While perusing the news today, I noticed an article on representatives from Jordan and Egypt going to Israel to extend the hand of peace from the Arab League.
Could it be? It is a first for the Arab League to enter into direct talks with the Israelis. Now, Jordan and Egypt both have signed peace treaties with the Jewish State, but the rest of the Arab world still was advocating the elimination of the Zionist entity on the ancient lands known as Palestine the last time I looked. Of course, groups like Hamas and Hezbollah still are trying to wipe the Jews of the map ... or at least harass them to death.
The plan being offered by the Arab League apparently is the same one put forth by the Saudis not to far back ... which basically was to return to the borders prior to 1967, which basically were the borders offered the Arabs when the old British Palestinian Mandate was partitioned by the United Nations in 1948. Ironic, in a way, trying to return to the status quo ante of some 60 years ago.
Of course, the Arabs want the "right of return" of the displaced Palestinians (who the Arabs have kept as their pet refugees for the last six decades) to their old property in Israel. I am not sure the Israelis will accept that, not being privy to their councils, but I am not sure they should. The corollary would be for the Arabs to allow all the displaced Jews from their countries who found refuge in the Jewish State after 1948 to return to claim their properties and fortunes they had to leave behind when they left their homes.
The tragedy of the Middle East is that the Holy Land is a trice-promised place and holds places sacred to three of the world's largest religions (actually more, if you split the Christian church into its various denominations and Islam into its two major camps) which makes it difficult, if not impossible to resolve disputes over who should control what and where.
Many times I have felt that the U.S. should just step back and then let the residents on both sides fight themselves to a standstill and God sorts it all out. Sort of the old warrior motto; "Kill them all and let God sort it out."
The other thought I have on the Middle East peace process ... is why is the U.S. even involved in it (I know, OIL). No matter what we do, we are damned if we do and we are damned if we don't. Just look at Iraq and you can see it is a classic illustration of that. The world expects the U.S. to lead, but rarely wants to go where the U.S. leads ... it would be a sign of weakness if they did and would "compromise their independence." Yes, Virginia, the U.S. is the 900 pound gorilla in the room. We do have the largest economy that pretty much acts as a primer pump for the rest of the world ... if it wasn't for the U.S. economy soaking up so much commerce, much of the rest of the world would be broke. For instance, if the U.S. didn't buy so much oil from countries like Venezuela, then people like Hugo Chavez wouldn't have the funds to play petty socialist king. So, the U.S. whether it likes it or not, is stuck ... it has to lead.
And it doesn't help that the U.S. military stands literally head and shoulders above all the others when it comes to training, equipment and professionalism. Thank you FDR and the Japanese for that. Before WWII, the U.S. didn't have much of a military, just a cadre of brilliant strategic and tactical thinkers. As a result of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, FDR, Truman and those who have followed them have vowed that the U.S. never would let its strength flag militarily and our armed forces would be second to none. And that pretty much has been the case ... well sort of ... we weren't prepared for the Korean War because we put all our eggs in the nuclear response basket. Pretty much the same can be said for Vietnam ... we had the wrong force for the wrong war. The 1970s were pretty grim and had a conventional war broken out in Europe, we and our NATO allies would have been hard pressed to hold back a Warsaw Pact onslaught ... although there are a myriad of questions whether the Warsaw Pact ever was a strong as we thought.
In fact, the last 60 years have been an aberration in that we have invested so much of our resources into maintaining military capabilities. You see, the distaste with which much of the progressive side of the political spectrum holds the military and military service is pretty much a time honored American tradition. It reminds me of a Rudyard Kipling poem that ends:
For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!"
But it's "Saviour of 'is country," when the guns begin to shoot;
An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;
But Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool - you bet that Tommy sees!
(Tommy being the equivalent of GI Joe)
Americans have never be happy with a large standing military, but then there was a time when if you weren't a member of the local militia unit, you were really looked down upon; and there was a time when the elites saw military service (as a commissioned officer) had a noble obligation that was sort a requirement (at least hold a reserve commission). But the Regular Army or the regulars never have gotten much respect (and still don't).
I wouldn't go into my paean to today's young service men and women ... I will just say they truly are the best.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Random Thoughts 3
A few passing comments on the news.
