Last week my wife and I had the opportunity to attend the Veterans of Foreign Wars Mid-Winter Conference held in Boise. Despite having been a sometimes active VFW member since the mid-seventies, I’ve never been to one of these shindigs before, I really didn’t know just what to expect, and the conference was an eye opener for this ‘ol country boy. For one thing, I got to meet a lot of VIP’s (including the National Commander George Lisicki), and I learned a lot about the internal workings of the organization. I also got a much better idea of just how serious the VFW is about our military veterans who are still serving America in non-military ways.
While the VFW and the American Legion are two of the better known veterans organizations, there are plenty of other groups out there. A quick search of the internet reveals more than 40 organizations nationwide that are currently recognized by the Department of Veterans Affairs as veteran’s service organizations. Many people consider these veterans organizations to be marching and drinking societies, where the members (generally a bunch of old soldiers), do little more than sit around the clubhouse swilling beer and telling the same tired old war hero stories that everyone’s already heard dozens of times. And I’ll admit that happens, with a very few members, and on rare occasions. But these groups are a lot more than just social clubs. They are after all, Service Organizations. Personally I’m much more familiar with the VFW than any other group, so I’ll speak about them, but remember that the following generally pertains to all veterans organizations.
The VFW provides numerous services to both veterans as well as to active duty military personnel and their families. Each post has a service officer readily available to assist veterans, members and non-members alike, in filing for their veterans benefits, whether it’s for a service connected disability, GI Educational benefits, vocational rehab, military life insurance, or whatever. The three main efforts of the VFW Military Services department are, the Military Assistance Program which has helped fund Farewell and Welcome Home gatherings for military units worldwide. Operation Uplink, which provides free, pre-paid phone cards to service members, and Unmet Needs, which can give a one-time grant of up to $2,500 to qualifying service members and their families that are experiencing financial hardship.
Fostering patriotism and honoring America's veterans, whether it’s on Memorial Day, Independence Day or Veterans Day, is part of the VFW's philosophy. Public commemorations hosted by VFW Posts worldwide cultivate an appreciation of the responsibilities and benefits of being an American. The flags you see lining Grangeville’s Main Street on national holidays are purchased, maintained, posted, and recovered by members of the VFW and American Legion. Our local Memorial Day ceremonies are hosted by the VFW and Legion as well. Flags and flag etiquette are important components of the VFW's Citizenship Education program. Every year, hundreds of thousands of students participate in the Voice of Democracy and Patriot’s Pen contests, garnering more than $3.4 million in scholarships and incentives. Additionally the VFW honors an outstanding scout each year through the VFW Scout of the Year Scholarship program. The VFW has a longstanding tradition of community service, working closely with other organizations such as Boy Scouts of America, America Supports You and America's Promise-The Alliance for Youth. Constructive community service is a founding VFW tenet benefiting education, the environment, health sciences and civic projects. The VFW's citizenship education program is designed to stimulate an interest in America's history, its traditions and institutions, as well as promote patriotism. The VFW also works closely with the National Rifle Association, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, International Association of Firefighters and the Salvation Army.
There are numerous projects and services that VFW Posts and its Auxiliaries offer to promote citizenship in the local community and educational facilities. Besides the VFW's outstanding scholarship programs, Posts and Auxiliaries across the nation work with youth in scouting, sports, ROTC and military cadet programs. By providing leaders, funding, sponsorships and other resources, the VFW and its Auxiliaries encourage millions of America's young adults to higher ideals and greater personal achievement.
Among all the flowers that evoke the memories and emotions of war is the red poppy, which became associated with war after the publication of a poem written by Col. John McCrae of the Canadian Army following WW I. The poem, "In Flander's Field," describes blowing red fields among the battleground of the fallen. For more than 75 years, the VFW's Buddy Poppy program has raised millions of dollars in support of veterans' welfare and the well being of their dependents. The poppy soon was adopted as the official memorial flower of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States. In 1923 the VFW decided that VFW Buddy Poppies would be assembled by disabled and needy veterans who would be paid for their work to provide them with some form of financial assistance. Today, VFW Buddy Poppies are still assembled by disabled and needy veterans in VA Hospitals nationwide.
Just who are these veterans anyway? Well, they’re your friends and neighbors, along with probably more than just a few relatives. The VFW was started by returning veterans of the Spanish-American war, and has included veterans of every war this nation has been involved with ever since, including the current unpleasantness in Iraq and Afghanistan. They’re people who once wore the uniform of the Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, and Coast Guard. Nowadays there are a lot of women who are full members of the VFW as well. They’re all people who once, at great personal risk, served this nation in uniform, and today, now in civilian clothes, continue to serve our country. They’re simply Americans, who, timeworn as the phrase may be, are patriotic citizens who strongly believe in the greatness, the strength, and the promise of our country.
Volunteering our time, efforts, and even our hard earned money is an American tradition that dates back to colonial days, with the militia and firefighting being the best known historically. Yet how many pioneers, arriving at their new home, found the neighbors quickly gathering to help build a cabin or raise a barn? If someone was sick or injured the neighbors again responded, to gather in a crop, do the chores, or care for the family. We have a quite admirable national culture of helping ourselves, our relatives, our neighbors, and the community. Veterans organizations are nothing more than a fraternal extension of that culture.
If you’re a veteran, and not a member of the VFW, perhaps you should consider joining. If so, please contact me, and I’d be glad to help get you started. If you’re an inactive member, perhaps you should get active again.
Veterans, forever serving.
Sunday, February 3, 2008
Monday, January 28, 2008
Genetics
Quite some time back I wrote an article about genetic research which was unpublished due to it's very long length. So, after considerable editing...
I’ve noticed that there’s still a lot of ongoing public comment about genetic and stem cell research currently being conducted in the US and several other countries. And that many people get quite verbal in their opposition to this ongoing research, with arguments ranging from honest concerns to the downright ludicrous. For the most part, the loudest opposition appears to come from the “Right to Life” folks who oppose research utilizing aborted fetal stem cells. I can certainly understand their opposition to abortion, and to the experimental use of aborted cellular tissue, but an aborted fetus is not the only source of stem cells! Over the last couple of years, researchers have discovered numerous alternative sources of stem cells, nowadays they can be acquired from just about any part of the adult body, not just from a fetus. So, with that fact in mind, consider me to be a voice in the wilderness, crying “Yes, we do need that research!” I’m not opposed to genetic research, stem cell research, or even cloning research, if accomplished for ethical purposes. I firmly believe that these investigations have the possibility of being one of the greatest boons to humanity in medical history.
Cloning people is pretty much a waste of time as far as I’m concerned. First of all, don’t we already have more than enough people in this world? And secondly, a clone isn’t, and can’t be, an exact copy of the original. Physically, yes, it may well appear to be a copy, but the physical body isn’t everything. We’re all aware that the person is the sum total of the physical being, and the mental state of that persons upbringing, education, and past experiences. A lifetime of those mental processes can’t be duplicated, and thus a clone can’t be a duplicate of the original. Even if we did manage to clone Albert Einstein, how could we possibly repeat the unique set of circumstances that made him the worlds premier theoretical physicist? Besides, I rather doubt that very many of us would wish our entire past history on our worst enemies, much less on a copy of ourselves! Then to, if human cloning became a common technology, there’s always some idiot that would want to steal the Shroud of Turin, gather some DNA from it, and attempt to clone Jesus of Nazareth. Someone else would want to clone Napoleon, Adolf Hitler, or Attila the Hun, and turn them loose on an unsuspecting world!
Even if such duplication were possible, can you imagine the flurry of clones we’d see of so many super rich personages in Hollywood!? Or do we really want duplicates of our rich politicians telling us that they know “so much better” than anyone else? Really, if there’s something that the world doesn’t need, it’s even more highly placed, power hungry, and unstable egotists running around loose! Then of course we’ve all seen the fictional movie “Jurassic Park”, with an island full of “cloned” dinosaurs. While that’s extremely unlikely to actually happen, does anyone really want a twelve ton carnivorous lizard with a bad attitude running the city streets? I rather doubt the animal control people would be looking forward to that. If, and when, we can clone individual body parts, we’d be looking at an entirely different situation. “What if” we could readily grow a replacement heart, liver, lung or kidney for those who need one? Perhaps this would bring an end to transplant rejection problems? Come to think of it, there are a few people in this world that I’d nominate for a brain transplant as well. An even better option to cloning would be the possibility of repairing physical damages through stem cell technology. I rather doubt that, by themselves, stem cells could defeat old age, but how about non-intrusive repairs for severe accident injuries? Could we perhaps grow a new leg for a soldier maimed in combat? Could we repair a child’s disease ravaged nervous system? Or provide new skin for burn victims? I also understand that there are aspects of stem cell research indicating possible cures for Alzheimer’s, and even cancer. Here I think the possibilities are endless, if we don’t ban all research.
“Non-human” genetic research and engineering raise a number of other possibilities. Improved crop yields, and/or pest resistance would be a boon to people in many third world countries, IF those agricultural products can be proven environmentally safe, and safe for very long term human consumption. How about engineering a microbe that specifically attacks the AIDS virus? Here again we have a long list of possibilities. What I do vehemently oppose is the seriously proposed hybridization of various animal species, and particularly that of human/animal hybrids. The concept of “Humanzees”, genetically engineered, intelligent, human/chimp “servants”, bring forth visions of Dr. Frankenstein’s laboratory, and smacks of a return to slavery in my mind. Perhaps in our playing God, we actually will have a master race, and our very own home brewed “Untermenschen". It’s not a concept I particularly care for, and fortunately it’s a long way in the future. But what bothers me is that it was a serious proposal, and is being seriously investigated! As I understand the proposal, a “Humanzee” is supposed to be a multi-purpose “aid” for people with severe disabilities, sort of a hi-tech seeing-eye dog. In itself not a bad idea, but not this way! Robotics are a lot further along than genetics, and if we could show the Japanese a viable market for robots, they’d have a “robot personal assistant” for sale, probably by the middle of next week!
We also have the possibility of “designer babies”, another idea with both good and bad points. It’s been pretty well accepted that a tendency toward cancer and heart disease are genetically linked. If science can tinker with the parents genes, it may then be possible to eliminate those tendencies in their children, and in following generations. Once the genetic causes of birth defects are identified, it may well become a regular procedure to repair those defects in utero. The downside is that so many people would decide that they want the “perfect baby” with a physical appearance “just like my favorite rock star”. Prospective stage mothers could get together and compare notes about designing the ideal beauty queen, while football fathers can start seriously thinking about the Super Bowl. Life is going to be rough on those kids.
There seems to be no particular medical reason why the human body can’t repair itself as needed, if we could just find the triggering mechanism, and of course understand why this capability doesn’t naturally work all the time for us. On occasion we see reports of an individual whose body apparently regenerated severely damaged tissue. Might these incidents be cases of latent stem cell regeneration, brought about by… something? Personally I think it’s a phenomena well worth investigation, and only ongoing cellular research will tell the tale.
The technology of bio-engineering will be developed, someplace, by somebody. It might be banned in Boston, or even all across the United States, but a complete ban on such research won’t stop it in the rest of the world. Wouldn’t we be much better off if we accept that fact, and approach this knowledge with a well considered set of moral and ethical guidelines already in place? Perhaps it’s time for the social and religious leaders of the world to quit arguing about their differences, sit down with the leaders of the medical profession, and establish those moral guidelines.
I’ve noticed that there’s still a lot of ongoing public comment about genetic and stem cell research currently being conducted in the US and several other countries. And that many people get quite verbal in their opposition to this ongoing research, with arguments ranging from honest concerns to the downright ludicrous. For the most part, the loudest opposition appears to come from the “Right to Life” folks who oppose research utilizing aborted fetal stem cells. I can certainly understand their opposition to abortion, and to the experimental use of aborted cellular tissue, but an aborted fetus is not the only source of stem cells! Over the last couple of years, researchers have discovered numerous alternative sources of stem cells, nowadays they can be acquired from just about any part of the adult body, not just from a fetus. So, with that fact in mind, consider me to be a voice in the wilderness, crying “Yes, we do need that research!” I’m not opposed to genetic research, stem cell research, or even cloning research, if accomplished for ethical purposes. I firmly believe that these investigations have the possibility of being one of the greatest boons to humanity in medical history.
