PFC Manning says he was held in a cage
It seems that the accused leaker of classified documents to Wikileaks, Army PFC Bradley Manning, was upset he was held in cells after being arrested for violating his oath as well as host of other Army regulations.
WHAT THE YOU KNOW WHAT?
Hello, since when was a jail cell anything but a cage?
Is this guy for real, or is he living in some nether world? I am sorry, but you get yourself arrested – inside the military or out – you are not going to some swank four-star hotel. Nope, you are going to be cooped up in rather uncomfortable surroundings, usually not much worse than the accommodations for the poor line-doggies who are serving out on the front lines.
I am sorry, but his case has dragged on long enough – courtesy of himself and his defense lawyers – and it about time the court martial begins.
If the defense team tries to justify his alleged conduct, then as far as I am concerned the kid should get a swift ticket to the Big House at Fort Leavenworth where he can rot for all I care. If the Army can’t prove that he was the source of the material that Wikileaks put on line, then he can walk … but if the military can prove that he was the source, then the young man can just hang, literally and figuratively.
Unfortunately, this baby-faced baboon is trying to get people’s sympathy in a world where sympathy often gets people killed. It seems to be forgotten that this soldier VOLUNTEERED for his job. He voluntarily agreed and swore oaths that he would protect the information he was privy to from unauthorized release to unauthorized persons. If he has no more integrity than to honor his voluntary obligations, then such a charlatan deserves whatever punishment the service deems fit for the crime.
Please, however, save me from the “but he only was doing what he thought was right” argument. If he was being compelled to serve, I can buy it, but he volunteered.
Friday, November 30, 2012
Thursday, November 29, 2012
Not such an old problem
Pentagon’s fiscal bath
Assuming the President and Congress don’t come up with a some sort of deal by Dec. 31, 2012, the fiscal crunch facing the government really is going to bite … especially at the Defense Department.
The DOD is going to take, supposedly, about a $1 trillion hit over the next five years, or about $200 billion per year. That is from its regular budget and not including the “war” supplementals that have funded Afghanistan and Iraq since 2001. With the U.S. basically out of Iraq and in the process of pulling out of Afghanistan by the end of 2114, then it would seem that there should be a nice little “peace dividend” to be had.
Unfortunately, as Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta points out, the need for bodies to fill out the necessary ranks is going to bump up against any efforts to continue to modernize the capabilities of the military service, with either the size of the force having to be drastically reduced or modernization and future procurements deferred. Why is this? It is because the cost of maintaining the individual service member is rising and has been since the advent of the all-volunteer force.
It is funny, because I predicted this situation way back in 1971 in a paper I wrote for a political science class on adopting the all-volunteer force (even had a nifty graph that went with it). Be that as it may, the problem is that housing, feeding and providing medical care for volunteers, an increasing number of whom are married and bring with them the obligation to provide dependent care, has eaten a larger and larger component of the military’s budget each year and that is not going to stop unless the situation can be changed.
There is a way to change the calculus, but I doubt the Pentagon or Congress would ever go for it. The Pentagon, for instance, would not like it because it probably would reduce the number of flag officers (generals and admirals) on active duty and that definitely is a non-starter. As for Congress, well, let it suffice to say that it might hamper its irresponsibility.
Anyway, my plan – which actually was printed in the Congressional Record many years ago courtesy of South Carolina Sen. Fritz Hollings (D) – would replace each reduction in active service members by increasing the number in the reserves by 2 or three times the reduction. This is sort of a return to the pre-World War II model of military force manning that depended far more than today on the Reserves and National Guard (militias).
In addition, the military could – but it is not likely – return to service rank structures that existed before 1970, when pay grade inflation hit to make up for the lack of pay increases as inflation racked the military pay scales. In other words, instead of paying soldiers more at their current rank, they allowed promotions to higher rank to compensate for the low pay. Hence, the job once done by a corporal was now assigned to a sergeant; and what was done by a staff sergeant was done by a sergeant first class; and jobs that were usually done by first lieutenants was now being done by captains, jobs done by majors was now done by lieutenant colonels, etc.
Now, the key is increasing the size of the Reserves – such as the Army Reserve and the Army National Guard. Currently the Army Reserve and the Army National Guard combined have about the same number of members as the active component of the Army. It is a figure that according my research even 40 years ago provides a really inadequate 1:1 ratio. The ratio should be closer to three or four reservists for every active duty service member (and is in most countries).
The best benefit of such an approach, from a budgetary standpoint, is that is costs about 30 to 40 cents to fund a reservist for every $1 it costs to maintain an active component member. So, assuming that you increase the ration to 2:1, you still can cut up to 20 percent of the personnel costs for the active component. That sure would make the progressives happy, but I doubt that many of them would be volunteering to fill the additional ranks of needed in the reserves.
And that is the problem with the reserves: Manning. I only once served in a reserve unit (in the 18 years I served in the Naval Reserve and Army National Guard) that was at full strength (and it didn’t have enough officers and included only 13 people of all ranks). The problem being is that (a) being in the Reserves does impose some sacrifices on what is essentially a civilian lifestyle and (b) as the last 15 years have pointed out, there always is the probability that you might be mobilized for up to two years out of every six. That really puts a damper on motivating people to join up.
But a political upside is that such a ratio would put a damper on the political leadership haring off on military adventures. It is one thing to send in off-the-radar active component people, but when you start calling up people’s neighbors, the political cost starts to climb … which really is a good thing, when you think about it.
Anyway, don’t look for Congress or the Pentagon or even the President to come out and endorse such economizing in the defense budget. It makes too much sense. It is too logical and therefore definitely is not among those things that should be considered.
Besides, it is too restraining on presidential options, and the options the generals and admirals can offer to a president.
Assuming the President and Congress don’t come up with a some sort of deal by Dec. 31, 2012, the fiscal crunch facing the government really is going to bite … especially at the Defense Department.
The DOD is going to take, supposedly, about a $1 trillion hit over the next five years, or about $200 billion per year. That is from its regular budget and not including the “war” supplementals that have funded Afghanistan and Iraq since 2001. With the U.S. basically out of Iraq and in the process of pulling out of Afghanistan by the end of 2114, then it would seem that there should be a nice little “peace dividend” to be had.
Unfortunately, as Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta points out, the need for bodies to fill out the necessary ranks is going to bump up against any efforts to continue to modernize the capabilities of the military service, with either the size of the force having to be drastically reduced or modernization and future procurements deferred. Why is this? It is because the cost of maintaining the individual service member is rising and has been since the advent of the all-volunteer force.
It is funny, because I predicted this situation way back in 1971 in a paper I wrote for a political science class on adopting the all-volunteer force (even had a nifty graph that went with it). Be that as it may, the problem is that housing, feeding and providing medical care for volunteers, an increasing number of whom are married and bring with them the obligation to provide dependent care, has eaten a larger and larger component of the military’s budget each year and that is not going to stop unless the situation can be changed.
