in the medical system trying to live, I demand the best of what our medical schools can produce to help me live. And in the same vein, what an insult to those who have made it through the wickets, only to be suspect of being quota babies that got advantages that may kill me, in the end.
As a Marine, one learns that those who follow and observe do watch what the leaders do with the good people, and the bad people. Toleration of bad people will drive out those good people who just want to do well.
Then there is the racial intelligence question I sometimes hear. As a Marine and later President of a small company, my style was to listen to the smart people in deciding what to do. Bottom line: the old time people (in this case ebony black rural people in SC) were trusted more by me than the PhD’s on the same subject. I am not stupid, so I did listen to both. And I never let myself get confused between brains and education.
And then, last, there is the “out of wedlock” issue, though I call it a custom that is not American. This is definitely a bump in the road. It is unsatisfactory. From this comes the other question of recent immigrants who bring the “American” tradition of families with fathers and mothers who raise children. Their customs reinforce the American way.
All negro’s are Americans, at least in this country. Some are better than others. It is important for me to say this from an intellectual contribution point of view.
When racial intermarriage becomes usual, then another bump may have been removed. Let the boys and girls use their judgment and experience to decide their future. I hope the present leaders can move away from making new genealogy categories such as “Latinos” and “mixed race”. We are just Americans. Of course, ignore Hollywood’s elitist offerings of the same.
Am I bitter? No. And I frustrated? Yes. Do I have hope for our future? Yes.
We are the New World.
This article is about all our personal and national integration efforts of bringing former slaves from Africa into our national fabric.
We are great as a country. No other country in the world has done integration of former slaves in the way we have, and are doing. There have been bumps in the road along the way, to include a civil war and Jim Crow laws where integrating slaves was a factor.
My major bump today is quotas; mostly called racial preferences and set asides and even called affirmative action.
From my point of view, this often becomes a lowering of standards to achieve a social goal. While well intentioned, it denigrates the standards that our American society demands, and gets. For example, when in the medical system trying to live, I demand the best of what our medical schools can produce to help me live. And in the same vein, what an insult to those who have made it through the wickets, only to be suspect of being quota babies that got advantages that may kill me, in the end.
As a Marine, one learns that those who follow and observe do watch what the leaders do with the good people, and the bad people. Toleration of bad people will drive out those good people who just want to do well.
Then there is the racial intelligence question I sometimes hear. As a Marine and later President of a small company, my style was to listen to the smart people in deciding what to do. Bottom line: the old time people (in this case ebony black rural people in SC) were trusted more by me than the PhD’s on the same subject. I am not stupid, so I did listen to both. And I never let myself get confused between brains and education.
And then, last, there is the “out of wedlock” issue, though I call it a custom that is not American. This is definitely a bump in the road. It is unsatisfactory. From this comes the other question of recent immigrants who bring the “American” tradition of families with fathers and mothers who raise children. Their customs reinforce the American way.
All negro’s are Americans, at least in this country. Some are better than others. It is important for me to say this from an intellectual contribution point of view.
When racial intermarriage becomes usual, then another bump may have been removed. Let the boys and girls use their judgment and experience to decide their future. I hope the present leaders can move away from making new genealogy categories such as “Latinos” and “mixed race”. We are just Americans. Of course, ignore Hollywood’s elitist offerings of the same.
Am I bitter? No. And I frustrated? Yes. Do I have hope for our future? Yes.
We are the New World.
Monday, December 18, 2006
Do American politicians know how to fight wars in pursuit of national objectives?
This is a difficult article to write because I fear any criticism will be selectively used by my political opponents. My fear is of politicians and their employees who know how to complain, but not offer any solutions other than giving in to our enemies national and tribal objectives. I am from the school of thought that says complain all you want, but then offer up other courses of action for decision makers.
This article is also difficult to write because I can use hindsight, and who wouldn’t. I can also say hindsight for me is more an “I told you so” than “things turned out differently than I expected”.
This article is also difficult to write because it exposes a defect in our American culture and persona that I really don’t want my adversaries knowing about.
Last, this article is difficult to write about because we are in a shooting war, and the timing of criticisms is best postponed in most cases.
I hope this article does just the opposite and leads to achieving our national objectives.
I got the first hint of concern about our ability to prosecute a war when Congress and the President could not even declare war after 9/11. The alternative was a bill authorizing this and that, but it was not an old fashioned Declaration of War. The idea of wars being between states is historical, but we have also waged war against groups, as in the Barbary Pirates. Yet our leaders avoided the Declaration of War intimations by seeking the alternative legislation. The mistrust left over from the Gulf of Tonkin resolution was still there, even though New York City and the Pentagon and Pennsylvania were still smoldering. Hard to believe.
I got the first hint of hope in the prosecution of the Afghan campaign. It seemed the unity of effort between the Department of Defense, CIA, and the State Department implied one person was in charge, probably the President.