Cloning people is pretty much a waste of time as far as I’m concerned. First of all, don’t we already have more than enough people in this world? And secondly, a clone isn’t, and can’t be, an exact copy of the original. Physically, yes, it may well appear to be a copy, but the physical body isn’t everything. We’re all aware that the person is the sum total of the physical being, and the mental state of that persons upbringing, education, and past experiences. A lifetime of those mental processes can’t be duplicated, and thus a clone can’t be a duplicate of the original. Even if we did manage to clone Albert Einstein, how could we possibly repeat the unique set of circumstances that made him the worlds premier theoretical physicist? Besides, I rather doubt that very many of us would wish our entire past history on our worst enemies, much less on a copy of ourselves! Then to, if human cloning became a common technology, there’s always some idiot that would want to steal the Shroud of Turin, gather some DNA from it, and attempt to clone Jesus of Nazareth. Someone else would want to clone Napoleon, Adolf Hitler, or Attila the Hun, and turn them loose on an unsuspecting world!
Even if such duplication were possible, can you imagine the flurry of clones we’d see of so many super rich personages in Hollywood!? Or do we really want duplicates of our rich politicians telling us that they know “so much better” than anyone else? Really, if there’s something that the world doesn’t need, it’s even more highly placed, power hungry, and unstable egotists running around loose! Then of course we’ve all seen the fictional movie “Jurassic Park”, with an island full of “cloned” dinosaurs. While that’s extremely unlikely to actually happen, does anyone really want a twelve ton carnivorous lizard with a bad attitude running the city streets? I rather doubt the animal control people would be looking forward to that. If, and when, we can clone individual body parts, we’d be looking at an entirely different situation. “What if” we could readily grow a replacement heart, liver, lung or kidney for those who need one? Perhaps this would bring an end to transplant rejection problems? Come to think of it, there are a few people in this world that I’d nominate for a brain transplant as well. An even better option to cloning would be the possibility of repairing physical damages through stem cell technology. I rather doubt that, by themselves, stem cells could defeat old age, but how about non-intrusive repairs for severe accident injuries? Could we perhaps grow a new leg for a soldier maimed in combat? Could we repair a child’s disease ravaged nervous system? Or provide new skin for burn victims? I also understand that there are aspects of stem cell research indicating possible cures for Alzheimer’s, and even cancer. Here I think the possibilities are endless, if we don’t ban all research.
“Non-human” genetic research and engineering raise a number of other possibilities. Improved crop yields, and/or pest resistance would be a boon to people in many third world countries, IF those agricultural products can be proven environmentally safe, and safe for very long term human consumption. How about engineering a microbe that specifically attacks the AIDS virus? Here again we have a long list of possibilities. What I do vehemently oppose is the seriously proposed hybridization of various animal species, and particularly that of human/animal hybrids. The concept of “Humanzees”, genetically engineered, intelligent, human/chimp “servants”, bring forth visions of Dr. Frankenstein’s laboratory, and smacks of a return to slavery in my mind. Perhaps in our playing God, we actually will have a master race, and our very own home brewed “Untermenschen". It’s not a concept I particularly care for, and fortunately it’s a long way in the future. But what bothers me is that it was a serious proposal, and is being seriously investigated! As I understand the proposal, a “Humanzee” is supposed to be a multi-purpose “aid” for people with severe disabilities, sort of a hi-tech seeing-eye dog. In itself not a bad idea, but not this way! Robotics are a lot further along than genetics, and if we could show the Japanese a viable market for robots, they’d have a “robot personal assistant” for sale, probably by the middle of next week!
We also have the possibility of “designer babies”, another idea with both good and bad points. It’s been pretty well accepted that a tendency toward cancer and heart disease are genetically linked. If science can tinker with the parents genes, it may then be possible to eliminate those tendencies in their children, and in following generations. Once the genetic causes of birth defects are identified, it may well become a regular procedure to repair those defects in utero. The downside is that so many people would decide that they want the “perfect baby” with a physical appearance “just like my favorite rock star”. Prospective stage mothers could get together and compare notes about designing the ideal beauty queen, while football fathers can start seriously thinking about the Super Bowl. Life is going to be rough on those kids.
There seems to be no particular medical reason why the human body can’t repair itself as needed, if we could just find the triggering mechanism, and of course understand why this capability doesn’t naturally work all the time for us. On occasion we see reports of an individual whose body apparently regenerated severely damaged tissue. Might these incidents be cases of latent stem cell regeneration, brought about by… something? Personally I think it’s a phenomena well worth investigation, and only ongoing cellular research will tell the tale.
The technology of bio-engineering will be developed, someplace, by somebody. It might be banned in Boston, or even all across the United States, but a complete ban on such research won’t stop it in the rest of the world. Wouldn’t we be much better off if we accept that fact, and approach this knowledge with a well considered set of moral and ethical guidelines already in place? Perhaps it’s time for the social and religious leaders of the world to quit arguing about their differences, sit down with the leaders of the medical profession, and establish those moral guidelines.
Monday, January 21, 2008
Firefighters
I think most of us remember the horror of 9/11, the TV shots of two jetliners deliberately crashing into New York’s fabled Twin Towers, and shortly thereafter the sight of those great buildings falling to the city streets. In my case I’ll never forget the three hundred and forty three members of the Fire Department of New York who died while taking part in one of the most successful rescue efforts in history. Thousands of people, the total number numbers will never be known, owe their lives to those men. Wearing and carrying nearly a hundred of pounds of equipment each, they ran up smoky stairwells filled with hazardous fumes, looking for victims. They pulled trapped office workers out of the rubble and performed whatever emergency care they could give to the injured. Despite their best efforts, the scope of the disaster was too great. Ordered to evacuate, many remained behind helping even more people to escape. The towers finally collapsed, killing almost 3,000 people. Looking back on it all, nothing seems more heroic than what members of the New York Fire Department did that day. But the fact is that firefighters perform these sorts of heroic deeds every day, in every county and city across the nation, and around the world. Simply put, it's the firefighters job to put out fires, from outside, inside, or any way they can. Firefighters respond to a whole host of other emergencies as well. They are usually the first to arrive at car accidents, gas leaks, the sites of natural disasters, or when someone has taken ill or been injured.
Many years ago, a young Puerto Rican immigrant woman was told a bit about survival in New York City. “If you’re ever in trouble and desperately need help, pull the fire alarm box” she was advised. “If you call the police, they may or may not come. If you call the ambulance, they may or may not come. The firemen, they always come.” False alarms create many problems for firefighters, but I’d think this is a rather left-handed compliment to the greatest bunch of people in the world. Firefighters, volunteers, part timers, and full timers, structural, industrial, and wildland, both men and women, are a very special breed of people who, over time, generally view their occupation as a nearly holy calling rather than just a job, and are completely dedicated to their work. They have to be, since each call brings with it the threat of severe injury or even death. Uncommon valor is a very common trait among firefighters.
People join the department for any number of reasons, but they soon develop the intense trust and faith in their fellows, instincts needed when you deliberately ignore a natural fear of the red devil, to enter a burning building that’s quickly crumpling around you, dragging a fire hose while you search for a missing child. Who else but a firefighter would join his crewmates in closing on a raging forest fire, armed with little more than shovels, trying to save a total strangers property. If you don’t develop that trust, you won’t stay on the department for long.
Besides bravery and physical strength, firefighters need common sense and patience. In emergency situations, people depend on firefighters to stay calm and give clear directions. Firefighters must work quickly, but at the same time, they need to take into account numerous details--the color of smoke, the construction of the building, and the way the fire is burning--when deciding how to go about their jobs. This means that they have to know an enormous amount about how fires behave under different conditions, how the fire is likely to progress, and what techniques and materials they need to use to deal with it.
James Taylor is a former Fire Captain, and author of the 1969 essay “What is Fire Fighter?”, generally considered to be the definitive essay on firefighting. “A Fire Fighter is a lonely man holding a midmorning watch with book in hand and a telephone within a split seconds reach. A darkened apparatus floor, a complicated alarm system, now silent, but perhaps within the next blink of an eye or turn of a page will scream out with the clanging of bells, the turning of gears, and the ticking of tape. What is as Fire Fighter? He is years of constant training that must guide him in every move once that Great Silver Bell again must exact "Awake ye from your beds!" Your heavy resting hearts within the sigh of an awakening must now beat with the strength of an athlete, a fighter, for a fighter you are. A fire fighter is a man responsible for thousands of dollars of equipment, and for the lives of his fellowmen he knows he must protect. He is a man constantly studying for promotions, not content that as a private he already represents leadership in the community. For a young girl or boy there is no doubt who he is. Yes he was the one who found time to smile down at them. From the top of his protective helmet to the bottoms of his steel reinforced boots he appeared to be a giant, "Get back!" he shouted, as he strained to move hundreds of pounds of water-filled hose only to disappear into a hell of smoke and heat. Are you worried about your smoking habits? The fire fighter must now inhale the truly king size of them all, three stories high and filled with foreign and domestic sofas, carpets, paints, and woods. The Tolls are great among these men, greater than almost every other occupation. The rewards; long hours, working weekends and holidays. He gives up time with his own family for the sake and safeguard of those who see only the superficial man and not the superman that perhaps he is. For this he is if only in the heart and mind of a child not blinded by the isms of life, but instead opened by a tear as his floppy-eared puppy responds to the carefully applied artificial respiration given to it by a combination doctor, fire fighter, truck driver and yes, maybe a superman. Perhaps that tear is the fire fighter's reward. Someday he too may shed a tear for a fallen comrade, silently praying that his own last alarm will herald the end to a glorious career through retirement, and not through death or injury. What is a fire fighter? Ask the people that he has helped in times of fire, flood, plane, car and boat disasters, accidents through carelessness or in times of war. When others walk away the fire fighter must now take on the responsibilities of saving lives and property. A giant, a superman, a constant vigil for the prevention of fire. Oh, to have the eyes and faith of a child, If only grown-ups were so blessed, the fire fighter's life would be the richest on earth."
I had not intended to single out the FDNY, but they are the countries largest and busiest fire department. Even so, that same intense sense of duty is demonstrated in even the smallest volunteer department. The next time you see one of your local firefighters, remember to thank him for his unstinting service to your community.
Many years ago, a young Puerto Rican immigrant woman was told a bit about survival in New York City. “If you’re ever in trouble and desperately need help, pull the fire alarm box” she was advised. “If you call the police, they may or may not come. If you call the ambulance, they may or may not come. The firemen, they always come.” False alarms create many problems for firefighters, but I’d think this is a rather left-handed compliment to the greatest bunch of people in the world. Firefighters, volunteers, part timers, and full timers, structural, industrial, and wildland, both men and women, are a very special breed of people who, over time, generally view their occupation as a nearly holy calling rather than just a job, and are completely dedicated to their work. They have to be, since each call brings with it the threat of severe injury or even death. Uncommon valor is a very common trait among firefighters.
People join the department for any number of reasons, but they soon develop the intense trust and faith in their fellows, instincts needed when you deliberately ignore a natural fear of the red devil, to enter a burning building that’s quickly crumpling around you, dragging a fire hose while you search for a missing child. Who else but a firefighter would join his crewmates in closing on a raging forest fire, armed with little more than shovels, trying to save a total strangers property. If you don’t develop that trust, you won’t stay on the department for long.
Besides bravery and physical strength, firefighters need common sense and patience. In emergency situations, people depend on firefighters to stay calm and give clear directions. Firefighters must work quickly, but at the same time, they need to take into account numerous details--the color of smoke, the construction of the building, and the way the fire is burning--when deciding how to go about their jobs. This means that they have to know an enormous amount about how fires behave under different conditions, how the fire is likely to progress, and what techniques and materials they need to use to deal with it.
