Video foreign policy has run its course
The old days of media video transmitted by TV of the most terrible circumstances of mans' inhumanity to man still continue. What doesn’t continue is the savvy of the politicians and the voters who have been burned by letting emotionalism drive rationalism.
How else did the US get dragged into committing its military to the Balkans and Somalia. And these commitments of our military can go on for decades. Look at the Sinai and the Balkans. Forget the post WWII and Korea forces still there … they make more sense. And do remember when reporting media types and politicians talk about committing the military, as if it were some automaton robot they can wield as some geopolitical sword to accomplish their objective, they are really talking about fellow humans and Americans with families.
What is the final nail in the coffin of video foreign policy is this: If one doesn’t like what one commander-in-chief does, and if one thinks that 535 congressional mini-commanders-in-chief and secretaries of state are worse, imagine thousands of reporting media types, to include producers and editors trying to lead politicians to do their various moral quests. Suddenly, the established political system of politicians deciding about vital National Interests, and voters periodically influencing all this, makes more sense.
The atrocities and moral outrages going on around the world are just terrible. They include the Horn of Africa, Darfur in the Sudan, Zimbabwe, the Middle East, Kashmir, Sri Lanka, southern Thailand, Moro land in the Philippines, and the narco-states in South America. This is a business rich environment for the profit level reporting of business managers of the reporting media, and their hired minions. But are we going to let these business managers who devote assets to where they can generate the most terrible video scenes, that do generate income, also decide our foreign policy. Are we going to let them and their hired minions’ moral compasses which guide their reporting get our boys and girls killed in Darfur, for example. And how about the places where the bad guys kill and kidnap their assets? Does that mean it is not important because it can’t be reported in the Western video press?
How about some others pulling their weight, if it is “really” important. The International Brigades of the Spanish Civil War come to mind. Or do the western types who video report and suggest sending others in to “where ever” have more in common with those who send in suicide bombers than is at first apparent?
Saturday, April 28, 2007
Group votes have a history of shifting
Up until the Great Mississippi River flood of 1927, Negroes voted as a block for Republicans. Since then the history up until now is that they vote 90% of so for Democrats. And the Jewish vote has in the past 50 years tended to be Democrat. And the so called Southern strategy by the Republicans has been given credit for turning the politicians in the South from Democrats to Republicans. All the aforementioned suggests campaign planners hired by politicians have confidence that they have some groups in the bag. All they have to do is say the right things to get the group’s votes. Then they can focus on more volatile voters. Boy have the times changed, though some still do not know it yet.
Being born and brought up one way is powerful when it comes to politics and family. I have too many relatives and friends whom I respect a lot who say they were brought up Democratic, and they will always vote that way. This is an attention gainer, especially when I hear some older relatives and friends express frustration at the leftist tilt of the Democratic party today. The frustration I hear is that they have not changed, but their party has changed. This principle is pretty simple. Sometimes the Party leaves the people vice the alternative. And then the group shifts its votes.
In the Negro vote shift after the 1927 massive floods, the principle is also simple. The Democrats had a better way for the government to help people wiped out by mother nature. The alternative by the Republicans used the status quo, which planned to use private enterprise to recover and at all means avoid creating a dependency on the government. While one can argue the merits of both ideas, the voters voted, and the Democrats had a Negro block vote they counted on for decades, and long after the effects of the flood were taken care of. Now today we have a Democratic candidate using southern drawl and black talk to speak to one of her perceived block audiences in the country, who speak American with an American accent as if she believes that all people of this block speak her other way. Pardon me, but I am offended at this blatantly racist display of condescension. Our Country needs a national leader, not a block vote panderer. And Negroes, finally as equal citizens, have issues like education of children and protection from crime from low lifes that is up for competitive electioneering by the two main parties.
The reasons for the Jewish vote consistently being Democratic is still beyond me. After all, look at the positions of the two parties. On domestic issues, one might concede a Democratic tilt. On foreign issues and Israel being an ally, it is all Republican, it seems. Just listen to what the Democratic candidates are saying in the so called debates to make up your own mind. Of course the issue still is how does the Jewish vote goes, and is it a block vote?
And now on to the so called Southern strategy allegedly used by Republicans to change representatives from Democrats to Republicans. This strategy suggests Southern white threatened and poorly educated voters will vote as a block. First, there is no such group, and second, people vote local. And local issues are not block issues. There is no anti-negro vote, for example. One might even suggest that the well intentioned gerrymandering efforts of the Democrats and the Courts that created mostly Negro districts have had more to do with reducing the effect of the Negro vote than any racist scheme. Some call this the law of unintended consequences. One of the unintended consequences is that Negroes in the now majority white districts also demand representation, and this idea alone is breaking up the old block vote. Suddenly the issues are less race than those of urban vs. country, rich vs. poor, and of course control of public education. In the latter, the friction becomes more local, as in high standards for teachers and kids vs. the status quo. If one lives in the South, for example, one knows that all private and public schools are not created equal, and the difference is in leadership at the local level. If this sounds like the rest of the country, it is because it is the same.
Many communities are also impacted by immigration, often illegal and from south of the border. What seems amazing to me is the apparent competition for the votes of this new potential class of citizens, and the assumption this new class will vote as a block. I suggest the law of unintended consequences will assert itself, once again.
So is the political business of the last 50 years still as usual today? Are the hired political managers suggesting their candidate say the right things to get a block vote correct? Many don’t think so.
Up until the Great Mississippi River flood of 1927, Negroes voted as a block for Republicans. Since then the history up until now is that they vote 90% of so for Democrats. And the Jewish vote has in the past 50 years tended to be Democrat. And the so called Southern strategy by the Republicans has been given credit for turning the politicians in the South from Democrats to Republicans. All the aforementioned suggests campaign planners hired by politicians have confidence that they have some groups in the bag. All they have to do is say the right things to get the group’s votes. Then they can focus on more volatile voters. Boy have the times changed, though some still do not know it yet.
Being born and brought up one way is powerful when it comes to politics and family. I have too many relatives and friends whom I respect a lot who say they were brought up Democratic, and they will always vote that way. This is an attention gainer, especially when I hear some older relatives and friends express frustration at the leftist tilt of the Democratic party today. The frustration I hear is that they have not changed, but their party has changed. This principle is pretty simple. Sometimes the Party leaves the people vice the alternative. And then the group shifts its votes.
In the Negro vote shift after the 1927 massive floods, the principle is also simple. The Democrats had a better way for the government to help people wiped out by mother nature. The alternative by the Republicans used the status quo, which planned to use private enterprise to recover and at all means avoid creating a dependency on the government. While one can argue the merits of both ideas, the voters voted, and the Democrats had a Negro block vote they counted on for decades, and long after the effects of the flood were taken care of. Now today we have a Democratic candidate using southern drawl and black talk to speak to one of her perceived block audiences in the country, who speak American with an American accent as if she believes that all people of this block speak her other way. Pardon me, but I am offended at this blatantly racist display of condescension. Our Country needs a national leader, not a block vote panderer. And Negroes, finally as equal citizens, have issues like education of children and protection from crime from low lifes that is up for competitive electioneering by the two main parties.
The reasons for the Jewish vote consistently being Democratic is still beyond me. After all, look at the positions of the two parties. On domestic issues, one might concede a Democratic tilt. On foreign issues and Israel being an ally, it is all Republican, it seems. Just listen to what the Democratic candidates are saying in the so called debates to make up your own mind. Of course the issue still is how does the Jewish vote goes, and is it a block vote?
And now on to the so called Southern strategy allegedly used by Republicans to change representatives from Democrats to Republicans. This strategy suggests Southern white threatened and poorly educated voters will vote as a block. First, there is no such group, and second, people vote local. And local issues are not block issues. There is no anti-negro vote, for example. One might even suggest that the well intentioned gerrymandering efforts of the Democrats and the Courts that created mostly Negro districts have had more to do with reducing the effect of the Negro vote than any racist scheme. Some call this the law of unintended consequences. One of the unintended consequences is that Negroes in the now majority white districts also demand representation, and this idea alone is breaking up the old block vote. Suddenly the issues are less race than those of urban vs. country, rich vs. poor, and of course control of public education. In the latter, the friction becomes more local, as in high standards for teachers and kids vs. the status quo. If one lives in the South, for example, one knows that all private and public schools are not created equal, and the difference is in leadership at the local level. If this sounds like the rest of the country, it is because it is the same.
Many communities are also impacted by immigration, often illegal and from south of the border. What seems amazing to me is the apparent competition for the votes of this new potential class of citizens, and the assumption this new class will vote as a block. I suggest the law of unintended consequences will assert itself, once again.
So is the political business of the last 50 years still as usual today? Are the hired political managers suggesting their candidate say the right things to get a block vote correct? Many don’t think so.
Friday, April 27, 2007
Bullying 101
The increasing crescendo of poor, and often outlandish behavior, by people on the left side of the aisle in the US is surprising to me. Be they politicians, the hired and appointed of the same politicians, reporting media, pundits, fellow citizens, or even relatives, they are people who I think were raised with our common American values. These values include civility, mutual respect, love of country, and pursuit of the facts for facts sake.
Sadly it has not turned out this way. Examples include Democrats not attending General Petraeus's briefings set up for the Congress, snubbing of the President of Columbia all the while seeking audiences with the Presidents of Syria and Venezuela, pursuing Congressional tactics and inquisitions destructive to our National Interests to promote their Party interests, and seemingly inventing and repeating the most outlandish stories often enough to use them as facts.
