Something stinks in politics
We all want to get along, kinda like Rodney King in L.A.
But for the umteenth time a rash of bad economic news, especially news leads and titles when the actual economic news is much better, starts to smell like an attempt to hoodwink us Americans. I could even buy this, until it coincides with the election cycle. Something is rotten in Denmark, as the old saying goes.
There is much about how bad the mainstream media is in being an adjunct of the democratic party. That's fine too since most of us just tune them out, and they lose jobs slowly but surely.
My question is are these American people deliberately propogandists in the worse Nazi sort of way, or even mean spirited enough to try trick us into voting their way. Do they love or even respect their country? Is some other utopian or potitical agenda at play? And the barbarians are at the gates.
Translate
Friday, June 29, 2007
The American personality drives us today
The American personality might be characterized as an easygoing, sentimental, fair-minded ruthlessness. We tie yellow ribbons 'round the old oak tree at the same moment we dispatch a wing of B-52s to carpet-bomb the enemy. No murderer in the world gets as many appeals from his conviction as an American murderer. But when we have finished being fair (about the same length of time that a French murderer has to spend in prison before being released), we fry him. (Tony Blankley)
Americans are New World. We are not Old World. Traditionally in the past, the vast oceans around us insulated us from all the Old World's travails. And we are still New World enough to be anti-war and isolationist since the oceans protected us against all things: smart, dumb, idealistic, Old World, or otherwise. Along the way we Americans changed, too. The urban/rural shift is the obvious one. So also is the naming of new children as the most popular names change to more family type names with Old World origins. This trend cannot be dictated, it is American.
So how can a Country as large as the USA be so seemingly evenly divided over major issues such as immigration, our place in the World, and foreign wars. Perhaps it is our American personality, and perhaps it is just talking past each other. The follow on suggests considering trying to convince the others, or just listening to them. Perhaps I and many others are working not against political opponents who think another way, but just working against an American personality adopted by about one half of my fellow citizens.
So do I fight in the arena of debate and ideas, or surrender to not wasting my time fighting an American personality? Do I write and blog, or go silent?
One can make their peace in many ways. I have made my peace. The events of 9/11 made the oceans inconseqeuntial, and now my children and grandchildren are under threat of life and western standards of life. The threat is obvious by the attack of 9/11. It is the Islamic fascist barbarian group of madarassa indoctrinated thugs who will tell us how to live their way.
Even the American personality will say no, and after much diplomacy, will also come to fight for our way of life. All this suggests less a debate than just providing information to the other half of the American personality and let them, and us, assert ourselves.
The American personality might be characterized as an easygoing, sentimental, fair-minded ruthlessness. We tie yellow ribbons 'round the old oak tree at the same moment we dispatch a wing of B-52s to carpet-bomb the enemy. No murderer in the world gets as many appeals from his conviction as an American murderer. But when we have finished being fair (about the same length of time that a French murderer has to spend in prison before being released), we fry him. (Tony Blankley)
Americans are New World. We are not Old World. Traditionally in the past, the vast oceans around us insulated us from all the Old World's travails. And we are still New World enough to be anti-war and isolationist since the oceans protected us against all things: smart, dumb, idealistic, Old World, or otherwise. Along the way we Americans changed, too. The urban/rural shift is the obvious one. So also is the naming of new children as the most popular names change to more family type names with Old World origins. This trend cannot be dictated, it is American.
So how can a Country as large as the USA be so seemingly evenly divided over major issues such as immigration, our place in the World, and foreign wars. Perhaps it is our American personality, and perhaps it is just talking past each other. The follow on suggests considering trying to convince the others, or just listening to them. Perhaps I and many others are working not against political opponents who think another way, but just working against an American personality adopted by about one half of my fellow citizens.
So do I fight in the arena of debate and ideas, or surrender to not wasting my time fighting an American personality? Do I write and blog, or go silent?
One can make their peace in many ways. I have made my peace. The events of 9/11 made the oceans inconseqeuntial, and now my children and grandchildren are under threat of life and western standards of life. The threat is obvious by the attack of 9/11. It is the Islamic fascist barbarian group of madarassa indoctrinated thugs who will tell us how to live their way.
Even the American personality will say no, and after much diplomacy, will also come to fight for our way of life. All this suggests less a debate than just providing information to the other half of the American personality and let them, and us, assert ourselves.
Too many basic functions of the federal government are failing us
What are we going to do about it?
The government is supposed to provide for the common defense and general well being. Yet the Iranians are literally attacking us and our allies throughout the middle east, and yet there is no public response by the Executive or Congress, not one hearing. One hopes some covert things are going on. But after decades of giving an inch to the Iranians and they take a mile, the future of our common defense looks worse than today. If the Executive and Congress cannot provide for a common defense, and keep the citizens even barely informed, then who will?
It took a citizen uprising to stop the Senate’s recent “comprehensive immigration” reform, this being the third time since the mid-60’s. In the interim, literally millions of illegal immigrants have invaded our Country with little apparent problem or challenge. The government is supposed to guard our borders and control our immigration, but has failed us in this so basic government function. If the Executive and Congress can’t do this, who will?
The spate of poisoned and unsafe foods and toothpastes and pet products and tires from China begs the question, who is checking our imports? Our China imports have increased dramatically (40% by one account) but the Food and Drug Administration inspector work has not increased at all. The way I read it, we citizens are the guinea pigs, and when we or our pets start getting sick or dying, then the FDA learns about it and takes corrective action. If the Executive and Congress can’t do this, or even fund these preventive inspections, who will? Who will make the Chinese and others go by our auto safety standards, our food safety standards, and even our radiation standards? Who will tell them this is not negotiable, and hold them to it?
Recently federal responsibilities and funding have extended to the infamous bridge to nowhere in Alaska, rehabilitating a public park in Chicago, and making a bicycle trail in Tennessee. This suggests our Executive and Congress have misplaced priorities.
None of this discussion is about rocket science. Some leadership is called for in recognizing the most basic requirements of any federal government, and acting accordingly. And some management skill is called for in implementing these most basic federal government responsibilities. If the Executive and Congress can’t do this, then it is time for the voters to change our Executive and Congress.
What are we going to do about it?
The government is supposed to provide for the common defense and general well being. Yet the Iranians are literally attacking us and our allies throughout the middle east, and yet there is no public response by the Executive or Congress, not one hearing. One hopes some covert things are going on. But after decades of giving an inch to the Iranians and they take a mile, the future of our common defense looks worse than today. If the Executive and Congress cannot provide for a common defense, and keep the citizens even barely informed, then who will?
It took a citizen uprising to stop the Senate’s recent “comprehensive immigration” reform, this being the third time since the mid-60’s. In the interim, literally millions of illegal immigrants have invaded our Country with little apparent problem or challenge. The government is supposed to guard our borders and control our immigration, but has failed us in this so basic government function. If the Executive and Congress can’t do this, who will?
The spate of poisoned and unsafe foods and toothpastes and pet products and tires from China begs the question, who is checking our imports? Our China imports have increased dramatically (40% by one account) but the Food and Drug Administration inspector work has not increased at all. The way I read it, we citizens are the guinea pigs, and when we or our pets start getting sick or dying, then the FDA learns about it and takes corrective action. If the Executive and Congress can’t do this, or even fund these preventive inspections, who will? Who will make the Chinese and others go by our auto safety standards, our food safety standards, and even our radiation standards? Who will tell them this is not negotiable, and hold them to it?
Recently federal responsibilities and funding have extended to the infamous bridge to nowhere in Alaska, rehabilitating a public park in Chicago, and making a bicycle trail in Tennessee. This suggests our Executive and Congress have misplaced priorities.
None of this discussion is about rocket science. Some leadership is called for in recognizing the most basic requirements of any federal government, and acting accordingly. And some management skill is called for in implementing these most basic federal government responsibilities. If the Executive and Congress can’t do this, then it is time for the voters to change our Executive and Congress.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Going to the well once too often
… Or the law of diminishing returns never goes away.