James Taylor is a former Fire Captain, and author of the 1969 essay “What is Fire Fighter?”, generally considered to be the definitive essay on firefighting. “A Fire Fighter is a lonely man holding a midmorning watch with book in hand and a telephone within a split seconds reach. A darkened apparatus floor, a complicated alarm system, now silent, but perhaps within the next blink of an eye or turn of a page will scream out with the clanging of bells, the turning of gears, and the ticking of tape. What is as Fire Fighter? He is years of constant training that must guide him in every move once that Great Silver Bell again must exact "Awake ye from your beds!" Your heavy resting hearts within the sigh of an awakening must now beat with the strength of an athlete, a fighter, for a fighter you are. A fire fighter is a man responsible for thousands of dollars of equipment, and for the lives of his fellowmen he knows he must protect. He is a man constantly studying for promotions, not content that as a private he already represents leadership in the community. For a young girl or boy there is no doubt who he is. Yes he was the one who found time to smile down at them. From the top of his protective helmet to the bottoms of his steel reinforced boots he appeared to be a giant, "Get back!" he shouted, as he strained to move hundreds of pounds of water-filled hose only to disappear into a hell of smoke and heat. Are you worried about your smoking habits? The fire fighter must now inhale the truly king size of them all, three stories high and filled with foreign and domestic sofas, carpets, paints, and woods. The Tolls are great among these men, greater than almost every other occupation. The rewards; long hours, working weekends and holidays. He gives up time with his own family for the sake and safeguard of those who see only the superficial man and not the superman that perhaps he is. For this he is if only in the heart and mind of a child not blinded by the isms of life, but instead opened by a tear as his floppy-eared puppy responds to the carefully applied artificial respiration given to it by a combination doctor, fire fighter, truck driver and yes, maybe a superman. Perhaps that tear is the fire fighter's reward. Someday he too may shed a tear for a fallen comrade, silently praying that his own last alarm will herald the end to a glorious career through retirement, and not through death or injury. What is a fire fighter? Ask the people that he has helped in times of fire, flood, plane, car and boat disasters, accidents through carelessness or in times of war. When others walk away the fire fighter must now take on the responsibilities of saving lives and property. A giant, a superman, a constant vigil for the prevention of fire. Oh, to have the eyes and faith of a child, If only grown-ups were so blessed, the fire fighter's life would be the richest on earth."
I had not intended to single out the FDNY, but they are the countries largest and busiest fire department. Even so, that same intense sense of duty is demonstrated in even the smallest volunteer department. The next time you see one of your local firefighters, remember to thank him for his unstinting service to your community.
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Questions
I recently read an interesting article written by game show host Pat Sajak, in which he asks several excellent questions about global warming and climate change. The subject of man-made global warming is nearly impossible to discuss without getting into screaming, raging, and name-calling between the participants, particularly if there are “hard core” environmentalists in the crowd. I consider myself fairly well-read on the subject matter, and I’m still skeptical because there are so many aspects of the issue that really don’t make a lot of sense.
If we are to launch ourselves onto a lifestyle-altering mission to lower the global temperature, what’s the goal? Do we know that one setting on the global thermostat is better than another? If we do, just what is that preferred temperature, and how do we reach it? Oh yeah, once there, how do we maintain it? Will we have to warm things up again if it drops below that preferential point? After all, juggling with the temperature on a global scale is going to be a whole lot different than adjusting the air conditioner setting at home. And just what is the average temperature of the earth anyway? How did we come up with that magic number? There are temperature extremes all over the planet remember, and have been since time immemorial. How do we come up with an average, and how do those normal temperature variations fit in with our desire to slow global warming? Then we get into asking what factors have led to global warming in the past, and how do we know they aren’t the causes of the current warming trend? There is no argument that warming (or cooling) cycles have been a part of earth’s history. Geological records indicate that our planet has routinely cycled from pretty darn cold to a whole lot hotter than we see today. Are we so sure that this cycle is any different?
Another thing that bothers me is the strong effort to shut off any argument with the “obvious” problem of global warming. Anytime a true believer in anything begins his tirade with “Everybody agrees...” or “Everyone knows...”, all my alarm bells start ringing! As a matter of fact, there is a good deal of dissent in the scientific world about the theories of man-made global warming. A large and rapidly growing segment of the scientists who study climatology are questioning many of the basic premises of the “warming is bad” theory. Why should asking serious questions about such an important subject be wrong? Recently one of the world’s top climatologists made comment that most of the signatories of the intergovernmental study on global warming weren’t climatologists or even meteorologists, in fact most of them weren’t scientists at all, but rather were “a mob” of politicians, environmentalists, and more than a few Hollywood celebrities! The Kyoto agreement threatens to cut the ground out from under the world’s industrial nations, severely limiting their industrial ability, and crippling their economies. That is a pretty big deal and will impoverish most of the western nations while leaving the world’s worst polluter (China) completely untouched! We really should have the best information and opinion from the best minds on the subject, rather than a vague “I think” from people who really don’t know what they’re talking about!
And why are there such dramatically different warnings about the effects of man-made global warming? Predictions of 20 or more foot rises in sea levels have given way to talk of only a few inches over the last year or so, and whatever happened to the global cooling threats of only a couple of decades ago? In many cases, all these sea level predictions are less than the historically recorded rises and falls of the last few hundred years. Whatever the case, why are the global warming advocates trying so hard, and apparently with more than a little success, to scare us? Besides, are there potential benefits to global warming? Would a warmer climate in some areas actually improve living conditions? Would such a possible improvement in health, crop production, overall lifestyle and such counterbalance any negative impact? I do know that our local winters were a lot colder fifty years ago, and personally I have no desire to return to those frigid winters and deep snows!
Should the drastic changes in public policy that are currently being called for be based on a “what if?” proposition, just because Al Gore says so? There are some who claim we can’t afford to wait for further studies, and, even if there’s some doubt, we should move on with altering the way we live. Many of their arguments for changing some of our environmental policies are good ideas, but should they also be based on “what it?” Again I’ll ask, what will be the impact on the people of the world if we change the way we live, based purely on man-made global warming concerns? Much of the third world wouldn’t be affected I’m sure, but things are going to be tough on the worlds industrialized nations, along with the newly emerging nations as well. Consider that there are always unintended consequences to all our actions. I for one wouldn’t want to find myself forced to live in a society stuck at a stone age, or even medieval, sustenance level! There are many other implications as well, some good and some bad. What are they? Shouldn’t we be thinking and talking about them now, instead of just trading carbon credits? How do we determine if our efforts are successful? Is the measure of success going to be based on the Earth’s average temperature, or perhaps the sea level? The number of hurricanes each year, average rainfall, or maybe all of these things? Again, do we have a particular goal in mind? If so, what is it, and what happens when we reach it?
How, and why, has the global warming movement gained such momentum? Humanity has faced environmental issues throughout the history of our species, but I don’t remember hearing of one that has gained such “celebrity status” in such a short time. To my mind there seems to be an almost religious fervor about the subject that makes me wonder. I remember all the rhetoric about eggs being an unhealthy food, and that breakfast cereal was poisoning our kids… both claims were proven to be junk science, but both were widely believed at the time. How about the commotion generated by Rachel Carlson’s 1962 book “Silent Spring”? Essentially she forecast the imminent and total collapse of nature due to the overuse of DDT. Agreed, DDT was being badly overused, but banning it altogether wasn’t such a good idea either, as you’ll well know if you’ve ever suffered from mosquito carried malaria.
A steady reduction in the dire predictions about global warming has not led to a reduction in the doomsday rhetoric. Does this perhaps indicate that the movement has become little more than an activist cause rather than scientific reality?
If we are to launch ourselves onto a lifestyle-altering mission to lower the global temperature, what’s the goal? Do we know that one setting on the global thermostat is better than another? If we do, just what is that preferred temperature, and how do we reach it? Oh yeah, once there, how do we maintain it? Will we have to warm things up again if it drops below that preferential point? After all, juggling with the temperature on a global scale is going to be a whole lot different than adjusting the air conditioner setting at home. And just what is the average temperature of the earth anyway? How did we come up with that magic number? There are temperature extremes all over the planet remember, and have been since time immemorial. How do we come up with an average, and how do those normal temperature variations fit in with our desire to slow global warming? Then we get into asking what factors have led to global warming in the past, and how do we know they aren’t the causes of the current warming trend? There is no argument that warming (or cooling) cycles have been a part of earth’s history. Geological records indicate that our planet has routinely cycled from pretty darn cold to a whole lot hotter than we see today. Are we so sure that this cycle is any different?
Another thing that bothers me is the strong effort to shut off any argument with the “obvious” problem of global warming. Anytime a true believer in anything begins his tirade with “Everybody agrees...” or “Everyone knows...”, all my alarm bells start ringing! As a matter of fact, there is a good deal of dissent in the scientific world about the theories of man-made global warming. A large and rapidly growing segment of the scientists who study climatology are questioning many of the basic premises of the “warming is bad” theory. Why should asking serious questions about such an important subject be wrong? Recently one of the world’s top climatologists made comment that most of the signatories of the intergovernmental study on global warming weren’t climatologists or even meteorologists, in fact most of them weren’t scientists at all, but rather were “a mob” of politicians, environmentalists, and more than a few Hollywood celebrities! The Kyoto agreement threatens to cut the ground out from under the world’s industrial nations, severely limiting their industrial ability, and crippling their economies. That is a pretty big deal and will impoverish most of the western nations while leaving the world’s worst polluter (China) completely untouched! We really should have the best information and opinion from the best minds on the subject, rather than a vague “I think” from people who really don’t know what they’re talking about!
And why are there such dramatically different warnings about the effects of man-made global warming? Predictions of 20 or more foot rises in sea levels have given way to talk of only a few inches over the last year or so, and whatever happened to the global cooling threats of only a couple of decades ago? In many cases, all these sea level predictions are less than the historically recorded rises and falls of the last few hundred years. Whatever the case, why are the global warming advocates trying so hard, and apparently with more than a little success, to scare us? Besides, are there potential benefits to global warming? Would a warmer climate in some areas actually improve living conditions? Would such a possible improvement in health, crop production, overall lifestyle and such counterbalance any negative impact? I do know that our local winters were a lot colder fifty years ago, and personally I have no desire to return to those frigid winters and deep snows!
Should the drastic changes in public policy that are currently being called for be based on a “what if?” proposition, just because Al Gore says so? There are some who claim we can’t afford to wait for further studies, and, even if there’s some doubt, we should move on with altering the way we live. Many of their arguments for changing some of our environmental policies are good ideas, but should they also be based on “what it?” Again I’ll ask, what will be the impact on the people of the world if we change the way we live, based purely on man-made global warming concerns? Much of the third world wouldn’t be affected I’m sure, but things are going to be tough on the worlds industrialized nations, along with the newly emerging nations as well. Consider that there are always unintended consequences to all our actions. I for one wouldn’t want to find myself forced to live in a society stuck at a stone age, or even medieval, sustenance level! There are many other implications as well, some good and some bad. What are they? Shouldn’t we be thinking and talking about them now, instead of just trading carbon credits? How do we determine if our efforts are successful? Is the measure of success going to be based on the Earth’s average temperature, or perhaps the sea level? The number of hurricanes each year, average rainfall, or maybe all of these things? Again, do we have a particular goal in mind? If so, what is it, and what happens when we reach it?
How, and why, has the global warming movement gained such momentum? Humanity has faced environmental issues throughout the history of our species, but I don’t remember hearing of one that has gained such “celebrity status” in such a short time. To my mind there seems to be an almost religious fervor about the subject that makes me wonder. I remember all the rhetoric about eggs being an unhealthy food, and that breakfast cereal was poisoning our kids… both claims were proven to be junk science, but both were widely believed at the time. How about the commotion generated by Rachel Carlson’s 1962 book “Silent Spring”? Essentially she forecast the imminent and total collapse of nature due to the overuse of DDT. Agreed, DDT was being badly overused, but banning it altogether wasn’t such a good idea either, as you’ll well know if you’ve ever suffered from mosquito carried malaria.