This behavior has been characterized as many things to include Bush Derangement Syndrome, just plain hatred of Bush and his entire administration, retribution for the alleged 2000 election results which brought us Bush, and a strategy of incivility and opposition to anything Bush. This is a sad state of affairs that a minority of our citizens have led us to, but it still is not American. And the entire group on the left of the aisle should not characterized as some monolithic whole. Only a small portion of this group got us to where we are today.
And so to the point of this post. I now live in the country, having abandoned Atlanta, and have a pack of yard dogs that over the last 5 years has varied from 6 to 8 in numbers. And I see bullying every day by dogs. There seem to be many analogies between what I have seen in my yard, and what I observe humans doing to each other in the US today. It has to do with bullying.
· Bullies only bully those willing to be bullied. Bullies know to be selective in who they can bully.
· Bullies can be males and females.
· Size is not a factor. A bullying ego is a factor.
· Even the most mild mannered bullied dog periodically becomes fed up, and fights back. This usually means medical action by the vet or myself, and a bill to match.
One can apply this bullying behavior to our Country today. Bullying is intolerable, and with dogs one tries things like shock collars and paint ball guns, but in the end a bully is a bully it seems, unless I want to put that dog down. Then another bully dog will probably arise. I have not gone there yet, in either case. With human bullies, things are more difficult, but there are still options. They are called the power of persuasion, and the power of the vote. This is the American way of dealing with this terrible problem, and the sad state it has brought upon us.
PS For the dog lovers among the readers, count me in. My yard dog numbers have varied do to death by old age, and very hungry coyotes closing in during the winters.
The increasing crescendo of poor, and often outlandish behavior, by people on the left side of the aisle in the US is surprising to me. Be they politicians, the hired and appointed of the same politicians, reporting media, pundits, fellow citizens, or even relatives, they are people who I think were raised with our common American values. These values include civility, mutual respect, love of country, and pursuit of the facts for facts sake.
Sadly it has not turned out this way. Examples include Democrats not attending General Petraeus's briefings set up for the Congress, snubbing of the President of Columbia all the while seeking audiences with the Presidents of Syria and Venezuela, pursuing Congressional tactics and inquisitions destructive to our National Interests to promote their Party interests, and seemingly inventing and repeating the most outlandish stories often enough to use them as facts.
This behavior has been characterized as many things to include Bush Derangement Syndrome, just plain hatred of Bush and his entire administration, retribution for the alleged 2000 election results which brought us Bush, and a strategy of incivility and opposition to anything Bush. This is a sad state of affairs that a minority of our citizens have led us to, but it still is not American. And the entire group on the left of the aisle should not characterized as some monolithic whole. Only a small portion of this group got us to where we are today.
And so to the point of this post. I now live in the country, having abandoned Atlanta, and have a pack of yard dogs that over the last 5 years has varied from 6 to 8 in numbers. And I see bullying every day by dogs. There seem to be many analogies between what I have seen in my yard, and what I observe humans doing to each other in the US today. It has to do with bullying.
· Bullies only bully those willing to be bullied. Bullies know to be selective in who they can bully.
· Bullies can be males and females.
· Size is not a factor. A bullying ego is a factor.
· Even the most mild mannered bullied dog periodically becomes fed up, and fights back. This usually means medical action by the vet or myself, and a bill to match.
One can apply this bullying behavior to our Country today. Bullying is intolerable, and with dogs one tries things like shock collars and paint ball guns, but in the end a bully is a bully it seems, unless I want to put that dog down. Then another bully dog will probably arise. I have not gone there yet, in either case. With human bullies, things are more difficult, but there are still options. They are called the power of persuasion, and the power of the vote. This is the American way of dealing with this terrible problem, and the sad state it has brought upon us.
PS For the dog lovers among the readers, count me in. My yard dog numbers have varied do to death by old age, and very hungry coyotes closing in during the winters.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Progress can’t be stopped I heard repeated today by a generation Y person
But progress can also be reversed when in the wrong direction! And just what is this progress that is unstoppable? What is so magic about progress? Sometimes the status quo may have advantages!
Progress has three elements to keep things basic: infrastructure, technology, and humans. Infrastructure means things like public health, transportation, clean water to drink, waste water protection, public education, electricity, and good police protection. Technology means things like computers, communications links, and movies on demand. The human side of progress is where things get more confusing as to what it is. To many it is the advancement of their ideas, their version of the “truth”, especially enhanced by their experience and education. One good example is the emancipation of women. In the west, emancipation is progress; in the east it is the repression of women to serve in their traditional roles. One more good example in the US is the “progress” of expanded individual rights at the expense of group rights. This example is one where some “progress” in the reverse direction is appropriate.
We in the US have a tendency to be spoiled, because we are, when the benefits of progress are so apparent. Most of us think forced air heat and clean running water is a right, not a privilege. Good police and fire protection, financial security, and the electricity coming on when using the switch seem like rights, not privileges. This confusion is even more so on the human side. Are we “progressing” to some more perfect union as defined by those leading the human progress area. For example, is “multiculturalism” vice the “melting pot” progress? Is the present financing of social security progress? And who is this “group” leading we people on the human side of progress in the US? Are they elites using theories and education and their experience, or are they elected representatives more responsive to the citizens?
Because progress in the US is inevitable does not mean one needs to go along with the agenda and dogmas of others who think differently about what progress is. And sometimes progress can be in the wrong direction, and progress in a different direction is called for. This idea mostly applies to the human element of progress. And the elites are not in charge about defining what human progress in the US is. We voters are. Practically applied, fellow citizens seeking public office must discuss what they think about progress and how it affects the voters, mostly in the human area. The US has a good union, and future representatives that lead progress in this union will become the future winners. Right now there are a lot of weak, over-educated, and inexperienced people in too many positions of influence that affect our “progress”. Again, we voters are in charge.
For those who obfuscate “progress” in the US with what the Old Countries are doing, I say it’s of small concern. We are the New World, and the immigration trends reinforce we voters in the US voting for our own version of “progress”.
But progress can also be reversed when in the wrong direction! And just what is this progress that is unstoppable? What is so magic about progress? Sometimes the status quo may have advantages!
Progress has three elements to keep things basic: infrastructure, technology, and humans. Infrastructure means things like public health, transportation, clean water to drink, waste water protection, public education, electricity, and good police protection. Technology means things like computers, communications links, and movies on demand. The human side of progress is where things get more confusing as to what it is. To many it is the advancement of their ideas, their version of the “truth”, especially enhanced by their experience and education. One good example is the emancipation of women. In the west, emancipation is progress; in the east it is the repression of women to serve in their traditional roles. One more good example in the US is the “progress” of expanded individual rights at the expense of group rights. This example is one where some “progress” in the reverse direction is appropriate.
We in the US have a tendency to be spoiled, because we are, when the benefits of progress are so apparent. Most of us think forced air heat and clean running water is a right, not a privilege. Good police and fire protection, financial security, and the electricity coming on when using the switch seem like rights, not privileges. This confusion is even more so on the human side. Are we “progressing” to some more perfect union as defined by those leading the human progress area. For example, is “multiculturalism” vice the “melting pot” progress? Is the present financing of social security progress? And who is this “group” leading we people on the human side of progress in the US? Are they elites using theories and education and their experience, or are they elected representatives more responsive to the citizens?
Because progress in the US is inevitable does not mean one needs to go along with the agenda and dogmas of others who think differently about what progress is. And sometimes progress can be in the wrong direction, and progress in a different direction is called for. This idea mostly applies to the human element of progress. And the elites are not in charge about defining what human progress in the US is. We voters are. Practically applied, fellow citizens seeking public office must discuss what they think about progress and how it affects the voters, mostly in the human area. The US has a good union, and future representatives that lead progress in this union will become the future winners. Right now there are a lot of weak, over-educated, and inexperienced people in too many positions of influence that affect our “progress”. Again, we voters are in charge.
For those who obfuscate “progress” in the US with what the Old Countries are doing, I say it’s of small concern. We are the New World, and the immigration trends reinforce we voters in the US voting for our own version of “progress”.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
National Party interests must be about the US first
It is more than a little bit frustrating when one observes and hears politicians’ comments that suggest Party interests are above our National Interests. Wherever this malady began, it must be excised by the voters. No one else can do it. And our Nation and we citizens are so much more important than National parties and their practicing politicians. Those who lead by focus groups and polls are especially detrimental to our National Interests.
Right now, the foreign issue of Iraq seems to get the play these days. And the Democrats seem to be much worse in using their Party objectives of a minority as their real intent. They already evicted Joe Lieberman, and now it seems as is if they are evicting Harry Truman and FDR. For this citizen, it is time for the Speaker and Senate Majority Leader to go before they drag down their Party on this foreign issue, alone.
The Iraq foreign issue is a real distraction to many citizens. How about domestic issues like future social security solvency, or balancing the academic idea of global trade with fair trade practices that represent our local values in the treaties. In the old days, this friction played to Democratic strengths. Now I am not so sure.
And it is interesting to this citizen that the old days of being a Republican are being balanced with being an Independent these days. Both Parties have had their chance, and have come up lacking when using the lenses of Party vs. National.
Since many are also selfish citizens, they expect choices in their vote. Many have decided to stick with the two National parties, and do their fighting and writing about ideas within this method. The alternative is the Third party for which we Americans have a rich history. What usually has happened with this greatly intentioned idea is that one party suffers from the bleed-off of competitive votes. Most recently many think this how we elected Clinton in 1992, with Perot bleeding off votes from Bush, for example. There are many other examples, also.