Many tried and true political methods of the past to fund benefits that got people elected or hired, or got agendas promoted, are inherently coming to an end. Here are obvious examples:
The tobacco industry agreement provided very large de facto windfall taxes that are already spent.
Cigarette taxes are raised to where the resulting tax income is at its limit.
Government slashes in Medicare and Medicaid are forcing doctors and others in the industry to leave this part of the business. Present beneficiaries are going back on their own.
Pay as you go for social security has been a successful ruse, but coming to an end as the baby boomers arrive in the queue and the ratio of workers to beneficiaries becomes much smaller.
Borrowing money to pay federal bills vice raising taxes to pay the same bills is ever more a political hot potato. It is today’s version of taxation without representation as we pass the principal and interest on to future generations who cannot vote today. Economic arguments about the affordability ignore the political fairness problem which grows more and more.
Robbing Peter to pay Paul is a dicey political problem when used to fund new benefits. Robbing Peter to pay Paul is to be avoided. Even when the Peace Dividend appeared as a windfall de facto tax income in the early 1990’s, it disappeared quickly as a funding source. In the rural part of Tennessee where I now live, the apparent shifting of benefits from long time tax payers and voters to the poor and illegal immigrants is a very volatile voting issue to those on the losing end. The incremental health care discussion is especially volatile.
The general public is becoming much more aware of the costs of environmentalism as these costs begin hitting them in the pocket book, and lifestyles. The general public can understand the idea of 10% of the biofuel for airline travel taking a field the size of Florida to grow, all the while their cost of food also goes up.
Alternate sources of income, such as paying to use public parks, or paying more to watch our beloved TV’s (you will be learning more about Cable Cards soon), will also reach a point of diminishing returns.
There are some obvious consequences:
Every dollar we borrow from a foreign source to pay today’s federal bills threatens our future National Sovereignty and National Interests.
Using smoke and mirrors to try obfuscate robbing Peter to pay Paul will have terrible political consequences when exposed to the light of day.
Uncontrolled spending vis-à-vis earmarks will come to a real end, not a smoke and mirrors end.
A National energy policy will include all elements, to include future domestic drilling for oil (with time limits).
Generational political conflicts over benefits and funding of these benefits will become political reality. Likely, birth rates will go up, as the old form of Social Security called large families comes back.
A Congressional Term Limits Amendment will be become the law of the land. We already have a Presidential Term Limits Amendment.
… Or the law of diminishing returns never goes away.
Many tried and true political methods of the past to fund benefits that got people elected or hired, or got agendas promoted, are inherently coming to an end. Here are obvious examples:
The tobacco industry agreement provided very large de facto windfall taxes that are already spent.
Cigarette taxes are raised to where the resulting tax income is at its limit.
Government slashes in Medicare and Medicaid are forcing doctors and others in the industry to leave this part of the business. Present beneficiaries are going back on their own.
Pay as you go for social security has been a successful ruse, but coming to an end as the baby boomers arrive in the queue and the ratio of workers to beneficiaries becomes much smaller.
Borrowing money to pay federal bills vice raising taxes to pay the same bills is ever more a political hot potato. It is today’s version of taxation without representation as we pass the principal and interest on to future generations who cannot vote today. Economic arguments about the affordability ignore the political fairness problem which grows more and more.
Robbing Peter to pay Paul is a dicey political problem when used to fund new benefits. Robbing Peter to pay Paul is to be avoided. Even when the Peace Dividend appeared as a windfall de facto tax income in the early 1990’s, it disappeared quickly as a funding source. In the rural part of Tennessee where I now live, the apparent shifting of benefits from long time tax payers and voters to the poor and illegal immigrants is a very volatile voting issue to those on the losing end. The incremental health care discussion is especially volatile.
The general public is becoming much more aware of the costs of environmentalism as these costs begin hitting them in the pocket book, and lifestyles. The general public can understand the idea of 10% of the biofuel for airline travel taking a field the size of Florida to grow, all the while their cost of food also goes up.
Alternate sources of income, such as paying to use public parks, or paying more to watch our beloved TV’s (you will be learning more about Cable Cards soon), will also reach a point of diminishing returns.
There are some obvious consequences:
Every dollar we borrow from a foreign source to pay today’s federal bills threatens our future National Sovereignty and National Interests.
Using smoke and mirrors to try obfuscate robbing Peter to pay Paul will have terrible political consequences when exposed to the light of day.
Uncontrolled spending vis-à-vis earmarks will come to a real end, not a smoke and mirrors end.
A National energy policy will include all elements, to include future domestic drilling for oil (with time limits).
Generational political conflicts over benefits and funding of these benefits will become political reality. Likely, birth rates will go up, as the old form of Social Security called large families comes back.
A Congressional Term Limits Amendment will be become the law of the land. We already have a Presidential Term Limits Amendment.
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Sometimes one must state the obvious
Sometimes the king has no clothes, even if it takes a child to say the obvious. This parable applies to today.
It is obvious the Iraq war was has been mismanaged in D.C. Our present leaders in the Executive and Congress have few even interagency ideas of what to do (or cannot overcome it) in any third world conquest, and after attack on our country. The high school version and Congressional version of fad now is to bail out, and to pontificate about it, apparently with the most silly media coverage.
We have elected the wrong leaders, though leader may be the incorrect term. The present people there seem more like professional politicians and at best local politicians who can not think in a National sense beyond pontificating, which is being kind. And the present talk about how to pull out of this mess never mentions the consequences of doing so. If only the world were friction free and without consequences. That the charade that is amplified in the media of somehow being hood winked is appalling. We all have memories, to include the debate and the vote. Many politicians may seek to pretend and report otherwise, and the media may cover up, but many citizens have to live in the real world. They are worth listening to ... before the next vote.
And it is our National Defense and Interest at stake, as if that seems to matter in the confident thoughts of the present political leaders.
The terrible consequences of the mismanagement of the Iraq war is that so many citizens are fed up enough to quit, plain and simple. Talk about a Catch 22. We're damned if we do and damned if we are not. Unfortunately life and the military is not a Catch 22 movie and the irony of the movie is not a foreign policy.
There are alternatives to just politically quitting in some sort of mollifying way to American voters.
First is the leaders we need. They are not presently elected and in charge today, but we most certainly must elect them in the future. These Americans are everywhere, and they are not the people in D.C. today. They are Americans like Ike who got us out of Korea, or Reagan who attacked Gaddafi after the killings by them in Germany, or those today just waiting to be called. The obvious principle is that they thought National Defense, and knew when talk ended and power talked in dealing with these mostly small level despots today. Perhaps that is the most king has no clothes element today that is astounding. This is not multiculturalism; this is our National Defense and our way of life. And after all, we are dealing with despots, not the likes of Gandhi or King.
Sometimes the king has no clothes, even if it takes a child to say the obvious. This parable applies to today.
It is obvious the Iraq war was has been mismanaged in D.C. Our present leaders in the Executive and Congress have few even interagency ideas of what to do (or cannot overcome it) in any third world conquest, and after attack on our country. The high school version and Congressional version of fad now is to bail out, and to pontificate about it, apparently with the most silly media coverage.
We have elected the wrong leaders, though leader may be the incorrect term. The present people there seem more like professional politicians and at best local politicians who can not think in a National sense beyond pontificating, which is being kind. And the present talk about how to pull out of this mess never mentions the consequences of doing so. If only the world were friction free and without consequences. That the charade that is amplified in the media of somehow being hood winked is appalling. We all have memories, to include the debate and the vote. Many politicians may seek to pretend and report otherwise, and the media may cover up, but many citizens have to live in the real world. They are worth listening to ... before the next vote.
And it is our National Defense and Interest at stake, as if that seems to matter in the confident thoughts of the present political leaders.
The terrible consequences of the mismanagement of the Iraq war is that so many citizens are fed up enough to quit, plain and simple. Talk about a Catch 22. We're damned if we do and damned if we are not. Unfortunately life and the military is not a Catch 22 movie and the irony of the movie is not a foreign policy.