A steady reduction in the dire predictions about global warming has not led to a reduction in the doomsday rhetoric. Does this perhaps indicate that the movement has become little more than an activist cause rather than scientific reality?
Sunday, January 6, 2008
Ain't gonna study war
The popularity of President George W. Bush has been up and down like the proverbial yo-yo over the last several years, a fact that the mass media never tires of telling us about. For the most part, and fully understandable, his approval rating has been linked to the war in Iraq, and to a lesser degree the war in Afghanistan. For a long time I couldn’t understand why so many Americans blindly believed everything they read in the newspapers or saw on TV about those wars, even when the conclusions drawn were so blatantly wrong. Then, suddenly, the little light bulb over my head flashed on.
Following two world wars, the postwar obscenity of “Mutually Assured Destruction” added the threat of apocalypse to the public concept of modern warfare. Or as President Kennedy warned, “Mankind must put an end to war, or war will put an end to mankind.” Armed conflict had become so destructive in this view, that it no longer had any relation to the battles of the past. It seemed absurd to worry about a new tank or a novel military doctrine when the mere press of a button could unleash a nuclear Armageddon, which would lay waste to any military equipment or planning, along with everything else on the face of the earth. Even more, the nineteen-sixties had brought us a utopian view of a society opposed to any serious consideration of war. Government, the military, business, religion, and family have conspired many believed, to warp the naturally peace-loving members of society. To insist that wars broke out because bad men, in fear or in pride, sought material advantage or status, or because good men had done too little to stop them, was seen as antithetical in an enlightened Age of Aquarius, and our new understanding of human nature. In the words of often-quoted Mahatma Gandhi: “What difference does it make, to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty and democracy?”
The academic neglect of warfare grew even more acute with the passage of time. Military history as a collegiate discipline faded, with very few professorships, journal articles, or degree programs available. In 2004, Edward Coffman, a retired military history professor, reviewed the faculties of the top 25 history departments, and found that of over 1,000 professors, only 21 identified warfare as a specialty. When war does show up on a universities syllabus, it’s often about the race, class, and gender of combatants and wartime civilians. So a lecture on the Civil War will now focus on the Underground Railroad and Reconstruction, not on Chancellorsville and Gettysburg. One on World War II might emphasize Japanese internment, Rosie the Riveter, and the horror of Hiroshima, not Guadalcanal and Midway. A study of the Vietnam War will devote lots of time to the inequities of the draft, media coverage, and the antiwar movement at home, and mention little about the air war or artillery barrages at Khe Sanh. Those who want to study war in the traditional way face intense academic suspicion, after all, historians of war must derive perverse pleasure, their critics suspect, from reading about carnage and suffering. Why not figure out instead how to outlaw war forever, as if it were not a tragic, nearly inevitable part of human existence?
“If you want peace, prepare for war” counseled Roman general Flavius Vegetius Renatus over 1,600 years ago. Nine centuries before that, Chinese general Sun Tzu offered much the same advice. Yet today’s critics cite this ancient wisdom, and reject it. After serving up a perverse history of the cold war, the key point of which seems to be that the peace movement brought down the Berlin Wall, they will turn Vegetius’s insight upside down: “If you want peace, prepare for peace.” This purports to be wise counsel, a motto for the millennium. In reality, its wishful thinking that doesn’t follow the history of the cold war, or of any war for that matter. The cold war’s real lesson is the same one that Sun Tzu and Vegetius taught: conflicts happen, and power matters. It’s better to be strong than to be weak; you’re safer if others know that you’re ready to give them the fight of their lives, than if you proudly speak of your defenselessness, or your unwillingness to fight, and there’s nothing really mysterious about this truth.
The importance, and the challenge, of the study of war is to raise popular interest into a more serious understanding, one that seeks answers to such questions as: Why do wars break out? How do they end? Why do the winners win and the losers lose? How best to avoid wars or contain their worst effects? By ignoring history, the modern age is free to interpret war as a failure of communication, of diplomacy, of talking—as if aggressors don’t know exactly what they’re doing. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi flew to Syria, hoping to persuade President Assad to stop funding terror in the Middle East. She assumed that Assad’s belligerence resulted from our aloofness and arrogance rather than from his dictatorship’s interest in destroying democracy in Lebanon and Iraq, before such contagious freedom destroyed him. A generation raised on Oprah and Dr. Phil—and not on the letters of William T. Sherman and William Shirer’s Berlin Diary—believes that problems between states, like those in our personal lives, should be discussed by equally civilized and peaceful rivals, and so solved without resorting to violence. This totally ignores the fact that one’s opponent may be a heavily armed barbarian…
It’s hard to find wars that result from miscommunication. Far more often they break out because of malevolent intent and the absence of deterrence. Wars happen because the people who start them think they can win. Hitler did, as did Mussolini and Tojo. Bin Laden didn’t attack us because there was a shortage of American diplomats willing to negotiate with him. Instead, he realized that a series of Islamic terrorist attacks against U.S. interests had met with no real response, and concluded that the decadent infidels would never fight, or that if we did, we would soon withdraw as we had from Mogadishu.
The failures of America's leadership in both Vietnam and Iraq constitute a crisis in government, where, in both conflicts, the people designated to advise policymakers, prepare forces, and conduct operations, failed to perform their function because they, like the majority of Americans, don’t understand the causes, conduct, and the inevitable result, of war. President Bush’s current unpopularity stems from his failure to understand General Patton’s statement; “Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser.” The American public has turned on the Iraq War not because of Cindy Sheehan or Michael Moore, but because only a few Americans understand warfare. The “uneducated majority” felt that, because the media reported battlefield news was uniformly bad, the war was irreversibly lost, and that the price of Iraqi freedom in American lives and treasure was far too high.
Following two world wars, the postwar obscenity of “Mutually Assured Destruction” added the threat of apocalypse to the public concept of modern warfare. Or as President Kennedy warned, “Mankind must put an end to war, or war will put an end to mankind.” Armed conflict had become so destructive in this view, that it no longer had any relation to the battles of the past. It seemed absurd to worry about a new tank or a novel military doctrine when the mere press of a button could unleash a nuclear Armageddon, which would lay waste to any military equipment or planning, along with everything else on the face of the earth. Even more, the nineteen-sixties had brought us a utopian view of a society opposed to any serious consideration of war. Government, the military, business, religion, and family have conspired many believed, to warp the naturally peace-loving members of society. To insist that wars broke out because bad men, in fear or in pride, sought material advantage or status, or because good men had done too little to stop them, was seen as antithetical in an enlightened Age of Aquarius, and our new understanding of human nature. In the words of often-quoted Mahatma Gandhi: “What difference does it make, to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty and democracy?”
The academic neglect of warfare grew even more acute with the passage of time. Military history as a collegiate discipline faded, with very few professorships, journal articles, or degree programs available. In 2004, Edward Coffman, a retired military history professor, reviewed the faculties of the top 25 history departments, and found that of over 1,000 professors, only 21 identified warfare as a specialty. When war does show up on a universities syllabus, it’s often about the race, class, and gender of combatants and wartime civilians. So a lecture on the Civil War will now focus on the Underground Railroad and Reconstruction, not on Chancellorsville and Gettysburg. One on World War II might emphasize Japanese internment, Rosie the Riveter, and the horror of Hiroshima, not Guadalcanal and Midway. A study of the Vietnam War will devote lots of time to the inequities of the draft, media coverage, and the antiwar movement at home, and mention little about the air war or artillery barrages at Khe Sanh. Those who want to study war in the traditional way face intense academic suspicion, after all, historians of war must derive perverse pleasure, their critics suspect, from reading about carnage and suffering. Why not figure out instead how to outlaw war forever, as if it were not a tragic, nearly inevitable part of human existence?
“If you want peace, prepare for war” counseled Roman general Flavius Vegetius Renatus over 1,600 years ago. Nine centuries before that, Chinese general Sun Tzu offered much the same advice. Yet today’s critics cite this ancient wisdom, and reject it. After serving up a perverse history of the cold war, the key point of which seems to be that the peace movement brought down the Berlin Wall, they will turn Vegetius’s insight upside down: “If you want peace, prepare for peace.” This purports to be wise counsel, a motto for the millennium. In reality, its wishful thinking that doesn’t follow the history of the cold war, or of any war for that matter. The cold war’s real lesson is the same one that Sun Tzu and Vegetius taught: conflicts happen, and power matters. It’s better to be strong than to be weak; you’re safer if others know that you’re ready to give them the fight of their lives, than if you proudly speak of your defenselessness, or your unwillingness to fight, and there’s nothing really mysterious about this truth.
The importance, and the challenge, of the study of war is to raise popular interest into a more serious understanding, one that seeks answers to such questions as: Why do wars break out? How do they end? Why do the winners win and the losers lose? How best to avoid wars or contain their worst effects? By ignoring history, the modern age is free to interpret war as a failure of communication, of diplomacy, of talking—as if aggressors don’t know exactly what they’re doing. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi flew to Syria, hoping to persuade President Assad to stop funding terror in the Middle East. She assumed that Assad’s belligerence resulted from our aloofness and arrogance rather than from his dictatorship’s interest in destroying democracy in Lebanon and Iraq, before such contagious freedom destroyed him. A generation raised on Oprah and Dr. Phil—and not on the letters of William T. Sherman and William Shirer’s Berlin Diary—believes that problems between states, like those in our personal lives, should be discussed by equally civilized and peaceful rivals, and so solved without resorting to violence. This totally ignores the fact that one’s opponent may be a heavily armed barbarian…
It’s hard to find wars that result from miscommunication. Far more often they break out because of malevolent intent and the absence of deterrence. Wars happen because the people who start them think they can win. Hitler did, as did Mussolini and Tojo. Bin Laden didn’t attack us because there was a shortage of American diplomats willing to negotiate with him. Instead, he realized that a series of Islamic terrorist attacks against U.S. interests had met with no real response, and concluded that the decadent infidels would never fight, or that if we did, we would soon withdraw as we had from Mogadishu.
The failures of America's leadership in both Vietnam and Iraq constitute a crisis in government, where, in both conflicts, the people designated to advise policymakers, prepare forces, and conduct operations, failed to perform their function because they, like the majority of Americans, don’t understand the causes, conduct, and the inevitable result, of war. President Bush’s current unpopularity stems from his failure to understand General Patton’s statement; “Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser.” The American public has turned on the Iraq War not because of Cindy Sheehan or Michael Moore, but because only a few Americans understand warfare. The “uneducated majority” felt that, because the media reported battlefield news was uniformly bad, the war was irreversibly lost, and that the price of Iraqi freedom in American lives and treasure was far too high.
Sunday, December 30, 2007
Political Carnival
In researching for this article, I found a story that I consider quite well thought out and very well written. I attempted to use it as a guideline for my own article, apparently to closely. It appears that the internet Gestapo is accusing me of plagiarism, something that was never intended. With that, I have re-written the post, with particular attention to what I believe is the offending paragraph, and I’ll tender my sincere apologies to the original author. To the Gestapo however, I’ll mention that I don’t take kindly to threats.
"Our job is to give people not what they want, but what we decide they ought to have."Richard Salent, former president, CBS News
The great American political carnival continues, with the next thrilling episode to be played out in Iowa. I am of course speaking about our ongoing presidential campaign, or at least the current primaries. Hillary and Obama are mudslinging it out… or at least there’s a lot of hissing, spitting, and scratching going on. (The democratic contremps reminds me of two cats arguing over dinner.) On the republican side, Rudy and Mitt are running neck and neck, with Mike coming up fast on the inside… Ahh… wait a minute… that looks suspiciously like Ron in third place and coming up fast, with Mike trying to catch him… And so go the tales in the press.
