Philosopher as a soldier

Israeli general as a philosopher-soldier

The Israeli Defense Force’s Brig. Gen. Herzl Halevi is a man after my own heart, it would seem.

You see, I like philosopher-soldiers. They make great leaders in my experience.

I knew one once in the US Army … Gen. Carl Steiner. He was a special warrior in more ways than one (He not only was commander of the XVIII Airborne Corps but also served as commander of US Special Operations Command), but the thing that always impressed me about him was his depth. He was an amazing fellow that knew that once you passed a certain rank in the military you not only had to worry about enemy minefields but the political ones as well.

I interviewed him several times at length during his stint as commander of 18 Corps, including a special one-hour interview with him after Just Cause about how the operation was pulled together and executed under his command.

What is a philosopher-soldier? One who understands the true nature of war, its price and its necessity.

Like Gen. Halevi said, wars and military operations don’t necessarily solve problems, but sometimes they are the price you have to pay.

There are no simple wars, he told the New York Times in the above article. AMEN to that.

And all you can do is hope that the one you are fighting now is decisive enough to deter the next one for as long as possible because there will be a next one, and one after that, and one after that, ad infinitum. It is the human condition and no matter what you do or say, that is not going to change.

So in peace, as more than one brilliant military leader has observed, the best way to preserve that peace is to be prepared to fight, to wage war, better than anyone else.

The Americans have done that for the past 60 years or so, after relearning in 1950 that the era of wars was not over. It still is not over, despite what we might want or hope.

The problem with the American Way of War for the past 60 years (with a couple of minor exceptions) is that we have not come to battle intent on making it decisive. No, that would be too costly or too heavy-handed. We must be proportionate to the threat or some such nonsense.

Understand, I am no warmonger and I doubt any real “professional” soldier – which I was not; I just trained part-time for many years to be able to survive possible combat – is. I do, however, having witnessed the impact of battle first hand appreciate the costs of war. It is not pretty. It is not something to seek glory from. It is not something to enter into lightly.

Having said that, war sometimes is a necessary evil that outweighs the other options. You may not agree, but then we will have to agree to disagree. Some people just don’t or won’t respond to talking or negotiating in good faith. Compromise to them is not an option.

Israel faces that dilemma. An enemy that refuses to take yes for an answer. Unfortunately for Israel, the only solution it seems that is acceptable for those who oppose it is for Israel to cease to exist. And people like Gen. Halevi are not going to let that happen. His roots in Jerusalem go back 15 generations and I think he is entitled to stay there.

The Palestine problem is complex and far beyond my meager views to be able to solve. I do understand both sides wanting the thrice-promised land. Partition has been tried and offered several times, but it is never enough it seems to me.

But isn’t that indicative of the human condition? Are we never satisfied with what we have? Don’t we always want more? Don’t we always expect that we should be given more?

It seems to me that it doesn’t matter what culture or society that you have grown up in, the desire for more is always there. I may be wrong and I expect that you can cite instances where there are social groups where people do not want to improve their lot and those of their offspring. However, I would say those instances either represent very, very small groups of people or are aberrations that either collapsed due to their own internal contradictions or were unable to compete against aggressive neighboring societies.

Still, to me, the soldier who knows and understands philosophy – not just Western philosophy but the philosophes of different cultures (especially those of potential enemies) – is far better equipped and prepared for the next war … and there will be one.

Philosophy 101–Essay #2

Second in a series

Essay 1

As I set out on this voyage of exploration, I hoped that you my reader will follow along with me. I already have defined the basic unit of my philosophy and that is the individual, the individual human being who is capable of imagination, realization and of making choices but what of the world in which that person lives?

What can we say about that world and how do we define it?

First, I could say that when we are born, our world is very small but it seems huge. It basically encompasses only those who give us sustenance and nurturing as we develop but it is all we know. Our world then continually expands. It grows to include our parents and siblings, oftentimes extended family members, members of our clan or our “tribe” or community. On it grows in our awareness until we know that we live on a planet with more than 6 billion other human beings and teeming with all sorts of other living creatures. The planet also is subdivided into a plethora of various cultures and nations but as an entity it is this tiny speck of dust in galaxy made up of billions of stars and that galaxy is but one of a multitude in the discernible universe. It can be and is a bit overwhelming to think how small and insignificant we as individuals have become in our vision.