I got the second hint of concern right after the brilliant campaign to take Iraq in the three weeks it took to take Baghdad. It became obvious to me that while we had a plan to win the war, we did not have a plan to win the peace. I ate a lot of crow over this. Later even TV pundits were saying things like we have two months left in the window of opportunity to win the peace. Well the window closed, and look at the bag of worms we have today. I fault our President for not putting one person in charge for all to see, or stepping up and being that person who knocks heads to get unity of effort. Even today, I cannot find one person in charge of our Iraq effort below the President.
Along the way in Iraq, our Department of Defense started rebuilding the Iraqi military. What a monumental strategic mistake. Militaries are trained and equipped to defend borders. That’s where our time and money went in this area. What Iraq needed first was a trained and equipped constabulary to provide the normal police protections we expect. That got second shrift, and we are still paying for this mistake in winning the peace. If this seems confusing, just think about how our military is equipped and trained compared to our local police. In the case of Iraq, which force would you bring up first?
The third hint of concern I got was the apparent miasma and symbiosis of the media and the Democratic Party and left over anti-Vietnam types. Two things stuck out to me. One was the euphoria of the old 60’s in marching and protesting for all that is good in the world. The other thing was the use of old fashioned propaganda. Say one idea often enough, and it “must be true”, even if it isn’t. This was shameless work by those who thought differently about the war in Iraq. There are more responsible ways to proceed.
The fourth hint of concern was the inception of the “Green Zone”. If I were in charge, I would have done the same. After all, personal safety is a basic tenet of any government. Yet out of this good effort has come skewed perceptions and decisions and reporting that would come out of any protected bastion in any part of the world. Those who operate in a vacuum probably don’t know what is going on elsewhere. The best example today is the parachute type reporting of the horrible sectarian fighting in Baghdad. I suggest our reporters on TV most likely have no idea of anything else going on in Iraq. And if I were them, I probably would stay safely inside the Green Zone. Ditto for the State Department types.
If one gets out of the “Green Zone” in Baghdad, as in military people or engineers or NGO’s then much is happening to make an American and European proud. This is where the rubber meets the road. It has been a difficult process, and still is. We are good people, and without imperialistic ambitions.
The fifth, and last hint of concern is the blurring of the war against terror, and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. To me it is as obvious as day and night. They are different, yes associated, but different. The Islamic fascist terrorists, yes I’ll say these words, are primarily Arabs, but the war is more cultural than locally tribal. I fear any Democratic Party opposition effort, if successful, may drag down another effort of our government to “fight terrorism”.
One of my heroes in life is Colin Powell. He has bridged the gap between national and party politics, the Department of Defense, and the State Department. His “Doctrine” is right on the mark to me. For those who may need a primer here is his doctrine:
The questions posed by the Powell Doctrine, which should be answered affirmatively before military action, are:
Is a vital national security interest threatened?
Do we have a clear attainable objective?
Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
Is the action supported by the American people?
Do we have genuine broad international support?
One thing his Doctrine lays out clearly is our American impatience. We are willing to get involved, and even fight, but we must get it over with and then get out. I agree. Most of our impatience is with do gooders, mostly with incompetence with these do gooders, be they Republicans or Democratics; civilian or military. This vulnerability is big enough for our enemies to drive a train through. All they have to do is drag things out while our do gooders stew.
During Vietnam, I thought all the ignorant, although well intentioned, appointed civilian leaders were Democrats. Now I know Republicans can suffer from the same, and have.
My father used to refer to educated fools. Now I think I understand him a little better.
I will digress to today and the problems in Iraq, most importantly Baghdad. As I read the news today, one option is a quick and short step up for more American troops in the capital city of Baghdad.
Back to the subject question: Do American politicians know how to fight wars in pursuit of national objectives?
Unless the elected leaders and their appointed civilian scribes dictate any “rules” change, no amount of extra military fighters will change things. Today’s rules proscribe a way of war that has failed. I am from the school that says “reinforce success” not “failure”.
Until our President and his minions change what they have been doing to date, then they have already ordained their losing to the dedicated opposition in Iraq, I think. And this will spill over to the entire war on terror if these same D.C. people have their way.
In the President’s defense, all of his predecessors in the Oval Office have passed the buck, starting with Carter in my calendar. Those in Congress are about as bad. At least this President is “not passing the buck”, be that good or bad. I just wish the decisions had been different.
It is my opinion that our politicians don’t know how to fight wars in pursuit of national objectives. They do know how to be American politicians that may reflect the public. More often they reflect themselves.
It is up to us voters to decide. Thank goodness.
This is a difficult article to write because I fear any criticism will be selectively used by my political opponents. My fear is of politicians and their employees who know how to complain, but not offer any solutions other than giving in to our enemies national and tribal objectives. I am from the school of thought that says complain all you want, but then offer up other courses of action for decision makers.
This article is also difficult to write because I can use hindsight, and who wouldn’t. I can also say hindsight for me is more an “I told you so” than “things turned out differently than I expected”.
This article is also difficult to write because it exposes a defect in our American culture and persona that I really don’t want my adversaries knowing about.