There is a way to change the calculus, but I doubt the Pentagon or Congress would ever go for it. The Pentagon, for instance, would not like it because it probably would reduce the number of flag officers (generals and admirals) on active duty and that definitely is a non-starter. As for Congress, well, let it suffice to say that it might hamper its irresponsibility.
Anyway, my plan – which actually was printed in the Congressional Record many years ago courtesy of South Carolina Sen. Fritz Hollings (D) – would replace each reduction in active service members by increasing the number in the reserves by 2 or three times the reduction. This is sort of a return to the pre-World War II model of military force manning that depended far more than today on the Reserves and National Guard (militias).
In addition, the military could – but it is not likely – return to service rank structures that existed before 1970, when pay grade inflation hit to make up for the lack of pay increases as inflation racked the military pay scales. In other words, instead of paying soldiers more at their current rank, they allowed promotions to higher rank to compensate for the low pay. Hence, the job once done by a corporal was now assigned to a sergeant; and what was done by a staff sergeant was done by a sergeant first class; and jobs that were usually done by first lieutenants was now being done by captains, jobs done by majors was now done by lieutenant colonels, etc.
Now, the key is increasing the size of the Reserves – such as the Army Reserve and the Army National Guard. Currently the Army Reserve and the Army National Guard combined have about the same number of members as the active component of the Army. It is a figure that according my research even 40 years ago provides a really inadequate 1:1 ratio. The ratio should be closer to three or four reservists for every active duty service member (and is in most countries).
The best benefit of such an approach, from a budgetary standpoint, is that is costs about 30 to 40 cents to fund a reservist for every $1 it costs to maintain an active component member. So, assuming that you increase the ration to 2:1, you still can cut up to 20 percent of the personnel costs for the active component. That sure would make the progressives happy, but I doubt that many of them would be volunteering to fill the additional ranks of needed in the reserves.
And that is the problem with the reserves: Manning. I only once served in a reserve unit (in the 18 years I served in the Naval Reserve and Army National Guard) that was at full strength (and it didn’t have enough officers and included only 13 people of all ranks). The problem being is that (a) being in the Reserves does impose some sacrifices on what is essentially a civilian lifestyle and (b) as the last 15 years have pointed out, there always is the probability that you might be mobilized for up to two years out of every six. That really puts a damper on motivating people to join up.
But a political upside is that such a ratio would put a damper on the political leadership haring off on military adventures. It is one thing to send in off-the-radar active component people, but when you start calling up people’s neighbors, the political cost starts to climb … which really is a good thing, when you think about it.
Anyway, don’t look for Congress or the Pentagon or even the President to come out and endorse such economizing in the defense budget. It makes too much sense. It is too logical and therefore definitely is not among those things that should be considered.
Besides, it is too restraining on presidential options, and the options the generals and admirals can offer to a president.
Monday, November 19, 2012
War is a tragedy
We are seeing an all too familiar tragedy being played out in the Middle East, yet again.
It is not just in Syria, where 40,000 people have been killed in a savage civil war and hundreds of thousands have been forced to flee its violence.
It is not just the dozens of people who have already died in the conflict between the Palestinians in Gaza and Israel.
Anywhere you look, you see this kind of violence seemingly becoming routine. It is, as I said, a tragedy. It also is understandable.
In Syria, it is about power and who wields it. The Alawites, the Sunnis, the Shi’as and probably a half dozen interest groups are battling over who rules Damascus.
In Gaza, it is merely a rerun of something we have witnessed for nearly 65 years, if not centuries.
I know my progressive friend out west is practically foaming at the mouth over the Israelis bombing Gaza, but what choice do they really have? Really, tell me, because I want to know.
The Jews in Israel are survivors and descendants of survivors of horrors we here in North America cannot even begin to contemplate. We can empathize a little in the U.S., I suppose, because for 40 years we lived under the Sword of Damocles of a nuclear holocaust during the Cold War. Fortunately, that holocaust didn’t happen and its tentacles that stretched around the globe in proxy wars never really touched home.
But the Israelis today live with a holocaust that threatens them every day and they remember a Holocaust 70 years ago that wiped out six million Jews. Just as the Palestinians trapped in Gaza and the West Bank face their own fears of a holocaust.
Unfortunately, the Israelis never set out to kill all the Palestinians and drive them into the sea. The Palestinians and the Arab Muslim nations surrounding the Jewish enclave on the shores of the Mediterranean Sea have pretty much made it obvious, if not unequivocal, that they do intend to kill all the Jews and if possible drive them into that sea.
I guess it is hard to understand that war mentality, the siege mentality; such an existential threat would have on a people after 65 years. Especially if your enemies continue to fire rockets, missiles and bombs at you.
The Palestinians in Gaza basically triggered the latest round of violence with the seemingly incessant stream of rockets into Israel, with ever increasing range on such missiles.
I know the Gazans are trapped, but unfortunately, from my point of view, they are attacking the wrong enemy. They should be attacking the Egyptians and the Jordanians and the Syrians who basically have kept them cooped up, stoking the Palestinians’ anger and letting countries like Iran and Russia smuggle in arms and other war material over the years.
I know that is not politically correct, nor probably approved by anybody, but it takes two to fight wars, especially if neither side wants to lose its existence.
The sad thing, apparently, if it was a state, a nation, that the Palestinians want, then they could have had that years and years ago. However, they have chosen not to accept that. The only way they would accept it, apparently, was if they cast out the Jews and unfortunately they have just as much right to the land as Palestinians, for in reality, they are Palestinians too, just not Arab Muslims. Seven years ago, the Israelis gave the Palestinians Gaza and the Palestinians turned it in to a prison camp, rather than develop it.
So, what we see today is only going to get worse and bloodier. The Israelis are not going to stop defending themselves and walk into the gas chambers again, and the Palestinians will not stop their asymmetrical warfare (regardless of the price that “civilian” women and children will pay in the blowback) unless they get the whole loaf.
Sad, isn’t it? Tragic and absolutely so human of us.
Thursday, November 15, 2012
Election embarrassment?
America’a election process is an embarrassment
CNN Anchor Fareed Zakaria is not happy with his adopted homeland.
It seems that our highly decentralized system of voting is too archaic for him. It seems our transplant from South Asia, and I am glad he chose to immigrate to the United States and become a United States citizen, sees much more value in having instantaneous results available the moment the polls close according to some national schedule run by a centralized national board. All that would be fine, if all we were deciding was who was going to be president; unfortunately, (or fortunately, depending on your point of view) when we hold our general elections we are not just voting who will get to live in the White House for the next four years.
My first problem with Mr. Zakaria’s viewpoint is that it assumes that the central government always can do things better than the local government. Now, I would say that such a view is open to considerable debate. I think a lot of people in America would look at the statement: “I’m here from the federal government and I’m here to help” as an oxymoron.
I suspect, but I do not know with any certainty, that Mr. Zakaria’s grounding in American history is a bit on the shallow side. It certainly seems that he doesn’t understand that, as former House Speaker Tip O’Neill (D-MA) once was quoted as saying, “All politics are local.”