There are alternatives to just politically quitting in some sort of mollifying way to American voters.
First is the leaders we need. They are not presently elected and in charge today, but we most certainly must elect them in the future. These Americans are everywhere, and they are not the people in D.C. today. They are Americans like Ike who got us out of Korea, or Reagan who attacked Gaddafi after the killings by them in Germany, or those today just waiting to be called. The obvious principle is that they thought National Defense, and knew when talk ended and power talked in dealing with these mostly small level despots today. Perhaps that is the most king has no clothes element today that is astounding. This is not multiculturalism; this is our National Defense and our way of life. And after all, we are dealing with despots, not the likes of Gandhi or King.
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
What happens when our adversaries don't think like us
They become emboldened to the point of overt aggression. The very USA people who have encouraged and demanded diplomacy and reason and listening have in the end made things worse. The Iranians, like other regional powers in history, have learned appeasement out of decades of western reactions and some actions dominated by those who have led the policies that the Iranians take as appeasement. It is coming that our national defense and national interests are being threatened enough to where even the pacifists will be concerned about their way of life.
Two obvious points jump out.
First is that we simply don't have the leaders in the Executive or the Congress we need to survive as a nation, and I dare suggest, promote our nation as a way of life. Now that we are being attacked and the discussion in D.C. and the main stream media is still on lesser issues, the old articles about comparisons to the late 1930's come back again. Actually they were better then. What might have been nipped in the bud by small military action, or covert action, now will take tanker trucks of blood and lives, and again those most sincere about avoiding war at all costs have now brought it down on us. God damn them all.
Second is an even bigger concern about things spiraling out of control, or unleashing the genies, or just plain losing control of the situation. Those that think Iranian misjudgments by Iranian dictators are the only problem are naive, hopeful, or disingenuous. Regional nation-state and tribal leaders and even narco promoters throughout the world will take advantage of the distractions of the USA and its allies, real or perceived, and just be themselves. As a USA nation mostly focused on itself, we want to avoid all this. But once the genies are unleashed, things become scary for the control freaks and those who actually have to bleed.
One conclusion comes to mind. Our present Executive and Congressional leaders may want to surrender. Some present leaders may think it is surrender to the Iranians in the region, and some may think it is surrender to the action of the ages in people asserting themselves. I could almost listen to the last idea, until I see the terrible fascist and hatred nature of these despots, these criminals, these kill all barbarians. Since 5 out of 6 USA people think more like the alternatives in the Nations defense are better choices, change in the coming elections will promote this most basic defense of the Nation. Since our government is not parliamentarian, but republican, a Chamberlain cannot be replaced by a Churchill as quickly, but surely most certainly.
The most fundamental mistake is that of those in the west who think all people think like them and have the same values and aspirations. One wishes it was so. But it is not. So it is down to fight for our values and way of life, or surrender. Thank goodness there is a vote everywhere in the west. As an American, we take an oath to support and defend the Constitution, not any individual. The oath includes defending against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
The now oft written and publicized line, mostly in the third world, is that the way to win the local or regional war in not militarily or otherwise locally, but rather in Washington, D.C., is being applied against us again and today. There are historical reasons to buy this line. But perhaps the Iranians have gone too far, as well as the genies soon to be unleashed. But also perhaps our present political leaders will surrender.
If a war continues, we did not start it. The Iranians already have. And all attempts to control it are a good idea, but will probably fail. That there is no action in D.C reflects so poorly on our present elected leaders that many changes are coming, foreign and domestic. God damn them all.
They become emboldened to the point of overt aggression. The very USA people who have encouraged and demanded diplomacy and reason and listening have in the end made things worse. The Iranians, like other regional powers in history, have learned appeasement out of decades of western reactions and some actions dominated by those who have led the policies that the Iranians take as appeasement. It is coming that our national defense and national interests are being threatened enough to where even the pacifists will be concerned about their way of life.
Two obvious points jump out.
First is that we simply don't have the leaders in the Executive or the Congress we need to survive as a nation, and I dare suggest, promote our nation as a way of life. Now that we are being attacked and the discussion in D.C. and the main stream media is still on lesser issues, the old articles about comparisons to the late 1930's come back again. Actually they were better then. What might have been nipped in the bud by small military action, or covert action, now will take tanker trucks of blood and lives, and again those most sincere about avoiding war at all costs have now brought it down on us. God damn them all.
Second is an even bigger concern about things spiraling out of control, or unleashing the genies, or just plain losing control of the situation. Those that think Iranian misjudgments by Iranian dictators are the only problem are naive, hopeful, or disingenuous. Regional nation-state and tribal leaders and even narco promoters throughout the world will take advantage of the distractions of the USA and its allies, real or perceived, and just be themselves. As a USA nation mostly focused on itself, we want to avoid all this. But once the genies are unleashed, things become scary for the control freaks and those who actually have to bleed.
One conclusion comes to mind. Our present Executive and Congressional leaders may want to surrender. Some present leaders may think it is surrender to the Iranians in the region, and some may think it is surrender to the action of the ages in people asserting themselves. I could almost listen to the last idea, until I see the terrible fascist and hatred nature of these despots, these criminals, these kill all barbarians. Since 5 out of 6 USA people think more like the alternatives in the Nations defense are better choices, change in the coming elections will promote this most basic defense of the Nation. Since our government is not parliamentarian, but republican, a Chamberlain cannot be replaced by a Churchill as quickly, but surely most certainly.
The most fundamental mistake is that of those in the west who think all people think like them and have the same values and aspirations. One wishes it was so. But it is not. So it is down to fight for our values and way of life, or surrender. Thank goodness there is a vote everywhere in the west. As an American, we take an oath to support and defend the Constitution, not any individual. The oath includes defending against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
The now oft written and publicized line, mostly in the third world, is that the way to win the local or regional war in not militarily or otherwise locally, but rather in Washington, D.C., is being applied against us again and today. There are historical reasons to buy this line. But perhaps the Iranians have gone too far, as well as the genies soon to be unleashed. But also perhaps our present political leaders will surrender.
If a war continues, we did not start it. The Iranians already have. And all attempts to control it are a good idea, but will probably fail. That there is no action in D.C reflects so poorly on our present elected leaders that many changes are coming, foreign and domestic. God damn them all.
Monday, June 25, 2007
Fatherhood situation report
Daughters are not as smart as I thought. She might actually be a 12 year old kid. I do hope the showers are cold at the girls camp (they are at the boys camp), and think so. Both are on the Cumberland Plateau in Tennessee. My intent is for her to be appreciative of all the wonders we do have at our homes, today.
This father may be a bigger pansy than I thought.
I was, and am, very proud of her in her preparation. She used the internet to repeatedly download the camp checklist of what to bring, and went through the checklist repeatedly during packing. Her brother, to be kind, was not so fast. The camp's philosophy and mine as a Marine are the same. If you don't bring it, live without it or make do. At least the camps have a list. The old Marines seldom did, though there were always work arounds. The obvious example is rain gear where a sheet of plastic or a plastic trash bag can be modified to work.
So I was shocked, shocked as in Casablanca the movie terms, when I got a letter begging for cowboy boots so she could ride horses. Of course, I blew her off in the best father and Marine way. She had her chance and blew it. Then I got a second letter also begging for the cowboy boots (size 3, though she would take sizes 2, 3, and 4). Then I went back and read the internet checklist, and sure enough it called for cowboy boots. The letter added she and another girl shared her friend's boots since they were on alternate days, except for the rodeo. Hence the begging for boots along with all the I miss you stuff.
So pansy me went to the local discount store and got her made in India cowboy boots and took them out to girls camp.
But I can be tough. I skipped the rodeo, anticipating blaming it on the local prevailing thunderstorms.
Daughters are not as smart as I thought. She might actually be a 12 year old kid. I do hope the showers are cold at the girls camp (they are at the boys camp), and think so. Both are on the Cumberland Plateau in Tennessee. My intent is for her to be appreciative of all the wonders we do have at our homes, today.
This father may be a bigger pansy than I thought.