Last, this article is difficult to write about because we are in a shooting war, and the timing of criticisms is best postponed in most cases.
I hope this article does just the opposite and leads to achieving our national objectives.
I got the first hint of concern about our ability to prosecute a war when Congress and the President could not even declare war after 9/11. The alternative was a bill authorizing this and that, but it was not an old fashioned Declaration of War. The idea of wars being between states is historical, but we have also waged war against groups, as in the Barbary Pirates. Yet our leaders avoided the Declaration of War intimations by seeking the alternative legislation. The mistrust left over from the Gulf of Tonkin resolution was still there, even though New York City and the Pentagon and Pennsylvania were still smoldering. Hard to believe.
I got the first hint of hope in the prosecution of the Afghan campaign. It seemed the unity of effort between the Department of Defense, CIA, and the State Department implied one person was in charge, probably the President.
I got the second hint of concern right after the brilliant campaign to take Iraq in the three weeks it took to take Baghdad. It became obvious to me that while we had a plan to win the war, we did not have a plan to win the peace. I ate a lot of crow over this. Later even TV pundits were saying things like we have two months left in the window of opportunity to win the peace. Well the window closed, and look at the bag of worms we have today. I fault our President for not putting one person in charge for all to see, or stepping up and being that person who knocks heads to get unity of effort. Even today, I cannot find one person in charge of our Iraq effort below the President.
Along the way in Iraq, our Department of Defense started rebuilding the Iraqi military. What a monumental strategic mistake. Militaries are trained and equipped to defend borders. That’s where our time and money went in this area. What Iraq needed first was a trained and equipped constabulary to provide the normal police protections we expect. That got second shrift, and we are still paying for this mistake in winning the peace. If this seems confusing, just think about how our military is equipped and trained compared to our local police. In the case of Iraq, which force would you bring up first?
The third hint of concern I got was the apparent miasma and symbiosis of the media and the Democratic Party and left over anti-Vietnam types. Two things stuck out to me. One was the euphoria of the old 60’s in marching and protesting for all that is good in the world. The other thing was the use of old fashioned propaganda. Say one idea often enough, and it “must be true”, even if it isn’t. This was shameless work by those who thought differently about the war in Iraq. There are more responsible ways to proceed.
The fourth hint of concern was the inception of the “Green Zone”. If I were in charge, I would have done the same. After all, personal safety is a basic tenet of any government. Yet out of this good effort has come skewed perceptions and decisions and reporting that would come out of any protected bastion in any part of the world. Those who operate in a vacuum probably don’t know what is going on elsewhere. The best example today is the parachute type reporting of the horrible sectarian fighting in Baghdad. I suggest our reporters on TV most likely have no idea of anything else going on in Iraq. And if I were them, I probably would stay safely inside the Green Zone. Ditto for the State Department types.
If one gets out of the “Green Zone” in Baghdad, as in military people or engineers or NGO’s then much is happening to make an American and European proud. This is where the rubber meets the road. It has been a difficult process, and still is. We are good people, and without imperialistic ambitions.
The fifth, and last hint of concern is the blurring of the war against terror, and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. To me it is as obvious as day and night. They are different, yes associated, but different. The Islamic fascist terrorists, yes I’ll say these words, are primarily Arabs, but the war is more cultural than locally tribal. I fear any Democratic Party opposition effort, if successful, may drag down another effort of our government to “fight terrorism”.
One of my heroes in life is Colin Powell. He has bridged the gap between national and party politics, the Department of Defense, and the State Department. His “Doctrine” is right on the mark to me. For those who may need a primer here is his doctrine:
The questions posed by the Powell Doctrine, which should be answered affirmatively before military action, are:
Is a vital national security interest threatened?
Do we have a clear attainable objective?
Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
Is the action supported by the American people?
Do we have genuine broad international support?
One thing his Doctrine lays out clearly is our American impatience. We are willing to get involved, and even fight, but we must get it over with and then get out. I agree. Most of our impatience is with do gooders, mostly with incompetence with these do gooders, be they Republicans or Democratics; civilian or military. This vulnerability is big enough for our enemies to drive a train through. All they have to do is drag things out while our do gooders stew.
During Vietnam, I thought all the ignorant, although well intentioned, appointed civilian leaders were Democrats. Now I know Republicans can suffer from the same, and have.
My father used to refer to educated fools. Now I think I understand him a little better.
I will digress to today and the problems in Iraq, most importantly Baghdad. As I read the news today, one option is a quick and short step up for more American troops in the capital city of Baghdad.
Back to the subject question: Do American politicians know how to fight wars in pursuit of national objectives?
Unless the elected leaders and their appointed civilian scribes dictate any “rules” change, no amount of extra military fighters will change things. Today’s rules proscribe a way of war that has failed. I am from the school that says “reinforce success” not “failure”.
Until our President and his minions change what they have been doing to date, then they have already ordained their losing to the dedicated opposition in Iraq, I think. And this will spill over to the entire war on terror if these same D.C. people have their way.