I didn't watch the debate in Charleston because they really are inane. They really are just beauty pageants with very little substance. They seem to add little to the discourse or really to outline solutions to pressing issues, much less define the subtle differences between candidates -- that being something that takes more than 45 to 60 seconds to explain, which is about all the time the herd of candidates have for each to explain their answer to the questions. I thought the question presentations were clever, from the clips I have seen on the Web today, if not all that probing.
I wonder what the reaction would be today if debates on the model of the Lincoln-Douglas debates in the 1850's were held. First, I doubt very much that any of today's political figures could mount such a sustained conversation. Second, I doubt very much our ADD-afflicted society could sit still and try to hear both sides out ... although in the current atmosphere, with like 18 people vying for two slots on the ballot, such a debate format would be difficult ... no, impossible to accomplish.
Another thing that bugs the devil out of me is that the MSM, in true and usual fashion, is treating the 2008 presidential campaign like it is a horse race ... unfortunately, the real race won't be run for about 16 months and everything that is so breathlessly reported today will be meaningless then. This is something I fought at the papers I worked at for more than 30 years.
I really think the founders had a better idea, because there is no provision for political parties in the constitution. Now, don't get me wrong, I am all for political parties, I just don't think it is government's role to supervise their internal fights for leadership and power.
In my utopian world, both the federal government and the states would get out of the business of holding primary elections (unless it was necessary to narrow the field to the top two candidates). In a way, I like the parliamentary system in that when it comes to elections ... call an election and six weeks later it happens, but that doesn't fit the bill for our political elites. Actually, what I would like to do is have (for federal races, which the states could piggyback on) a national primary held the first Tuesday in September, with the national general election held the first Tuesday in November. Now, here is my way of screening candidates and it leaves a major role for the political parties: In order to qualify for being a candidate on the ballot, each candidate has to get a petition signed by (pulling a number out of the hat) 5 percent of the registered voters. In keeping with the federal nature of our government, a national candidate (president) would have to get some percentage, say 5 percent, in each of the 53 federal jurisdictions (the 50 states plus the district of Columbia, Puerto Rico and Guam). Senate candidates would have to get 5 percent in each county in their state, while House candidates also would have to get 5 percent of the voters in their district within a state.
In a digression, we would retain the electoral college with its proportional representation, with the addition of one vote for non-state federal jurisdictions.
Each state or jurisdiction would verify the petitions and the candidate's name would be on the primary ballot. In the national election, only candidates who qualify in all 53 jurisdictions, would appear on the ballot. These petitions would be validated no later than July 1 or a candidate would not be on the ballot.
There would be no "state-run" party primaries. The parties could stage partisan primaries, but they would have to foot the bill as well as organize and hold them. State and local governments would not be involved, unless it was to hand out current voter registration lists. The beauty of this approach is that it offers opportunities for a third option.
Now it would be nice if the MSM would acknowledge there sometimes are third options or fourth options, but in their myopia they remain focused on the dicotomy of the Democrat/Republican divide. I image it would surprise most people to know that there were third options in the last several elections, with the same candidate qualifying for the ballot in all 50 states (an example being the Libertarian candidate in every election since about 1992), but the MSM ignores this potentially viable (because it is on the ballot in all states) option because it is not between the familiar options.
But then, my opinion truly is utopian ... so I don't expect anything to come of my idea.
I didn't watch the debate in Charleston because they really are inane. They really are just beauty pageants with very little substance. They seem to add little to the discourse or really to outline solutions to pressing issues, much less define the subtle differences between candidates -- that being something that takes more than 45 to 60 seconds to explain, which is about all the time the herd of candidates have for each to explain their answer to the questions. I thought the question presentations were clever, from the clips I have seen on the Web today, if not all that probing.
I wonder what the reaction would be today if debates on the model of the Lincoln-Douglas debates in the 1850's were held. First, I doubt very much that any of today's political figures could mount such a sustained conversation. Second, I doubt very much our ADD-afflicted society could sit still and try to hear both sides out ... although in the current atmosphere, with like 18 people vying for two slots on the ballot, such a debate format would be difficult ... no, impossible to accomplish.
Another thing that bugs the devil out of me is that the MSM, in true and usual fashion, is treating the 2008 presidential campaign like it is a horse race ... unfortunately, the real race won't be run for about 16 months and everything that is so breathlessly reported today will be meaningless then. This is something I fought at the papers I worked at for more than 30 years.