We discover that there are political subdivisions that govern our behavior within those societies that we have been born into. Those societies are divided by their prevailing world view, but to us as individuals – until we learn better – we think that that world view is universal and shared by all 6 billion of us. That perception is wrong, but it is difficult for us to shake ourselves free of it.

There are a few things as humans that I believe we do share: a desire to be fed, to be warm and dry, to be protected from the elements and predators, to have companionship, to reproduce, to protect our offspring, to protect ourselves, to feel as if we have dignity and that we have a place in the cosmos. How we meet those needs often brings us into conflict with others who are either competing for resources or for an elusive feeling of power that we are somehow better than others.

There is nothing wrong with the latter. I view it as being part of our essential psychology, part of our “human nature.” Because we have that feeling, and need to recognize that everyone shares it, it becomes the role of society – or civilization – to moderate those competitions. But in the end, there always is a basic need for each of us to feel that we are “right.”

But to have right, we have to have wrong. Don’t agree? Well, try to define right without having something to compare it against? You can’t really do it.

So that brings the next challenge: Who decides what is right and who decides what is wrong in the world? IF you really have the answer to that question, you might have solved the riddle of mankind.

You see, the problem most of us face is how the heck did we get here? Look, we are very tiny bits of mass in a very, very, very large universe. How is it that we developed into creatures – the only ones we know of at least – that have the ability to think in the abstract, to communicate those concepts to other individuals and then ponder not only the origin of life but the meaning of it. When we realize just how small we are in the larger scheme of things, sometimes it is overwhelming.

Obviously, there are forces at work that we don’t understand. Maybe we will never understand them but we feel compelled to explain how these forces work and interact. For many people, the answer lies in religion. Religion often is ridiculed as merely belief in ancient mythologies, but it does seem to be something that many people share: a need to believe in a higher power.

To others, the answer lies in “science”, but that is more a method of approaching problems than a belief system … or is it? There are those who say if science can’t answer it, then it doesn’t exist. I am not sure I buy that, but that is my own belief and I am not requiring you to accept it. Of course, science does assume some rules, but basically those rules are articles of faith and accepted demonstrations of validity. Beyond that, nothing is in control. However, I have a problem with that … but don’t take my word for it.

You see, if you accept that the world is without control, without some higher power giving it some purpose and those rules, then there are no limits on what you can do. You essentially can be out of control, because life is out of control and what does it matter – especially when you look at how little an impact an individual seems to have on the course of events. If life and death have no meaning, then why do we have the means to ponder it? Why do we even honor it? Why have a moral code?

Only when you try to claim that there is a purpose to all the travails that afflict the planet, then you have to come to grips that some entity must have established the rules for the universe and the planet. This is where a lot of strife enters the world: Whose version of this ultimate power, this creator of the universe, do you accept?

Now, I am not going to be so arrogant as to tell you what God or vision of the Creator to accept. Not my place, I have decided, so I am not going there. I will tell you that, yes, I believe in God/Creator. I believe in the one based on the Judeo-Christian template. I believe that is a real force in our lives, because I can claim to have felt that force in my own life. How and when and where is irrelevant to my discussion, only that I have faith and believe in its existence.

I believe it is from the influences of this God that we – in the United States and North America – have developed our values, our senses of what is right and what is wrong. Yes, I could be wrong, but I don’t think I am. Faith is, as someone once said, believing when all else tells you not to believe.

I accept that there are those who have different visions or even believe that it is impossible to believe in any divinity that would allow bad things to happen to good people. I accept that because in my faith, it is the individual’s choice to follow wherever his or her conscience dictates. That people are free to believe what they want to believe. My “God” allows that and only asks of me to hold one rule really inviolate: Treat others as you wish to have them treat you.”