And when you are dealing with a country that has in excess of 300 million citizens (of whom about half are voters) and extends over about six time zones, that trying to run everything from an Election Central really isn’t all that feasible … or even practical.
The second problem is that he keeps confusing the U.S. with being a democracy. It isn’t. It is a democratic federal republic and that is not like the governmental organization that he grew up with. It is a different beast and a lot of people these days, addicted as we are to our ability to instantly communicate seem to think that we need to centralize not only our news gathering processes, but we also need to centralize all our political processes.
Now, looking at it from a news gathering perspective makes a whole heck of a lot of sense. It is literally easier for a journalist if all political decisions are made in one place rather then having to run around to a bunch of places to find out what political decisions are being made. I know, I have had to do that. One little newspaper (with our staff of five) found ourselves run ragged covering the local news, which included a county council, five city councils, several unincorporated communities, four different public utility organizations, two school boards, a community college, and a host of other local agencies and boards that spent public funds … and that was right there with telling the stories of our churches and schools and interesting people, as well as keeping tabs on a state senator, three state assembly representatives, a U.S. Representative, two U.S. Senators and a plethora of state elected and unelected officials. That is not counting 19 fire departments, seven different law enforcement agencies and some other stuff.
I would have loved to have had to go to just one stop, and have all that news just handed to me, but that is not what America is.
Mr. Zakaria needs to realize that, despite what he may think, we pride ourselves in governing ourselves. (Or at least we used to; his views have me getting worried). That means local people doing stuff like running elections because they include not only national elections but state, region, county, city, township and district elections. That is why ballots sometimes run to several pages, unless you want to put it all in such tiny type we all have to bring huge magnifying glasses to read the ballot.
No, his complaint is that when we hold a presidential election, we also hold all these other elections at the same time. He needs to get with the program here.
He also pointed out that our system relies a bunch on local people being honest. Heck, a whole bunch of states don’t require identification to vote … I seem to remember that the Democrats think that is an evil conspiracy by the Republicans to depress their vote.
Well, my point would be that I would much rather have a bunch of people trying to do their best at the local level, then to have some amorphous so-called “non-partisan” group from “Mount Olympus” trying to run the show.
Of course, modern technology would be wonderful and it would be wonderful if there was a one-size fits all solution to all the voting problems that seem to plague every election. But unfortunately, something which Mr. Zakaria seems to fail to address, is that for every solution there is a new problem. And, given what we have seen about computer hacking and other digital fubars, There is a lot to be said for the decentralized system and its ability to point to problems that really involve fraud and abuse.
Lord knows I am not saying the U.S. system is perfect.
To paraphrase my hero Mr. Winston Churchill in what he had to say about democratic forms of government:
It is a very bad way to run elections; it is only that others seem to be so much worse.
CNN Anchor Fareed Zakaria is not happy with his adopted homeland.
It seems that our highly decentralized system of voting is too archaic for him. It seems our transplant from South Asia, and I am glad he chose to immigrate to the United States and become a United States citizen, sees much more value in having instantaneous results available the moment the polls close according to some national schedule run by a centralized national board. All that would be fine, if all we were deciding was who was going to be president; unfortunately, (or fortunately, depending on your point of view) when we hold our general elections we are not just voting who will get to live in the White House for the next four years.
My first problem with Mr. Zakaria’s viewpoint is that it assumes that the central government always can do things better than the local government. Now, I would say that such a view is open to considerable debate. I think a lot of people in America would look at the statement: “I’m here from the federal government and I’m here to help” as an oxymoron.
I suspect, but I do not know with any certainty, that Mr. Zakaria’s grounding in American history is a bit on the shallow side. It certainly seems that he doesn’t understand that, as former House Speaker Tip O’Neill (D-MA) once was quoted as saying, “All politics are local.”
And when you are dealing with a country that has in excess of 300 million citizens (of whom about half are voters) and extends over about six time zones, that trying to run everything from an Election Central really isn’t all that feasible … or even practical.
The second problem is that he keeps confusing the U.S. with being a democracy. It isn’t. It is a democratic federal republic and that is not like the governmental organization that he grew up with. It is a different beast and a lot of people these days, addicted as we are to our ability to instantly communicate seem to think that we need to centralize not only our news gathering processes, but we also need to centralize all our political processes.
Now, looking at it from a news gathering perspective makes a whole heck of a lot of sense. It is literally easier for a journalist if all political decisions are made in one place rather then having to run around to a bunch of places to find out what political decisions are being made. I know, I have had to do that. One little newspaper (with our staff of five) found ourselves run ragged covering the local news, which included a county council, five city councils, several unincorporated communities, four different public utility organizations, two school boards, a community college, and a host of other local agencies and boards that spent public funds … and that was right there with telling the stories of our churches and schools and interesting people, as well as keeping tabs on a state senator, three state assembly representatives, a U.S. Representative, two U.S. Senators and a plethora of state elected and unelected officials. That is not counting 19 fire departments, seven different law enforcement agencies and some other stuff.
I would have loved to have had to go to just one stop, and have all that news just handed to me, but that is not what America is.
Mr. Zakaria needs to realize that, despite what he may think, we pride ourselves in governing ourselves. (Or at least we used to; his views have me getting worried). That means local people doing stuff like running elections because they include not only national elections but state, region, county, city, township and district elections. That is why ballots sometimes run to several pages, unless you want to put it all in such tiny type we all have to bring huge magnifying glasses to read the ballot.
No, his complaint is that when we hold a presidential election, we also hold all these other elections at the same time. He needs to get with the program here.
He also pointed out that our system relies a bunch on local people being honest. Heck, a whole bunch of states don’t require identification to vote … I seem to remember that the Democrats think that is an evil conspiracy by the Republicans to depress their vote.
Well, my point would be that I would much rather have a bunch of people trying to do their best at the local level, then to have some amorphous so-called “non-partisan” group from “Mount Olympus” trying to run the show.
Of course, modern technology would be wonderful and it would be wonderful if there was a one-size fits all solution to all the voting problems that seem to plague every election. But unfortunately, something which Mr. Zakaria seems to fail to address, is that for every solution there is a new problem. And, given what we have seen about computer hacking and other digital fubars, There is a lot to be said for the decentralized system and its ability to point to problems that really involve fraud and abuse.
Lord knows I am not saying the U.S. system is perfect.
To paraphrase my hero Mr. Winston Churchill in what he had to say about democratic forms of government:
It is a very bad way to run elections; it is only that others seem to be so much worse.
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
Freedom isn’t free
My progressive friend out west got me to laughing … and thinking … with his not unexpected Veterans’ Day rant on Facebook about the dangers of the military industrial complex … quoting Dwight Eisenhower, who was right and wrong, but is cited by progressives whenever they want to blame the military and the defense budget for not funding all the entitlements programs they want.
He contends that pretty much all of conflicts that the U.S. has been involved in his adult life have not been “good wars.” I can accept that.