I really think the founders had a better idea, because there is no provision for political parties in the constitution. Now, don't get me wrong, I am all for political parties, I just don't think it is government's role to supervise their internal fights for leadership and power.
In my utopian world, both the federal government and the states would get out of the business of holding primary elections (unless it was necessary to narrow the field to the top two candidates). In a way, I like the parliamentary system in that when it comes to elections ... call an election and six weeks later it happens, but that doesn't fit the bill for our political elites. Actually, what I would like to do is have (for federal races, which the states could piggyback on) a national primary held the first Tuesday in September, with the national general election held the first Tuesday in November. Now, here is my way of screening candidates and it leaves a major role for the political parties: In order to qualify for being a candidate on the ballot, each candidate has to get a petition signed by (pulling a number out of the hat) 5 percent of the registered voters. In keeping with the federal nature of our government, a national candidate (president) would have to get some percentage, say 5 percent, in each of the 53 federal jurisdictions (the 50 states plus the district of Columbia, Puerto Rico and Guam). Senate candidates would have to get 5 percent in each county in their state, while House candidates also would have to get 5 percent of the voters in their district within a state.
In a digression, we would retain the electoral college with its proportional representation, with the addition of one vote for non-state federal jurisdictions.
Each state or jurisdiction would verify the petitions and the candidate's name would be on the primary ballot. In the national election, only candidates who qualify in all 53 jurisdictions, would appear on the ballot. These petitions would be validated no later than July 1 or a candidate would not be on the ballot.
There would be no "state-run" party primaries. The parties could stage partisan primaries, but they would have to foot the bill as well as organize and hold them. State and local governments would not be involved, unless it was to hand out current voter registration lists. The beauty of this approach is that it offers opportunities for a third option.
Now it would be nice if the MSM would acknowledge there sometimes are third options or fourth options, but in their myopia they remain focused on the dicotomy of the Democrat/Republican divide. I image it would surprise most people to know that there were third options in the last several elections, with the same candidate qualifying for the ballot in all 50 states (an example being the Libertarian candidate in every election since about 1992), but the MSM ignores this potentially viable (because it is on the ballot in all states) option because it is not between the familiar options.
But then, my opinion truly is utopian ... so I don't expect anything to come of my idea.
Monday, July 23, 2007
Random Thoughts 2
There are a few words I would like to share, not my own, but I will add my thoughts.
Supposedly, in like 1803, there was this New York State Superior Court Judge who said:
"No man's life, liberty or property is safe while the legislature sits."
I find that thought chillingly true two centuries later while our national (U.S.) legislature sits in Washington, D.C.
An editorialist for many years, I often have been driven to comment on the workings of Congress, as well as the executive and judicial branches. Today, the Congressional leadership drives me to distraction. They speak as demigods who have lost touch with reality and offer no coherent plan or program that is both intellectually and emotionally consistent.
What probably distresses me the most is that it seems that we Americans seem to have lost all perspective and no longer think beyond the next quarter's bottom line. We must, and we must come up with cogent and coherent plans to deal with not just the next quarter but the next 100 quarters.
My Canadian relatives sometimes ask me my views of the current political landscape in my country and I always seem to speak with tones of anguish and disappointment. Not only in our leadership but also in the body politic at large. It truly is distressing that there seems to be a large body of people out there who have little to no understanding of the American system of governance. The United States is not a pure democracy but it is a democratic republic (if, as Ben Franklin was quoted as saying, we "can keep it."). It is not a parliamentary democracy but rather a federal republic with a written constitution that means what it says and often not what a lot of people think it says. It is designed (with malice aforethought, me thinks) to be inefficient and unwieldy, so its integral checks and balances have time to play out. But today, in an era of instant gratification and amusement, there are those who tolerances for delay have never been developed. I am reminded of two quotes from my childhood -- "Patience is a learned virtue" and "If it is good, then it is worth waiting for." Patience is a virtue we seem in desperately short supply of.
As a nation, we also seem to have this perverse habit of looking back on things we can not change and probably do not accept and lay it at the feet of some grand conspiracy.