I was, and am, very proud of her in her preparation. She used the internet to repeatedly download the camp checklist of what to bring, and went through the checklist repeatedly during packing. Her brother, to be kind, was not so fast. The camp's philosophy and mine as a Marine are the same. If you don't bring it, live without it or make do. At least the camps have a list. The old Marines seldom did, though there were always work arounds. The obvious example is rain gear where a sheet of plastic or a plastic trash bag can be modified to work.
So I was shocked, shocked as in Casablanca the movie terms, when I got a letter begging for cowboy boots so she could ride horses. Of course, I blew her off in the best father and Marine way. She had her chance and blew it. Then I got a second letter also begging for the cowboy boots (size 3, though she would take sizes 2, 3, and 4). Then I went back and read the internet checklist, and sure enough it called for cowboy boots. The letter added she and another girl shared her friend's boots since they were on alternate days, except for the rodeo. Hence the begging for boots along with all the I miss you stuff.
So pansy me went to the local discount store and got her made in India cowboy boots and took them out to girls camp.
But I can be tough. I skipped the rodeo, anticipating blaming it on the local prevailing thunderstorms.
Recent Newsweek reports are becoming funny
Reports by at least two Newsweek reporters who have visited Tehran, Iran recently make many want to laugh at the reporters. How naïve, or prejudiced, or egotistical they come across as reporters. The universal principle of going to any microcosm of a country, and saying the whole country is like this, is silly. It’s laughable. Especially saying the capital is representative of the country is just out of touch. Most know better.
And educated and apparently not so smart people are the usual culprits. Hearing engineers in D.C. who apparently visited Atlanta’s Stone Mountain sometime, seriously tell people that people in the south dress and go around like the beginnings of the movie “Gone With the Wind” was too funny, if the gross application of this ignorance wasn’t so serious.
And ignorance and expectations are a two-way street. As a bachelor Marine going to Denmark for a first exercise, I had visions of sugar plums dancing in my head, Danish style. I could just imagine nubile topless females sunning themselves in the Tivoli, Copenhagen and my devil’s approach to all. Well, I ended up in the middle of Jutland, and it was more like Mayberry RFD. The old Georgia Tech expression of corn fed farm girls came to mind (an old football insult cheer). So which is a way to write about the how the Danish people are … there is none. It is “site” specific. Denmark is a big country, and Iran is even bigger.
I for one have been to military schools with Iranian military types, not the Army of God types, and have the utmost respect for them from a professional point of view. And I have some other time in various countries and capitals and cultural centers, and know now what most Americans have figured out and also know, there is no generic American. Any citizen from Corona, S.D. that goes to the big city of Minneapolis St. Paul for a visit knows this. I just wish Newsweek types on Tehran paid visits knew this, or would even hint the “site” specific influence of their article. Otherwise they seem funny.
Reports by at least two Newsweek reporters who have visited Tehran, Iran recently make many want to laugh at the reporters. How naïve, or prejudiced, or egotistical they come across as reporters. The universal principle of going to any microcosm of a country, and saying the whole country is like this, is silly. It’s laughable. Especially saying the capital is representative of the country is just out of touch. Most know better.
And educated and apparently not so smart people are the usual culprits. Hearing engineers in D.C. who apparently visited Atlanta’s Stone Mountain sometime, seriously tell people that people in the south dress and go around like the beginnings of the movie “Gone With the Wind” was too funny, if the gross application of this ignorance wasn’t so serious.
And ignorance and expectations are a two-way street. As a bachelor Marine going to Denmark for a first exercise, I had visions of sugar plums dancing in my head, Danish style. I could just imagine nubile topless females sunning themselves in the Tivoli, Copenhagen and my devil’s approach to all. Well, I ended up in the middle of Jutland, and it was more like Mayberry RFD. The old Georgia Tech expression of corn fed farm girls came to mind (an old football insult cheer). So which is a way to write about the how the Danish people are … there is none. It is “site” specific. Denmark is a big country, and Iran is even bigger.
I for one have been to military schools with Iranian military types, not the Army of God types, and have the utmost respect for them from a professional point of view. And I have some other time in various countries and capitals and cultural centers, and know now what most Americans have figured out and also know, there is no generic American. Any citizen from Corona, S.D. that goes to the big city of Minneapolis St. Paul for a visit knows this. I just wish Newsweek types on Tehran paid visits knew this, or would even hint the “site” specific influence of their article. Otherwise they seem funny.
A foreign policy for the American people
Thinking out of the box … Yes!
Thinking by all regions of America … Yes. Beyond the D.C. beltway … certainly.
A realistic appreciation of how the world has changed, and is always changing … absolutely.
Dominated by the New World in the Western Hemisphere … of course. Lowering the Old World’s domination of all things foreign, including policy … by default.
Some of the principals that come naturally are:
Takes advantage of the miracle the Old World created in the New World.
Incorporates the American personality which avoids wars, but also is willing to fight wars when need be (don’t tread on me).
Simple in concept … do the New World right thing and credibility will follow.
Inherent focus on the common people objectives and much less domination by the Old World ruling classes.
Never dogmatically applied.
Assumes the best future pattern for the whole World is that of the New World.
This last point is titanic in its implications. It is titanic in its belief that the miracles created in the New World are superior to the Old World’s ways. And it is titanic in the large guidepost it establishes. And we all know the New World is always evolving, too, but the guidepost always remains a New World guidepost.
In a perfect world, we Americans will never be dragged down by the Old World, rather, we will drag the Old World our way. And we also know the World is not perfect, so the road will be bumpy and curved, rather than smooth and straight in some utopian idea of a perfect world.
One can say this foreign policy has already started just by using immigration patterns of people coming to the New World. But immigration is an indicator or a tool of an applied foreign policy. The bigger picture is one of western culture and values being best used in the New World. An American foreign policy that expresses this as best for the whole World is so American. It is not natural, and there are other possible outcomes and World situations, some much worse.
Thinking out of the box … Yes!
Thinking by all regions of America … Yes. Beyond the D.C. beltway … certainly.
A realistic appreciation of how the world has changed, and is always changing … absolutely.
Dominated by the New World in the Western Hemisphere … of course. Lowering the Old World’s domination of all things foreign, including policy … by default.
Some of the principals that come naturally are:
Takes advantage of the miracle the Old World created in the New World.
Incorporates the American personality which avoids wars, but also is willing to fight wars when need be (don’t tread on me).
Simple in concept … do the New World right thing and credibility will follow.
Inherent focus on the common people objectives and much less domination by the Old World ruling classes.
Never dogmatically applied.
Assumes the best future pattern for the whole World is that of the New World.
This last point is titanic in its implications. It is titanic in its belief that the miracles created in the New World are superior to the Old World’s ways. And it is titanic in the large guidepost it establishes. And we all know the New World is always evolving, too, but the guidepost always remains a New World guidepost.
In a perfect world, we Americans will never be dragged down by the Old World, rather, we will drag the Old World our way. And we also know the World is not perfect, so the road will be bumpy and curved, rather than smooth and straight in some utopian idea of a perfect world.
One can say this foreign policy has already started just by using immigration patterns of people coming to the New World. But immigration is an indicator or a tool of an applied foreign policy. The bigger picture is one of western culture and values being best used in the New World. An American foreign policy that expresses this as best for the whole World is so American. It is not natural, and there are other possible outcomes and World situations, some much worse.
Sunday, June 24, 2007
“An unfinished life” … the movie
This one’s a sleeper, maybe soon to the a cult type rural movie. My 12 year old daughter watches it up here in Tennessee when from Atlanta, like every day. The movie location is like Wyoming or Montana.
Robert Redford finally plays his age, and he is great. Morgan Freeman is also good, as well as Jennifer Lopez. The movie is directed by the Swede Lasse Halstrom, who specializes in my mind with rural movies. He directed “The Cider House Rules”.
Thumbs up. Go check it out since it is past theater distribution. I had to look like five times to find it at WalMart in Cookeville, Tn.