You know why I can accept that? For two reasons:
First, he is entitled to his opinion and that opinion can be as wrong as I think it is, but it is still his view and he can have it. That is why I was associated with the U.S. military for 26 years, so he could have his views.
Second, there ain’t no thing as a “good” war. Nope, there are only dirty ugly violent destructive deadly horrendous conflicts that if you are lucky you can end rather quickly with a minimum of the aforementioned consequences.
He told me I should have learned something when I was dual-hatting all those years I spent in the military, military reserve and as a Department of the Army civilian employee. Well, I would say to my friend, I did … over and over and over again.
What did I learn? Well a number of things.
First, Freedom is not free. It comes at a pretty high price. Not just in national treasure and blood, but work and effort and doing things because they have to be done, not because you want to do them or you like to do them.
Second, I learned that there truly are evil and nasty people out there in the world. And while I do believe that most people would just rather go along to get along and live and let live, there is a substantial minority that doesn’t see the world that way.
Some of those people, I do believe, honestly believe that they are just doing things to make things better for others (for whatever reason or cause). The rest, they are just evil. Sorry, but there are really bad people in the world and they really are there.
How do I know that? Well, unfortunately, I have seen their torture chambers (and ours are nothing like them). I have read enough reports and interviewed enough people who saw much worse than I did, to understand that there are some people who do things that just defy my imagination (and I bet my progressive friend’s too)
Now, I know the sacrifices that service men and women of each generation make. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt as the expression goes … because I too have made some of those sacrifices and incurred my own burdens from that service. Granted, like most of my life, I think I had it fairly easy … compared to the real Hades that many of my comrades, predecessors and successors went through.
I learned enough to validate the view I had in high school: War is a really dirty, ugly, nasty business and the best thing is to avoid it, or at least get it over as quickly as you can. Unfortunately, sometimes the path of violence is the only solution.
In those cases, to me anyway, a portion of the Weinberger/Powell doctrine applies: If you have to fight a war, then you don’t do halfway measures. You bring the biggest baddest force you can and you end the war quickly … anything else is a crime and a travesty. Unfortunately, in places like Vietnam, Korea, Iraq and Afghanistan, the folks who planned the operation forgot that little maxim. That is why the aftereffects were so disappointing.
For example, I had no problem with kicking some Iraqi butt in 2003. The list of reasons for the Saddam Hussein regime to go was long and very verified. I thought we were about 12 years too late, but then I understood we didn’t have the same legal footing to stand on that we did in 2003. Not to refight the argument, but yes, there was ample legal footing for the invasion to proceed and with UN Sanction … and yes there were weapons of mass destruction found, and the capability and facilities to produce more, only not in the quantities anticipated. (Of course, when even the bad guys think they have them, it is hard not to believe them).
I had no problem with kicking some Taliban butt, for that matter.
Unfortunately, after World War II, the U.S. set a bad precedent. We tried to rebuild what we spent so much smashing … because that is what you do in wars – you smash things and you break them and you kill people.
Well, rather than just do the job, we Americans think the better idea is to stick around and help the smashed pick up the pieces. Unfortunately, in the case of Iraq and Afghanistan (under the Cheney/Rumsfeld Doctrine) we went in a light as possible to do the job, but not heavy enough to emphasize that times had changed. We also really didn’t know what we were doing when it comes to rebuilding South Asian nations, so we really stepped on it.
So, have I learned anything from that experience? Yup. It is called don’t fight a war unless you really truly want to win it and then you fight it with everything you got and as violently as you can until the other side hollers “Uncle” and one of your guys is standing over the other guys with a bayonet on the end of his rifle and saying rather emphatically: It is over now, ya hear?
However, I didn’t learn that sitting behind our moats will protect us from anything and that the bad guys will be content with that.
Benghazi, Petraeus, Obama
What is the old saw about tangled webs and deception … absolutely has one shaking their heads as we watch the political-media circus that will come down around the hearings on the resignation of former CIA Director David Patraeus, his mysterious affairs and what happened in Benghazi two months ago.
First of all, it doesn’t take a savant or rocket scientist to figure out that there obviously more things at play here than meets the eye. Exactly what they are, I haven’t a clue. But you can be certain the media mavens and internet pundits are going to have an absolute field day covering this and trying to spin whatever limited facts are out there to whatever advantage they can leverage for their political agenda.
There are so many cover-ups going on that all the misdirection would make a magician proud. This almost sounds like a Tom Clancy novel, but for the fact that it really does involve real people doing real things in real time. Just how it will all shake out is beyond me but I am getting my share of chuckles about it.
Why am I chuckling? Because it is all spinning so fast and out of control that the handlers don’t know which way to go … and that I find outrageously humorous. You see, politicians, bureaucrats and progressives are control freaks and this circus train already has gone off the rails.
But that aside, I do want to make one point about the sad affair at Benghazi: The moment the ambassador went to the “consulate” he was a dead man. There was nothing that anybody could have done.
You see, and you people addicted to instant gratification take note, when the first alarms went up, the only resources that could have any impact on the situation were those resources on the ground in Benghazi, and there was never a chance they would be enough.
Yes, you can fault all sorts of people for not anticipating the ambush, but that doesn’t change the fact that no matter what miracles military people in Italy or Spain or Germany or the US pulled off, to expect a response that would have been in the air or on the ground in less than 12 hours (by which time it was all over but the shouting) is absolutely ignorant.
The problem, as I have pointed out before is not tactical, but logistical.
Let’s assume that you send folks from Italy (They are relatively close):
Ok, first you have to assemble your crew. Now I seriously doubt they were sitting there on alert to roll when the first siren sounded. No, let’s get real here folks, they either were in bed or out socializing. So, you have to wake these people up, get them dressed and co-located so they can have some idea of what the emergency is.
Now, if it involves aircraft, you have to check out which planes are fueled, serviced, armed (if necessary) and ready to rock and roll. If not, then your ground crews have to get on the stick and start prepping the birds. Those things don’t happen in instants like they do in video games, they take time … excruciating long time it seems when they are trying to rush the job.
IF you going to insert ground pounders, then you have to issue them all the equipment, ammunition, etc. they need for whatever mission you expect them to do, which means the leaders have to take some time to figure out what that is going to be. Remember, this is a no alert effort here, which means even, if you have a contingency plan, you have to take the plan off the shelf, dust it off, get out the checklists before you can really start moving your people through the process of strapping on armor, arms and ammunition.
Back when I used to cover the XVIII Airborne Corps and the 82nd Airborne Infantry Division, the standard they had was for the first troops to be wheels up (note I said the first troops) and on their way was 18 hours. They actually hit that mark when they deployed elements of the 16th Military Police Brigade to St. Croix after the island was hammered by a hurricane in 1989.
So, when you read all the stories about the time lines about what happened that night in Libya, remember the tyranny of the clock and logistics.
Now, I am not absolving the Obama administration for fumbling the explanation following the debacle, nor for ignoring all the warning signs ahead of time.
I am not sure even if Gen. Patraeus’s not necessarily hewing the appropriate narrative as to the role the intelligence agencies played in the post-disaster cover-up about the YouTube video has anything to do with his resignation.