For example, to those whose view of George W. Bush is so slanted that they still accuse him of stealing the 2000 election, I find that -- like those of us in the South who still view the Confederacy as something to venerate -- I want to tell them that (a) that battle is over and (b) the point is now moot, so it is time to get over it. Of course, like I sometimes point out to my Southern brethren, that any way you want to look at it -- slavery was at the bottom of the reasons that prompted the War of Yankee Aggression. To those who still accuse Bush of stealing the election, it is uncomfortable to remind them that a recount conducted by the leading outlets of what is now called the MSM (main stream media) in 2001 found that in just about all the scenarios, Bush still won by small numbers of votes. So, in a way, it could be argued that Gore was attempting to steal the election in Florida by way of the judicial branch. The end result of the first Tuesday in November 2000 found three days later being the same as the one that was found in May and June of 2001.
I won't go into my dissertation on the rationale and reasons for the electoral college and the wisdom of the founding fathers in establishing it today but will save that for a later post.
To the great conspiracy theorists: I wish they knew the government like I know the government. To this day, I remain surprised that anything classified remains a secret.
As for the Iraq War, the great issue of the current generation: It is a just cause and a noble effort. It is still ours to lose ... or win, although, like Vietnam, I believe we lack the political will to do so. That is unfortunate, for all the soldiers I know who have been over there want and think we can achieve victory, if we keep at it.
To those who subscribe to the view that "Bush lied, people died!" perspective: I view these people with great sadness. There was no grand neo-conservative conspiracy to take the U.S. to war in Iraq. What there was was an effort by essentially well-meaning people, doing what they thought was correct, acting on imperfect and often inaccurate information, trying to build the broadest coalition possible, who made less that perfect decisions.
Supposedly, in like 1803, there was this New York State Superior Court Judge who said:
"No man's life, liberty or property is safe while the legislature sits."
I find that thought chillingly true two centuries later while our national (U.S.) legislature sits in Washington, D.C.
An editorialist for many years, I often have been driven to comment on the workings of Congress, as well as the executive and judicial branches. Today, the Congressional leadership drives me to distraction. They speak as demigods who have lost touch with reality and offer no coherent plan or program that is both intellectually and emotionally consistent.
What probably distresses me the most is that it seems that we Americans seem to have lost all perspective and no longer think beyond the next quarter's bottom line. We must, and we must come up with cogent and coherent plans to deal with not just the next quarter but the next 100 quarters.
My Canadian relatives sometimes ask me my views of the current political landscape in my country and I always seem to speak with tones of anguish and disappointment. Not only in our leadership but also in the body politic at large. It truly is distressing that there seems to be a large body of people out there who have little to no understanding of the American system of governance. The United States is not a pure democracy but it is a democratic republic (if, as Ben Franklin was quoted as saying, we "can keep it."). It is not a parliamentary democracy but rather a federal republic with a written constitution that means what it says and often not what a lot of people think it says. It is designed (with malice aforethought, me thinks) to be inefficient and unwieldy, so its integral checks and balances have time to play out. But today, in an era of instant gratification and amusement, there are those who tolerances for delay have never been developed. I am reminded of two quotes from my childhood -- "Patience is a learned virtue" and "If it is good, then it is worth waiting for." Patience is a virtue we seem in desperately short supply of.
As a nation, we also seem to have this perverse habit of looking back on things we can not change and probably do not accept and lay it at the feet of some grand conspiracy.
For example, to those whose view of George W. Bush is so slanted that they still accuse him of stealing the 2000 election, I find that -- like those of us in the South who still view the Confederacy as something to venerate -- I want to tell them that (a) that battle is over and (b) the point is now moot, so it is time to get over it. Of course, like I sometimes point out to my Southern brethren, that any way you want to look at it -- slavery was at the bottom of the reasons that prompted the War of Yankee Aggression. To those who still accuse Bush of stealing the election, it is uncomfortable to remind them that a recount conducted by the leading outlets of what is now called the MSM (main stream media) in 2001 found that in just about all the scenarios, Bush still won by small numbers of votes. So, in a way, it could be argued that Gore was attempting to steal the election in Florida by way of the judicial branch. The end result of the first Tuesday in November 2000 found three days later being the same as the one that was found in May and June of 2001.