There is much to suggest we citizens of our Country are talking past each other. Said another way, there is little either side can say or write that will change how they think. Usually, it takes time (age) and experience to change one’s thoughts. In this idea there is hope for our Country, and the National parties having some members excised by their voters. And in the case of Congress, it takes the locals to make it happen. Former Speaker Tom Foley from Washington State is familiar with this routine back in 1995.
So the choice between the Democrats, the Republicans, and the USA seems too obvious to most citizens. It’s about us and our Country, stupid. Sometimes we know who to vote for. Sometimes we know who to vote against.
It is more than a little bit frustrating when one observes and hears politicians’ comments that suggest Party interests are above our National Interests. Wherever this malady began, it must be excised by the voters. No one else can do it. And our Nation and we citizens are so much more important than National parties and their practicing politicians. Those who lead by focus groups and polls are especially detrimental to our National Interests.
Right now, the foreign issue of Iraq seems to get the play these days. And the Democrats seem to be much worse in using their Party objectives of a minority as their real intent. They already evicted Joe Lieberman, and now it seems as is if they are evicting Harry Truman and FDR. For this citizen, it is time for the Speaker and Senate Majority Leader to go before they drag down their Party on this foreign issue, alone.
The Iraq foreign issue is a real distraction to many citizens. How about domestic issues like future social security solvency, or balancing the academic idea of global trade with fair trade practices that represent our local values in the treaties. In the old days, this friction played to Democratic strengths. Now I am not so sure.
And it is interesting to this citizen that the old days of being a Republican are being balanced with being an Independent these days. Both Parties have had their chance, and have come up lacking when using the lenses of Party vs. National.
Since many are also selfish citizens, they expect choices in their vote. Many have decided to stick with the two National parties, and do their fighting and writing about ideas within this method. The alternative is the Third party for which we Americans have a rich history. What usually has happened with this greatly intentioned idea is that one party suffers from the bleed-off of competitive votes. Most recently many think this how we elected Clinton in 1992, with Perot bleeding off votes from Bush, for example. There are many other examples, also.
There is much to suggest we citizens of our Country are talking past each other. Said another way, there is little either side can say or write that will change how they think. Usually, it takes time (age) and experience to change one’s thoughts. In this idea there is hope for our Country, and the National parties having some members excised by their voters. And in the case of Congress, it takes the locals to make it happen. Former Speaker Tom Foley from Washington State is familiar with this routine back in 1995.
So the choice between the Democrats, the Republicans, and the USA seems too obvious to most citizens. It’s about us and our Country, stupid. Sometimes we know who to vote for. Sometimes we know who to vote against.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Leading America for America’s sake
There is the constant concern by many citizens that too many “uninformed” citizens may vote, and often in uninformed ways. There are enough surveys and “polls” that lend credence to this fear. In turn, the fear is amplified by the thought that media manipulators, hired by politicians seeking power, and donated money paying TV and radio ads, may get to these same “uninformed” citizens. The often quoted phrase attributed to Abraham Lincoln still seems very American today: You can fool some of the people all the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.
This most astute phrase is still important today for two good reasons. One is that our Constitution set up a republic, not a democracy. A republic assumes our national politicians will act in our National Interests first and foremost. Second in importance is an idea seldom mentioned: just what are our national politicians doing to take care of the “informed” citizens. They vote too, and usually in higher percentages. Most “informed” citizens are watching to see just who is important to the politicians. The leadership principle is too obvious. The “informed” watch what the politicians are doing, and if they like what they see they tell others and bring them in. If they see the politicians and leaders focus on the “uninformed”, then most of the “informed” quietly vote with their feet and leave, and tell others. Later they even politically vote. Entire military recruiting and manning campaigns, and the future of political parties strengths, ride on this most fundamental leadership principle.
When the Democratic political party appears to skew to an activist minority of their base, they threaten their existence as many “informed” citizens watch. Assuming the conventional Democratic wisdom of going left in the primaries, and then center in the main election, then those practicing this scheme are playing with fire betting the Democratic party’s future. Too many “informed” citizens are now watching to see if their interests are being represented, or even matter. One cannot fool all the people in spite of the best professional media efforts. And if this fails, then that is why we have a republic to elect politicians to act in our National Interests. This logic suggests the American political world has changed, or at least is changing. Somebody better pay attention to the “informed”. The winners will.
There is the constant concern by many citizens that too many “uninformed” citizens may vote, and often in uninformed ways. There are enough surveys and “polls” that lend credence to this fear. In turn, the fear is amplified by the thought that media manipulators, hired by politicians seeking power, and donated money paying TV and radio ads, may get to these same “uninformed” citizens. The often quoted phrase attributed to Abraham Lincoln still seems very American today: You can fool some of the people all the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.
This most astute phrase is still important today for two good reasons. One is that our Constitution set up a republic, not a democracy. A republic assumes our national politicians will act in our National Interests first and foremost. Second in importance is an idea seldom mentioned: just what are our national politicians doing to take care of the “informed” citizens. They vote too, and usually in higher percentages. Most “informed” citizens are watching to see just who is important to the politicians. The leadership principle is too obvious. The “informed” watch what the politicians are doing, and if they like what they see they tell others and bring them in. If they see the politicians and leaders focus on the “uninformed”, then most of the “informed” quietly vote with their feet and leave, and tell others. Later they even politically vote. Entire military recruiting and manning campaigns, and the future of political parties strengths, ride on this most fundamental leadership principle.
When the Democratic political party appears to skew to an activist minority of their base, they threaten their existence as many “informed” citizens watch. Assuming the conventional Democratic wisdom of going left in the primaries, and then center in the main election, then those practicing this scheme are playing with fire betting the Democratic party’s future. Too many “informed” citizens are now watching to see if their interests are being represented, or even matter. One cannot fool all the people in spite of the best professional media efforts. And if this fails, then that is why we have a republic to elect politicians to act in our National Interests. This logic suggests the American political world has changed, or at least is changing. Somebody better pay attention to the “informed”. The winners will.
Monday, April 23, 2007
How could we do this to our unfortunates?
The answer is that it is on purpose.
We had leaders that led us to today’s terrible circumstances about crazy people. Some small part of our population are born or developed crazy, and in the old days we locked them away in order to protect us mostly. Now many are on the streets, and living in the most pitiful circumstances given the vagaries of weather, mostly cold and wet. Most of these present circumstances began about 50 years ago, and seems to be forgotten by too many people today, if even taught. I am old enough to have observed the whole evolution at the time. The bottom line then was society vs. the inmates rights, and the inmates won. There were mitigating things like community mental centers, but they were eventually defunded because of poor results and pressure to save money. Bottom line is that everytime I see a homeless person on a grate in D.C., or another unfortunate in Monterey Tennessee I know it is on purpose. Where is the old idea of providing for our unfortunates with a warm bed and three square meals a day. Where is the golden rule? And where is our protection from our crazy humans?
The answer is that it is on purpose.
We had leaders that led us to today’s terrible circumstances about crazy people. Some small part of our population are born or developed crazy, and in the old days we locked them away in order to protect us mostly. Now many are on the streets, and living in the most pitiful circumstances given the vagaries of weather, mostly cold and wet. Most of these present circumstances began about 50 years ago, and seems to be forgotten by too many people today, if even taught. I am old enough to have observed the whole evolution at the time. The bottom line then was society vs. the inmates rights, and the inmates won. There were mitigating things like community mental centers, but they were eventually defunded because of poor results and pressure to save money. Bottom line is that everytime I see a homeless person on a grate in D.C., or another unfortunate in Monterey Tennessee I know it is on purpose. Where is the old idea of providing for our unfortunates with a warm bed and three square meals a day. Where is the golden rule? And where is our protection from our crazy humans?
A manifesto to our western future
We as a group of western people are proud of our societies, and take offense at those who think otherwise. Much as happened in the past, and we have overcome and built up to the most fabulous societies in the world, today. We average citizens are living like the kings and queens in the past, only better. A little history makes this obvious, but some may not fathom all this, for whatever reason.
Do we have to fight for this, or use other means? In either way, the idea is to advance our children and way of life so they can go forward. Will they think like today’s concerned parents, probably? Will they be more static like the old people, probably some will. In this there is hope for our western future, and the world’s future, though the latter is second priority to most in the west.
In this vision, we of the west drive the train. Most of the world are of the “other persuasion”, which is historical. And people live this way, and our western realists say go along. Harmony is the goal. All is fine, until the unmitigated expansion of people and their quality of life comes into play. Are the realists (and maybe environmentalists) going to try impose their vision on us, and maybe kill our progeny along the way; or are we citizens going to be more practical in who we elect to sort it all out without embarrassing politics and politicians.
There is a win-win course of action for voters. Promote and elect politicians who display the most common modicum of understanding of things that affect us citizens, and our future. This is most important in this area, and other areas.
We as a group of western people are proud of our societies, and take offense at those who think otherwise. Much as happened in the past, and we have overcome and built up to the most fabulous societies in the world, today. We average citizens are living like the kings and queens in the past, only better. A little history makes this obvious, but some may not fathom all this, for whatever reason.
Do we have to fight for this, or use other means? In either way, the idea is to advance our children and way of life so they can go forward. Will they think like today’s concerned parents, probably? Will they be more static like the old people, probably some will. In this there is hope for our western future, and the world’s future, though the latter is second priority to most in the west.