Actually, I suspect that the good general was going to get hammered for other reasons, but then I am being cynical about how things work inside the Beltway of Washington, D.C.
As it is, I am just going to sit back and try to enjoy the circus with all the clowns running around trying to bring the chaos under control.
First of all, it doesn’t take a savant or rocket scientist to figure out that there obviously more things at play here than meets the eye. Exactly what they are, I haven’t a clue. But you can be certain the media mavens and internet pundits are going to have an absolute field day covering this and trying to spin whatever limited facts are out there to whatever advantage they can leverage for their political agenda.
There are so many cover-ups going on that all the misdirection would make a magician proud. This almost sounds like a Tom Clancy novel, but for the fact that it really does involve real people doing real things in real time. Just how it will all shake out is beyond me but I am getting my share of chuckles about it.
Why am I chuckling? Because it is all spinning so fast and out of control that the handlers don’t know which way to go … and that I find outrageously humorous. You see, politicians, bureaucrats and progressives are control freaks and this circus train already has gone off the rails.
But that aside, I do want to make one point about the sad affair at Benghazi: The moment the ambassador went to the “consulate” he was a dead man. There was nothing that anybody could have done.
You see, and you people addicted to instant gratification take note, when the first alarms went up, the only resources that could have any impact on the situation were those resources on the ground in Benghazi, and there was never a chance they would be enough.
Yes, you can fault all sorts of people for not anticipating the ambush, but that doesn’t change the fact that no matter what miracles military people in Italy or Spain or Germany or the US pulled off, to expect a response that would have been in the air or on the ground in less than 12 hours (by which time it was all over but the shouting) is absolutely ignorant.
The problem, as I have pointed out before is not tactical, but logistical.
Let’s assume that you send folks from Italy (They are relatively close):
Ok, first you have to assemble your crew. Now I seriously doubt they were sitting there on alert to roll when the first siren sounded. No, let’s get real here folks, they either were in bed or out socializing. So, you have to wake these people up, get them dressed and co-located so they can have some idea of what the emergency is.
Now, if it involves aircraft, you have to check out which planes are fueled, serviced, armed (if necessary) and ready to rock and roll. If not, then your ground crews have to get on the stick and start prepping the birds. Those things don’t happen in instants like they do in video games, they take time … excruciating long time it seems when they are trying to rush the job.
IF you going to insert ground pounders, then you have to issue them all the equipment, ammunition, etc. they need for whatever mission you expect them to do, which means the leaders have to take some time to figure out what that is going to be. Remember, this is a no alert effort here, which means even, if you have a contingency plan, you have to take the plan off the shelf, dust it off, get out the checklists before you can really start moving your people through the process of strapping on armor, arms and ammunition.
Back when I used to cover the XVIII Airborne Corps and the 82nd Airborne Infantry Division, the standard they had was for the first troops to be wheels up (note I said the first troops) and on their way was 18 hours. They actually hit that mark when they deployed elements of the 16th Military Police Brigade to St. Croix after the island was hammered by a hurricane in 1989.
So, when you read all the stories about the time lines about what happened that night in Libya, remember the tyranny of the clock and logistics.
Now, I am not absolving the Obama administration for fumbling the explanation following the debacle, nor for ignoring all the warning signs ahead of time.
I am not sure even if Gen. Patraeus’s not necessarily hewing the appropriate narrative as to the role the intelligence agencies played in the post-disaster cover-up about the YouTube video has anything to do with his resignation.
Actually, I suspect that the good general was going to get hammered for other reasons, but then I am being cynical about how things work inside the Beltway of Washington, D.C.
As it is, I am just going to sit back and try to enjoy the circus with all the clowns running around trying to bring the chaos under control.
Sunday, November 11, 2012
Status quo ante?
Obama asks passage of tax on rich
President Obama is urging the House of Representatives to pass a Senate-passed bill that would extend the Bush Tax Cuts for those making less than $250,000, while letting the same cuts expire for those making more, thus increasing their tax rates.
I have a radical idea: Just repeal all the Bush tax cuts.
In addition, repeal the bill that chopped what people pay for Social Security and Medicare, don’t extend it.
Do those two things and tax receipts are bound to soar.
Sorry, but I am one of those who thinks that if we are going to have taxes, then the only really fair thing is for everybody to pay them. I know, that is stupid and callous and cruel and heartless to those whose needs exceed their income and therefore deserve not to pay as much as those evil, demonic people who have more than they need.
Granted, I don’t think I really have made more than the median income in my life, so I guess I should side with those who think the wealthy should be stripped of their riches and have it redistributed among those who make less. However, I don’t see it that way.
Sorry, I am an unreconstructed individualist, for the most part. You know one of those people who really, sincerely believes that we are all unique and as individuals deserve to be treated the same by our government(s) under the law, rather than have the government discriminate against us according to some rather arbitrary and capricious standard that is based solely on – as far as I can see – nothing more than jealousy and envy.
I mean we bar discrimination against people for their race, religion, creed, sex, sexual orientation and so forth these days. It seems to me that if government is supposed to ignore all these factors of the human condition, well … maybe it should just ignore others as well … and treat people as individuals, not as alleged victims or members of this class or another.
I know … I am looking for Utopia again, but I still think the concept is valid and workable if our political leadership would just start thinking about the common weal and not how many votes they just bought. Yet, I am not so sanguine as to expect that will ever happen. Humans being human and all, and envy being about a primordial an instinct as self-preservation, people will continue to sell their votes to those who promise to take from those who have more and give to those who have less, using the power of the government to achieve their ends (rather than do it themselves … but that would be robbery and we can’t have that).
Still, I think, when it comes to taxes, we should just let all the previous tax rate reductions fall by the wayside and go back to whenever and make everybody pay those rates, especially if the rates are not progressive and apply to everybody without any loopholes that exempt certain incomes or certain individual disbursements (like mortgage interest, child care payments, health expenses and any and all other deductions, credits, etc., that currently clutter up our tax codes)
But, I know I am in the minority here, so in obeisance to our recently reelected president, I say … don’t just raise the rates a little bit on the wealthy, really stick it to them. Take all of what they get in income, interest and capital gains (as well as any other source of income) and leave them with no more than $250,001 income per year. Then they will be just like the rest of us poor smucks See how they like to live like us proletarians and plebeians. (Wait a minute, I have never made more than 20 percent of that, so that isn’t fair).
President Obama is urging the House of Representatives to pass a Senate-passed bill that would extend the Bush Tax Cuts for those making less than $250,000, while letting the same cuts expire for those making more, thus increasing their tax rates.
I have a radical idea: Just repeal all the Bush tax cuts.
In addition, repeal the bill that chopped what people pay for Social Security and Medicare, don’t extend it.
Do those two things and tax receipts are bound to soar.
Sorry, but I am one of those who thinks that if we are going to have taxes, then the only really fair thing is for everybody to pay them. I know, that is stupid and callous and cruel and heartless to those whose needs exceed their income and therefore deserve not to pay as much as those evil, demonic people who have more than they need.