This one’s a sleeper, maybe soon to the a cult type rural movie. My 12 year old daughter watches it up here in Tennessee when from Atlanta, like every day. The movie location is like Wyoming or Montana.
Robert Redford finally plays his age, and he is great. Morgan Freeman is also good, as well as Jennifer Lopez. The movie is directed by the Swede Lasse Halstrom, who specializes in my mind with rural movies. He directed “The Cider House Rules”.
Thumbs up. Go check it out since it is past theater distribution. I had to look like five times to find it at WalMart in Cookeville, Tn.
American future foreign policy
When one reads a WaPo piece by David Ignatius I am attracted, even if he did pronounce in one earlier article that the global warming debate is over (at least in his mind). So maybe his judgment can be different. But when I read an article today that attempts to summarize what three old time men of the diplomatic past say about the future, I have my attention gained again. The three old time people are Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft on a TV show that is part of a round table series of shows that some or all of them do. I actually took the time to listen to the almost one hour show, and what they said and what David Ignatius said they said is not quite the same. In fairness to David Ignatius, and I believe he is well intentioned and a good writer, his judgment about what to say they said is different from mine. And I am just a common citizen. Actually, so is he. And the interviewer was Charlie Rose, who did a very fair job I believe.
At this point I diverge from the article and the Charlie Rose interview, though the theme in all is American future foreign policy. Clearly the old time assumptions and standards about the world as it was are changing. It is in fact important to listen to our adversaries, if often just to show them we can listen. Just who do we Americans want listening was really never asked? Is it the old time diplomats in their ways of astute diplomacy and dancing around the issue, or is it some new types more attuned to the present ugly reality. Is the goal still to use astute diplomacy to have our way, or to adjust to the new world way, what ever that is. And who dominates the future world? Is it the old world’s most complicated problems, the old world’s newest global balkanization problems, or good grief, can we address new world problems. These old time diplomats came across as old time diplomats. Though well experienced and well intentioned and certainly politically powerful, for lack of knowing what to do, they recommend doing what they know. The logic makes sense for many citizens.
Can we have a “new world” foreign policy? I think I heard such a diplomatic line during the show as “do the right thing and credibility will follow”. Never in the one hour show or the David Ignatius summary of same, did I hear discussion of terms like thuggery, bullying, the role crime plays in most third world societies, or even piracy. What I heard was more east coast diatribe based on lifestyle and experience based on the west. The general point of view was to treat many of them as moral equals. Another point of view and course of action says when those Barbary type people arise, one does not treat them as anything else than criminals who hurt us. We kill them to protect our way of life.
So one thing in a future foreign policy that is a seismic shift does, if it emphasizes the “new world”, is unleash the genies. In this is the path to the human future. And in any foreign policy, old world or new world, squashing the thugs and bullies is constant. I for one wished it had been mentioned in the show. We must always talk to all, but never be dragged down by the old world diplomatic solutions and thugs.
When one reads a WaPo piece by David Ignatius I am attracted, even if he did pronounce in one earlier article that the global warming debate is over (at least in his mind). So maybe his judgment can be different. But when I read an article today that attempts to summarize what three old time men of the diplomatic past say about the future, I have my attention gained again. The three old time people are Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft on a TV show that is part of a round table series of shows that some or all of them do. I actually took the time to listen to the almost one hour show, and what they said and what David Ignatius said they said is not quite the same. In fairness to David Ignatius, and I believe he is well intentioned and a good writer, his judgment about what to say they said is different from mine. And I am just a common citizen. Actually, so is he. And the interviewer was Charlie Rose, who did a very fair job I believe.
At this point I diverge from the article and the Charlie Rose interview, though the theme in all is American future foreign policy. Clearly the old time assumptions and standards about the world as it was are changing. It is in fact important to listen to our adversaries, if often just to show them we can listen. Just who do we Americans want listening was really never asked? Is it the old time diplomats in their ways of astute diplomacy and dancing around the issue, or is it some new types more attuned to the present ugly reality. Is the goal still to use astute diplomacy to have our way, or to adjust to the new world way, what ever that is. And who dominates the future world? Is it the old world’s most complicated problems, the old world’s newest global balkanization problems, or good grief, can we address new world problems. These old time diplomats came across as old time diplomats. Though well experienced and well intentioned and certainly politically powerful, for lack of knowing what to do, they recommend doing what they know. The logic makes sense for many citizens.
Can we have a “new world” foreign policy? I think I heard such a diplomatic line during the show as “do the right thing and credibility will follow”. Never in the one hour show or the David Ignatius summary of same, did I hear discussion of terms like thuggery, bullying, the role crime plays in most third world societies, or even piracy. What I heard was more east coast diatribe based on lifestyle and experience based on the west. The general point of view was to treat many of them as moral equals. Another point of view and course of action says when those Barbary type people arise, one does not treat them as anything else than criminals who hurt us. We kill them to protect our way of life.
So one thing in a future foreign policy that is a seismic shift does, if it emphasizes the “new world”, is unleash the genies. In this is the path to the human future. And in any foreign policy, old world or new world, squashing the thugs and bullies is constant. I for one wished it had been mentioned in the show. We must always talk to all, but never be dragged down by the old world diplomatic solutions and thugs.
Saturday, June 23, 2007
What’s your brand of news?
This post is from the user point of view. We all know or think the media is prejudiced in its reporting. Most think the prejudice is in political skewing. Some others, of which I am one, think too many young “journalists” have been led astray by academia in its influence on later job reporting with an emphasis on emotional influence or just driving up business profits. The trends are that these students are slowly losing their jobs after school while their academic professors go on to well paid retirements. What a classical generational screw job.
So what is your brand of the news these days. Is it still mainstream media, albeit with your filters on, blogs, some of which seem to have good intel type sources, or TV, as in the three main USA networks, or even the cable 24/7 networks. Add in the government funded news through BBC and NPR and PBS, or even the local TV jobs which have come along in the last 20 years or so. That’s about it, and compared to the rest of the world, we are probably the best informed news junkies in the world.
But do we know the news to our satisfaction? The real question is: do we know the constructed news or the real news? Most certainly we know the reporter’s opinion of the news. In this is the change from the past. In the past we could seek opinions in an opinion section, and we could seek the news in the news section. When apparently a whole industry changed to opinion writing and opinion TV appearances, and again I blame academia, much of the American public turned off. No amount of most of the media living in New York and D.C. with all the terrible peer pressure, can change what I think academia and the industry has done. Add in Democratic Party thought control and censorship about debate (and I though Galileo had it bad) and the times are difficult and dangerous to the thoughtful citizen in these times of the politics of personal destruction.
This post is from the user point of view. We all know or think the media is prejudiced in its reporting. Most think the prejudice is in political skewing. Some others, of which I am one, think too many young “journalists” have been led astray by academia in its influence on later job reporting with an emphasis on emotional influence or just driving up business profits. The trends are that these students are slowly losing their jobs after school while their academic professors go on to well paid retirements. What a classical generational screw job.
So what is your brand of the news these days. Is it still mainstream media, albeit with your filters on, blogs, some of which seem to have good intel type sources, or TV, as in the three main USA networks, or even the cable 24/7 networks. Add in the government funded news through BBC and NPR and PBS, or even the local TV jobs which have come along in the last 20 years or so. That’s about it, and compared to the rest of the world, we are probably the best informed news junkies in the world.
But do we know the news to our satisfaction? The real question is: do we know the constructed news or the real news? Most certainly we know the reporter’s opinion of the news. In this is the change from the past. In the past we could seek opinions in an opinion section, and we could seek the news in the news section. When apparently a whole industry changed to opinion writing and opinion TV appearances, and again I blame academia, much of the American public turned off. No amount of most of the media living in New York and D.C. with all the terrible peer pressure, can change what I think academia and the industry has done. Add in Democratic Party thought control and censorship about debate (and I though Galileo had it bad) and the times are difficult and dangerous to the thoughtful citizen in these times of the politics of personal destruction.