In this vision, we of the west drive the train. Most of the world are of the “other persuasion”, which is historical. And people live this way, and our western realists say go along. Harmony is the goal. All is fine, until the unmitigated expansion of people and their quality of life comes into play. Are the realists (and maybe environmentalists) going to try impose their vision on us, and maybe kill our progeny along the way; or are we citizens going to be more practical in who we elect to sort it all out without embarrassing politics and politicians.
There is a win-win course of action for voters. Promote and elect politicians who display the most common modicum of understanding of things that affect us citizens, and our future. This is most important in this area, and other areas.
Sunday, April 22, 2007
How will the USA handle civil war in China?
The recent Shanghai stock market drop and numerous open source reports* have brought up the question again. The overwhelming amount of Communist Party and military corruption and nepotism, the rampant industrial pace of development, the resulting environmental disasters way beyond our worse robber barons (let me be specific about one – child birth defects), and the growing disparities between the majority rural people and the minority urban class and Party and military people exploiting the economic boom, are going to pop sometime. The frictions are both modern, and historical.
That the Shanghai Stock Market was a gambler’s game that mostly enhanced the “haves” finally came to an end, or at least a major correction. I’ll defer to those who write about all this to say it better in economic and insider graft terms. I note most other Asian Stock Markets acted differently from that of Shanghai’s.
All the conditions for a civil war are just right these days. The Western “realists” who support the status quo for all its expected outcomes that they can deal with are to be replaced by those who just have to deal with coming civil war in China. Someone will “have to deal with the mess” left by others. Most civil wars start with a spark somewhere. Somehow Shanghai will be included in all this.
There are three probable outcomes when civil war comes to China.
#It will last at least one decade, and probably go nuclear. The downwind radiation patterns will depend on where the nukes go off and the weather at the time, but it is scary in all possibilities.
#Another probable outcome is one of immigration to the USA, Canada, Australia, and the rest of the world. Today Chinese immigration to the USA is number two behind Mexico, and just ahead of India. But just as the Hungarian revolt of 1956 and the fall of Vietnam in 1975 prompted big spikes in immigration to the USA, so will any civil war in China.
#Business will continue, but contracts and arrangements will be between local Chinese entities such as warlords or provinces, and their intended customers. American and international businesses already have much experience around the rest of the world in this problem area.
The political consequences in the USA should follow typical Party line divides as both National Parties seek some advantage out of this terrible set of events. And as in many other cases, the older status quo types in the US will do what they know, for they know not what to really do. Those that end up having to deal with this “mess” will be more practical. Some will want us directly involved, some will prefer a more “benign neglect” approach in guiding a USA policy or set of policies. For example, how involved should we be in the massive pollution problems, or the water rights disputes that often go with them. In all cases, people are uncomfortable with change, so it will be a trying time, especially at the beginning.
Chinese history predicts a civil war sometime. It is a matter of when, not if. One hopes our government has “gamed out” how to at least begin dealing with civil war in China. Immigration surges come to mind immediately. Recovering or shifting manufacturing bases is right behind. If it happens before the 2008 Olympics in Beijing, how do we handle it? We do have our own National Interests, after all, and we hope our elected and appointed public representatives will do their part for us.
* Most open source reports are eastern based reports. There is little in western media reports on this subject.
The recent Shanghai stock market drop and numerous open source reports* have brought up the question again. The overwhelming amount of Communist Party and military corruption and nepotism, the rampant industrial pace of development, the resulting environmental disasters way beyond our worse robber barons (let me be specific about one – child birth defects), and the growing disparities between the majority rural people and the minority urban class and Party and military people exploiting the economic boom, are going to pop sometime. The frictions are both modern, and historical.
That the Shanghai Stock Market was a gambler’s game that mostly enhanced the “haves” finally came to an end, or at least a major correction. I’ll defer to those who write about all this to say it better in economic and insider graft terms. I note most other Asian Stock Markets acted differently from that of Shanghai’s.
All the conditions for a civil war are just right these days. The Western “realists” who support the status quo for all its expected outcomes that they can deal with are to be replaced by those who just have to deal with coming civil war in China. Someone will “have to deal with the mess” left by others. Most civil wars start with a spark somewhere. Somehow Shanghai will be included in all this.
There are three probable outcomes when civil war comes to China.
#It will last at least one decade, and probably go nuclear. The downwind radiation patterns will depend on where the nukes go off and the weather at the time, but it is scary in all possibilities.
#Another probable outcome is one of immigration to the USA, Canada, Australia, and the rest of the world. Today Chinese immigration to the USA is number two behind Mexico, and just ahead of India. But just as the Hungarian revolt of 1956 and the fall of Vietnam in 1975 prompted big spikes in immigration to the USA, so will any civil war in China.
#Business will continue, but contracts and arrangements will be between local Chinese entities such as warlords or provinces, and their intended customers. American and international businesses already have much experience around the rest of the world in this problem area.
The political consequences in the USA should follow typical Party line divides as both National Parties seek some advantage out of this terrible set of events. And as in many other cases, the older status quo types in the US will do what they know, for they know not what to really do. Those that end up having to deal with this “mess” will be more practical. Some will want us directly involved, some will prefer a more “benign neglect” approach in guiding a USA policy or set of policies. For example, how involved should we be in the massive pollution problems, or the water rights disputes that often go with them. In all cases, people are uncomfortable with change, so it will be a trying time, especially at the beginning.
Chinese history predicts a civil war sometime. It is a matter of when, not if. One hopes our government has “gamed out” how to at least begin dealing with civil war in China. Immigration surges come to mind immediately. Recovering or shifting manufacturing bases is right behind. If it happens before the 2008 Olympics in Beijing, how do we handle it? We do have our own National Interests, after all, and we hope our elected and appointed public representatives will do their part for us.
* Most open source reports are eastern based reports. There is little in western media reports on this subject.
Friday, April 20, 2007
Short term gain, long term gain
It’s not the country, it’s the idea. Just look at the immigration rates!
The political battles in D.C., and the idea battles throughout the world, especially in colonial stained Europe, go against what the people are doing: voting with their feet. It’s the demographics, stupid. There is something going on in the West that attracts millions of families to vote with their feet and abandon the harbor of their known home to go to the unknown of the West. Yet they are going, in very big numbers. Many predict the Islamification of Europe due to immigration numbers, and national policies. And in the U.S. much the same is going on as many families from south of the border, and Asia, come to our shores. Clearly, something is better here than in their home country.
The friction over the effects of foreign cultures from immigration on assimilating countries, more specifically the desire of immigrants to assimilate and learn the native language and customs is real. It even seems to be worse today than in the past, the past that gave us what we have today. But most readings of history suggest our ancestors had the same concerns and fears, so it is harder to sort out for many. Most vote to speak English as a national language, but I just wish I could force this on all the intended people without having to kill them. Surrender is not being suggested, but numbers may overwhelm our society if it does not resort to things like killing. Rather, I think time will take over at the local levels, as in schools and boys and girls living here, and the American culture will predominate, albeit changed some by our latest citizens and kids.
The result should be a new world country, one which attracts families from all over the world. Sounds like today, nes pa. And our current and future enemies will suffer, even if they don’t know it yet.
It’s not the country, it’s the idea. Just look at the immigration rates!
The political battles in D.C., and the idea battles throughout the world, especially in colonial stained Europe, go against what the people are doing: voting with their feet. It’s the demographics, stupid. There is something going on in the West that attracts millions of families to vote with their feet and abandon the harbor of their known home to go to the unknown of the West. Yet they are going, in very big numbers. Many predict the Islamification of Europe due to immigration numbers, and national policies. And in the U.S. much the same is going on as many families from south of the border, and Asia, come to our shores. Clearly, something is better here than in their home country.
The friction over the effects of foreign cultures from immigration on assimilating countries, more specifically the desire of immigrants to assimilate and learn the native language and customs is real. It even seems to be worse today than in the past, the past that gave us what we have today. But most readings of history suggest our ancestors had the same concerns and fears, so it is harder to sort out for many. Most vote to speak English as a national language, but I just wish I could force this on all the intended people without having to kill them. Surrender is not being suggested, but numbers may overwhelm our society if it does not resort to things like killing. Rather, I think time will take over at the local levels, as in schools and boys and girls living here, and the American culture will predominate, albeit changed some by our latest citizens and kids.
The result should be a new world country, one which attracts families from all over the world. Sounds like today, nes pa. And our current and future enemies will suffer, even if they don’t know it yet.
Money talks
Apply this to the U.N., the World Bank, and the budget of the United States, and the obvious way to do battle, even turn things around, is in the fiscal arena. No money, no talk is an expression as old as the hills. Those that have money have power and influence, as in maybe the emerging European Union and Japan and maybe even China. In other words, the US has competition.
There is a shift underway about Western loans to the third world. The shift is in the idea of results as a measurement. This is profound compared to the earlier standard of how much was loaned without results’ measurements, and how much the loaners were being paid. In the third world’s case, the leaders took much of the money at the expense of the citizens for which the loans were intended. And this situation flourished to the most embarrassing things going on today. No wonder there are cesspools still going on today in places many care about. And how about the inflated incomes of the loaners and consultants, and their conflicts of interest?
This fiscal corruption may be applied to we in the US today. Our elected public servants have control over vast public monies collected as income taxes primarily. Much is distributed in the best intended social science plans, to include uninsured medical payments of poor people and children of same, retirement vice support for retirement, senior type things like drugs, welfare for people who made bad choices, and a myriad of payments to we citizens, to include guaranteed and insured retirement plans. This is all fine if the votes are there, and the books balance. This is not fine, as in we will ruin our country, if the books don’t balance, and the vote still enables people to redistribute wealth until the whole thing collapses. There is no free lunch.