I won't go into my dissertation on the rationale and reasons for the electoral college and the wisdom of the founding fathers in establishing it today but will save that for a later post.
To the great conspiracy theorists: I wish they knew the government like I know the government. To this day, I remain surprised that anything classified remains a secret.
As for the Iraq War, the great issue of the current generation: It is a just cause and a noble effort. It is still ours to lose ... or win, although, like Vietnam, I believe we lack the political will to do so. That is unfortunate, for all the soldiers I know who have been over there want and think we can achieve victory, if we keep at it.
To those who subscribe to the view that "Bush lied, people died!" perspective: I view these people with great sadness. There was no grand neo-conservative conspiracy to take the U.S. to war in Iraq. What there was was an effort by essentially well-meaning people, doing what they thought was correct, acting on imperfect and often inaccurate information, trying to build the broadest coalition possible, who made less that perfect decisions.
HELLO, WELCOME TO THE REAL WORLD.
Don't view me as a defender of Dubya. I don't agree with him on a host of issues (although I voted for him twice, that was a matter of my judgement of the lesser of two evils -- id est: voting less for someone as against the other person who had more faults). And his abilities as a communicator and a leader leave a lot to be desired. However, he has earned my grudging respect. In the wake of 9/11, he chose to do something proactive and actively respond to those who wish all Americans ill. This was new, in my life time.
Did Dubya pick the right fights? I don't know. I do know that the sanctions regime against Saddam Hussein was unsustainable and would have collapsed. The sustainment of the no fly zones was costly in both lives and treasury and dispatching thousands of troops to sit in the sand while the U.N. arms inspectors were piddled and diddled was unworkable solution. Like those today who augur for the withdrawal from Iraq, I heard no coherent or cogent explanation of what to do after. What is your plan after the sanctions regime collapsed or the troops were withdrawn? What is your plan for the day after today? Under what contingencies are you willing to act? Under what circumstances would you deploy U.S. service members and under what rules of engagement?
Am I only among a few who view this current conflict from an historical perspective and realize that it truly has been fought on the cheap from beginning to end (and that is one of its major problems -- opting for doing it on the cheap). And yes, it is about OIL, but not for us as much as for our trading partners which in the end benefits us. Still, if it wasn't for oil, then we would not be trying to create an oasis of stability, democracy and hopefully tolerance in a region that such concepts seem as alien as something from outer space. It may be a utopian dream but I for one would rather believe that it is a universal dream.
Am I among the few who take people at their word? I don't try to parse what they are saying, but accept their words at face value. If the jihadiis say they want to kill Americans and destroy America, then I don't try to analyze the underlying problems they have or why they think that way ... I take them at face value. There are people out there who hate America, its way of life, its political and economic system and want to destroy it. I take them at their word.
Such as if the president of Iran says Israel should be wiped off the map ... I don't take it as a rhetorical device ... I take it that he means exactly that and if he can find a way to do it, will endeavor to accomplish that act.
And for those who babble about impeachment ... why waste our energy. Bush will be gone in less that 18 months and Dick Cheney along with him. Besides, impeachment would never get 67 votes in the Senate, so it is bound to fail. It really would a major waste of time, money and energy. Is this payback for the Republican effort in 1998 to remove Clinton? Let us not be so petty and have a little faith and patience in the American system of governence.
And another canard repeated by some who seem to be devoting their lives to hating GWB, I have yet to see how Bush has acted as a tyrant ... unless it is his failure the heed to advice of the progressive side of the body politic. I know not where he has violated with intent any law or criminal statute. Granted that he has done many things, advocated many policies that are actively opposed by many of different political perspectives, but he has not confiscated the property of any class of citizens without following the proscriptions of the law. He has not jailed his political opponents or seized their communications outlets as say has Hugo Chavez has in Venezuela. Chavez's latest thing is to expell all outspoken foreign critics. Those seem more the actions of a tyrant. Nor have I seen any effort by Dubya to change the constitution in order to stay in office.
I may be a simple man at heart, but I do judge people by their actions and their rhetoric. And if their rhetoric fails to match the observeable world, then their credibility is suspect.
Tis a strange world we live in ... and I only hope that we will survive.