It’s the beginning of the world, and I feel fine
It is not good for the eastern mind to fathom the western way
Double talk, impatience, short term and now
Seldom patience and values about big things
Why is life such a big thing…numbers count too
Girls marry at 30 so why the hurry since families choose
East meets west and we’ll never be the same
It’s the beginning of the world as we know it
And I feel fine
Too many people, too little earth, or so they say
Is it numbers, is it demands on the earth
Who decides, are there new rulers or religions
Is it inherent or do we need a new pope of ecology to tell us
Can he make us
Can we make us
Will it be collapse as some say or will it be balance as some say
It’s the beginning of the world as we know it
And I feel fine
Equality is fine, but all men are not equal
Those here, equal and unequal, want the same for themselves
And their families too
Some fight to go up, some fight to try stay up, all fight to be up
Up becomes more common and common
It’s the beginning of the world as we know it
And I feel fine
Evil men will never go away, why are they here, life is so hard anyway, why, why, why
Dark ages are real, so sorry, so sorry, why, why, why
How do they do it to us, why are they here, why, why
We keep crushing them like bugs, they don’t go away
We don’t go away either, never ever go away
After a Dark Age comes the light, a bright shining light
And the dark age will be short, short, short before the bright shining light
It’s the beginning of the world as we know it
And I feel fine
We are a world, yes, yes … nations and tribes all mixed around, everywhere
We are two sexes as made to reproduce the race until the future, yes, yes
We are many generations together, humans are getting older, yes, yes
The humans are gentrifying the earth, yes, yes
It’s the beginning of the world as we know it,
And I feel fine
And I feel fine
It is not good for the eastern mind to fathom the western way
Double talk, impatience, short term and now
Seldom patience and values about big things
Why is life such a big thing…numbers count too
Girls marry at 30 so why the hurry since families choose
East meets west and we’ll never be the same
It’s the beginning of the world as we know it
And I feel fine
Too many people, too little earth, or so they say
Is it numbers, is it demands on the earth
Who decides, are there new rulers or religions
Is it inherent or do we need a new pope of ecology to tell us
Can he make us
Can we make us
Will it be collapse as some say or will it be balance as some say
It’s the beginning of the world as we know it
And I feel fine
Equality is fine, but all men are not equal
Those here, equal and unequal, want the same for themselves
And their families too
Some fight to go up, some fight to try stay up, all fight to be up
Up becomes more common and common
It’s the beginning of the world as we know it
And I feel fine
Evil men will never go away, why are they here, life is so hard anyway, why, why, why
Dark ages are real, so sorry, so sorry, why, why, why
How do they do it to us, why are they here, why, why
We keep crushing them like bugs, they don’t go away
We don’t go away either, never ever go away
After a Dark Age comes the light, a bright shining light
And the dark age will be short, short, short before the bright shining light
It’s the beginning of the world as we know it
And I feel fine
We are a world, yes, yes … nations and tribes all mixed around, everywhere
We are two sexes as made to reproduce the race until the future, yes, yes
We are many generations together, humans are getting older, yes, yes
The humans are gentrifying the earth, yes, yes
It’s the beginning of the world as we know it,
And I feel fine
And I feel fine
2008 will be the vote heard round the world
The most basic instincts in humans of security, opportunity for descendents, and basic quality of life come into discussion more than used to be. The world seems about as full of friction and wars as normal, but the USA has forces converging that together are pivotal. The converging forces are political, generational, and cultural. The results are pivotal in where ever the outcome leads us as a nation, and they are pivotal in that we used the vote vice revolution or a civil war.
Much as it is said as California goes, so goes the USA later, a saying much less said now days, so as the USA goes, so will much of the New World, and eventually the Old World.
The cultural conflicts at play are religion, cultural censorship, drugs, and immigration.
The generational conflicts at play are who pays for all the promised benefits, and expectations and standards.
The political conflicts at play are the growing ineffectiveness of the national government, an America first homeland defense, and the traditional national traits of isolationism and anti-war instincts.
The effect will be heard loud and clear around the world. That a vote was used vice the alternatives is most profound for much of the world. The detailed results will have some effects, too. In old Disney talk, it will definitely be an “E Ticket ride”.
The most basic instincts in humans of security, opportunity for descendents, and basic quality of life come into discussion more than used to be. The world seems about as full of friction and wars as normal, but the USA has forces converging that together are pivotal. The converging forces are political, generational, and cultural. The results are pivotal in where ever the outcome leads us as a nation, and they are pivotal in that we used the vote vice revolution or a civil war.
Much as it is said as California goes, so goes the USA later, a saying much less said now days, so as the USA goes, so will much of the New World, and eventually the Old World.
The cultural conflicts at play are religion, cultural censorship, drugs, and immigration.
The generational conflicts at play are who pays for all the promised benefits, and expectations and standards.
The political conflicts at play are the growing ineffectiveness of the national government, an America first homeland defense, and the traditional national traits of isolationism and anti-war instincts.
The effect will be heard loud and clear around the world. That a vote was used vice the alternatives is most profound for much of the world. The detailed results will have some effects, too. In old Disney talk, it will definitely be an “E Ticket ride”.
Friday, June 22, 2007
Public health and costs
Up front I have nothing to do with the industry, to include medical, trial lawyers, and the health insurance industry. In old time talk, I am a Joe Blow. I do have doctor friends, and friends in the Medicare industry. I don’t know any medical trial lawyers.
As the son of a Marine, and then myself a Marine, I think of myself as having grown up through a kind of health care system including the APC pill which is now discredited. The general line was if you were really ill, then the system would admit you, and it would be difficult to get out of it. One of my elementary school male friends, Jim Poindexter, died of leukemia at the El Toro hospital. In the interim, being sick as from the flu was treatable by corpsman and even a medical Chief. Of course as a battalion commander, I had my own doc, and got some special attention, none it deserved, even when he dug out a NC tick I could not dig out at home. It was a nasty tick, and since I have had over 40 ticks through training and exercise, this one got my attention.
The idea of a national health care system is wonderful. So are many other things. As a Marine who lived through the Naval Services health care system, both as a kid and a Marine, I would counsel caution. First I believe that most medical problems presented by the patient or parents are usually treatable by someone else than a doctor. The flu or some lung congestion or some birth control don’t require a doctor. Add in things that basic first aid will do, as in using butterfly bandages vice going to the emergency ward, and things can change.
Even societal change, as in the old days of mothers kicking kids out for day and they come home when night or hunger comes first, should come back.
Any national health care system means “rationing” treatment, assuming doctors and trial lawyers will work at the government rates. So if you need a hip replacement, wait in line, as in 18 to 36 months, and then some politician or senior officer or enlisted man may bump you. That’s what happens today in the Naval Service way, and I am being complementary since the service will be professional, once you make it through the queue, again, if you do.
The wild card I hear is this. Will Americans step up to the plate to become doctors to go through this system. Numbers count. Most won’t. And there are so many trial lawyers who line up to in detail to extortionate doctor’s decisions. They are even on TV advertisements these days. And all we citizens want is medical support.
I’ve made my peace. Limit the trial lawyers medical payments by law so they quit naturally. Bust up the doctors unions with competition. One radiologist having a county wide contract must be subject to competition. And here’s one I know I object to, but do not know how to solve. All the many American administrators who make careers off of Medicaid and Medicare must find other employment, or let’s declare it for what it has seemingly become, a jobs program.
And all most want is affordable health care. And most are willing to wait in the queue, as long as they think they are in the queue. Some may not to want to wait. Then they can pay the extra expense. The friction between the two ways is so American.
Up front I have nothing to do with the industry, to include medical, trial lawyers, and the health insurance industry. In old time talk, I am a Joe Blow. I do have doctor friends, and friends in the Medicare industry. I don’t know any medical trial lawyers.