This idea carries over to the United Nations organization. We and others literally contribute billions of dollars to this organization. Yet it appears it has become a money machine to the many pitifully poor nations who benefit by the rules and customs as they exist today. This especially applies in New York City living standards for these U.N. people. The simple question for the U.N. today is: is it about the money or the mission? The predecessor League of Nations failed, and so can the United Nation organization.
Money talks. So do voters.
Apply this to the U.N., the World Bank, and the budget of the United States, and the obvious way to do battle, even turn things around, is in the fiscal arena. No money, no talk is an expression as old as the hills. Those that have money have power and influence, as in maybe the emerging European Union and Japan and maybe even China. In other words, the US has competition.
There is a shift underway about Western loans to the third world. The shift is in the idea of results as a measurement. This is profound compared to the earlier standard of how much was loaned without results’ measurements, and how much the loaners were being paid. In the third world’s case, the leaders took much of the money at the expense of the citizens for which the loans were intended. And this situation flourished to the most embarrassing things going on today. No wonder there are cesspools still going on today in places many care about. And how about the inflated incomes of the loaners and consultants, and their conflicts of interest?
This fiscal corruption may be applied to we in the US today. Our elected public servants have control over vast public monies collected as income taxes primarily. Much is distributed in the best intended social science plans, to include uninsured medical payments of poor people and children of same, retirement vice support for retirement, senior type things like drugs, welfare for people who made bad choices, and a myriad of payments to we citizens, to include guaranteed and insured retirement plans. This is all fine if the votes are there, and the books balance. This is not fine, as in we will ruin our country, if the books don’t balance, and the vote still enables people to redistribute wealth until the whole thing collapses. There is no free lunch.
This idea carries over to the United Nations organization. We and others literally contribute billions of dollars to this organization. Yet it appears it has become a money machine to the many pitifully poor nations who benefit by the rules and customs as they exist today. This especially applies in New York City living standards for these U.N. people. The simple question for the U.N. today is: is it about the money or the mission? The predecessor League of Nations failed, and so can the United Nation organization.
Money talks. So do voters.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Environmentalism must be about people
Only science and astute leadership can produce the win-wins that are the way forward. Only success reinforces success.
The imperative is the human population and the rising quality of life, worldwide. The common denominator is the expanding human habitat, and the resulting shrinking wildlife habitat. There are many more local issues, also.
Those who label themselves as environmentalists have some members who have become very dangerous to humans. This smaller select group is dangerous politically, a threat to the financial security of too many families, and in an incongruous way, a threat to human and many animals existence. This last statement and situation is so ludicrous that only humans could have gotten us to this point. If ever the law of unintended consequences needed a poster example, the extreme environmentalists have provided it.
Examples are many and all around the world.
· Smokey the Bear campaigns for decades have taken prescribed fire out of most habitat management with catastrophic results to humans and wildlife today.
· Poor science and too early implementation of political rules about the Spotted Owl have damaged a region, many towns, and the livelihood of thousands of humans: workers, families, towns, and businesses.
· A rich European buying and setting aside thousands of acres of Brazilian rain forest has put 1,000 loggers out of business, all while mature trees will rot and fall down in the future. Trees don’t live forever. They get old and die just like people do.
· Kenya’s ban on hunting while promoting picture taking tourists has ended up reducing animal populations over decades. And those who support the continued ban on hunting and income generated by hunting use local problems as the reason to maintain this failing idea. Meantime the animal populations and habitat continue to decline in Kenya.
· Pacifist and anti-military politicians and people in Okinawa and elsewhere are opposing a new airfield that moves the noise away from the populated areas. They are using a sacred salt water manatee as the good reason. Thousands of construction and maintenance jobs hang in the balance, when smart science and leadership could make this a win-win and avoid the acrimony that is building unnecessarily. Worst case, the entire new airfield and associated military units and human jobs will move to other lands. That some of this battle is in US courts is astounding, given that the Japanese are paying for this new airfield in the remote Nago area.
· Some of these more extreme environmentalists have gone global, and in our name, though few have been elected by the people of the world. It is disturbing to read and hear that the science for the case of global warming is a slam dunk after hearing the head of the CIA use the same words to the President about WMD’s in Iraq. And their support of the Kyoto treaty will devastate economies and people’s livelihoods with little expected to show for it since China and India and others are exempted. Now I hear that Kyoto is just a first step. And there are those who choose to stop ocean sonar use and testing because of possible adverse effects on marine mammals. Sonar is part of our people’s defense, and to stop sonar use based on incomplete science is threatening we people and our way of life. Where are there proposals that include the ideas of mitigation and the effects on humans, especially their livelihoods to include their defense.
Those who choose to point out all the environmental abuses that adversely affect humans are welcome to do so. This author thinks he can match such abuse lists, and then some. These must be addressed, also. But in all cases, the effects on humans must be included. Environmentalism is about humans coexisting in the environment, and having jobs.
And there are so many win-win examples that reflect good science and leadership. The recovery in the US of the red-cockaded woodpecker in the eastern coastal plain, the creation and expanded use of conservation easements and legal Safe Harbors, and programs by governments to financially reward good management practices by private land owners are three good examples. Including sports hunters around the world in funding and managing for the future of man and animals in coexistence is another proven idea with a good success record. The point is that environmentalism is about humans, and good science and leadership will provide the win-wins the world needs to succeed in this area.
Only science and astute leadership can produce the win-wins that are the way forward. Only success reinforces success.
The imperative is the human population and the rising quality of life, worldwide. The common denominator is the expanding human habitat, and the resulting shrinking wildlife habitat. There are many more local issues, also.
Those who label themselves as environmentalists have some members who have become very dangerous to humans. This smaller select group is dangerous politically, a threat to the financial security of too many families, and in an incongruous way, a threat to human and many animals existence. This last statement and situation is so ludicrous that only humans could have gotten us to this point. If ever the law of unintended consequences needed a poster example, the extreme environmentalists have provided it.
Examples are many and all around the world.
· Smokey the Bear campaigns for decades have taken prescribed fire out of most habitat management with catastrophic results to humans and wildlife today.
· Poor science and too early implementation of political rules about the Spotted Owl have damaged a region, many towns, and the livelihood of thousands of humans: workers, families, towns, and businesses.
· A rich European buying and setting aside thousands of acres of Brazilian rain forest has put 1,000 loggers out of business, all while mature trees will rot and fall down in the future. Trees don’t live forever. They get old and die just like people do.
· Kenya’s ban on hunting while promoting picture taking tourists has ended up reducing animal populations over decades. And those who support the continued ban on hunting and income generated by hunting use local problems as the reason to maintain this failing idea. Meantime the animal populations and habitat continue to decline in Kenya.
· Pacifist and anti-military politicians and people in Okinawa and elsewhere are opposing a new airfield that moves the noise away from the populated areas. They are using a sacred salt water manatee as the good reason. Thousands of construction and maintenance jobs hang in the balance, when smart science and leadership could make this a win-win and avoid the acrimony that is building unnecessarily. Worst case, the entire new airfield and associated military units and human jobs will move to other lands. That some of this battle is in US courts is astounding, given that the Japanese are paying for this new airfield in the remote Nago area.
· Some of these more extreme environmentalists have gone global, and in our name, though few have been elected by the people of the world. It is disturbing to read and hear that the science for the case of global warming is a slam dunk after hearing the head of the CIA use the same words to the President about WMD’s in Iraq. And their support of the Kyoto treaty will devastate economies and people’s livelihoods with little expected to show for it since China and India and others are exempted. Now I hear that Kyoto is just a first step. And there are those who choose to stop ocean sonar use and testing because of possible adverse effects on marine mammals. Sonar is part of our people’s defense, and to stop sonar use based on incomplete science is threatening we people and our way of life. Where are there proposals that include the ideas of mitigation and the effects on humans, especially their livelihoods to include their defense.
Those who choose to point out all the environmental abuses that adversely affect humans are welcome to do so. This author thinks he can match such abuse lists, and then some. These must be addressed, also. But in all cases, the effects on humans must be included. Environmentalism is about humans coexisting in the environment, and having jobs.
And there are so many win-win examples that reflect good science and leadership. The recovery in the US of the red-cockaded woodpecker in the eastern coastal plain, the creation and expanded use of conservation easements and legal Safe Harbors, and programs by governments to financially reward good management practices by private land owners are three good examples. Including sports hunters around the world in funding and managing for the future of man and animals in coexistence is another proven idea with a good success record. The point is that environmentalism is about humans, and good science and leadership will provide the win-wins the world needs to succeed in this area.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Thank goodness for youth leading the way to a better future
This idea is world wide. They are not being dragged down by their parent’s politics.
The response of the Virginia Tech Hokies in general is to go forward, as in life must go on in spite of the wacko killing 32 students and professors. This is so admirable given the terrible massacre the wacko did. And it is more admirable because it ignores or just tolerates the media’s exploitation and over coverage of the tragedy for their purposes, mostly financial income in the end. The media types are fellow Americans, but the most base and crass career driven instincts of them have rendered their coverage inconsequential, embarrassing to themselves, and another notch in the decline of American media in general, and 24/7 types specifically. They chose their job and career choice, now let them live with it. And where do they find these pundits and “experts” who fill their 24/7 time, repeated of course. None speak as well as the Hokies themselves.