Granted, I don’t think I really have made more than the median income in my life, so I guess I should side with those who think the wealthy should be stripped of their riches and have it redistributed among those who make less. However, I don’t see it that way.
Sorry, I am an unreconstructed individualist, for the most part. You know one of those people who really, sincerely believes that we are all unique and as individuals deserve to be treated the same by our government(s) under the law, rather than have the government discriminate against us according to some rather arbitrary and capricious standard that is based solely on – as far as I can see – nothing more than jealousy and envy.
I mean we bar discrimination against people for their race, religion, creed, sex, sexual orientation and so forth these days. It seems to me that if government is supposed to ignore all these factors of the human condition, well … maybe it should just ignore others as well … and treat people as individuals, not as alleged victims or members of this class or another.
I know … I am looking for Utopia again, but I still think the concept is valid and workable if our political leadership would just start thinking about the common weal and not how many votes they just bought. Yet, I am not so sanguine as to expect that will ever happen. Humans being human and all, and envy being about a primordial an instinct as self-preservation, people will continue to sell their votes to those who promise to take from those who have more and give to those who have less, using the power of the government to achieve their ends (rather than do it themselves … but that would be robbery and we can’t have that).
Still, I think, when it comes to taxes, we should just let all the previous tax rate reductions fall by the wayside and go back to whenever and make everybody pay those rates, especially if the rates are not progressive and apply to everybody without any loopholes that exempt certain incomes or certain individual disbursements (like mortgage interest, child care payments, health expenses and any and all other deductions, credits, etc., that currently clutter up our tax codes)
But, I know I am in the minority here, so in obeisance to our recently reelected president, I say … don’t just raise the rates a little bit on the wealthy, really stick it to them. Take all of what they get in income, interest and capital gains (as well as any other source of income) and leave them with no more than $250,001 income per year. Then they will be just like the rest of us poor smucks See how they like to live like us proletarians and plebeians. (Wait a minute, I have never made more than 20 percent of that, so that isn’t fair).
Curious and curiouser
CIA Director Petraeus resigns in sex scandal
Iran attacks US drone in international airspace
You know it isn’t good when things make you question the official narrative but it is getting to the point where certain administration narratives are getting a bit threadbare.
Ok, CIA Director David Patraeus (former Army star and four-star as well as Gen. Betray-us on some fronts) apparently had an affair with his biographer. At least he said he had an extramarital affair with someone. Is that supposed to shock us?
It doesn’t shock me much, but then I remember having a president who allegedly had a number of sexual dalliances but it didn’t drive him to resign. Got him impeached, but the Senate couldn’t go along and accept that those dalliances rose to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors.
I don’t suspect that Gen. Patraeus’ dalliance rose to that level either, but I don’t know because I only know what I read in the news. Still, the abruptness of his resignation (according to the official timeline) either speaks very well of the man’s integrity (in that he would resign even before the information went public) or reeks of more nefarious motives, since he was scheduled to address a Congressional hearing next week on how the current administration seems to have bungled its efforts in Libya … as well as its response to the assault on (and subsequent death) of its ambassador to Libya while on a visit to its diplomatic facilities in Benghazi.
What actually strikes me almost humorous is the progressive reaction (on Huffington Post) that find something terribly wrong that “powerful” men seem to keep getting caught in sexual dalliances with women not their wives. Hello, it takes two to tango. I am sorry, but if the woman isn’t out there screaming it was rape, and in fact indicates that it was consensual, then I am not sure how the male half of the equation can be singled out for condemnation. In this case, it is pretty obvious – assuming that the “other party” that has been identified as being involved – that it indeed was consensual, then the trotting out of the “bad” men scenario seems a bit off base.
But I guess, given that Petraeus – in many other situations – appears to have been pretty much a straight shooter (unfortunately with the usual set of human failings and frailties), it helps to do what you can to cast whatever shadows on him when he is probably going to end up in front of a hostile House committee being interrogated under oath. Who knows what he might say that deviates from the official line put out by the administration. Now, at least, administration defenders can point to his obviously moral shortcomings and say that anything he says from now on can be discounted.
But, as I said, things are just a bit curious with the timing not only of this resignation, but the announcement the day after election was over that the week before the Iranians were busily shooting at a U.S. reconnaissance drone monitoring the approaches to the ports in Iraq and Kuwait. Of course, nothing nefarious there … the administration didn’t want to make it a political issue … which of course it would of and probably should have been … but that is something we know our current presidential administration would never do.
You couple that with the relief of the commander of a task group in the Arabian Sea, the fiasco at Benghazi, and you start to wonder: What the heck is going on here?
Saturday, November 10, 2012
Ready for a new “Old Glory”?
Puerto Rico approves statehood ballot measure
Passing almost unnoticed in the U.S. media, the citizens of Puerto Rico have taken a major step. For the first time, a majority of the residents of the self-governing U.S. commonwealth have approved a ballot measure that tells its government to go ahead and seek statehood status.
This could happen, I am not saying that it will or it won’t, but the possibilities are fascinating.
President Obama already has said (apparently) that he would look favorably upon such a request from the Puerto Ricans, but the real hurdle lies in Congress. Any statehood has to pass congressional muster before it can go into to effect. The last time it happened in the late 1950s when Congress approved the addition of Alaska and Hawaii as states, thus changing Old Glory’s constellation from 48 stars to 50 stars (with a brief interlude with 49 stars)
Should Puerto Rico become a state:
That would mean the number of Senators would rise to 102, to accommodate its two new members
But would it mean that the House would rise to 436 members? Good question. Or would the House have to be reapportioned to accommodate the new representative. (Of course, maybe Puerto Rico would qualify for more than one House member)
Then there would be the flag issue. How do you arrange 51 stars on the canton? Go figure.
Thursday, November 8, 2012
Random post-election thoughts
First, despite all the wailing and caterwauling about all the things that were going to go wrong with the Nov. 6 election, I think it came off rather well. Yes, I was not happy with the outcome, but I think that the process worked just like it was supposed to do. That, I contend is a good thing and stands America in an rare but nice place to be.
Second, I found it humorous that the UN election observers were appalled, or is that astounded, apparently at the lengths American election officials trust voters to do their part honestly. Imagine, not requiring positive identification or marking those people who already voted so they can’t just go somewhere else and vote again. I hope those progressives, etc., who are so upset with the idea of requiring a photo id to vote take note that the people in Europe and other continents shake their heads at our naiveté.
Third, I find it exceedingly humorous, that all those progressives and “modernists” who want to do away with the vilified Electoral College system now seem to be trumpeting that since Obama got over 300 votes (when he just needed 270 to win) gives him some sort of mandate to enact their agenda. For the same reasons that they don’t like the Electoral College, is the same reason that Obama’s victory does not represent a mandate. If there was more than 2 percent between the popular vote totals, then a case could be made, however, since there wasn’t, it reflects the fact that the nation remains one that still is looking for a consensus about what vision of the future is the one the country should pursue. To treat it otherwise is to risk escalating that division even further, and we don’t need that.