As the son of a Marine, and then myself a Marine, I think of myself as having grown up through a kind of health care system including the APC pill which is now discredited. The general line was if you were really ill, then the system would admit you, and it would be difficult to get out of it. One of my elementary school male friends, Jim Poindexter, died of leukemia at the El Toro hospital. In the interim, being sick as from the flu was treatable by corpsman and even a medical Chief. Of course as a battalion commander, I had my own doc, and got some special attention, none it deserved, even when he dug out a NC tick I could not dig out at home. It was a nasty tick, and since I have had over 40 ticks through training and exercise, this one got my attention.
The idea of a national health care system is wonderful. So are many other things. As a Marine who lived through the Naval Services health care system, both as a kid and a Marine, I would counsel caution. First I believe that most medical problems presented by the patient or parents are usually treatable by someone else than a doctor. The flu or some lung congestion or some birth control don’t require a doctor. Add in things that basic first aid will do, as in using butterfly bandages vice going to the emergency ward, and things can change.
Even societal change, as in the old days of mothers kicking kids out for day and they come home when night or hunger comes first, should come back.
Any national health care system means “rationing” treatment, assuming doctors and trial lawyers will work at the government rates. So if you need a hip replacement, wait in line, as in 18 to 36 months, and then some politician or senior officer or enlisted man may bump you. That’s what happens today in the Naval Service way, and I am being complementary since the service will be professional, once you make it through the queue, again, if you do.
The wild card I hear is this. Will Americans step up to the plate to become doctors to go through this system. Numbers count. Most won’t. And there are so many trial lawyers who line up to in detail to extortionate doctor’s decisions. They are even on TV advertisements these days. And all we citizens want is medical support.
I’ve made my peace. Limit the trial lawyers medical payments by law so they quit naturally. Bust up the doctors unions with competition. One radiologist having a county wide contract must be subject to competition. And here’s one I know I object to, but do not know how to solve. All the many American administrators who make careers off of Medicaid and Medicare must find other employment, or let’s declare it for what it has seemingly become, a jobs program.
And all most want is affordable health care. And most are willing to wait in the queue, as long as they think they are in the queue. Some may not to want to wait. Then they can pay the extra expense. The friction between the two ways is so American.
Are we stupid or something?
Like this variation of a line from Jenny in the movie “Forrest Gump” I wonder if something happens to nations when they become mature, as in super powers, or more realistically, the last super power nation standing in recent history. Is it overconfidence, the comfort of the older status quo, stupidity, or something? And of course there is no such thing as a nation in this discourse, but rather the people who lead and represent the nation. Most of us think of the leaders in the political sense, and rightly so. But there are also the industry leaders, the religious leaders, the tribal leaders, and even these days self-appointed media and environmental leaders. Do they all have something in common in their thinking? Many common citizens think many are stupid or something.
Our western culture and rule of law has brought westerners many benefits vis-à-vis public electricity, public health, public tap water, public elections, public pursuit of religion, public education, public transportation, and public security. The human pursuit of better opportunities for our children has been achieved in the west. This is monumental in human history. These public things were worked and fought for. They are not normal in human history, but rather achievements to be savored and advanced and defended. And again, this is the public’s benefits, not the ruling class, or who ever else appoints themselves as the ruling class. And much of the world is still not there in terms of public achievements. Much of this world is in the east. It is especially distressing to see the Arab civilization dominated by zealots who are devoted to tearing down their civilization as part of appointing themselves the ruling class, albeit by the gun and bomb.
Much more distressing is to see western leaders from various groups, some political, some religious, and some business who have other judgments that call upon practices like appeasement, and more idealistically turning the other cheek. That these leaders most often had nothing to do with our earlier western public policies that benefit us and our children seems the simple assumed security of the past and status quo types. If what we read about Sweden’s reinforcement of Sharia law, or British boycotts, or Christian Church interventions into the most historical conflicts, is even on theme, then many people are going down the tubes as the world’s publics begin to go another way. Are these leaders stupid or something?
Like this variation of a line from Jenny in the movie “Forrest Gump” I wonder if something happens to nations when they become mature, as in super powers, or more realistically, the last super power nation standing in recent history. Is it overconfidence, the comfort of the older status quo, stupidity, or something? And of course there is no such thing as a nation in this discourse, but rather the people who lead and represent the nation. Most of us think of the leaders in the political sense, and rightly so. But there are also the industry leaders, the religious leaders, the tribal leaders, and even these days self-appointed media and environmental leaders. Do they all have something in common in their thinking? Many common citizens think many are stupid or something.
Our western culture and rule of law has brought westerners many benefits vis-à-vis public electricity, public health, public tap water, public elections, public pursuit of religion, public education, public transportation, and public security. The human pursuit of better opportunities for our children has been achieved in the west. This is monumental in human history. These public things were worked and fought for. They are not normal in human history, but rather achievements to be savored and advanced and defended. And again, this is the public’s benefits, not the ruling class, or who ever else appoints themselves as the ruling class. And much of the world is still not there in terms of public achievements. Much of this world is in the east. It is especially distressing to see the Arab civilization dominated by zealots who are devoted to tearing down their civilization as part of appointing themselves the ruling class, albeit by the gun and bomb.
Much more distressing is to see western leaders from various groups, some political, some religious, and some business who have other judgments that call upon practices like appeasement, and more idealistically turning the other cheek. That these leaders most often had nothing to do with our earlier western public policies that benefit us and our children seems the simple assumed security of the past and status quo types. If what we read about Sweden’s reinforcement of Sharia law, or British boycotts, or Christian Church interventions into the most historical conflicts, is even on theme, then many people are going down the tubes as the world’s publics begin to go another way. Are these leaders stupid or something?
They had a chance since we told them
Over generalizing is normally not a fair description method for any one group, but the Congress may be one of the exceptions that come along now and then. The Congressional members and their staffs seem utterly aloof to the point of arrogance, responsive to those that enhance their political power and financial future, and assuming of some ruling class mentality. And we have been telling them about this for some time. Even the election of 2006 and the Democratic promises for change seemed like someone was finally listening. Alas, it was business as usual. Say one thing to get elected, and then do what you want to do after the election. After all, the voters will forget. But sometimes we don’t forget. There are pivotal times in history where words mean things and are not forgotten. We are there, today.
Some of our members of Congress are so important they have three or four committees to worry about. There is their own taxpayer funded personal staff, then perhaps a taxpayer funded congressional committee staff, and then a candidate funded election campaign staff. How many think the candidate actually finances their campaigns with their money. I even accepted the need to raise money till I read about $8,000/hour private jets and $400 haircuts. Now the line is blurred. And a few select members even have party staff to worry about. Many of these staffs have missed their chances too when they counsel business as usual. Maybe they are right, but probably not.
The most recent good example of us telling them is that of another bipartisan immigration law. In a great case of we told them, there was a national uprising that demanded control of the borders first, as in restore trust and faith in one of the federal government’s most basic responsibilities. Well, that apparently was not good enough, and most read how smoke and mirrors and obscure parliamentary rules will be used in the near future to try sneak in a Senate bill. Some of us are slow learners, maybe even a bit naïve and idealistic, but most also know when told to shut up and stuff it. The Congressional elections of 2008 can’t come fast enough, now.
That many citizens are doing State workarounds to get around Congress is most admirable. Transparency in spending laws and other initiatives are outstanding. The will of the people will be felt, one way or the other. Electing members of Congress who want a chance and will listen is the voters’ job. There is much work to do.
Over generalizing is normally not a fair description method for any one group, but the Congress may be one of the exceptions that come along now and then. The Congressional members and their staffs seem utterly aloof to the point of arrogance, responsive to those that enhance their political power and financial future, and assuming of some ruling class mentality. And we have been telling them about this for some time. Even the election of 2006 and the Democratic promises for change seemed like someone was finally listening. Alas, it was business as usual. Say one thing to get elected, and then do what you want to do after the election. After all, the voters will forget. But sometimes we don’t forget. There are pivotal times in history where words mean things and are not forgotten. We are there, today.