In the President’s defense, all of his predecessors in the Oval Office have passed the buck, starting with Carter in my calendar. Those in Congress are about as bad. At least this President is “not passing the buck”, be that good or bad. I just wish the decisions had been different.
It is my opinion that our politicians don’t know how to fight wars in pursuit of national objectives. They do know how to be American politicians that may reflect the public. More often they reflect themselves.
It is up to us voters to decide. Thank goodness.
How knowledgeable about the Middle East area are we Americans?
I am not sure of the answer the more I listen and read and use my prior education, civilian and military.
Forget TV in all its media means.
Most of my fellow citizens are just as well intentioned as I am, and often come to different conclusions. I suspect the reason is mostly personal experience. The other main reasons I suspect is their homework and their sources of information.
I also suspect this friction and dichotomy is as old as human history. It could be as short as American history.
Now I get to live the history during my life. I think most of the people reading this article are well informed and educated to their satisfaction. It is the rest of our citizens I will guess about.
Our nation has a long history of isolationism and withdrawal from the old world. FDR dealt with it, and this national instinct is still alive and well today. Now we will deal with it. Between our oceans’ protections and our new world principles, the idea is that we are better than the rest of the old world, and let the rest of the old world sort it out, without us. Another way it is expressed is “give peace a chance” and “diplomacy” first. Another way it is expressed is in terms of national strength, that is, we are simply too weak to do much about things without a national mobilization.
On to the latest old world problem that affects us USA types. On 9/11 we were attacked out of nowhere, and 3,000 people who simply went to work died just for being Americans in America. Somehow the oceans were no longer a simple defense, assuming we needed a defense.
Now I read and sense the political cross currents of those analyzing the people who killed 3,000 American citizens, and why and how. In this process, I evaluate how much information those who are still alive know and use. I also recognize the political aspect of all this, in that politicians and maybe media types will taint the information to promote their cause and be obtuse to the rest of us citizens, who vote by the way.
The preceding is a fancy way of saying politicians and media types can be disingenuous. We all know this.
What I think is that we American citizens are smarter than many politicians and maybe media types. We all know directly or indirectly the difference between Sunnis and Shiites; and Persians, Arabs, Kurds, Jews and the other polyglots of groups; Bathists and other dictatorial groups; and lastly nation-states and tribes. And we are familiar with all their frictions.
I just wish the oncoming Democratic head of the Intelligence Committee in the House knew as much, and he is a good guy.
Then there is the appalling (to me) ignorance and perceptions about our military, based mostly on lack of experience by those not trained in this most ancient and noble art. Yes, few of us are born to anything; most of us have to be trained. When I hear armchair generals describing why and how we can’t even subjugate a little country like Iraq, I wish they knew to look to their civilian leaders (both elected and appointed) first. And when I read about using nukes in Iran as a regional version of MAD, I often wonder if these proponents have thought about the tom foolery of Iran’s enemies, or the down range fallout pattern effects on Pakistan and India. Last on this subject, military experience is no guarantee of good judgment. Kerry and Rangel come to my mind.
The Middle East is a caldron of competing histories, ideas, religions, frustrations, and expectations. The USA would normally use our trained State Department in the old days to deal with this area. The 9/11 attacks changed everything, and now when we go to bed at night we often think about our USA security for us and our children. Often when we wake up, many go to their news to see what atrocity has occurred in the rest of the world while we were sleeping.
It is to our advantage to learn as much as we can, assuming we are starting from scratch. Then keep learning. And I think most of us are way past “scratch” in determining America’s national interests and America’s path to going forward.
I am not sure of the answer the more I listen and read and use my prior education, civilian and military.
Forget TV in all its media means.
Most of my fellow citizens are just as well intentioned as I am, and often come to different conclusions. I suspect the reason is mostly personal experience. The other main reasons I suspect is their homework and their sources of information.
I also suspect this friction and dichotomy is as old as human history. It could be as short as American history.
Now I get to live the history during my life. I think most of the people reading this article are well informed and educated to their satisfaction. It is the rest of our citizens I will guess about.
Our nation has a long history of isolationism and withdrawal from the old world. FDR dealt with it, and this national instinct is still alive and well today. Now we will deal with it. Between our oceans’ protections and our new world principles, the idea is that we are better than the rest of the old world, and let the rest of the old world sort it out, without us. Another way it is expressed is “give peace a chance” and “diplomacy” first. Another way it is expressed is in terms of national strength, that is, we are simply too weak to do much about things without a national mobilization.
On to the latest old world problem that affects us USA types. On 9/11 we were attacked out of nowhere, and 3,000 people who simply went to work died just for being Americans in America. Somehow the oceans were no longer a simple defense, assuming we needed a defense.
Now I read and sense the political cross currents of those analyzing the people who killed 3,000 American citizens, and why and how. In this process, I evaluate how much information those who are still alive know and use. I also recognize the political aspect of all this, in that politicians and maybe media types will taint the information to promote their cause and be obtuse to the rest of us citizens, who vote by the way.