If that sounds like the “Golden Rule”, well … it is. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” I believe it says in the King James Version of the Christian Bible. To me, those are pretty good words to live by. Unfortunately, not all religions (Christian denominations and otherwise) agree with that interpretation and it is more important to say you believe in the right vision of God than it is to merely uphold the Golden Rule. (I won’t go into the other version of the golden rule just yet)

And then there always is the Code of the West from the movie “Waterhole #3”: Do unto others before they have the chance to do unto you.

I hope I have given you a little to think about the “world” as we view it.

Nuff said for now.

Kitties win–Hoorah!

Bowl eligible?

My Kitties beat Texas Christian University 33-30

This supposedly makes them eligible for a post-season bowl bid for the fourth season in a row. Goodness gracious how my Kitties have grown. It used to be we were content with beating the Chickenhawks of Kansas University, three or four teams outside the Big-8, Iowa State and maybe Colorado and Missouri … as for the rest … well, we knew our place and touchdowns against either Oklahoma or Nebraska were treated as moral victories.

GO KITTIES!!!!!

Big OOPSIE!

Jihadiis behead wrong guy

It seems the Al Qaeda folks fighting in Syria against the Assad Regime beheaded what they thought was a member of a rival group that was in league with the government. They posted the grisly head on the internet.

OOPS!

It seems it was the head of the leader of one of their allies in the fight. Bad show, guys.

But, then taking a page from the book of the American president, President Barack Obama, they apologized and said they were sorry. It was all a mistake and not to hold it against them.

HMMMMM …

I guess if it works for President Obama with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act fiasco, then it should work for some Middle Eastern terrorists … who at least are fighting for the right cause (I think, but I haven’t checked the scorecard or the program to see who I am supposed to be rooting for here – it is awfully confusing trying to keep the players straight).

So what if it isn’t fair, or even legal for that matter, if I say I am sorry then all is OK and nobody needs to care.

You see, following the rules isn’t necessary, especially if it means trying to apply that archaic concept called the “rule of law.” Nah, it is better just to lop off people’s heads and then try to figure out what they did … you know, sort of like: Kill them all and let God sort it out.

And then if the rules you impose have all sorts of unintended consequences, especially to your allies (or people you want to be your allies), you can suspend the rules for them and blame it on someone else.

For the record: It is my humble opinion is that if we are going to have rules/laws, then it obligation of those of us covered by them to make a good faith effort to at least try to abide by them until or unless the law is changed and/or repealed. And that those who are charged with enforcing the rules do so with diligence and care that it is their responsibility to do it fairly and equitably and without arbitrary selective enforcement.

Lopping off people’s heads just because you think they are bad guys is not really permitted. You might shoot them, if  you have reason to believe that they are the enemy, but you better be ready to defend that act to the disinterested judges who are sitting on the sidelines just waiting to pounce.

(SO) Oh, and if you disagree with any of the above, your are a racist bigot xenophobe who is blinded by your ideological hatred of someone different and guilty of crimes not committed in your name by generations preceding you. (SO)

 

* (SO) alternately means Sarcasm ON or Sarcasm OFF, depending on its position in relation to the comment so bracketed. Just being politic there and, hence, you have been advised of your rights.

Philosophy 101–Essay 1

First in a series

I have been challenging myself, of late; challenging my own world views by trying to answer questions about them. Given the state of politics in my native United States, it probably should be understandable. Well, it has been an interesting experience.

Those who know me know that I am an inveterate, voracious and somewhat eclectic reader. As I say, it broadens one’s horizons.

Well, between reading articles on the internet and from my again-growing personal library (both physical and e-book), I find myself asking questions about the world as we see it today. I am trying to challenge my assumptions and compare them to more than six decades of observation of the human condition.

Who is right? Am I wrong? Heck, I think I am a big enough person that I can admit that I can be wrong or that I even have made a mistake (or two – or a whole bunch, because I have and still do). I even have admitted when problems are bigger than I am and asked for help. However, having said that, I wonder if my perceptions of the world are indeed correct. I am beginning to suspect that I have been more prescient than I have ever realized. So, I decided I would compose a series of essays on my philosophy, my beliefs, and my assumptions. I will leave it to you, my reader, to judge whether my views have any merit or not. I am merely sharing them.