Don't view me as a defender of Dubya. I don't agree with him on a host of issues (although I voted for him twice, that was a matter of my judgement of the lesser of two evils -- id est: voting less for someone as against the other person who had more faults). And his abilities as a communicator and a leader leave a lot to be desired. However, he has earned my grudging respect. In the wake of 9/11, he chose to do something proactive and actively respond to those who wish all Americans ill. This was new, in my life time.
Did Dubya pick the right fights? I don't know. I do know that the sanctions regime against Saddam Hussein was unsustainable and would have collapsed. The sustainment of the no fly zones was costly in both lives and treasury and dispatching thousands of troops to sit in the sand while the U.N. arms inspectors were piddled and diddled was unworkable solution. Like those today who augur for the withdrawal from Iraq, I heard no coherent or cogent explanation of what to do after. What is your plan after the sanctions regime collapsed or the troops were withdrawn? What is your plan for the day after today? Under what contingencies are you willing to act? Under what circumstances would you deploy U.S. service members and under what rules of engagement?
Am I only among a few who view this current conflict from an historical perspective and realize that it truly has been fought on the cheap from beginning to end (and that is one of its major problems -- opting for doing it on the cheap). And yes, it is about OIL, but not for us as much as for our trading partners which in the end benefits us. Still, if it wasn't for oil, then we would not be trying to create an oasis of stability, democracy and hopefully tolerance in a region that such concepts seem as alien as something from outer space. It may be a utopian dream but I for one would rather believe that it is a universal dream.
Am I among the few who take people at their word? I don't try to parse what they are saying, but accept their words at face value. If the jihadiis say they want to kill Americans and destroy America, then I don't try to analyze the underlying problems they have or why they think that way ... I take them at face value. There are people out there who hate America, its way of life, its political and economic system and want to destroy it. I take them at their word.
Such as if the president of Iran says Israel should be wiped off the map ... I don't take it as a rhetorical device ... I take it that he means exactly that and if he can find a way to do it, will endeavor to accomplish that act.
And for those who babble about impeachment ... why waste our energy. Bush will be gone in less that 18 months and Dick Cheney along with him. Besides, impeachment would never get 67 votes in the Senate, so it is bound to fail. It really would a major waste of time, money and energy. Is this payback for the Republican effort in 1998 to remove Clinton? Let us not be so petty and have a little faith and patience in the American system of governence.
And another canard repeated by some who seem to be devoting their lives to hating GWB, I have yet to see how Bush has acted as a tyrant ... unless it is his failure the heed to advice of the progressive side of the body politic. I know not where he has violated with intent any law or criminal statute. Granted that he has done many things, advocated many policies that are actively opposed by many of different political perspectives, but he has not confiscated the property of any class of citizens without following the proscriptions of the law. He has not jailed his political opponents or seized their communications outlets as say has Hugo Chavez has in Venezuela. Chavez's latest thing is to expell all outspoken foreign critics. Those seem more the actions of a tyrant. Nor have I seen any effort by Dubya to change the constitution in order to stay in office.
I may be a simple man at heart, but I do judge people by their actions and their rhetoric. And if their rhetoric fails to match the observeable world, then their credibility is suspect.
Tis a strange world we live in ... and I only hope that we will survive.
Random Thoughts 1
There is a old doggerel (a poem/song - in this case written by the operattists Gilbert and Sullivan) taught to me by my father lo these many years ago that began.
His hair was weedy, his beard was long,
In a sense this is a my song in my own singular minor key.
And I will be your cook and captain bold, the mate, the bosun tight, the midshipmite and the crew of the captain's gig (its rifleman, if you care to know what position, the same spot I held on the boat crew of the USS Meredith some 35 years ago)
'TWAS on the shores that round our coast
From Deal to Ramsgate span,
That I found alone on a piece of stone
An elderly naval man.
His hair was weedy, his beard was long,
And weedy and long was he,
And I heard this wight on the shore recite,
In a singular minor key:
Oh, I am the cook and the captain bold
And the mate of the Nancy Brig
And a bosun tight and a midshipmite,
and the crew of the captain's gig ...
In a sense this is a my song in my own singular minor key.
And I will be your cook and captain bold, the mate, the bosun tight, the midshipmite and the crew of the captain's gig (its rifleman, if you care to know what position, the same spot I held on the boat crew of the USS Meredith some 35 years ago)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)