The preceding is a fancy way of saying politicians and media types can be disingenuous. We all know this.
What I think is that we American citizens are smarter than many politicians and maybe media types. We all know directly or indirectly the difference between Sunnis and Shiites; and Persians, Arabs, Kurds, Jews and the other polyglots of groups; Bathists and other dictatorial groups; and lastly nation-states and tribes. And we are familiar with all their frictions.
I just wish the oncoming Democratic head of the Intelligence Committee in the House knew as much, and he is a good guy.
Then there is the appalling (to me) ignorance and perceptions about our military, based mostly on lack of experience by those not trained in this most ancient and noble art. Yes, few of us are born to anything; most of us have to be trained. When I hear armchair generals describing why and how we can’t even subjugate a little country like Iraq, I wish they knew to look to their civilian leaders (both elected and appointed) first. And when I read about using nukes in Iran as a regional version of MAD, I often wonder if these proponents have thought about the tom foolery of Iran’s enemies, or the down range fallout pattern effects on Pakistan and India. Last on this subject, military experience is no guarantee of good judgment. Kerry and Rangel come to my mind.
The Middle East is a caldron of competing histories, ideas, religions, frustrations, and expectations. The USA would normally use our trained State Department in the old days to deal with this area. The 9/11 attacks changed everything, and now when we go to bed at night we often think about our USA security for us and our children. Often when we wake up, many go to their news to see what atrocity has occurred in the rest of the world while we were sleeping.
It is to our advantage to learn as much as we can, assuming we are starting from scratch. Then keep learning. And I think most of us are way past “scratch” in determining America’s national interests and America’s path to going forward.
Sunday, December 17, 2006
Sex as young people, has anything changed?
The buzz word today is: a friend, with privileges. To this naïve old guy this means she puts out.
And oral sex is not considered a sexual act by many of todays high school and earlier girls. God, I wish I could go back to high school. And damn Clinton. A blow job is a blow job. I like it.
I could go on, but the bottom line is the principal of boys and girls and hormones raging is something we parents want to try control, but they probably will do what we tried to do, in our way. I think my parents thought the same, and I think teenage sex in the back seat of cars is more normal than parents money buying motel rooms. Maybe I am out of step.
Girls help me out. Hormones count both ways.
We adults need to promote chastity and marriage. That is a good solution.
Now I read books about the obvious. The style and politics have changed, but boys and girls want to get together in the mean time. Nothing has changed, in the end.
Maybe some of the third world (to include Islamic) friction has to do with the ability of our society to ignore boys and girls getting together.
As a parent of a daughter, I want to protect her from hormonal male instinct to have sex with her. I think I know all the lines about putting out. As a father, I also think she wants to connect because of her hormones, albeit with some counseling, I hope. Wish me luck. I will be hard and direct. I may lose.
You know what. Maybe some of our old time old world standards may still apply. To me this means women run the world, albeit indirectly. Their control of birth control has huge implications, to include in the west and the east, and is an obvious example. Mature women know this, teenage girls don’t.
Reinventing the past may be a path to our future.
The buzz word today is: a friend, with privileges. To this naïve old guy this means she puts out.
And oral sex is not considered a sexual act by many of todays high school and earlier girls. God, I wish I could go back to high school. And damn Clinton. A blow job is a blow job. I like it.
I could go on, but the bottom line is the principal of boys and girls and hormones raging is something we parents want to try control, but they probably will do what we tried to do, in our way. I think my parents thought the same, and I think teenage sex in the back seat of cars is more normal than parents money buying motel rooms. Maybe I am out of step.
Girls help me out. Hormones count both ways.
We adults need to promote chastity and marriage. That is a good solution.
Now I read books about the obvious. The style and politics have changed, but boys and girls want to get together in the mean time. Nothing has changed, in the end.
Maybe some of the third world (to include Islamic) friction has to do with the ability of our society to ignore boys and girls getting together.
As a parent of a daughter, I want to protect her from hormonal male instinct to have sex with her. I think I know all the lines about putting out. As a father, I also think she wants to connect because of her hormones, albeit with some counseling, I hope. Wish me luck. I will be hard and direct. I may lose.
You know what. Maybe some of our old time old world standards may still apply. To me this means women run the world, albeit indirectly. Their control of birth control has huge implications, to include in the west and the east, and is an obvious example. Mature women know this, teenage girls don’t.
Reinventing the past may be a path to our future.
Friday, December 15, 2006
Sometimes you have to fight for your way of life
I never thought I would get to this point of even mentioning the subject. It is all too obvious to me.
But here it is for those who think we can always talk our way out of confrontation with those who want to do us and our children in.
The talk-our-way-out-way solutions tend to follow three lines of reasoning as I hear them.
A. Our society and beliefs are the problem.
B. We can change to win the hearts and minds of those who want to kill us and our children.
C. We can wait them out, and it will all go away.
Then there are the realist solutions that tend to follow three lines of reasoning, again as I hear them.