Some of our members of Congress are so important they have three or four committees to worry about. There is their own taxpayer funded personal staff, then perhaps a taxpayer funded congressional committee staff, and then a candidate funded election campaign staff. How many think the candidate actually finances their campaigns with their money. I even accepted the need to raise money till I read about $8,000/hour private jets and $400 haircuts. Now the line is blurred. And a few select members even have party staff to worry about. Many of these staffs have missed their chances too when they counsel business as usual. Maybe they are right, but probably not.
The most recent good example of us telling them is that of another bipartisan immigration law. In a great case of we told them, there was a national uprising that demanded control of the borders first, as in restore trust and faith in one of the federal government’s most basic responsibilities. Well, that apparently was not good enough, and most read how smoke and mirrors and obscure parliamentary rules will be used in the near future to try sneak in a Senate bill. Some of us are slow learners, maybe even a bit naïve and idealistic, but most also know when told to shut up and stuff it. The Congressional elections of 2008 can’t come fast enough, now.
That many citizens are doing State workarounds to get around Congress is most admirable. Transparency in spending laws and other initiatives are outstanding. The will of the people will be felt, one way or the other. Electing members of Congress who want a chance and will listen is the voters’ job. There is much work to do.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
American foreign policy should be about America
Somewhere along the way, we got distracted from looking out for America first, and delved into trying to fix or improve many of the world’s most tenuous problems, some thousands of years old. Many of these problems are intractable, and many of these problems drain our treasury of valuable monies that could be used elsewhere, as in reducing the borrowing necessary to pay the bills. America is not all-powerful and all rich.
During the Cold War of many decades, our Foreign Policy could be construed as being part of our National Interest campaign to protect our interests and allies. That’s fine, but real leaders look forward, not backward. The Cold War is long gone, and it looks like foreign policy changed to more do-gooder policies like uninvited nation building and intervening in the world’s most media promoted civil wars full of atrocities, at least atrocities by western standards. Seldom, if ever, did I hear discussion of American National Interests. Using American blood and money to constrain these more terrible situations is usually not in the American National Interests.
And in this discussion, the ideas of free trade and globalization must be debated in our Congress, to include a report card on our American negotiator’s agreements to date. This is foreign policy, also. Especially in its impact on millions of citizens, and their communities.
I did hear some astute use of the National Interest term by the Clinton administration, but it was easy to read between the lines that it was playing with words. There we ventured into video foreign policy, which for a President who lead by focus groups and polling numbers, makes sense for his style. Except the National Interest was not truly served. The Bush administration seems more idealistic in its promotion of democracy and religious freedom in general, but I never hear the term National Interests at all mentioned in the same breath. Now I hear do-gooders wanting Americans to intercede in Darfur even as they oppose the war in Iraq. And you decide, what is more important to we in America: the Hamas-Fatah conflict in Palestine or the wars in the South American narco-states?
It’s time to take care of ourselves, again, as the number one priority. The Cold War is long over, the world is still full of rotten places, and our Foreign Policy must look out for American National Interests first. This change in Foreign Policy will not blossom up like some wellspring of peace, love, and harmony. It will most likely emerge from the hard fought use of the vote to elect a President and a Congress that refocuses Foreign Policy on National Interests. These most terrible conflicts and killings around the world do rip our hearts out, but our children and way of life is still more important.
Somewhere along the way, we got distracted from looking out for America first, and delved into trying to fix or improve many of the world’s most tenuous problems, some thousands of years old. Many of these problems are intractable, and many of these problems drain our treasury of valuable monies that could be used elsewhere, as in reducing the borrowing necessary to pay the bills. America is not all-powerful and all rich.
During the Cold War of many decades, our Foreign Policy could be construed as being part of our National Interest campaign to protect our interests and allies. That’s fine, but real leaders look forward, not backward. The Cold War is long gone, and it looks like foreign policy changed to more do-gooder policies like uninvited nation building and intervening in the world’s most media promoted civil wars full of atrocities, at least atrocities by western standards. Seldom, if ever, did I hear discussion of American National Interests. Using American blood and money to constrain these more terrible situations is usually not in the American National Interests.
And in this discussion, the ideas of free trade and globalization must be debated in our Congress, to include a report card on our American negotiator’s agreements to date. This is foreign policy, also. Especially in its impact on millions of citizens, and their communities.
I did hear some astute use of the National Interest term by the Clinton administration, but it was easy to read between the lines that it was playing with words. There we ventured into video foreign policy, which for a President who lead by focus groups and polling numbers, makes sense for his style. Except the National Interest was not truly served. The Bush administration seems more idealistic in its promotion of democracy and religious freedom in general, but I never hear the term National Interests at all mentioned in the same breath. Now I hear do-gooders wanting Americans to intercede in Darfur even as they oppose the war in Iraq. And you decide, what is more important to we in America: the Hamas-Fatah conflict in Palestine or the wars in the South American narco-states?
It’s time to take care of ourselves, again, as the number one priority. The Cold War is long over, the world is still full of rotten places, and our Foreign Policy must look out for American National Interests first. This change in Foreign Policy will not blossom up like some wellspring of peace, love, and harmony. It will most likely emerge from the hard fought use of the vote to elect a President and a Congress that refocuses Foreign Policy on National Interests. These most terrible conflicts and killings around the world do rip our hearts out, but our children and way of life is still more important.
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
The Duke case is why we as a nation can lead the world
Many things can come from the results, so far. Other than they are innocent, a big deal, everything else was rotten, to include the 88 faculty vote. I suspect all contributions to Duke will suffer accordingly. After all, Albion college on Ohio just went down business wise, and why not Duke next.
Why did Duke get its reputation for academic excellence, as in send your kid and he or she will have an advantage in life. I still wonder given the liberal lynching that went on over the athletes in question. The obvious answer is that they were the Harvard of the South (reputation wise) , but that has all changed. Not too long ago, Notre Dame was the role model for American education.
Those who seek advantages for their kids might seek other alternatives. The debates of parents include ideas like engineering compared to liberal arts. These days most parents choose liberal arts. They may have done their kids a disservice. They don’t have to live it necessarily, but the discipline will do wonders.
Many things can come from the results, so far. Other than they are innocent, a big deal, everything else was rotten, to include the 88 faculty vote. I suspect all contributions to Duke will suffer accordingly. After all, Albion college on Ohio just went down business wise, and why not Duke next.
Why did Duke get its reputation for academic excellence, as in send your kid and he or she will have an advantage in life. I still wonder given the liberal lynching that went on over the athletes in question. The obvious answer is that they were the Harvard of the South (reputation wise) , but that has all changed. Not too long ago, Notre Dame was the role model for American education.
Those who seek advantages for their kids might seek other alternatives. The debates of parents include ideas like engineering compared to liberal arts. These days most parents choose liberal arts. They may have done their kids a disservice. They don’t have to live it necessarily, but the discipline will do wonders.
Are you willing to be manipulated?
Right or wrong, others are trying to do this, that is manipulate us. In the old days it was called propaganda, and now it is called news releases, or internet video releases from servers (computers) we cannot find on the internet.
Many think some part of any conflict includes the media. We might kill them all, but lose in the media war is the idea. This point of view has reason.
The affront is our way or life, and our inherent instinct to protect our families. Media can dress up any point of view, including those of the suicidal thousands, but it cannot also change the point of view of the millions of family members who just seek an opportunity for their kids.
It will be interesting to sort out. My vote is the old European view will be out voted by the people who live there. The new Europeans will never this happen. Stand by for much increased legal immigration requests from Europe.
In the meantime, go American.
Right or wrong, others are trying to do this, that is manipulate us. In the old days it was called propaganda, and now it is called news releases, or internet video releases from servers (computers) we cannot find on the internet.
Many think some part of any conflict includes the media. We might kill them all, but lose in the media war is the idea. This point of view has reason.
The affront is our way or life, and our inherent instinct to protect our families. Media can dress up any point of view, including those of the suicidal thousands, but it cannot also change the point of view of the millions of family members who just seek an opportunity for their kids.
It will be interesting to sort out. My vote is the old European view will be out voted by the people who live there. The new Europeans will never this happen. Stand by for much increased legal immigration requests from Europe.
In the meantime, go American.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)