The problem, I fear, is where to start and that is the most difficult question to answer because anywhere I start, I feel as if I am jumping in mid-stream of my thought processes and trying to decide which bank I want to swim for. However, I guess a good place to start is to start with a series of definitions. I do this, so that we all are on the same sheet of music when I delve into my digressions and views on philosophy.

When you are talking about humans and their world, what is the basic element? To me it is the role of the individual human in that world. It doesn’t matter whether we are talking about a family, a clan, a tribe, a community, a city, a state, a nation or any other subdivision of human activity, the basic element in each is the activities and choices of the individual.

So, what makes up an individual human being? Philosophically or biologically? The challenge already is laid down.

What is a human being? Is it merely a collection of protoplasmic cells that through some mysterious process has developed the ability to rationalize its existence? Is it that ability to synthesize perceptions into a belief structure and the bag of bones and water that carry that ability irrelevant? Who was the philosopher who posed “I think, therefore I am.” (It was the French philosopher, René Descartes.)

Ok, let me define the individual as a human being who has the ability to think, rationalize, essentially to think abstractly, to imagine things that aren’t and to solve problems. An individual is capable of making choices that can affect not only the individual’s life but others around them.

But then that begs the question that when does the individual become capable of doing all those things and what do we do with the individual prior to that point? So, maybe my definition isn’t so good after all.

My beautiful wife makes a very compelling argument that a human individual is created at conception and implantation in the mother’s womb. I won’t delve into all her points, but the basic one is that once the embryo begins to divide and grow there is, and can be, only one result and that is a human being that will – with the passage of time – meet all the requisites of my definition. Now, I know that one could digress into viability, the obligations of one individual to another, from parent to child, and all the other issues that surround the debate about the rectitude of permitting abortions, but I choose not to go that route right now.

So, if we take that individual, what else can we say about him or her? Well, for one thing, each one is practically unique. Yes, twins do have identical DNA but they are burdened with different life experiences and exposures and hence there are differences between them.

Next, does that individual have a free will? In other words, does the individual have the capability and ability to make choices? Then we have to answer how much responsibility can be laid to the individual over the choices they make? That is a more difficult question, it seems.

It revolves around the issue, it seems, that which controls a person more: Their nature or how they were nurtured? Neither, it seems to me is adequate to account for the diversity of people and what they do. Yes, genetics does play a major role in what a person will become, how they view the world and how they make their way in the world.

We all are born with different physical and mental attributes, talents and abilities. We see that every day, so to deny it is to deny reality.

By the same token we see that the environment people are raised in, the expectations and values that are taught to them from the time they are born make a tremendous impact on each and every individual. Often we can see incredible changes in individuals when, for whatever reason, they change their values or their expectations about whom they are or what they can accomplish.

So, we have to accept and admit that nurturing, or the lack thereof, plays a very important role in the development of a human individual. It is that realization that leads me to want to write this series of essays. If words and individual acts can make a difference, then I chose to try to make a difference.

We are all individuals. We are all different. We are all free, in my mind, to chart our own path through the world and our lives. It is the choices that we make and the expectations we have of others in the choices that they make that ultimately determine our fates – so to speak – in a world that truly is chaotic and without boundaries.

I hope this gives you food for thought before we progress on.

Nuff said.

Presidential discretion

Prosecutorial discretion: A definition and discussion

Perils of selective prosecution

The president of the United States, in the context of enforcing various laws passed by Congress and rules and regulations (with the force of law) written by various regulatory agencies of the Executive Branch, has cited “prosecutorial discretion” as the source of his power to basically say: Yes, that is the law, but I don’t like it so I am going to ignore the law and I am going to tell my agents in the executive branch not to enforce it.”

Question: Does prosecutorial discretion really give the president the right to ignore the law?

Where is the justice if the law is selectively enforced? Is it not more fair if the law is applied equally to all citizens, especially the same law?