I’ve never really followed the primaries much, because as an Independent I don’t vote in them. This time however, with the ridiculously early start and the quite large field of hopefuls, I’ve been following along with things. I find it interesting that so many pundits are busy comparing the posturing of various Republican candidates, and yet there’s so comparatively little being said about the Democratic candidates. Unless I’ve unknowingly acquired a republican computer and it’s deliberately ignoring the democrats. Even so, for the most part I’m also ignoring the democratic candidates this time around as I haven’t heard any of them say much that I can agree with. Well, I disagree with most republican candidates as well, but their campaign (as reported in the news) is a lot more interesting.
One news source about the republican race for the White House claims that “Rudy Giuliani leads the pack.” Possibly, but the media seems to be all that’s keeping him afloat. But after all, being called “America’s Mayor” for some time does make him newsworthy I guess. As New York’s Mayor I guess he did a good enough job, and he did shine during the 9-11 rescue efforts. But he’s still a New Yorker, which isn’t going to play well in the western states. Mitt Romney is another media sensation who seems to be leading in many eastern state polls. However, his personal wealth, and in good part self financed campaign, is about all that keeps his name in the press. The religion card may or may not be important to his campaign as well.
Ron Paul is seemingly detested by the media because he he’s a “fringe” politician who refuses to roll over and play dead on demand. If he manages to get elected he has a distinct possibility of severely rocking the boat of “business as usual” special interest politics. Results of numerous straw polls normally show Paul in first to third place. Though he’s not a polished orator, Paul is intelligent, disciplined, principled, consistent, and independent of the political system that’s dominated American life for the last 100 years. Paul's nickname of "Dr. No" to his congressional colleagues reflects both his medical degree and his insistence on "never voting for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution." Mike Huckabee, Former Governor of Arkansas, “cute” and "charming", apparently because of his down home “aw, shucks” style. Nevertheless, his debate performance leaves a lot to be desired. The governor's record indicates he’s not taxpayer friendly, and certainly not a civil libertarian. John McCain, U.S. Senator from Arizona, is a certifiable war hero, and a reputation of being a political maverick. In reality he’s hardly done anything that is not part of the Washington Beltway wheeling and dealing. Tom Tancredo, U.S. Representative from Colorado, has a small but rabid following due to his appeal to voters’ anger over continuing illegal immigration and little else. Unfortunately, Rep. Tancredo is reportedly withdrawing from the race, and has already declined to run again for the House.
Every four years relatively unknown presidential hopefuls such as Paul and Tancredo enter the nomination races. The poll numbers of these contenders in the early stages of the nomination process usually indicate they have no chance to win. But then again, they just might. Remember Howard Dean four years ago? Or Ross Perot twelve years ago? Our short-attention-span nation generally wants our politics like we want our sports, fast-paced and hard-hitting, and so far the 2008 presidential contest has been neither. The race for the White House isn’t a horse race, yet. It’s more like the NASCAR circuit where the champion is crowned after months of competing in a series of different races, on different tracks, in different locations all across the country. And unless you’re a die-hard fan, the only thing that seems to get everyone's attention is the big fiery crash. In politics, "the crash" is that political blunder that keeps everyone talking for the next few days.
There are plenty of Americans who are not comfortable with either major political party at present. Millions of us who are fiscal conservatives, and quite skeptical of big government are not at all comfortable with any candidate.
As the call to rescue the GOP resonates with the next generation, you will hear Paul described as "nutty" and anti-Semitic and fringe and marginal and on and on. One classic anti-Paul statement claims that “Republicans should respond to voters who find Ron Paul appealing with a cold shoulder. They don't even want the voters and money that Paul is bringing into the GOP - because their power - and the big spending authoritarianism they favor - is threatened by this revival of grass roots conservatism.” As the mass media seems to be ignoring the facts, perhaps I should point out that of all the candidates, Ron Paul has the most Constitutional view of American policies, he has the most financial support, he has won a vast majority of the straw polls by a wide margin, and yet still only shows as a single-digit candidate in the media polls, if they bother to mention him at all.
Interesting isn’t it?
"Our job is to give people not what they want, but what we decide they ought to have."Richard Salent, former president, CBS News
The great American political carnival continues, with the next thrilling episode to be played out in Iowa. I am of course speaking about our ongoing presidential campaign, or at least the current primaries. Hillary and Obama are mudslinging it out… or at least there’s a lot of hissing, spitting, and scratching going on. (The democratic contremps reminds me of two cats arguing over dinner.) On the republican side, Rudy and Mitt are running neck and neck, with Mike coming up fast on the inside… Ahh… wait a minute… that looks suspiciously like Ron in third place and coming up fast, with Mike trying to catch him… And so go the tales in the press.
I’ve never really followed the primaries much, because as an Independent I don’t vote in them. This time however, with the ridiculously early start and the quite large field of hopefuls, I’ve been following along with things. I find it interesting that so many pundits are busy comparing the posturing of various Republican candidates, and yet there’s so comparatively little being said about the Democratic candidates. Unless I’ve unknowingly acquired a republican computer and it’s deliberately ignoring the democrats. Even so, for the most part I’m also ignoring the democratic candidates this time around as I haven’t heard any of them say much that I can agree with. Well, I disagree with most republican candidates as well, but their campaign (as reported in the news) is a lot more interesting.
One news source about the republican race for the White House claims that “Rudy Giuliani leads the pack.” Possibly, but the media seems to be all that’s keeping him afloat. But after all, being called “America’s Mayor” for some time does make him newsworthy I guess. As New York’s Mayor I guess he did a good enough job, and he did shine during the 9-11 rescue efforts. But he’s still a New Yorker, which isn’t going to play well in the western states. Mitt Romney is another media sensation who seems to be leading in many eastern state polls. However, his personal wealth, and in good part self financed campaign, is about all that keeps his name in the press. The religion card may or may not be important to his campaign as well.
Ron Paul is seemingly detested by the media because he he’s a “fringe” politician who refuses to roll over and play dead on demand. If he manages to get elected he has a distinct possibility of severely rocking the boat of “business as usual” special interest politics. Results of numerous straw polls normally show Paul in first to third place. Though he’s not a polished orator, Paul is intelligent, disciplined, principled, consistent, and independent of the political system that’s dominated American life for the last 100 years. Paul's nickname of "Dr. No" to his congressional colleagues reflects both his medical degree and his insistence on "never voting for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution." Mike Huckabee, Former Governor of Arkansas, “cute” and "charming", apparently because of his down home “aw, shucks” style. Nevertheless, his debate performance leaves a lot to be desired. The governor's record indicates he’s not taxpayer friendly, and certainly not a civil libertarian. John McCain, U.S. Senator from Arizona, is a certifiable war hero, and a reputation of being a political maverick. In reality he’s hardly done anything that is not part of the Washington Beltway wheeling and dealing. Tom Tancredo, U.S. Representative from Colorado, has a small but rabid following due to his appeal to voters’ anger over continuing illegal immigration and little else. Unfortunately, Rep. Tancredo is reportedly withdrawing from the race, and has already declined to run again for the House.
Every four years relatively unknown presidential hopefuls such as Paul and Tancredo enter the nomination races. The poll numbers of these contenders in the early stages of the nomination process usually indicate they have no chance to win. But then again, they just might. Remember Howard Dean four years ago? Or Ross Perot twelve years ago? Our short-attention-span nation generally wants our politics like we want our sports, fast-paced and hard-hitting, and so far the 2008 presidential contest has been neither. The race for the White House isn’t a horse race, yet. It’s more like the NASCAR circuit where the champion is crowned after months of competing in a series of different races, on different tracks, in different locations all across the country. And unless you’re a die-hard fan, the only thing that seems to get everyone's attention is the big fiery crash. In politics, "the crash" is that political blunder that keeps everyone talking for the next few days.
There are plenty of Americans who are not comfortable with either major political party at present. Millions of us who are fiscal conservatives, and quite skeptical of big government are not at all comfortable with any candidate.
As the call to rescue the GOP resonates with the next generation, you will hear Paul described as "nutty" and anti-Semitic and fringe and marginal and on and on. One classic anti-Paul statement claims that “Republicans should respond to voters who find Ron Paul appealing with a cold shoulder. They don't even want the voters and money that Paul is bringing into the GOP - because their power - and the big spending authoritarianism they favor - is threatened by this revival of grass roots conservatism.” As the mass media seems to be ignoring the facts, perhaps I should point out that of all the candidates, Ron Paul has the most Constitutional view of American policies, he has the most financial support, he has won a vast majority of the straw polls by a wide margin, and yet still only shows as a single-digit candidate in the media polls, if they bother to mention him at all.
Interesting isn’t it?
Sunday, December 23, 2007
Space Development
On occasion I’ve commented about global warming and climate change, following which my published opinion has generated an assortment of “conversations” with various acquaintances (some of which get fairly heated in their own right). So… Yes, I do think we’re moving into a period of climate change for whatever cause. And no, I do not think that this climate change is solely caused by the activities of humanity. I do believe that we’re not helping things any at all with our extensive use of fossil fuels, but our total impact is pretty small compared with that of nature. After all, how much CO2 does just one forest fire dump into the atmosphere, or perhaps just one volcanic eruption? There are a lot of really big forest fires every year, all over the world, and not just a few active volcano’s dumping mega-tons of CO2 into the atmosphere.
I’ve also made comment about our nearly total dependence on fossil fuels, which I’ve never been very happy about either. For one thing they’re not renewable, so we’re going to run out eventually, and at the rate we’re using them probably sooner rather than later. For another, they’re much more valuable as raw materials for industry than they are as fuels for a Sunday afternoon drive. So why do we keep burning them for fuels? Because they’re about the most concentrated form of “portable” energy available to us at present, they’re easy to handle, and they’re cheap, despite the prices we see at the gas pump or the monthly electric bill. Still, with dwindling resources, I’d rather work on solving the problem now, rather than wait until we’re out of gas and have to start a scadzillion dollar government “crash program”.
Consider, we’re running out of domestic oil, and our tar sands and oil shale deposits don’t even rate a distant second place. We can of course continue importing oil from OPEC, but being at the tender mercies of the Islamic world doesn’t strike me as a good idea if national security is a concern. Coal fired power sources “could” take up the slack, but they’re rapidly becoming political suicide due to environmental considerations. Nuclear power would be an ideal interim power source, but we still have the almost superstitious public fear of “radiation” to overcome. All of the bio-fuels share a common drawback, in that they require high class (i.e. food grade) raw materials. With six billion people on this planet, food is getting scarce in many places, a problem that can only get worse if we start turning food into biofuels.
Wind power, tidal power, geothermal power… all are non-starters due to various technical limitations and high costs. Certainly they work to some extent, and make quite interesting demonstrations, but they are not a viable source of power for today’s energy starved hi-tech world. Fusion power and the theoretical “zero point” energy are to far down the pike to even be considered at present. Ground based solar power would pick up part of the load, temporarily. But solar arrays require direct sunlight to operate, leaving us with a major problem during the hours of darkness. What are we supposed to do, shut down the entire country at night?
It would appear that either we develop an effective alternate source of power, or we will soon be forced to turn yet again to the horse and buggy, along with candle lit evenings.
Finally, I’ve commented about the possibility of an electricity dependant economy rather one based on the burning of hydrocarbon fossil fuels. Last week I mentioned electric cars for local use. I’d think we all know that the electrics, and even the hybrids we see occasionally are at present more of a curiosity than a serious means of transportation. They do meet all the requirements for a “run to the store and grab a loaf of bread” car, but I for one wouldn’t want to start for Lewiston in what’s essentially an oversized golf cart that I’ll probably forget to plug-in and recharge the battery! Besides, contrary to some advertising claims, today’s electric vehicles are no more environmentally friendly than the gas burners! We have to “plug them in and recharge the battery” remember, and just where does that electricity come from? For most people it comes from a fossil fuel burning power plant, that’s where! Someplace, coal or oil is being burned (and dumping more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere), so that I can feel good about my “environmentally friendly” electric car while I go get that loaf of bread. Ahh… what’s wrong with this picture?