Fourth, I am, somewhat perversely I admit, glad that President Obama won the popular vote as well as the Electoral vote. I would hate to have seen what would be the public reaction if he had won the Electoral vote and not the popular vote. I suspect a dozen years from now, we would still be hearing tales how he stole the election.
Fifth, sort of a continuation of the above, but I am very glad we aren’t having to endure all sorts of ballot challenges in various courts because the loser wasn’t gracious enough to accept the initial vote counts and felt the need to go to court before they were even in.
Sixth, I have to commend former Massachusetts Gov. Romney for his gracious concession speech. Despite the fact that he didn’t instantaneously call Obama to concede when the networks “called” the election for the president (which one of my progressive friends complained about on his Facebook page about 10 minutes after the networks began announcing their projections as to the winner), Romney proved that he is a class act … but then again, class or no class, he lost and whatever impact he could of/would of/may have had is irrelevant. I just hope people take his message to heart.
My own message to borrow from Winston Churchill:
In Conflict: Resolution
In Defeat: Defiance (Tempered by Humility – remember you lost)
In Victory: Magnanimity
If we are to bind up the wounds, the magnanimity is probably to most import thing to remember, but often the easiest to forget.
Second, I found it humorous that the UN election observers were appalled, or is that astounded, apparently at the lengths American election officials trust voters to do their part honestly. Imagine, not requiring positive identification or marking those people who already voted so they can’t just go somewhere else and vote again. I hope those progressives, etc., who are so upset with the idea of requiring a photo id to vote take note that the people in Europe and other continents shake their heads at our naiveté.
Third, I find it exceedingly humorous, that all those progressives and “modernists” who want to do away with the vilified Electoral College system now seem to be trumpeting that since Obama got over 300 votes (when he just needed 270 to win) gives him some sort of mandate to enact their agenda. For the same reasons that they don’t like the Electoral College, is the same reason that Obama’s victory does not represent a mandate. If there was more than 2 percent between the popular vote totals, then a case could be made, however, since there wasn’t, it reflects the fact that the nation remains one that still is looking for a consensus about what vision of the future is the one the country should pursue. To treat it otherwise is to risk escalating that division even further, and we don’t need that.
Fourth, I am, somewhat perversely I admit, glad that President Obama won the popular vote as well as the Electoral vote. I would hate to have seen what would be the public reaction if he had won the Electoral vote and not the popular vote. I suspect a dozen years from now, we would still be hearing tales how he stole the election.
Fifth, sort of a continuation of the above, but I am very glad we aren’t having to endure all sorts of ballot challenges in various courts because the loser wasn’t gracious enough to accept the initial vote counts and felt the need to go to court before they were even in.
Sixth, I have to commend former Massachusetts Gov. Romney for his gracious concession speech. Despite the fact that he didn’t instantaneously call Obama to concede when the networks “called” the election for the president (which one of my progressive friends complained about on his Facebook page about 10 minutes after the networks began announcing their projections as to the winner), Romney proved that he is a class act … but then again, class or no class, he lost and whatever impact he could of/would of/may have had is irrelevant. I just hope people take his message to heart.
My own message to borrow from Winston Churchill:
In Conflict: Resolution
In Defeat: Defiance (Tempered by Humility – remember you lost)
In Victory: Magnanimity
If we are to bind up the wounds, the magnanimity is probably to most import thing to remember, but often the easiest to forget.
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Well, I am glad that is over …
Americans and gridlock - very good article
Well, the 2012 presidential election is over … whew!
My initial reaction: Disappointment.
Not that I did not expect it, but I would much rather President Obama had not won re-election. Why? Because of the two evils, I felt that Obama has the potential for wreaking far more havoc than Romney did. But then we will never know, will we?
As for the future, I take solace in the fact that Congress remains divided. In that, I agree with George Friedman above, the American people have chosen gridlock because – contrary to the views of some Obama supporters – the nation remains strongly divided between two visions and – despite some progressives feeling of vindication – it will continue to remain that way.
However, I do think that my dear spouse (viewing the election from her Canadian perspective) pretty much hit the nail on the head. People vote for free stuff and that pretty much was Obama’s message.
It is echoed in the old saw about democracies that goes, loosely paraphrased: They only work until the voters figure out they can vote themselves other people’s money out of the common treasury and that cat is done got out of the bag in the U.S.
So, we are going to have a president who will continue to play class warfare and wealth envy to advance his agendas. Ok, I can live with that. That is what democracy is about anyway. Besides, since I probably won’t be alive all that much longer (10, maybe 15 years at the outside, and probably less given my health), it won’t be my problem.
Unfortunately, my kids and my grandkids will have to deal with the fallout, just like my generation had to live with the fallout from my parents’ and grandparents’ decisions (only I think they were better deciders than the current 21st generation crop)
Still, the reactions of some progressives I know was an even greater disappointment to me. I mean, basically telling the 50 percent of the nation that did not vote for their candidate that they can F___ O__, does not comport with what I see as magnanimity in victory (sorry to borrow your line, Winston). It is attitudes like that that lay the foundations for violent confrontations later (See the Treaty of Versailles and its aftermath). But again, I won’t have to deal with that.
As for why Obama won? It is simple: More people voted for him than any of the other candidates. Considering that 14 million fewer people voted in 2012 than in 2008, that also is a sad commentary on the American people. Still it is a tribute to the Obama campaign machine that it was able to get more of its supporters to go to the polls than his opponents and you have to respect that.
Could Romney have done better? Does it matter? No. Sorry, no do overs. We have to live with the choices we make as a nation.
I really hope that my cynical old person is wrong and the progressives are right and that their world view really will make everything peachy keen and peace and happiness. However, I suspect that historian in me sees a rerun of the first few decades of the last century. I know, that really is pessimistic, but what the heck – humans are humans and we keep doing the same things over and over again expecting different results.
If we look back at what actually worked and helped create what we have and took that as a model, well … who knows what might happen.
Instead, we will go forward and blaze essentially a new trail. I hope people aren’t looking for an easy time of it, because when you blaze a new trail it is hard work because nobody has laid down a path for you to follow and sometimes bad things happen and you end up in places you didn’t want to be.
And in the end, President Obama may – it is possible I could be wrong here – fundamentally transform what America is as he said he was going to do when he was elected in 2008. I am not sure that is what people really want, nor do I think that people really understand what that might mean, but that has been their choice.
Remember, life is about choices and we have to live with the ones we make. Nobody – not the government, family or friends – can protect us from the consequences of those choices. They may be able to ameliorate the impact, but we still will have to endure the consequences. I fear that our desire to make our society “fair” and “equal” has forgotten that we are individuals, unique and definitely not equal (the equality should be before the law and government and not the equality of outcome or results, which are two different things).
Change will come to America, just like the weather will change, and the cycle of life, and governance, will continue. Funny about that, but it just seems to go on and on.