A. The third world middle east is culturally a cesspool that only dictators and oil oligarchies can manage to our benefit; if we support them militarily, financially, and with policy of our country to continue them in control.
B. Let them kill themselves, all.
C. The Israeli and Palestinian friction is the real cause of today’s problems in the region. Get them to sing Kum Ba Yah together and the rest will go away.
Last there is the U.N. question about why establish a Jewish Homeland, and where. The idea came out of WWII after the holocaust, and then where. Sites all over the world were considered to include Alaska, Ohio, Madagascar, west Africa, the present location, and even parts of Europe. In the end it was a political decision, and our President Truman had something to do with strong-arming the decision of the U.N. to establish Israel where it is today. Good or bad, it is a legal U.N. decision. I personally think it was a bad decision, but it was legal and I support it today.
For even doing this history in an earlier article, I have been threatened by a muslim. So much for public debate and free discussion. And where I live, his life is in jeopardy just by showing up. He will find out.
Back to the point of this article. Three thousand of my fellow citizens who just went to work on 9/11 died under attack, no fault of their own. The attack worked in my mind tactically because it cost us lives and billions of dollars in our economy. The bad guys attacked our centers of gravity, and affected some of them. Strategically, they lost. Between our President and our citizenry, they awakened a “sleeping giant”. Subsequent political efforts to say otherwise are off the mark. Even the terrible results reported in the main stream media about the war in Iraq don’t change my idea of going to sleep in my home tonight and thinking I and my children are safe. I thank my government for this good feeling, to include federal, state, and city people. Good on ‘em and thank you.
Now it is time to fight. I mean in Iraq to chose sides and kill our local enemies that interfere with OUR goals. It will be amazing how quick this can be done within Iraq; and then we can revert to the nation building ideas where Iraqi normal people like you and me can do the things that help their families to include expecting safety and yes, having to pay taxes to the government and not the local mufti.
Now it is time to fight the Syrians and Iranians by war. No holds barred. Just using intelligence and attacking the sources is reasonable. Borders of these nation states are now a two way street. They started it, now let’s use it. Eventually, enough people will run away, be killed, or the politicians who send them in harms way will have to recalculate.
In the end, the question I have is are we willing to fight for our way of life? Others may pick another course of action. But, by golly, this is my recommended course of action.
I never thought I would get to this point of even mentioning the subject. It is all too obvious to me.
But here it is for those who think we can always talk our way out of confrontation with those who want to do us and our children in.
The talk-our-way-out-way solutions tend to follow three lines of reasoning as I hear them.
A. Our society and beliefs are the problem.
B. We can change to win the hearts and minds of those who want to kill us and our children.
C. We can wait them out, and it will all go away.
Then there are the realist solutions that tend to follow three lines of reasoning, again as I hear them.
A. The third world middle east is culturally a cesspool that only dictators and oil oligarchies can manage to our benefit; if we support them militarily, financially, and with policy of our country to continue them in control.
B. Let them kill themselves, all.
C. The Israeli and Palestinian friction is the real cause of today’s problems in the region. Get them to sing Kum Ba Yah together and the rest will go away.
Last there is the U.N. question about why establish a Jewish Homeland, and where. The idea came out of WWII after the holocaust, and then where. Sites all over the world were considered to include Alaska, Ohio, Madagascar, west Africa, the present location, and even parts of Europe. In the end it was a political decision, and our President Truman had something to do with strong-arming the decision of the U.N. to establish Israel where it is today. Good or bad, it is a legal U.N. decision. I personally think it was a bad decision, but it was legal and I support it today.
For even doing this history in an earlier article, I have been threatened by a muslim. So much for public debate and free discussion. And where I live, his life is in jeopardy just by showing up. He will find out.
Back to the point of this article. Three thousand of my fellow citizens who just went to work on 9/11 died under attack, no fault of their own. The attack worked in my mind tactically because it cost us lives and billions of dollars in our economy. The bad guys attacked our centers of gravity, and affected some of them. Strategically, they lost. Between our President and our citizenry, they awakened a “sleeping giant”. Subsequent political efforts to say otherwise are off the mark. Even the terrible results reported in the main stream media about the war in Iraq don’t change my idea of going to sleep in my home tonight and thinking I and my children are safe. I thank my government for this good feeling, to include federal, state, and city people. Good on ‘em and thank you.
Now it is time to fight. I mean in Iraq to chose sides and kill our local enemies that interfere with OUR goals. It will be amazing how quick this can be done within Iraq; and then we can revert to the nation building ideas where Iraqi normal people like you and me can do the things that help their families to include expecting safety and yes, having to pay taxes to the government and not the local mufti.
Now it is time to fight the Syrians and Iranians by war. No holds barred. Just using intelligence and attacking the sources is reasonable. Borders of these nation states are now a two way street. They started it, now let’s use it. Eventually, enough people will run away, be killed, or the politicians who send them in harms way will have to recalculate.