So, I guess we need to get our electricity from an environmentally friendly source, which may prove somewhat difficult. One interesting technology is OTEC, or Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion. OTEC utilizes the difference in temperature between warm surface water and cold deep sea water to drive an enormous low speed turbine. Unfortunately it’s not a mature technology at present, it’s terribly inefficient, and would cost billions to construct a decent size OTEC power plant.
Then we have my favorite, Solar Power Satellites, or SPS for short. Space based solar power systems appear to possess many significant environmental advantages when compared to alternative approaches to meeting increasing terrestrial demands for energy. The idea of an SPS has been around since the 1960’s when Dr. Gerald O’Neil developed the “High Frontier” concept of colonizing space with really big space stations. An SPS consists of a huge array of solar cells in sun synchronous Earth orbit. The output of the solar array is converted to microwave power, and transmitted (like radar waves) to a ground station, where it’s converted back into electricity and fed into the power grid. Since the idea first surfaced, building an SPS has been pretty well out of the question due to the high cost of launching the heavy equipment into space. Over the last forty years however, we’ve developed efficient thin film solar cells, lightweight microwave systems, and inflatable space structures which would greatly reduce the cost of an SPS to only a portion of what it would have been in the 1960’s, and seriously reduces the required launch efforts as well. It’s technically feasible to build an SPS today, and supply a few giga-watts of power to our economy, per unit on orbit. After all, space operations are no longer an arcane science, but simply a matter of engineering. However, when we consider the $2,500 to nearly $10,000 per pound cost of putting anything into orbit, an SPS is not yet economically feasible.
Personally I consider space development and resource exploitation to be the single most important long term requirement facing not only the United States, but the entire world as well. Certainly I support the Return to the Moon initiative, along with manned Mars exploration. But NASA’s intended function is not and has never been space exploration, but rather NASA was chartered to research and develop safe, efficient, and cost effective methods to advance the technologies of air and space flight, leaving space exploration and development to private concerns. Development of manned space flight is crucial to our species, but with today’s launch costs, it “ain’t gonna happen”, until NASA starts getting serious about doing their intended job, and developing low cost space access. Perhaps we should remind our congressional representatives of that fact.
I’ve also made comment about our nearly total dependence on fossil fuels, which I’ve never been very happy about either. For one thing they’re not renewable, so we’re going to run out eventually, and at the rate we’re using them probably sooner rather than later. For another, they’re much more valuable as raw materials for industry than they are as fuels for a Sunday afternoon drive. So why do we keep burning them for fuels? Because they’re about the most concentrated form of “portable” energy available to us at present, they’re easy to handle, and they’re cheap, despite the prices we see at the gas pump or the monthly electric bill. Still, with dwindling resources, I’d rather work on solving the problem now, rather than wait until we’re out of gas and have to start a scadzillion dollar government “crash program”.
Consider, we’re running out of domestic oil, and our tar sands and oil shale deposits don’t even rate a distant second place. We can of course continue importing oil from OPEC, but being at the tender mercies of the Islamic world doesn’t strike me as a good idea if national security is a concern. Coal fired power sources “could” take up the slack, but they’re rapidly becoming political suicide due to environmental considerations. Nuclear power would be an ideal interim power source, but we still have the almost superstitious public fear of “radiation” to overcome. All of the bio-fuels share a common drawback, in that they require high class (i.e. food grade) raw materials. With six billion people on this planet, food is getting scarce in many places, a problem that can only get worse if we start turning food into biofuels.
Wind power, tidal power, geothermal power… all are non-starters due to various technical limitations and high costs. Certainly they work to some extent, and make quite interesting demonstrations, but they are not a viable source of power for today’s energy starved hi-tech world. Fusion power and the theoretical “zero point” energy are to far down the pike to even be considered at present. Ground based solar power would pick up part of the load, temporarily. But solar arrays require direct sunlight to operate, leaving us with a major problem during the hours of darkness. What are we supposed to do, shut down the entire country at night?
It would appear that either we develop an effective alternate source of power, or we will soon be forced to turn yet again to the horse and buggy, along with candle lit evenings.
Finally, I’ve commented about the possibility of an electricity dependant economy rather one based on the burning of hydrocarbon fossil fuels. Last week I mentioned electric cars for local use. I’d think we all know that the electrics, and even the hybrids we see occasionally are at present more of a curiosity than a serious means of transportation. They do meet all the requirements for a “run to the store and grab a loaf of bread” car, but I for one wouldn’t want to start for Lewiston in what’s essentially an oversized golf cart that I’ll probably forget to plug-in and recharge the battery! Besides, contrary to some advertising claims, today’s electric vehicles are no more environmentally friendly than the gas burners! We have to “plug them in and recharge the battery” remember, and just where does that electricity come from? For most people it comes from a fossil fuel burning power plant, that’s where! Someplace, coal or oil is being burned (and dumping more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere), so that I can feel good about my “environmentally friendly” electric car while I go get that loaf of bread. Ahh… what’s wrong with this picture?
So, I guess we need to get our electricity from an environmentally friendly source, which may prove somewhat difficult. One interesting technology is OTEC, or Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion. OTEC utilizes the difference in temperature between warm surface water and cold deep sea water to drive an enormous low speed turbine. Unfortunately it’s not a mature technology at present, it’s terribly inefficient, and would cost billions to construct a decent size OTEC power plant.
Then we have my favorite, Solar Power Satellites, or SPS for short. Space based solar power systems appear to possess many significant environmental advantages when compared to alternative approaches to meeting increasing terrestrial demands for energy. The idea of an SPS has been around since the 1960’s when Dr. Gerald O’Neil developed the “High Frontier” concept of colonizing space with really big space stations. An SPS consists of a huge array of solar cells in sun synchronous Earth orbit. The output of the solar array is converted to microwave power, and transmitted (like radar waves) to a ground station, where it’s converted back into electricity and fed into the power grid. Since the idea first surfaced, building an SPS has been pretty well out of the question due to the high cost of launching the heavy equipment into space. Over the last forty years however, we’ve developed efficient thin film solar cells, lightweight microwave systems, and inflatable space structures which would greatly reduce the cost of an SPS to only a portion of what it would have been in the 1960’s, and seriously reduces the required launch efforts as well. It’s technically feasible to build an SPS today, and supply a few giga-watts of power to our economy, per unit on orbit. After all, space operations are no longer an arcane science, but simply a matter of engineering. However, when we consider the $2,500 to nearly $10,000 per pound cost of putting anything into orbit, an SPS is not yet economically feasible.
Personally I consider space development and resource exploitation to be the single most important long term requirement facing not only the United States, but the entire world as well. Certainly I support the Return to the Moon initiative, along with manned Mars exploration. But NASA’s intended function is not and has never been space exploration, but rather NASA was chartered to research and develop safe, efficient, and cost effective methods to advance the technologies of air and space flight, leaving space exploration and development to private concerns. Development of manned space flight is crucial to our species, but with today’s launch costs, it “ain’t gonna happen”, until NASA starts getting serious about doing their intended job, and developing low cost space access. Perhaps we should remind our congressional representatives of that fact.
Military Myths
Dec 23, 2007
Two trends over the past forty years contribute to our national ignorance of the cost, and necessity, of victory in Iraq. First, the most privileged Americans used the Vietnam War as an excuse to break a long standing tradition of uniformed service. Ivy League universities once produced military heroes, but now they’re little more than hotbeds of looney left politics. Yet those same universities still produce most U.S. political leaders. The men and women destined to lead this nation in wartime routinely dismiss military service as a waste of their valuable time and talents. Second, we've stripped in-depth U.S. history classes out of our schools. Since the 1960s, one history course after another has been cut, while the content of those remaining focuses on social issues and our alleged misdeeds. As a result, ignorance of the terrible price our soldiers had to pay for our freedom creates absurd expectations about our present conflicts. When the media offers flawed or biased analyses the public lacks the knowledge to make informed judgments. National leadership with no military expertise and a population that hasn't been taught the cost of freedom leaves us with a government that does whatever seems expedient and a citizenry that believes whatever's comfortable. Thus, myths about war thrive.
Myth No. 1 is that war doesn't change anything. This campus slogan contradicts all of human history. Over thousands of years war has been the last resort of tribes, religions, dynasties, empires, states and demagogues driven by grievance, greed or a quest for glory. No one believes that war is a good thing, but it is sometimes necessary. We need not agree about the manner in which a war is fought, but we can't pretend that if we laid down our arms all others would do the same. One thing we may be certain of, our enemies believe that war can change the world. And they’re not deterred by bumper stickers.
Myth: Victory is impossible today. Victory is always possible, if we’re willing to do what it takes to win. But victory is impossible if our troops are placed under impossible restrictions, if their leaders refuse to act boldly, if every target first must be approved by politicians, and if Americans are disheartened by a constant barrage of negative reporting, twisted facts, half-truths, and in some cases downright lies from the media.
Myth: There's no military solution; only negotiations can solve our problems. Generally the reverse is true. Negotiations solve nothing until a military decision has been reached and one side recognizes a peace agreement as its only hope of survival. It would be a welcome development if negotiations fixed the problems we face in Iraq, but we're the only side interested in a negotiated solution. Every other faction - the terrorists, Sunni insurgents, Shia militias, Iran and Syria – are convinced they can win, if only we would give up. The only negotiations that produce lasting results are those conducted from positions of inarguable strength.
Myth: When we fight back, we only provoke our enemies. When dealing with bullies, either in the schoolyard or in a global war, the opposite is true: if you don't fight back, you encourage your enemy to behave even more viciously. Passive resistance only works when directed against rule-of-law nations. It doesn't work where silent protest is answered with a bayonet in the belly.
Myth: Killing terrorists only turns them into martyrs. It's an anomaly of today's Western world that privileged individuals feel more sympathy for dictators, mass murderers and terrorists than they do for the victims. The truth is that when dealing with fanatics, killing them is the only way to end their influence. Imprisoned, they galvanize protests, kidnappings, bombings and attacks that seek to free them. Dead, they're dead. And dead terrorists don't kill anymore.
Myth: If we fight as fiercely as our enemies, we're no better than them. Did the bombing campaign against Germany turn us into Nazis? Did dropping atomic bombs on Japan to end the war and save hundreds of thousands of American as well as Japanese lives turn us into the beasts who conducted the Bataan Death March? But our obsession with tragic incidents of which there have been remarkably few obscures the greater moral issue: the need to defeat enemies who revel in butchering the innocent, who celebrate atrocities, and who claim their god wants blood.
Myth: Our invasion of Iraq created our terrorist problems. This claim ignores the order of events, as if the attacks of 9/11 happened after Baghdad fell. The terrorist problems have been created by the failure of Middle Eastern civilization, and were worsened by the determination of successive U.S. administrations to pretend that Islamic terrorism was an aberration. “Peacefully” refusing to respond to attacks allowed our enemies to believe that we were weak and cowardly.
Myth: If we just leave, the Iraqis will patch up their differences on their own. The point may come at which we have to accept that Iraqis are so determined to destroy their future that there's nothing more we can do. But leaving immediately would guarantee a series of slaughters and a massive victory for terrorism. It's ridiculous to claim that our presence is the primary cause of the violence in Iraq, a charge that ignores centuries of Muslim history.
Myth: It's all Israel's fault. Israel is the Muslim world's excuse for failure, not a reason for it. Even if we didn't support Israel, Islamist extremists would blame us for countless imagined wrongs, since they fear our freedom and our culture even more than they do our military. All men and women must recognize the difference between Israel and its neighbors: Israel wants to live in peace, while its genocidal neighbors want Israel erased from the map. As for the belief that the Saudis are our friends, Saudi money continues to subsidize anti- Western extremism, and hatred between Muslims and all others.