Monday, November 5, 2012
Failure to understand
Failure of the campaigns
American political system is not working
No matter how Tuesday’s (Nov. 6) election turns out, at all levels, we will have those 21st Century types that don’t understand how this venerable American political system designed in the 18th Century is working actually the way it was designed, which really is an amazing tribute to the people who have shaped it over the last 225 years.
In both of the above referenced articles, the authors complain of the “failure” of the American political system. Apparently, if I am interpreting their rhetoric correctly, the failure is in that the government apparently is gridlocked and cannot agree on solutions. This is bad, according to them.
Well, count me among those who say maybe it isn’t so bad.
Yes, both sides of the political spectrum are being fairly obstructive, but then that is their jobs. Their jobs are to represent the people who voted them into office, not their constituency at large. Now, I am not saying that these people are not educated, or unintelligent, but I am saying that I don’t agree with their understanding of how a democratic republic is supposed to operate.
To that end, I am reminded of a line from one of my favorite movies: What we have here is a failure to communicate.
First, there is a failure to communicate exactly what Americans view as their expectations of the role government (especially the federal government) in their lives, in their finances, their health and nutrition, and in the economic affairs of the nation in general.
There is a great divide in America right now between those who see a big role for the federal government providing for welfare of the American people and those who are suspicious of the federal government intervening in the lives of individuals. That divide, unfortunately, is wide and probably can’t be reconciled, but it will have to be accommodated somehow.
Second, somewhere along the line, two concepts were missed in translation and apparently failed to be communicated to the generations in the 21st Century. The first concept is that instantaneous gratification really is not possible, no matter how much we want to believe it is. Part two is that winner takes all is not part of the democratic equation; rather it sows the seeds of conflict in the future, especially in a country that has more than one vision of what that future ought to be.
So, we have people looking at the American system and saying “It is broken” or “It is dysfunctional” when they really mean that it is not providing the solutions that they think it should. That seems to be more a problem of their expectations than whether the system is broken or dysfunctional.
However, assuming that it is “broken”, I would be very curious as to what their “solution” would be. My question is that while they may think it is broken, could it not be that the “system” is thinking, trying to ascertain what the best solution might be.
You see, your first reaction sometimes is not the best reaction. Sometimes it is, and then again sometimes it isn’t. We used to value people in this country people who would take the time to consider their actions, rather than merely react to certain stimuli. I fear that carefully considered approach is waning, to be replaced by the demands of those who require instant gratification.
I mean, just look at our wired world today. Millions, if not billions, of people have the ability to access information nearly instantaneously, make a snap judgment on that information (as incomplete as it may be) and then move on to the next thing that may attract their attention.
It takes no thought to do that. I would call it reactionary, but I suspect that many of those who are addicted to the swiftness of modern communications would revolt at being labeled as such, particularly progressives who seem to be enamored with the benefits of such technology.
We seem to have forgotten that it takes time to lay foundations and to build new edifices to our dreams and hopes for the future. No, we seem to have lost that perspective … and this is not just a left-right deal or liberal/progressive-v-conservative argument.
It is more of a generational thing, where those who vaguely remember what life was like before television, cell phones and the internet can recall having to wait … and wait … and wait … sometimes. Not just for decisions, but for the information to base those decisions on. Patience is not a virtue that Americans have.
The election, whenever it is decided, will not change things immediately. I hope people realize that. The system will continue its slow, inexorable process toward resolution of issues large and small … and no, the world is not going to come to end on Dec. 21.
The system is not broken or dysfunctional … it merely is not spitting out solutions at the pace your video game has taught you to react to.
American political system is not working
No matter how Tuesday’s (Nov. 6) election turns out, at all levels, we will have those 21st Century types that don’t understand how this venerable American political system designed in the 18th Century is working actually the way it was designed, which really is an amazing tribute to the people who have shaped it over the last 225 years.
In both of the above referenced articles, the authors complain of the “failure” of the American political system. Apparently, if I am interpreting their rhetoric correctly, the failure is in that the government apparently is gridlocked and cannot agree on solutions. This is bad, according to them.
Well, count me among those who say maybe it isn’t so bad.
Yes, both sides of the political spectrum are being fairly obstructive, but then that is their jobs. Their jobs are to represent the people who voted them into office, not their constituency at large. Now, I am not saying that these people are not educated, or unintelligent, but I am saying that I don’t agree with their understanding of how a democratic republic is supposed to operate.
To that end, I am reminded of a line from one of my favorite movies: What we have here is a failure to communicate.
First, there is a failure to communicate exactly what Americans view as their expectations of the role government (especially the federal government) in their lives, in their finances, their health and nutrition, and in the economic affairs of the nation in general.
There is a great divide in America right now between those who see a big role for the federal government providing for welfare of the American people and those who are suspicious of the federal government intervening in the lives of individuals. That divide, unfortunately, is wide and probably can’t be reconciled, but it will have to be accommodated somehow.
Second, somewhere along the line, two concepts were missed in translation and apparently failed to be communicated to the generations in the 21st Century. The first concept is that instantaneous gratification really is not possible, no matter how much we want to believe it is. Part two is that winner takes all is not part of the democratic equation; rather it sows the seeds of conflict in the future, especially in a country that has more than one vision of what that future ought to be.
So, we have people looking at the American system and saying “It is broken” or “It is dysfunctional” when they really mean that it is not providing the solutions that they think it should. That seems to be more a problem of their expectations than whether the system is broken or dysfunctional.
However, assuming that it is “broken”, I would be very curious as to what their “solution” would be. My question is that while they may think it is broken, could it not be that the “system” is thinking, trying to ascertain what the best solution might be.
You see, your first reaction sometimes is not the best reaction. Sometimes it is, and then again sometimes it isn’t. We used to value people in this country people who would take the time to consider their actions, rather than merely react to certain stimuli. I fear that carefully considered approach is waning, to be replaced by the demands of those who require instant gratification.
I mean, just look at our wired world today. Millions, if not billions, of people have the ability to access information nearly instantaneously, make a snap judgment on that information (as incomplete as it may be) and then move on to the next thing that may attract their attention.
It takes no thought to do that. I would call it reactionary, but I suspect that many of those who are addicted to the swiftness of modern communications would revolt at being labeled as such, particularly progressives who seem to be enamored with the benefits of such technology.
We seem to have forgotten that it takes time to lay foundations and to build new edifices to our dreams and hopes for the future. No, we seem to have lost that perspective … and this is not just a left-right deal or liberal/progressive-v-conservative argument.
It is more of a generational thing, where those who vaguely remember what life was like before television, cell phones and the internet can recall having to wait … and wait … and wait … sometimes. Not just for decisions, but for the information to base those decisions on. Patience is not a virtue that Americans have.
The election, whenever it is decided, will not change things immediately. I hope people realize that. The system will continue its slow, inexorable process toward resolution of issues large and small … and no, the world is not going to come to end on Dec. 21.
The system is not broken or dysfunctional … it merely is not spitting out solutions at the pace your video game has taught you to react to.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)