Today 178 people (that latest count) died in Iraq in 4 suicide bombings just for going out in public, and shopping to boot. By virtue of numbers alone, this is so terrible. By any means the killings were ordered and done by old people pursuing their political goals, to include foreign goals in Iraq, and probably sectarian goals in Iraq. Does anyone think the old people did the deeds? No, they took advantage of the young people being willing to kill themselves in pursuit of their and their seniors political goals. This is wacko in another way, but it is wacko. The only obvious American question is why the seniors are not willing to die for the cause they send their young people to die for? The obvious answer is that they are not as stupid as those who listen to them. This infers the young people who do the suicide attacks are stupid. It appears the world is full of these type young people.
Back to go Hokies. They come across as representing the best combination of tolerance and common sense as they go through their lives. In the new days, we Americans will see this be applied to their future when the media finally gets out of the campus. Life is pretty much about campus life, surviving, and graduating in the end. None will be silly enough to become suicidal bombers to advance their seniors causes. Most will have families and children and lead us into the future, their future, and our US and world future.
This idea is world wide. They are not being dragged down by their parent’s politics.
The response of the Virginia Tech Hokies in general is to go forward, as in life must go on in spite of the wacko killing 32 students and professors. This is so admirable given the terrible massacre the wacko did. And it is more admirable because it ignores or just tolerates the media’s exploitation and over coverage of the tragedy for their purposes, mostly financial income in the end. The media types are fellow Americans, but the most base and crass career driven instincts of them have rendered their coverage inconsequential, embarrassing to themselves, and another notch in the decline of American media in general, and 24/7 types specifically. They chose their job and career choice, now let them live with it. And where do they find these pundits and “experts” who fill their 24/7 time, repeated of course. None speak as well as the Hokies themselves.
Today 178 people (that latest count) died in Iraq in 4 suicide bombings just for going out in public, and shopping to boot. By virtue of numbers alone, this is so terrible. By any means the killings were ordered and done by old people pursuing their political goals, to include foreign goals in Iraq, and probably sectarian goals in Iraq. Does anyone think the old people did the deeds? No, they took advantage of the young people being willing to kill themselves in pursuit of their and their seniors political goals. This is wacko in another way, but it is wacko. The only obvious American question is why the seniors are not willing to die for the cause they send their young people to die for? The obvious answer is that they are not as stupid as those who listen to them. This infers the young people who do the suicide attacks are stupid. It appears the world is full of these type young people.
Back to go Hokies. They come across as representing the best combination of tolerance and common sense as they go through their lives. In the new days, we Americans will see this be applied to their future when the media finally gets out of the campus. Life is pretty much about campus life, surviving, and graduating in the end. None will be silly enough to become suicidal bombers to advance their seniors causes. Most will have families and children and lead us into the future, their future, and our US and world future.
Are we at a tipping point in American history?
There are so many forces converging in American society and politics that there is good reason to think great changes will come to all of us sooner than we may imagine.
To summarize a list of these forces is astounding when considering them as a collective whole.
· The Western and American baby boom population bubble with all its good and sad influences is coming to an end due to age.
· The rise of Media’s influence on citizens is peaking due to the declining effect on them. Both have changed.
· American historical isolationism and pacifisms are reasserting themselves. We are the New World, and will not let the Old World problems and ideas drag us down.
· Social engineering has new lenses to be evaluated by … results. The times of good intentions and spending money are not the only lenses.
· Group rights compared to individual rights are reasserting themselves to their traditional place. Crime is one example, as people demand security for themselves and their families, with the individual rights of the criminal coming in a poor second. Looking at things in terms of National Interests is the best example.
· Female emancipation, already accomplished in the legal sense, is changing everything American.
· The world seems smaller to US citizens. War, fair trade, plague, and the rise of the third world are big concerns for impacts at home.
· The worldwide and national communications links are at an all-time high, and increasing.
· Islamic fascists and imperialists have declared war on us, and conducted attacks in our homeland, and have killed a lot of people.
· The poor attention to the rule of law and our Constitution is ending its decline.
· The idealistic trends and dogma in mainstream religions, academia, and the judicial branches are slowly coming back to more traditional purposes and responsibilities.
Suggesting change is coming is not very profound, since change is constant. Suggesting a coming high rate of change due to converging forces is much more profound in its implications for our Country, especially if it happens in the timeframes we saw in the 1960’s. Not all changes are prompted by failure or letdown. In fact most changes are to improve things, a belief we all share.
There are so many forces converging in American society and politics that there is good reason to think great changes will come to all of us sooner than we may imagine.
To summarize a list of these forces is astounding when considering them as a collective whole.
· The Western and American baby boom population bubble with all its good and sad influences is coming to an end due to age.
· The rise of Media’s influence on citizens is peaking due to the declining effect on them. Both have changed.
· American historical isolationism and pacifisms are reasserting themselves. We are the New World, and will not let the Old World problems and ideas drag us down.
· Social engineering has new lenses to be evaluated by … results. The times of good intentions and spending money are not the only lenses.
· Group rights compared to individual rights are reasserting themselves to their traditional place. Crime is one example, as people demand security for themselves and their families, with the individual rights of the criminal coming in a poor second. Looking at things in terms of National Interests is the best example.
· Female emancipation, already accomplished in the legal sense, is changing everything American.
· The world seems smaller to US citizens. War, fair trade, plague, and the rise of the third world are big concerns for impacts at home.
· The worldwide and national communications links are at an all-time high, and increasing.
· Islamic fascists and imperialists have declared war on us, and conducted attacks in our homeland, and have killed a lot of people.
· The poor attention to the rule of law and our Constitution is ending its decline.
· The idealistic trends and dogma in mainstream religions, academia, and the judicial branches are slowly coming back to more traditional purposes and responsibilities.
Suggesting change is coming is not very profound, since change is constant. Suggesting a coming high rate of change due to converging forces is much more profound in its implications for our Country, especially if it happens in the timeframes we saw in the 1960’s. Not all changes are prompted by failure or letdown. In fact most changes are to improve things, a belief we all share.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
The response at Virginia Tech makes me proud to be an American so far
After the all the terrible news about the massacre at Virginia Tech, the details are starting to come out to the public. The details will still be coming out for days, and most of us know how unreliable first reports are. Most of us frustrated for the real details know to wait and think. And most know not to be distracted by all the other murders which occurred in America during the same day. All calls for firings of university leaders, for example, are based on incomplete data. So is this post.
Rather than focus on all that was wrong, this post chooses to focus on the response. Given the situation presented over the morning in Blacksburg, there are many things that Americans should note with some satisfaction, maybe even some pride. Hard to say given the massacre I know, but lives were also saved by the response … a Hokie and I think American response.
Many people sacrificed themselves in defense of others. Most were professors as reported today, to include a Rumanian holocaust survivor who had to come to Blacksburg to be murdered, as it turned out. He and others are real heroes when they made snap judgment decisions that it seems saved many lives. In doing so he probably suffered pain and stared death in the face, but persevered.
Basic first aid, taught by the Boy Scouts, and self applied in one student's case when he used expedient materials to apply a tourniquet to stop his arterial bleeding and probably dieing, is deserving of credit to an American way. Being Scout trained he probably knew he might be sacrificing his lower extremity, but he made his choice. The details will come out later, of course.
If one lives in a rural area, as Blacksburg is, one might expect lower medical care standards, which is historically correct. But the times have changed here in America. The medical response from the EMT level, the concept of triage to focus medical efforts, the communications to work together, the organization of the local hospitals and quality of the personnel there and on call, the whole system of making medical judgment calls and evacuating to higher levels if need be, and having the means, is truly an American infrastructure ability unique in the world. If some wacko is going to shoot and try kill me, I hope it is in America.
Last is Hokie pride. For those not sure, the nickname of all Virginia Tech is the “Hokies”. In today’s memorial events on campus, the word was out to dress in Hokie colors, not the black of mourning. No wacko will dominate the 26,000 students and faculty and staff there. This is so American.
After the all the terrible news about the massacre at Virginia Tech, the details are starting to come out to the public. The details will still be coming out for days, and most of us know how unreliable first reports are. Most of us frustrated for the real details know to wait and think. And most know not to be distracted by all the other murders which occurred in America during the same day. All calls for firings of university leaders, for example, are based on incomplete data. So is this post.
Rather than focus on all that was wrong, this post chooses to focus on the response. Given the situation presented over the morning in Blacksburg, there are many things that Americans should note with some satisfaction, maybe even some pride. Hard to say given the massacre I know, but lives were also saved by the response … a Hokie and I think American response.
Many people sacrificed themselves in defense of others. Most were professors as reported today, to include a Rumanian holocaust survivor who had to come to Blacksburg to be murdered, as it turned out. He and others are real heroes when they made snap judgment decisions that it seems saved many lives. In doing so he probably suffered pain and stared death in the face, but persevered.
Basic first aid, taught by the Boy Scouts, and self applied in one student's case when he used expedient materials to apply a tourniquet to stop his arterial bleeding and probably dieing, is deserving of credit to an American way. Being Scout trained he probably knew he might be sacrificing his lower extremity, but he made his choice. The details will come out later, of course.