The problems I have with President Barack Obama’s declaration that segments of his Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare or the ACA) will not be enforced because his allies and administration failed to anticipate a host of unintended consequences (well, we are being generous here and assuming they are unintended) that have accompanied the rollout of the President’s signature legislature are legion.

I won’t go into the convoluted definitions and such that make it constitutional, or the cynical calculations that have gone into exempting this class or that group from the dictates of the Congressional legislation that was passed on a strictly party-line vote (i.e. no attempt at consensus). I am just dealing with the perception that this administration likes to favor one political faction over another. In other words, it is all about votes and maintaining political power for a favored few. That is wrong. The government should be bound to apply the law. The president is not king, nor an elected dictator like Caesar.

I know that is an idealistic view for me to take, but unfortunately, even the evil Wikipedia points out that selective prosecutions based on selective prosecutorial discretion is subject to unbelievable abuse.

Wikidpedia on Selective Discretion

“Selective enforcement is the ability that executors of the law (such as police officers or administrative agencies, in some cases) have to select those against whom they want to enforce the law. The use of enforcement discretion in an arbitrary way is referred to as selective enforcement or selective prosecution.

Selective enforcement in practice

Historically, selective enforcement is recognized as a sign of tyranny, and an abuse of power, because it violates the Rule of Law, allowing those in authority to apply justice only when they choose. Aside from this being inherently unjust, this almost inevitably leads to favoritism and extortion, with those empowered to choose being able to help their friends, take bribes, and threaten those from whom they desire favors.”

Yes, folks, this violates the basic principles of the U.S. Constitution and particularly the 4th, 5th, 6th, 76h, 8th and 14th Amendments.

Now, all you legal beagles out there can argue the picayune minutia of the ins and outs of  its application, but the concept of equal protection and equality before the law is the bedrock of the American concept of the “rule of law.” Without the protection of the rule of law, then what are we left with?

The President, it seems – whether it is enforcement of immigration law, voter intimidation, or his prized Obamacare law – seems to be saying: It doesn’t matter what the law says. It is what I say that matters.

Unfortunately, in many respects, he is correct. He is the one who is charged with enforcing the law, and his minions have a broad discretion as to how to go about it.

Now, I may not like it. You may not like it. A lot of people may not like it. However, it still may be within his power as the chief enforcer of the provisions of the Constitution, the statutory laws passed by Congress and all the administrative rules and regulations (i.e. laws) put in place by all the various governmental agencies to enforce vague laws passed by Congress, to decide how aggressive he will tell the agents of the government to enforce said legal issues.

In the case of Obamacare, he sounds like the fan of a losing sports team: Wait until next year to see anything done.

Deferring enforcement of unpopular laws, and vowing to veto attempts to repeal said laws, rules and regulations, is a way to try to game the system. I think that is wrong. Congress wrote the mess, it needs to correct it. And it can start by repealing the rules and regulations enacted by the regulatory agencies to enforce it.

Unfortunately, the incompetence of this administration all too often is overwhelmed by the incompetence and ineptitude of the loyal opposition. Maybe that is an expression of how truly our house is divided.

For America is a house divided, these days. There are those who see government as the solution and those who see the government as the problem … and never the twain shall meet.

IF one is to take election results at their face value then the divide is almost straight down the middle, give or take 2 or 3 percent on either side. That is why the White House was gained by a slim majority, the Senate is controlled by one party by a majority that can’t steamroll the opposition and the House is controlled by the loyal (or disloyal, depending on how partisan you want to be) opposition.

What the American people seem to be hungering for are consensus solutions to the problems that we are facing. Unfortunately, that consensus is eluding us because those who are in the position to do so have decided that it is not in their interest to compromise. Pox on all their houses.

Consensus maybe needed but the basis of our republic, our union, is that the rule of law shall prevail and that the citizen can expect that it will be enforced without preference or prejudice. It rarely is, but that is the standard we should demand.

This administration, however, apparently seems to be intent on casting away even the fig leaves used by its immediate predecessor, in its bid to establish an imperial presidency that ignores the rule of law in favor of its own interpretations.