In the end, the question I have is are we willing to fight for our way of life? Others may pick another course of action. But, by golly, this is my recommended course of action.
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
It’s a wash
I’ve just read another D.C. based article about the near political future. It’s boring for one who seeks to be an informed citizen. The article implies that those who write can influence the D.C. types, which I believe; and even extrapolates that these words can influence us unwashed citizens of the country, sometimes called the USA.
I’ve recently read another article that suggests the times have changed. The bottom line is who cares what they write because we don’t care or give any credibility to this speech. Common and family sense applies. It is our sons and daughters, after all.
In a reverse sort of way, maybe we children of the 60’s can really implement the goals of bettering the world, in our vision.
So why is there any fashion interest in today’s media reporting. I do wonder when I hear that People magazine now makes more money than Time magazine, which I ignore. I did not leave Time, it left me.
Let’s go forward. People seeking to be informed citizens just need to shop around. Maybe 20 years from now, it will be easy, but that is not the case today.
I do not offer sales pitches as to what to read to be an informed citizen. You go figure. You do have good choices. Just know what comes out of NYC and D.C. may suffer from “union type” words, media megalomania, and the intense news cycle. None of this is natural. It has all appeared since the 60’s and will disappear of its own weight, eventually.
The present example is what to do in Iraq. I ignore anything written inside the beltway and NYC as the opinion of those writing to each other. Their words don’t help this common citizen think and decide. I have to throw my news net farther. In my case, any Iraq news from a media person reporting from the “Green Zone” in Baghdad is just reverberation reporting of other reports from mostly locals. And time after time this method has been subject to the normal propaganda methods that are endemic to the society that thinks deceit is normal, which it is to most. I know this. Why has most US media become complacent? I don’t think it is as much politics as ignorance. Either way, I tune them out.
All I want to be is an informed citizen who can debate the issues of our day in a civil manner. Today, this is difficult.
I’ve just read another D.C. based article about the near political future. It’s boring for one who seeks to be an informed citizen. The article implies that those who write can influence the D.C. types, which I believe; and even extrapolates that these words can influence us unwashed citizens of the country, sometimes called the USA.
I’ve recently read another article that suggests the times have changed. The bottom line is who cares what they write because we don’t care or give any credibility to this speech. Common and family sense applies. It is our sons and daughters, after all.
In a reverse sort of way, maybe we children of the 60’s can really implement the goals of bettering the world, in our vision.
So why is there any fashion interest in today’s media reporting. I do wonder when I hear that People magazine now makes more money than Time magazine, which I ignore. I did not leave Time, it left me.
Let’s go forward. People seeking to be informed citizens just need to shop around. Maybe 20 years from now, it will be easy, but that is not the case today.
I do not offer sales pitches as to what to read to be an informed citizen. You go figure. You do have good choices. Just know what comes out of NYC and D.C. may suffer from “union type” words, media megalomania, and the intense news cycle. None of this is natural. It has all appeared since the 60’s and will disappear of its own weight, eventually.
The present example is what to do in Iraq. I ignore anything written inside the beltway and NYC as the opinion of those writing to each other. Their words don’t help this common citizen think and decide. I have to throw my news net farther. In my case, any Iraq news from a media person reporting from the “Green Zone” in Baghdad is just reverberation reporting of other reports from mostly locals. And time after time this method has been subject to the normal propaganda methods that are endemic to the society that thinks deceit is normal, which it is to most. I know this. Why has most US media become complacent? I don’t think it is as much politics as ignorance. Either way, I tune them out.
All I want to be is an informed citizen who can debate the issues of our day in a civil manner. Today, this is difficult.
Monday, December 11, 2006
Maybe America may survive
The times they are a changing.
The recent takeover of Congress by the Democratic Party says many things.
One thing I feel in my Tennessee part of the country is concern for the country, not the party. This means those elected are more American patriots than blind followers of the old guard (and left over from the 60’s) that will assume leadership positions.
Those extreme politicians on the left and right that plot to take power have been superseded by patriots that act in the USA (our) interest. They may not know it yet.
I want to wish the new Democratic leaders bad luck in trying to impose their politics on their serfs. I am confident bad luck for them will follow. Unless the serfs take over, which is my hope, then it will take an election to do all this. I am also confident that good luck will follow those that vote for the country, be they be Republicans or Democrats.
Those media pundits (newspaper and internet) that write to each other are dinosaurs. For example, they cannot nominate and elect Barack Obama, only we citizens can.
And they cannot decide in their way how our Iraq war will turn out. We citizens will vote and decide all this after reviewing how our President is doing. After all, it is our sons and daughters. In Tennessee, we are harsh in our review of his performance to date. And always we think about how the bad guys may get us in our homes. Our thoughts and votes count more than all the daily articles that come out of the beltway and its associated urban links. I think we have advanced beyond Rome, I hope.
In the same way, our enemies who use a strategy of defeating the USA in Washington, D.C. appear to have a good plan. One can lose in the local area, but one can win in D.C.