If one lives in a rural area, as Blacksburg is, one might expect lower medical care standards, which is historically correct. But the times have changed here in America. The medical response from the EMT level, the concept of triage to focus medical efforts, the communications to work together, the organization of the local hospitals and quality of the personnel there and on call, the whole system of making medical judgment calls and evacuating to higher levels if need be, and having the means, is truly an American infrastructure ability unique in the world. If some wacko is going to shoot and try kill me, I hope it is in America.
Last is Hokie pride. For those not sure, the nickname of all Virginia Tech is the “Hokies”. In today’s memorial events on campus, the word was out to dress in Hokie colors, not the black of mourning. No wacko will dominate the 26,000 students and faculty and staff there. This is so American.
Monday, April 16, 2007
Academic inexperience gone too far?
Just what do our best and brightest learn in school that will help them in warfighting for our side? Just what can be taught about Eastern thought? Most things Eastern thought can only be learned by experience, that is, by exposure to those who state their objectives and logic to achieve it. How many have tribal experience?
This is an armchair general type of review. Here’s why. We are losing winning the peace in Iraq, both at the D.C. level and the Iraq level. Incredibly, the normal reason I hear is D.C. based. There is still no one person in charge of the campaign at either the D.C. or Iraq level of effort. This idea is so fundamental to waging war, and winning the peace, that it is embarrassing to speak about, until today from this citizens point of view. And this is since 2003, to boot. Why is there not one person in charge of the effort? Have buzz words like inter-agency cooperation, action officers, cover your ass point papers, and frustration reports of those in the National Security Council (NSC) become more important than the objective set by our President?
The normal answer is that turf and friction in interagency battles in D.C. trumps all. The bureaucracy in D.C. trumps all, to include the elected Presidents objectives. If this is the case, and even if the public elects a Democratic president and Congress, then the bureaucracy has taken charge, to include losing the winning of the peace in Iraq. Now it is time for citizens to step in, since politicians and bureaucrats can’t. I can almost disbelieve what I just said, the President or Congress is not in charge.
I am disturbed by the minions he has hired at the NSC. They are a bunch of educated fools with little experience in real life and warfighting. Nobody challenges their education or intents and love of their county, but at times like this we as a nation need smart and experienced people running the show, since that is the operational method I believe our President has gone with in Iraq. So unless he will hire and fire (gracefully would be appropriate) people in the NSC, or get more involved in the war he led us into, then winning the peace is still in doubt. Like I said up front, I am being am arm chair general, but also care, a lot.
Politically the win the peace objective method is obvious, mostly in the region. Step in, knock a few heads, fire a few people, and finally set up and ensure unity of effort. Along the way treat the locals as locals, which will take some killings. Otherwise, come home. Time is not on the Presidents side if other courses of action are followed. Winning the peace is obvious as a course of action. Only our President can choose how he goes about it.
Just what do our best and brightest learn in school that will help them in warfighting for our side? Just what can be taught about Eastern thought? Most things Eastern thought can only be learned by experience, that is, by exposure to those who state their objectives and logic to achieve it. How many have tribal experience?
This is an armchair general type of review. Here’s why. We are losing winning the peace in Iraq, both at the D.C. level and the Iraq level. Incredibly, the normal reason I hear is D.C. based. There is still no one person in charge of the campaign at either the D.C. or Iraq level of effort. This idea is so fundamental to waging war, and winning the peace, that it is embarrassing to speak about, until today from this citizens point of view. And this is since 2003, to boot. Why is there not one person in charge of the effort? Have buzz words like inter-agency cooperation, action officers, cover your ass point papers, and frustration reports of those in the National Security Council (NSC) become more important than the objective set by our President?
The normal answer is that turf and friction in interagency battles in D.C. trumps all. The bureaucracy in D.C. trumps all, to include the elected Presidents objectives. If this is the case, and even if the public elects a Democratic president and Congress, then the bureaucracy has taken charge, to include losing the winning of the peace in Iraq. Now it is time for citizens to step in, since politicians and bureaucrats can’t. I can almost disbelieve what I just said, the President or Congress is not in charge.
I am disturbed by the minions he has hired at the NSC. They are a bunch of educated fools with little experience in real life and warfighting. Nobody challenges their education or intents and love of their county, but at times like this we as a nation need smart and experienced people running the show, since that is the operational method I believe our President has gone with in Iraq. So unless he will hire and fire (gracefully would be appropriate) people in the NSC, or get more involved in the war he led us into, then winning the peace is still in doubt. Like I said up front, I am being am arm chair general, but also care, a lot.
Politically the win the peace objective method is obvious, mostly in the region. Step in, knock a few heads, fire a few people, and finally set up and ensure unity of effort. Along the way treat the locals as locals, which will take some killings. Otherwise, come home. Time is not on the Presidents side if other courses of action are followed. Winning the peace is obvious as a course of action. Only our President can choose how he goes about it.
The baby boomers did it
Everything good and sad about our American society today can be linked to this bubble of people in our land.
How the baby boom generation started is pretty simple. It was the birth numbers after World War Two that were way above the average. It resulted in a group of our national population way out of proportion to other groups before and after. This group was so large that it got the name “baby boomers”.
Back in the 1960’s many forces converged on the baby boomers. The rebellious stage of life was entered. Civil rights and the Vietnam war dominated politics, but this time it was not just talked about but applied as in living by example, a very noble course of action it seemed if anti-establishment in perception. Culture was dominated by youth, television and music, prosperity, and security. Individual rights over group rights were celebrated. The birth control pill was invented and used. A soft revolution was underway, and the heady could do their own thing in how they stormed their Bastille, knowing no one would shoot back. The times they were a changing! “If it feels good, do it”; “if you can’t be with the one you love, love the one you’re with” were repeated or sung over and over, often with a wink and a nod.
There was a resistance to all this. “My country right or wrong” and “love it or leave it” gained immense popularity as expressions. “Okie from Muscogee” became a cultural response song. Defamation of the American flag prompted many harsh responses, especially when worn as clothing. Long haired, dope smokin’, and hippy because derisive words at a national level.
Sadly assassinations, and many shootings only added to the turmoil of the times. During this turmoil the ideas of anti-establishment somehow became anti-government.
How the baby boomers sorted all this out took decades. Going to work as in a career, marrying, and having children changed most. And our Country is incredibly large. The academic and religious leaders went off on their own liberal courses inspired by the past soft revolution. Individual rights flourished as the idea of group rights faded in the culture. Intrinsic distrust of government also flourished as if the government was manned by non-Americans. The on-going Cold War seemed to tamper things down on the foreign front, and the draft went away. The rises in crime, out-of-wedlock births, expanded drug use, and sexually transmitted diseases nastier than those in the past were becoming more than hints on the horizon. The declines of educational scores began to appear across the country. The one constant was high school sports which remained as popular and supported as ever.
And now as in the Frank Sinatra song “It Was a Very Good Year” the baby boomers are in the autumn and winter of their lives. The descendents of the baby boomers are beginning to take over.
The idea of group rights, often expressed in National Interests, is coming back. Patriotism is no longer a derisive term. Living and doing by example has an expanded meaning over that introduced by the baby boomers counter culture. Volunteerism and faith-based initiatives are popular for the descendents of the baby boomers. Balancing idealism with practicality in deciding how to vote about solving our problems today is becoming prevalent. The present and future dominate the past. Social engineering must be purposeful, with desired results. The foreign front seems more threatening to most than in the past. The main stream religions are fading as the more independent protestant denominations are rising. The overall trend is that people are going to church in greater numbers than decades ago. The population is more acceptable to change for both foreign and domestic reasons, as long as the government is just, responsible, and listens.
There is an ageless assertion of group think and political correctness that is becoming quasi-religious dogma. Anti-government anything is still alive and well. Political discourse and mutual respect seem like old fashioned terms not useful today. Double standards are justifiable if for the right cause of the deciders. A large portion of the baby boomers still avoid war as in being anti-war. Diplomacy without the threat of war is doable, and the only course of action. The political and financial security of the past is part of their rights as a human. Social engineering is still a noble idea and intent, even if the result is a failure. The rights of humans are much expanded. Even the idea of an airline passenger bill of rights now makes sense. If we can’t change things constitutionally, then we can use the power of the people to make the changes deemed fit by the baby boomers.
So here we are today. What started out so well intended has turned out so terribly wrong in too many ways. When a noble intent applied over decades consumes itself in the end then it is a failed idea. Another course would have been wiser, in hindsight.
Everything good and sad about our American society today can be linked to this bubble of people in our land.
How the baby boom generation started is pretty simple. It was the birth numbers after World War Two that were way above the average. It resulted in a group of our national population way out of proportion to other groups before and after. This group was so large that it got the name “baby boomers”.
Back in the 1960’s many forces converged on the baby boomers. The rebellious stage of life was entered. Civil rights and the Vietnam war dominated politics, but this time it was not just talked about but applied as in living by example, a very noble course of action it seemed if anti-establishment in perception. Culture was dominated by youth, television and music, prosperity, and security. Individual rights over group rights were celebrated. The birth control pill was invented and used. A soft revolution was underway, and the heady could do their own thing in how they stormed their Bastille, knowing no one would shoot back. The times they were a changing! “If it feels good, do it”; “if you can’t be with the one you love, love the one you’re with” were repeated or sung over and over, often with a wink and a nod.
There was a resistance to all this. “My country right or wrong” and “love it or leave it” gained immense popularity as expressions. “Okie from Muscogee” became a cultural response song. Defamation of the American flag prompted many harsh responses, especially when worn as clothing. Long haired, dope smokin’, and hippy because derisive words at a national level.