Myth: The Middle East's problems are all America's fault. Muslim extremists want everyone to believe this, but it isn't true. The collapse of the once great Middle Eastern civilizations has continued for more than five centuries, and the region became a cultural backwater before the United States became a country. It’s social and economic structures, its values, its neglect of education, the indolence of its ruling classes and its inability to produce a modern state that served its people guaranteed that as the West progressed, the Middle East fell ever farther behind. The Middle East has only itself to blame for its problems.
The wealth and power of the United States allows us many things denied to human beings throughout history, but we simply cannot afford ignorance of our nations history.
Two trends over the past forty years contribute to our national ignorance of the cost, and necessity, of victory in Iraq. First, the most privileged Americans used the Vietnam War as an excuse to break a long standing tradition of uniformed service. Ivy League universities once produced military heroes, but now they’re little more than hotbeds of looney left politics. Yet those same universities still produce most U.S. political leaders. The men and women destined to lead this nation in wartime routinely dismiss military service as a waste of their valuable time and talents. Second, we've stripped in-depth U.S. history classes out of our schools. Since the 1960s, one history course after another has been cut, while the content of those remaining focuses on social issues and our alleged misdeeds. As a result, ignorance of the terrible price our soldiers had to pay for our freedom creates absurd expectations about our present conflicts. When the media offers flawed or biased analyses the public lacks the knowledge to make informed judgments. National leadership with no military expertise and a population that hasn't been taught the cost of freedom leaves us with a government that does whatever seems expedient and a citizenry that believes whatever's comfortable. Thus, myths about war thrive.
Myth No. 1 is that war doesn't change anything. This campus slogan contradicts all of human history. Over thousands of years war has been the last resort of tribes, religions, dynasties, empires, states and demagogues driven by grievance, greed or a quest for glory. No one believes that war is a good thing, but it is sometimes necessary. We need not agree about the manner in which a war is fought, but we can't pretend that if we laid down our arms all others would do the same. One thing we may be certain of, our enemies believe that war can change the world. And they’re not deterred by bumper stickers.
Myth: Victory is impossible today. Victory is always possible, if we’re willing to do what it takes to win. But victory is impossible if our troops are placed under impossible restrictions, if their leaders refuse to act boldly, if every target first must be approved by politicians, and if Americans are disheartened by a constant barrage of negative reporting, twisted facts, half-truths, and in some cases downright lies from the media.
Myth: There's no military solution; only negotiations can solve our problems. Generally the reverse is true. Negotiations solve nothing until a military decision has been reached and one side recognizes a peace agreement as its only hope of survival. It would be a welcome development if negotiations fixed the problems we face in Iraq, but we're the only side interested in a negotiated solution. Every other faction - the terrorists, Sunni insurgents, Shia militias, Iran and Syria – are convinced they can win, if only we would give up. The only negotiations that produce lasting results are those conducted from positions of inarguable strength.
Myth: When we fight back, we only provoke our enemies. When dealing with bullies, either in the schoolyard or in a global war, the opposite is true: if you don't fight back, you encourage your enemy to behave even more viciously. Passive resistance only works when directed against rule-of-law nations. It doesn't work where silent protest is answered with a bayonet in the belly.
Myth: Killing terrorists only turns them into martyrs. It's an anomaly of today's Western world that privileged individuals feel more sympathy for dictators, mass murderers and terrorists than they do for the victims. The truth is that when dealing with fanatics, killing them is the only way to end their influence. Imprisoned, they galvanize protests, kidnappings, bombings and attacks that seek to free them. Dead, they're dead. And dead terrorists don't kill anymore.
Myth: If we fight as fiercely as our enemies, we're no better than them. Did the bombing campaign against Germany turn us into Nazis? Did dropping atomic bombs on Japan to end the war and save hundreds of thousands of American as well as Japanese lives turn us into the beasts who conducted the Bataan Death March? But our obsession with tragic incidents of which there have been remarkably few obscures the greater moral issue: the need to defeat enemies who revel in butchering the innocent, who celebrate atrocities, and who claim their god wants blood.
Myth: Our invasion of Iraq created our terrorist problems. This claim ignores the order of events, as if the attacks of 9/11 happened after Baghdad fell. The terrorist problems have been created by the failure of Middle Eastern civilization, and were worsened by the determination of successive U.S. administrations to pretend that Islamic terrorism was an aberration. “Peacefully” refusing to respond to attacks allowed our enemies to believe that we were weak and cowardly.
Myth: If we just leave, the Iraqis will patch up their differences on their own. The point may come at which we have to accept that Iraqis are so determined to destroy their future that there's nothing more we can do. But leaving immediately would guarantee a series of slaughters and a massive victory for terrorism. It's ridiculous to claim that our presence is the primary cause of the violence in Iraq, a charge that ignores centuries of Muslim history.
Myth: It's all Israel's fault. Israel is the Muslim world's excuse for failure, not a reason for it. Even if we didn't support Israel, Islamist extremists would blame us for countless imagined wrongs, since they fear our freedom and our culture even more than they do our military. All men and women must recognize the difference between Israel and its neighbors: Israel wants to live in peace, while its genocidal neighbors want Israel erased from the map. As for the belief that the Saudis are our friends, Saudi money continues to subsidize anti- Western extremism, and hatred between Muslims and all others.
Myth: The Middle East's problems are all America's fault. Muslim extremists want everyone to believe this, but it isn't true. The collapse of the once great Middle Eastern civilizations has continued for more than five centuries, and the region became a cultural backwater before the United States became a country. It’s social and economic structures, its values, its neglect of education, the indolence of its ruling classes and its inability to produce a modern state that served its people guaranteed that as the West progressed, the Middle East fell ever farther behind. The Middle East has only itself to blame for its problems.
The wealth and power of the United States allows us many things denied to human beings throughout history, but we simply cannot afford ignorance of our nations history.
Sunday, December 9, 2007
President
For months now I’ve been ranting about political campaigns, politicians, the US government and its assorted programs, international relations, and what-have-you. All to no avail apparently, as our government hasn’t changed its ways one bit, and I still haven’t been invited to become a presidential advisor. So, purely as a thought exercise, what sort of platform would I be standing on if I were dumb enough to run for the office of president?
One of the major problems facing the president today is the war in Iraq, and a sticky problem that is. Just about anything he does is going to be the wrong thing. If it weren’t for mid-east oil we could just pick up our marbles and go home, leaving the local folks to enjoy their feudal governments and medieval religious tyranny. However, with the world wide demand for oil, I don’t think an indiscriminate troop withdrawal as many people favor will really solve any problems, it’ll just dump everything on the Iraqi citizen’s shoulders, leaving them at the tender mercy of the terrorists, and Al-Qaeda would shortly control a large part of the world’s oil reserves. A “How to create WW III in the sandbox” sort of deal. Nor is it feasible to send a few hundred thousand more US troops to Iraq, as we don’t have that many more soldiers available, and our economy certainly couldn’t stand the strain at present. Nor do I think it would be wise to send in a standard UN peacekeeping force as the insurgents/terrorists would quickly eat them alive. So, what to do? One part of the problem is that everyone in the mid-east considers us to be infidel crusaders, thus bringing an insurmountable religious component into the game, and making us out to be the bad guys no matter what. Has anyone considered an American sponsored coalition of Arabic Muslim nations mounting a peacekeeping force? I’m quite sure that the US would have to foot the bill, but we’re doing that anyway, and it would put us in the position of controlling operations.
Tax reform is all over the news nowdays, and I suspect that the system could use some serious repairs. So, appoint a “Blue Ribbon” panel of taxpayers from all walks of life to sort through the current tax code, simplify the daylights out of it, find an equitable tax rate, eliminate the loopholes, and put things in simple English words that don’t require a high dollar tax lawyer to understand. At the same time we could shake up the IRS quite a bit, and remove all the arbitrary authority they use to terrorize American citizens.
National Security is one of my hot button subjects, and would get a lot of personal attention. For one thing, I’d immediately call on Congress to repeal most of the Presidential War Powers act, and all of the Patriot Act, as neither is needed today. The Department of Homeland Security would soon be a footnote in history as well.
The “All Volunteer” military served us well in the post Vietnam era, as long as we didn’t have any wars to fight. However, now that we’re involved in a messy little long term war in the mid-east, we can see many of its shortcomings. The conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan have aptly demonstrated that we need to greatly enlarge our conventional armed forces and war fighting capacity, which essentially means a return to the draft, unpopular as that would be. At the same time we need a “lean and mean” Army, well trained and properly equipped to fight anywhere in the world on a moments notice, and survive, rather than an army that’s going to be six months getting “there” with all the luxuries found on today’s TO&E. We need forces that can move fast and hit hard, which means Light Infantry, Rangers, and Special Forces, rather than armor heavy divisions that require an entire fleet to move them across the pond.
Immigration problems have been getting a lot of bad press lately, and I think could be quickly solved with a beefed-up Border Patrol providing tighter border security, along with severe penalties for the folks that hire illegals. I don’t particularly mean slapping them with a ten thousand dollar fine either, but how about an automatic five year sentence at hard labor for the CEO of the company that hired them?
Despite Al Bore… err… Gore and his Oscar winning movie, I don’t see global warming as a man caused problem. Sure, man’s activities isn’t helping the situation any, but it’s not something that we can really blame humanity for. Climate change is something that happens every few centuries, unless we can find a way to control nature and we haven’t been real successful at that over the last few thousand years. So, instead of mandating hundred mile-per-gallon cars, why not push for efficient low cost electric vehicles. After all, how many trips a day do we make to Boise, as opposed to how many trips around town? If it’s a case of “Boise or Bust”, wouldn’t an effective mass transit system be a better way to get there, and then grab an electric powered runabout while you’re shopping? Oil burning heavy trucks are great for moving large cargo’s when nothing else will work, but electric railroads for long distance hauling are a lot more energy efficient.
Where does all that electricity come from? Well, if we’d get serious about hydrogen fusion research, that’s one possibility. Another possibility would be Solar Power Satellites, which is a technology well doable today. Besides, an electric based transportation infrastructure would certainly take the wind out of OPEC’s sails! A hydrogen based economy is great in theory, but making the required sudden and massive change in our vehicle fueling system would probably bankrupt the nation!
If we’d leave the economy alone, it would probably bounce around like a Mexican jumping bean for awhile, and then level out. Historically a free market always does. The problems arise when government or financial gurus start tinkering with the system in an effort to “improve” things, “improvement” usually meaning the rich get richer, and the rest of us foot the bill. I’d also think that a gold (?) based economy would be far superior to a credit based paper economy.
Gay rights seems to be a hot button topic in the media, and most of southern California as well, so what to do about that? Well, nothing really. I see no reason for gays, or any other minority group, to have any special rights, privileges, or legal protection that the rest of us don’t have, just because they’re “different”.
The ever popular schemes to forcibly change our society yet again have always struck me as tantamount to tip-toeing through a political minefield, and besides, social engineering is not our government’s job. But with the technology available to us today, and with a little inspired leadership from on high, we could build a wonderful world for our kids and grandkids, which is a job for the government.
One of the major problems facing the president today is the war in Iraq, and a sticky problem that is. Just about anything he does is going to be the wrong thing. If it weren’t for mid-east oil we could just pick up our marbles and go home, leaving the local folks to enjoy their feudal governments and medieval religious tyranny. However, with the world wide demand for oil, I don’t think an indiscriminate troop withdrawal as many people favor will really solve any problems, it’ll just dump everything on the Iraqi citizen’s shoulders, leaving them at the tender mercy of the terrorists, and Al-Qaeda would shortly control a large part of the world’s oil reserves. A “How to create WW III in the sandbox” sort of deal. Nor is it feasible to send a few hundred thousand more US troops to Iraq, as we don’t have that many more soldiers available, and our economy certainly couldn’t stand the strain at present. Nor do I think it would be wise to send in a standard UN peacekeeping force as the insurgents/terrorists would quickly eat them alive. So, what to do? One part of the problem is that everyone in the mid-east considers us to be infidel crusaders, thus bringing an insurmountable religious component into the game, and making us out to be the bad guys no matter what. Has anyone considered an American sponsored coalition of Arabic Muslim nations mounting a peacekeeping force? I’m quite sure that the US would have to foot the bill, but we’re doing that anyway, and it would put us in the position of controlling operations.