For my fellow 3,000 citizens in the World Trade Center who went to work and died, and my fellow 240 mostly Marines who died in the Beirut barracks bombing I don’t forget. Add in Col. Rich Higgins.
Anyway, this is what I think and report.
The times they are a changing.
The recent takeover of Congress by the Democratic Party says many things.
One thing I feel in my Tennessee part of the country is concern for the country, not the party. This means those elected are more American patriots than blind followers of the old guard (and left over from the 60’s) that will assume leadership positions.
Those extreme politicians on the left and right that plot to take power have been superseded by patriots that act in the USA (our) interest. They may not know it yet.
I want to wish the new Democratic leaders bad luck in trying to impose their politics on their serfs. I am confident bad luck for them will follow. Unless the serfs take over, which is my hope, then it will take an election to do all this. I am also confident that good luck will follow those that vote for the country, be they be Republicans or Democrats.
Those media pundits (newspaper and internet) that write to each other are dinosaurs. For example, they cannot nominate and elect Barack Obama, only we citizens can.
And they cannot decide in their way how our Iraq war will turn out. We citizens will vote and decide all this after reviewing how our President is doing. After all, it is our sons and daughters. In Tennessee, we are harsh in our review of his performance to date. And always we think about how the bad guys may get us in our homes. Our thoughts and votes count more than all the daily articles that come out of the beltway and its associated urban links. I think we have advanced beyond Rome, I hope.
In the same way, our enemies who use a strategy of defeating the USA in Washington, D.C. appear to have a good plan. One can lose in the local area, but one can win in D.C.
For my fellow 3,000 citizens in the World Trade Center who went to work and died, and my fellow 240 mostly Marines who died in the Beirut barracks bombing I don’t forget. Add in Col. Rich Higgins.
Anyway, this is what I think and report.
Friday, December 01, 2006
It is a privilege in life to live and vote in the USA
There is much friction in our country, mostly about are we a best society the world can produce.
I think the New World idea still works as an objective for the whole world, and I mean the whole world. Two obvious things come to mind. The Old European style we emigrated from is not our USA style. And the Islamic voice from the past is also not our USA style. And there are many other styles around our globe, I call them tribes.
All tribes just want to reproduce their progeny, and along the way preserve a way of their life. Most are like normal humans, and will accept changes in their way of life based on circumstances. And all tribes will tolerate their leaders going about things in their way.
For us Americans, many bad people, mostly international thugs guised in religious and political causes, fight us, and the media is sympathetic to their cause. Why they are sympathetic is still up for grabs. Right now I predict this “child of the 60’s group” will die out in the end and the media will begin to look more like we American people. As a Marine, a thug is a thug. Sort of sounds like the USA in the 1930s fighting the then invaders, the mafia and its culture and the Nazi’s. I can go back to the Civil War but I will stop here now.
We Americans are a good people. Our ancestors made it this way when they invented a constitution for loyalty. We have a naturally golden rule idea of discourse.
I predict and encourage the idea of discourse. Let’s civilly debate ideas, argue, vote, and go forward. This idea is the American way.
I think we in the New World are the hope and example for the humans future on our globe. We in the USA are especially privileged. We may have to fight for this idea. Right now I think the light bulb is dim, but I think it will go on.
I am worried that some of my fellow citizens think our way of life is normal, that is there is no threat to this way of life. Others have felt this way, to include the Romans.
Our ideas can be different. Our goals can be similar, I suspect.
Clay Williams
There is much friction in our country, mostly about are we a best society the world can produce.
I think the New World idea still works as an objective for the whole world, and I mean the whole world. Two obvious things come to mind. The Old European style we emigrated from is not our USA style. And the Islamic voice from the past is also not our USA style. And there are many other styles around our globe, I call them tribes.
All tribes just want to reproduce their progeny, and along the way preserve a way of their life. Most are like normal humans, and will accept changes in their way of life based on circumstances. And all tribes will tolerate their leaders going about things in their way.
For us Americans, many bad people, mostly international thugs guised in religious and political causes, fight us, and the media is sympathetic to their cause. Why they are sympathetic is still up for grabs. Right now I predict this “child of the 60’s group” will die out in the end and the media will begin to look more like we American people. As a Marine, a thug is a thug. Sort of sounds like the USA in the 1930s fighting the then invaders, the mafia and its culture and the Nazi’s. I can go back to the Civil War but I will stop here now.
We Americans are a good people. Our ancestors made it this way when they invented a constitution for loyalty. We have a naturally golden rule idea of discourse.
I predict and encourage the idea of discourse. Let’s civilly debate ideas, argue, vote, and go forward. This idea is the American way.
I think we in the New World are the hope and example for the humans future on our globe. We in the USA are especially privileged. We may have to fight for this idea. Right now I think the light bulb is dim, but I think it will go on.
I am worried that some of my fellow citizens think our way of life is normal, that is there is no threat to this way of life. Others have felt this way, to include the Romans.
Our ideas can be different. Our goals can be similar, I suspect.
Clay Williams
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)