Please, will someone stand up and start yelling that the emperor has no clothes on? Will someone inside the beltway at least try to invoke the checks and balances so carefully weighed by those disparate dead white men of property who designed the American constitutional system? It really is an incredible piece of work that we seem to to want to flush away in fit of 21st Century hubris.

Nuff said … I through ranting now (for the moment)

Unreal expectations

Desperate needs in wake of typhoon

As I watched this piece by CNN’s Anderson Cooper, I was struck by the utter absurdity of it.

You hear desperate pleas for help, as if help will magically appear out of nowhere. They need food, water, medicine … and probably shelters … all the necessities of life that are needed in the wake of any disaster, natural or manmade.

Unfortunately, what TV screens and computer screens cannot show you is reality.

Yes, there are great needs to be filled to bring help to the people of the Philippines stricken by the typhoon, but it will take time. Lots of time. And that is what the immediacy of the revolution in telecommunications does NOT help you understand.

We are not talking about a couple of MREs here, or a tent or two. We are talking about tons, upon tons, upon tons, of materiel that needs to be moved from point A to point B for delivery to Points C and D and beyond.

We are trapped by the tyranny of distance and time. These twins restrict our response. Bind our capabilities to respond to any crisis that involves more than than a small group of people. It is known as logistics and it bogs down any and all things.

Airplanes can move at hundreds of miles an hour but can only carry thousands of pounds of cargo and there are just so many of them. Ships can move tons upon tons of the needed material but only move at about 25 miles per hour (flat out max speed of the fastest transoceanic transports and most move at less than 15 miles per hour) and it is thousands of miles from where the supplies are to where they are needed. And again, there are only a few of them.

It plucks at a heart strings and rips at our emotions, but folks … to be realistic about things – i.e. heartless … this is life. This is what is the fate of humanity when nature rages.

Yes, we hope that supplies will get there to help most of the people. We hope that those in charge of distributing the supplies will be able to do it unmolested and without spite. But that is not reality. It will be easy to blame the authorities, or people in other countries for not sending enough, but we need to face the reality that what resources we do have always will be in the wrong place (if they were there, they probably were destroyed by Nature’s wrath) and so it will take time, agonizingly long times to move it to where it can help.

And people will make choices, bad choices from the comfort of our living rooms, that will make the situation worse.

But this is life, people. You may not like it, but to expect anything different is to be a fool.

Lesson to be learned

Typhoon highlights fragile infrastructure

Sometimes, I think, we forget just how precarious our lives are. I would hope that storms like Hurricane Sandy and Typhoon Haiyan would be reminders that would bring us back to reality.

No, I am not talking about global warming or climate change (anthropomorphological), but the simple fact that natural events on earth are far more powerful than us humans. We seem to forget that.

It is tragic (and whatever else you want to use to describe terrible, horrible, unimaginable) what happened in the Philippines when the typhoon hit. I am not saying anything to diminish that.

But I will bet that the earth has seen larger events and will so again … it is just that humans were not in a position to record or measure them in the past.

Still, that is not my point. My point is how close we are, even in the US and other developed countries, to seeing the trappings of civilization stripped away from us.

Folks, no matter where you live, you are only hours (or minutes and definitely only days) away from reverting to a world that resembles one that only the most primitive societies left on the planet can conceive.

To me it is a terrifying thought, not that I spend much time worrying about it. Still, stop and think what life in North America would be like if the power went off for more than a few days. Think of the chaos, the mayhem, the struggles that we would face as we tried to reconfigure our world.

In microcosms, the impact of Sandy, Katrina, Ike, and now Haiyan give us inklings of what we might face.

For those whose memory does not stretch back beyond 1989, that is what those of us who did live through the years 1946 to 1989 faced in the nightmares of the world we were in. Unfortunately, while that particular threat has receded, it is not gone and could return in new and different forms.

I think most people are content to ignore that reality that Nature and our own folly can overturn practically in an instant the last 500 years of progress in the world.

It is not a thought that should consume us, but it is something that we should remember … and if nothing else, be thankful for the shoulders of the people who raised us to the level that we currently living on and realize that we are teetering on such a thin veneer of civilization.