Sadly assassinations, and many shootings only added to the turmoil of the times. During this turmoil the ideas of anti-establishment somehow became anti-government.
How the baby boomers sorted all this out took decades. Going to work as in a career, marrying, and having children changed most. And our Country is incredibly large. The academic and religious leaders went off on their own liberal courses inspired by the past soft revolution. Individual rights flourished as the idea of group rights faded in the culture. Intrinsic distrust of government also flourished as if the government was manned by non-Americans. The on-going Cold War seemed to tamper things down on the foreign front, and the draft went away. The rises in crime, out-of-wedlock births, expanded drug use, and sexually transmitted diseases nastier than those in the past were becoming more than hints on the horizon. The declines of educational scores began to appear across the country. The one constant was high school sports which remained as popular and supported as ever.
And now as in the Frank Sinatra song “It Was a Very Good Year” the baby boomers are in the autumn and winter of their lives. The descendents of the baby boomers are beginning to take over.
The idea of group rights, often expressed in National Interests, is coming back. Patriotism is no longer a derisive term. Living and doing by example has an expanded meaning over that introduced by the baby boomers counter culture. Volunteerism and faith-based initiatives are popular for the descendents of the baby boomers. Balancing idealism with practicality in deciding how to vote about solving our problems today is becoming prevalent. The present and future dominate the past. Social engineering must be purposeful, with desired results. The foreign front seems more threatening to most than in the past. The main stream religions are fading as the more independent protestant denominations are rising. The overall trend is that people are going to church in greater numbers than decades ago. The population is more acceptable to change for both foreign and domestic reasons, as long as the government is just, responsible, and listens.
There is an ageless assertion of group think and political correctness that is becoming quasi-religious dogma. Anti-government anything is still alive and well. Political discourse and mutual respect seem like old fashioned terms not useful today. Double standards are justifiable if for the right cause of the deciders. A large portion of the baby boomers still avoid war as in being anti-war. Diplomacy without the threat of war is doable, and the only course of action. The political and financial security of the past is part of their rights as a human. Social engineering is still a noble idea and intent, even if the result is a failure. The rights of humans are much expanded. Even the idea of an airline passenger bill of rights now makes sense. If we can’t change things constitutionally, then we can use the power of the people to make the changes deemed fit by the baby boomers.
So here we are today. What started out so well intended has turned out so terribly wrong in too many ways. When a noble intent applied over decades consumes itself in the end then it is a failed idea. Another course would have been wiser, in hindsight.
Sunday, April 15, 2007
When will comity come back to our federal government?
Where all the lack of comity began, or lack of mutual respect, is not as important as noting things are pitiful in D.C. these days. Lack of comity is not the American way.
Many think President Clinton and his wife introduced the hard core Arkansas State politics and methods to our government and bureaucracy in D.C. Others think he just expanded the potential that already existed. Either way, or other ways, things in D.C. are intolerable these days, spoken as a citizen.
Now we have six years of a President who stated up front that one of his objectives was to change the tone in D.C., and he still is following his stated objective. I still believe it because he seems to do it by example, as in the golden rule, as in show mutual respect to the Democrats, and a few others of his detractors, that he has delivered. That six years of this has not worked nationally is disappointing at worst given all the friction displayed by the Democratic Party, and potentially harmful to our Nation if Party objectives supercede National objectives, and lack of comity is now a political objective. Of course the normal Democratic Party argument is that he, the President personally, is disingenuous and not worth trusting. If this in a correct assessment, then the vote in 2008 should sort all this debate out.
The past can be a burden to most who look forward to our National future. Most citizens demand comity, or mutual respect, in looking forward to our future and the debate about all this. Those that do not get it or get dragged down by the past can go the way of dinosaurs.
Today there is little evidence that national politicians have “got it” about civility, mutual respect, and comity. This is the time to step in with the vote, even trolling for their votes to check their sincerity about comity.
Where all the lack of comity began, or lack of mutual respect, is not as important as noting things are pitiful in D.C. these days. Lack of comity is not the American way.
Many think President Clinton and his wife introduced the hard core Arkansas State politics and methods to our government and bureaucracy in D.C. Others think he just expanded the potential that already existed. Either way, or other ways, things in D.C. are intolerable these days, spoken as a citizen.
Now we have six years of a President who stated up front that one of his objectives was to change the tone in D.C., and he still is following his stated objective. I still believe it because he seems to do it by example, as in the golden rule, as in show mutual respect to the Democrats, and a few others of his detractors, that he has delivered. That six years of this has not worked nationally is disappointing at worst given all the friction displayed by the Democratic Party, and potentially harmful to our Nation if Party objectives supercede National objectives, and lack of comity is now a political objective. Of course the normal Democratic Party argument is that he, the President personally, is disingenuous and not worth trusting. If this in a correct assessment, then the vote in 2008 should sort all this debate out.
The past can be a burden to most who look forward to our National future. Most citizens demand comity, or mutual respect, in looking forward to our future and the debate about all this. Those that do not get it or get dragged down by the past can go the way of dinosaurs.
Today there is little evidence that national politicians have “got it” about civility, mutual respect, and comity. This is the time to step in with the vote, even trolling for their votes to check their sincerity about comity.
The Grim Reaper comes to the Media
How many people expect Katie Couric to have her CBS job in the next ten years? In the next ten years will the New York Times in any written or online mode be here? Will the Washington Post, Newsweek, Time, and other such publications be here in ten years? Will all the printed and television pundits still be getting paid for their opinions in ten years? For those who can retire first, just how secure is their retirement from the Washington Post when it goes under, for example?
Will such media chains as the Associated Press or Reuters, or even publicly supported organizations like BBC and NPR exist in their present form and editorial control in ten years?
In the last ten years, how many people have abandoned the aforementioned publications and chains because they are now editorials for their causes vice the “just the news” types they used to be, or pretended to be? Have the people changed, or has the Media changed? If it is some of both, who has changed more?
The professionalizing of past political campaigns included using media masters, or spin masters. How one said things, and when they said things, could influence the votes of citizens. How many people think this will still work in ten years? How many people think ideas may count more than spinning ideas in the next ten years? Will media spinning be part of governing in ten years? Will winning a war exist only if won in the media?
How many people think the present 24/7 news cycles brought about by the cable news television industry will still be here in ten years? Will 30 and 60 second sound bites and video clips and producer drop dead times still be the news standard compiled by industry networks? For that matter, what happens in ten years when all of the world’s population has access to the media and news than the maybe 1/3 of the population has today?
Things can change quicker than we might imagine. In 1900 one big topic was what to do with all the manure in big cities left by the animals used for transportation. In the next ten years a massive die off of the baby boom generation left by World War II will also bring about surprising changes.
Saturday, April 14, 2007
Wars and diplomacy are about ways of life, not life
There are some things worth fighting and dieing for, and just to preserve life is not one of them.
Wars and diplomacy are practiced by adults who do so from afar. Actual war fighting is done by those who see it more personally, as in love for their buddies.
Wars and diplomacy today are not about apelike chest beating, or egos, or insults, or even payback (at least in the short term). Wars and diplomacy are about protecting, and often advancing one’s way of life, one’s culture, one’s means to protect our families and children. This sounds like defensive war and diplomacy. There is offensive war and diplomacy, but it is seldom even considered in the West these days. Unfortunately, many in the East still do consider it since the idea is primeval in nature. And given the poor understanding of Eastern cultures and values, many in the West are at a disadvantage in defensive war and diplomacy. Forget the offensive part.
When Western political leaders are 100 % committed to trading our cultures and values and preservation of our way of life just to save one kidnapped person by Eastern people, in order to preserve his or her way of life, then there is a problem. All understand that life is full of compromises, so most understand that sometimes a politician may see advantages in compromising, as in paying money or releasing our own prisoners. It is the 100% factor that most object to. This is not theoretical, some have friends who have been kidnapped and put through mock executions by Eastern valued people.
So in the future is kidnapping by bandits and bad guys in the Middle East going to get a 100% response rate from our Western political leaders and their appointed minions? I hope and expect not. There are billions of us concerned about our progeny, our way of life, and even the wonderful things Western culture and science has brought to the world.
There are some things worth fighting and dieing for, and just to preserve life is not one of them.
Wars and diplomacy are practiced by adults who do so from afar. Actual war fighting is done by those who see it more personally, as in love for their buddies.
Wars and diplomacy today are not about apelike chest beating, or egos, or insults, or even payback (at least in the short term). Wars and diplomacy are about protecting, and often advancing one’s way of life, one’s culture, one’s means to protect our families and children. This sounds like defensive war and diplomacy. There is offensive war and diplomacy, but it is seldom even considered in the West these days. Unfortunately, many in the East still do consider it since the idea is primeval in nature. And given the poor understanding of Eastern cultures and values, many in the West are at a disadvantage in defensive war and diplomacy. Forget the offensive part.
When Western political leaders are 100 % committed to trading our cultures and values and preservation of our way of life just to save one kidnapped person by Eastern people, in order to preserve his or her way of life, then there is a problem. All understand that life is full of compromises, so most understand that sometimes a politician may see advantages in compromising, as in paying money or releasing our own prisoners. It is the 100% factor that most object to. This is not theoretical, some have friends who have been kidnapped and put through mock executions by Eastern valued people.
So in the future is kidnapping by bandits and bad guys in the Middle East going to get a 100% response rate from our Western political leaders and their appointed minions? I hope and expect not. There are billions of us concerned about our progeny, our way of life, and even the wonderful things Western culture and science has brought to the world.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)