Tax reform is all over the news nowdays, and I suspect that the system could use some serious repairs. So, appoint a “Blue Ribbon” panel of taxpayers from all walks of life to sort through the current tax code, simplify the daylights out of it, find an equitable tax rate, eliminate the loopholes, and put things in simple English words that don’t require a high dollar tax lawyer to understand. At the same time we could shake up the IRS quite a bit, and remove all the arbitrary authority they use to terrorize American citizens.
National Security is one of my hot button subjects, and would get a lot of personal attention. For one thing, I’d immediately call on Congress to repeal most of the Presidential War Powers act, and all of the Patriot Act, as neither is needed today. The Department of Homeland Security would soon be a footnote in history as well.
The “All Volunteer” military served us well in the post Vietnam era, as long as we didn’t have any wars to fight. However, now that we’re involved in a messy little long term war in the mid-east, we can see many of its shortcomings. The conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan have aptly demonstrated that we need to greatly enlarge our conventional armed forces and war fighting capacity, which essentially means a return to the draft, unpopular as that would be. At the same time we need a “lean and mean” Army, well trained and properly equipped to fight anywhere in the world on a moments notice, and survive, rather than an army that’s going to be six months getting “there” with all the luxuries found on today’s TO&E. We need forces that can move fast and hit hard, which means Light Infantry, Rangers, and Special Forces, rather than armor heavy divisions that require an entire fleet to move them across the pond.
Immigration problems have been getting a lot of bad press lately, and I think could be quickly solved with a beefed-up Border Patrol providing tighter border security, along with severe penalties for the folks that hire illegals. I don’t particularly mean slapping them with a ten thousand dollar fine either, but how about an automatic five year sentence at hard labor for the CEO of the company that hired them?
Despite Al Bore… err… Gore and his Oscar winning movie, I don’t see global warming as a man caused problem. Sure, man’s activities isn’t helping the situation any, but it’s not something that we can really blame humanity for. Climate change is something that happens every few centuries, unless we can find a way to control nature and we haven’t been real successful at that over the last few thousand years. So, instead of mandating hundred mile-per-gallon cars, why not push for efficient low cost electric vehicles. After all, how many trips a day do we make to Boise, as opposed to how many trips around town? If it’s a case of “Boise or Bust”, wouldn’t an effective mass transit system be a better way to get there, and then grab an electric powered runabout while you’re shopping? Oil burning heavy trucks are great for moving large cargo’s when nothing else will work, but electric railroads for long distance hauling are a lot more energy efficient.
Where does all that electricity come from? Well, if we’d get serious about hydrogen fusion research, that’s one possibility. Another possibility would be Solar Power Satellites, which is a technology well doable today. Besides, an electric based transportation infrastructure would certainly take the wind out of OPEC’s sails! A hydrogen based economy is great in theory, but making the required sudden and massive change in our vehicle fueling system would probably bankrupt the nation!
If we’d leave the economy alone, it would probably bounce around like a Mexican jumping bean for awhile, and then level out. Historically a free market always does. The problems arise when government or financial gurus start tinkering with the system in an effort to “improve” things, “improvement” usually meaning the rich get richer, and the rest of us foot the bill. I’d also think that a gold (?) based economy would be far superior to a credit based paper economy.
Gay rights seems to be a hot button topic in the media, and most of southern California as well, so what to do about that? Well, nothing really. I see no reason for gays, or any other minority group, to have any special rights, privileges, or legal protection that the rest of us don’t have, just because they’re “different”.
The ever popular schemes to forcibly change our society yet again have always struck me as tantamount to tip-toeing through a political minefield, and besides, social engineering is not our government’s job. But with the technology available to us today, and with a little inspired leadership from on high, we could build a wonderful world for our kids and grandkids, which is a job for the government.
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Arrogance
In 1966, Democratic Sen. William Fulbright of Arkansas, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, gave a speech at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, entitled “The Arrogance of Power”, which he defined as “the tendency of great nations to equate power with virtue and major responsibilities with a universal mission.” A description that aptly describes the worldwide activities of the United States over the last few decades. As the Vietnam War raged, the Sen. continued “We are now engaged in a war to "defend freedom" in South Vietnam… The official war aims of the United States Government, as I understand them, are to defeat what is regarded as North Vietnamese aggression, to demonstrate the futility of what the communists call "wars of national liberation," and to create conditions under which the South Vietnamese people will be able freely to determine their own future. I have not the slightest doubt of the sincerity of the President and the Vice President and the Secretaries of State and Defense in propounding these aims. What I do doubt, and doubt very much, is the ability of the United States to achieve these aims by the means being used. I do not question the power of our weapons and the efficiency of our logistics; I cannot say these things delight me as they seem to delight some of our officials, but they are certainly impressive. What I do question is the ability of the United States, or France or any other Western nation, to go into a small, alien, undeveloped Asian nation and create stability where there is chaos, the will to fight where there is defeatism, democracy where there is no tradition of it and honest government where corruption is almost a way of life.” The Senator went on to say, “The cause of our difficulties in Southeast Asia is not a deficiency of power but an excess of the wrong kind of power which results in a feeling of impotence when it fails to achieve its desired ends. We are still acting like boy scouts dragging reluctant old ladies across streets they do not want to cross. We are trying to remake Vietnamese society, a task which certainly cannot be accomplished by force and which probably cannot be accomplished by any means available to outsiders. The objective may be desirable, but it is not feasible....”
Today, if we were to change the term “Asian nation” to “Islamic nation”, we might well find ourselves describing the situation in Iraq, or nearly anywhere else in the world where the United States has embarked on a self appointed crusade to “improve things”!
Yes, we are (for the moment) the wealthiest and most powerful nation in the world, as we were in the 1960s. And equally as certain we are just as arrogant, if not even more so. Historically we have set ourselves nearly impossible goals, and achieved them on a regular basis. Who would have believed that a loose confederation of impoverished former colonies could have claimed, tamed, and settled a very large part of North America, in slightly less than a century! In the 1860’s we decided we needed a transcontinental railroad, and promptly built it in record time, and did so in the face of incredible adversity. Who would have believed that we could advance from a large and somewhat clumsy agrigriarian nation in the 1930s, to the worlds premier industrial and military power, in only slightly more time than it took us to fight WW II? In 1960 we didn’t even know if manned spaceflight were possible, yet in less than ten years we watched enthralled as Americans walking on the surface of another planet! We believed then, as we believe now, that there is nothing America can’t do if we once set our minds to it. Except perhaps, build a free-wheeling democracy in a small nation that doesn’t want democracy. Are we really so arrogant as to believe that a people… any people… who have for centuries quite willingly lived under a rather medieval theocratic political system, really have a desire to almost overnight switch to our particular form of democracy, only because our politicians tell them that “our system is better”!? The Soviets told the entire world how much better their political system was, from 1917 until they collapsed in 1990. Not many people believed them either.
If America has a means to lead in the modern world, it is in large part by our own example. In our excessive involvement in the affairs of other countries, we are expending the economic lifeblood of the nation, and denying our own people the proper enjoyment of their resources. We are also denying the world the example of a free society enjoying its freedom to the fullest. Regrettable I think, in a nation that aspires to teach democracy to others, because as Burke said "Example is the school of mankind, and they will learn at no other." A lesson America should have learned fifty years ago.
Why can’t we understand that America's true power lies not in our will to threaten, conquer, or intimidate, but in our ability to inspire? There is a temptation that seeps into the souls of even the most righteous men that leads them to bend the rules, and eventually the truth, to suit the perceived needs of the moment. Today we see greed, corruption, distain for the law, and an insatiable thirst for power openly displayed in this country, nearly everyplace we might look. That arrogance of power is deeply imbedded in our personal and business relations as well as our political relations, not only among ourselves, but with the rest of the world as well.
There are many respects in which America can be an intelligent example to the world. We have the opportunity to set an example of understanding in our relations with China, of practical cooperation in our relations with Russia, of reliable partnership in our relations with Western Europe, of helpfulness without moral presumption in our relations with developing nations, of avoiding the temptations of hegemony in our relations with Latin America, and of minding our own business in our relations with everybody. We have the opportunity to serve as an example of democracy to the world by the way in which we run our own society; America, in the words of John Quincy Adams, should be "the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all" but "the champion and vindicator only of her own." . . . We can demonstrate to the world that a free people can continue to live free even in the face of severe adversity, it’s certainly not necessary for them, or us, to adopt the ways and means of a totalitarian police state.
If we can bring ourselves to act, we will have overcome the arrogance of power.
Today, if we were to change the term “Asian nation” to “Islamic nation”, we might well find ourselves describing the situation in Iraq, or nearly anywhere else in the world where the United States has embarked on a self appointed crusade to “improve things”!
Yes, we are (for the moment) the wealthiest and most powerful nation in the world, as we were in the 1960s. And equally as certain we are just as arrogant, if not even more so. Historically we have set ourselves nearly impossible goals, and achieved them on a regular basis. Who would have believed that a loose confederation of impoverished former colonies could have claimed, tamed, and settled a very large part of North America, in slightly less than a century! In the 1860’s we decided we needed a transcontinental railroad, and promptly built it in record time, and did so in the face of incredible adversity. Who would have believed that we could advance from a large and somewhat clumsy agrigriarian nation in the 1930s, to the worlds premier industrial and military power, in only slightly more time than it took us to fight WW II? In 1960 we didn’t even know if manned spaceflight were possible, yet in less than ten years we watched enthralled as Americans walking on the surface of another planet! We believed then, as we believe now, that there is nothing America can’t do if we once set our minds to it. Except perhaps, build a free-wheeling democracy in a small nation that doesn’t want democracy. Are we really so arrogant as to believe that a people… any people… who have for centuries quite willingly lived under a rather medieval theocratic political system, really have a desire to almost overnight switch to our particular form of democracy, only because our politicians tell them that “our system is better”!? The Soviets told the entire world how much better their political system was, from 1917 until they collapsed in 1990. Not many people believed them either.
If America has a means to lead in the modern world, it is in large part by our own example. In our excessive involvement in the affairs of other countries, we are expending the economic lifeblood of the nation, and denying our own people the proper enjoyment of their resources. We are also denying the world the example of a free society enjoying its freedom to the fullest. Regrettable I think, in a nation that aspires to teach democracy to others, because as Burke said "Example is the school of mankind, and they will learn at no other." A lesson America should have learned fifty years ago.
Why can’t we understand that America's true power lies not in our will to threaten, conquer, or intimidate, but in our ability to inspire? There is a temptation that seeps into the souls of even the most righteous men that leads them to bend the rules, and eventually the truth, to suit the perceived needs of the moment. Today we see greed, corruption, distain for the law, and an insatiable thirst for power openly displayed in this country, nearly everyplace we might look. That arrogance of power is deeply imbedded in our personal and business relations as well as our political relations, not only among ourselves, but with the rest of the world as well.
There are many respects in which America can be an intelligent example to the world. We have the opportunity to set an example of understanding in our relations with China, of practical cooperation in our relations with Russia, of reliable partnership in our relations with Western Europe, of helpfulness without moral presumption in our relations with developing nations, of avoiding the temptations of hegemony in our relations with Latin America, and of minding our own business in our relations with everybody. We have the opportunity to serve as an example of democracy to the world by the way in which we run our own society; America, in the words of John Quincy Adams, should be "the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all" but "the champion and vindicator only of her own." . . . We can demonstrate to the world that a free people can continue to live free even in the face of severe adversity, it’s certainly not necessary for them, or us, to adopt the ways and means of a totalitarian police state.
If we can bring ourselves to act, we will have overcome the arrogance of power.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)