I guess, in a way, it is a way to tell people that we need to be ready to assume total responsibility for our own existences, if we haven’t already, and think about how we can preserve what we have and that which is around us. The infrastructure that we expect from government to provide for us really is so fragile … and most likely in a crisis will be inadequate.

Just a little food for thought there.

Rehabilitation of Karl Marx

Marx was man's most influential scholar

A new study is out and, according to the Smithsonian Institution, the most influential scholar in history is Karl Marx.

Karl who?

Karl Marx, you know the theoretical genius who thought up the classless society called socialism … and its stepchild, communism. Apparently, Marxism is “cool”.

Marx is cool

I guess Francis Fukuyama was right and history ended in 1989 … or did people just stop learning history.

Granted, I will agree, in theory the socialist doctrine sounds ever so wonderful. It would be great to live in world where everyone had their needs met and everyone contributed to society according to their ability to contribute. I mean that would be utopia … unfortunately, utopia’s really are only fantasies because they tend to forget the most important element in society: The human individual.

Now, maybe someone, somewhere has the magic wand that is going to change the basic tenets of human nature and make people want to sit together and sing songs but that is not the world I live in. I might want to live in that world, but it is not the world that I do live in.

The problem with the socialist/Marxist model is that it forgets a few things about people that you have to deal with.

First, needs are endless. Please, don’t laugh, because what I mean is that once you get past enough to survive, then everything else is a luxury and how much do you need to survive? Not much. Mankind did pretty well for tens of thousands of years with not much more than a stick and a cave to hang out in.

Unfortunately, we as people have progressed far beyond that point now. We need to have clothes, lots of food, housing that would put kings to shame a century or two ago, vehicles for personal transportation, computers, lights, the internet, health care, etc., etc.

Point two: People are not going to work to the best of their ability unless they get some reward out of it. Nope, people aren’t made that way and all your huffing and all your puffing is not going to change that reality.

Point three: Resources are limited and there always will be competition for those resources as they have to be “rationed”.  (Some people don’t like it when I use that term because they associate it with coupons, etc., but there are other ways to ration things … like by price)

So far, in the last century, various forms of Mr. Marx’s socio-economic model has been tried several times and guess what … they all seem to have failed miserably.  In fact, in a few cases it has failed with disastrous results – like with millions upon millions of people paying the ultimate price for its failure.

What was it Einstein (probably a more influential intellect, but what the heck) said about insanity: It is trying  the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

I am not saying that capitalism as outlined by John Locke and Adam Smith (two other very accomplished social scientists) is all milk and cookies. It isn’t. However, I suspect that more people have seen their lives improved under their precepts than have under Mr. Marx’s precepts.

To me, the problem is that people want life to be milk and cookies … but they don’t realize that it ain’t gonna be that way. Never has been and – barring some miraculous shift in human nature and the discovering of unlimited resources – it never will be.

Sorry folks, but things like greed, jealousy, sloth, selfishness, narcissism and the like will make your perfect utopia impossible.

Now, we can accept that reality and try to work with it; or we can ignore it and face the already demonstrated consequences.

My challenge to people is not to try or even hope to change human nature (it is like fighting the tides, you always lose), but let’s design a social system that takes those negatives into account and, if possible, figures out a way to take advantage of them and use them to improve the lot of mankind.

Ironically, capitalism actually does that. You may not like the fact that not everyone gets the benefits, but life is like that: There are winners and there are losers. You may wish to live in a world where everyone is a winner, but like light and dark, good and bad, pass and fail, there really are only two options (with a lot of grey areas in between, fortunately) because without one you can’t have the other.

Lastly, you do know that the Smithsonian is an institution that was created by the US Congress (based on a bequest from an Englishman) and, although owned by the US government, is administered as a charitable trust with a board of regents, 11 of the 17 are government officials.

I guess the US government is putting its stamp of approval on the rehabilitation of Mr. Marx and his policies.

I mean it, you can’t make this stuff up.

Nuff said.

Kitties win!

Them Kitties beat Texas Tech!! Hooah! KSU 49 TTU 26 Tech was ranked #25 GO KITTIES