Review: Clash of Civilizations

Recently, after the June 25th post, I was encouraged to read, "The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World Order" by Samuel P. Huntington. And so I did.

This is an academic writing, analytical and focused on the Civilizations in this world, by a very respected late Harvard Professor. The writing examines the civilizations' relationships among each other and themselves. Not especially main stream writing, but very important nonetheless. What I expected to be an abject critique of all the tenets of Republican foreign policies turned, in the end, to be a harrowing indictment of Liberal domestic policies.

Written in 1994, and updated once since, this book covers history up to the late 1990's. Its relevant today for many reasons, not the least of which stem from the current policy decisions of the Obama Administration, and more pointedly, his border policies.

The damage of the border crisis on going today is a matter of record, whether or not sensationalized or diminished by partisan politics. The fact it can get this bad is, to me, a fault of both parties, but especially the Administration. Its bad in the sense that no matter how you view it the capabilities aren't there to administer to this, as well as to ask whether its cause was inadvertent or not.

Another reason the lessons in this book are important is this love affair some American's have with Hillary Clinton. Grounded as it is in this romantic notion that all things during the Bill Clinton Administration were well thought out and the root of all that was good during the times that were then.

I usually disagree, and this book reinforced one gripe I had then, but which continues to be championed today. Diversity.

Diversity is usually portrayed as an Idyllic cultural growth factor by liberal politicians. But what's hiding behind that pep slogan is really an effort to encourage the voting rolls in a particular direction.

There is no hard evidence, despite rationale to the contrary, as author Huntington details late in the book, that encouraging diversity in your civilization is at all beneficial to the survival of your civilization.

The reality is that the ambition of the Diversity crowd isn't doing anyone here any favors. Provided of course that by "anyone", I mean people who view the USA as a darn good culture, and part of a darn good civilization -- the Western Civilization.

Mexican immigrants may or may not be good people and potentially good citizens, but they aren't good members of Western Civilization because they aren't part of the Western Civilization. Same with Islamic, Hindu, and Chinese people just to identify a few. By encouraging this dilution, under the guise of Diversity being good for us all, the left has really just made a power grab for votes, to enrich a political party. The cost to be reaped, like most government decisions, by the future

I've been quick to point out smart ideas from the left, this isn't one of them.

Unless of course you don't like Western Civilization or our subset, the American Culture.

We should be encouraging assimilation, not diversity. But really my writings here aren't ground breaking opinions, and yet this lack of originality doesn't make the clash of civilizations any less dangerous.

Bill and Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama may be good Democrats, but are they being good Westerners? Who will be considered good Westerners by our future civilization, if they would to look back in consideration and to understand our shared history?

If they should find themselves in some less idyllic setting than we'd hope, I bet they could fine some culprits. At this point, don't be so certain Bush would be to blame for that too.

href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1451628978/ref=as_li_tl…">The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

http://ir-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/ir…" width="1" height="1" border="0" alt="" style="border:none !important; margin:0px !important;" />

Liberal Foreign Policy

http://online.wsj.com/…/dick-cheney-and-liz-cheney-the-coll…

Just some general observations.

There are events that, if only as perceived by me, demonstrate clearly why Democrats don't own as strong a winning hand on matters as they like us all to believe.

What I mean by that is in reading sites like the Huffington Post, which I do regularly, one is led to believe that the bad things in this world that do happen, happen with no due influence from them, from liberal intent.

Sites like HuffPo, in particular partisan left, admit no culpability of their words or actions -- or in actions, as the case may be. Its the fault of the past, or the other side.

Its bad luck too, I'll give them that. Sometime bad things happen, and bad decisions are made in the moment of things that we can all criticize, but we'd probably screw up too somehow. That's politics as well though. Taking responsibility usually shuts up the petty critics, but absent responsibility petty critics thrive.

The Democrats do have some reasons to gloat however. There are some really smart people on the left. Many prefer the term Progressive, and I see no harm in that. They are less concerned about abortion than they are about the environment. They don't want big government, but they want government working well, in the lead, efficient.

I'm with them, as they are with me. That's where the Right used to be, but complaining about the Right I'll save for another day.

On the left then, its these strengths that allow them to suffer no criticism. They think.

But I'm seeing a whole lot of influence leading to bad news, where the influence of negativity from the left is underplayed but ought to be spoken of for posterity. At least I think so.

Going back now, a little history. Bush became President and walked into a recession, then 9/11. The invasion of Afghanistan followed, with Iraq a couple years later. Democrats won congress in 2006, and then the markets crashed again, and Obama won.

Without rehashing each and every moment, to say that the Democrats, from the start, never did like the Bush economic recovery, is every bit a truth. The stats weren't as good as Bill Clinton's, the jobs weren't coming back quick enough, and we were not better off than we were four years before.

They wanted austerity then, which is a comedic contrasts to their warnings that now is not the time for such measures.

The surplus was squandered they plead. Never once reflecting, in this "either or" establishment, that had Gore won in 2000 he had too promised to spend the surplus anyways.

...and they beat that drum for years and years, until they won Congress, with no small help from that constant, repressive mantra.

...and when the markets tanked again, when real estate collapsed, when consumer and banking confidence wain to next to nothing, it wasn't at all a product of their(the left's) intentions or makings!

It was their policies and rhetoric that led in part to uncertainly and panic. But we should only believe otherwise? No where is economics immune to political commentary and actions.

The truth is Democrats never did like the War in Iraq. That's no slight, they'll tell you that. Its why the bad info that Bush used to justify the war is characterized as fraudulent, as lies. It was bad, it wasn't a lie. But that's a dog I'll leave on the porch.

But having been misled into war, they still couldn't wait for the truth to come out. The day after the war, some leaders of the left had already begun the "bad war plan" meme.

That was long before the lack of WMDs became the cause celeb.

By having initiated the opposition movement to the war, they had everything to gain then from escalating the thoughts. America became divided and our collective standing in the world was inversely proportional to the lefts' rise at home.

After having voted for the war, by and large, what should of been a Responsible Left, became a Petulant Left. No good was going to come of of this unjustified war they felt, and if fact they were going to make sure of that.

Obama ran for the White House as the Opposition Man. He had all the answers, and that included winning in Afghanistan what ever the cost, and quitting on Iraq, no matter the price.

As it became evident Obama was playing the winning hand then, the more farsighted thinkers at the time did what they could in Iraq. They hastily hammered out force agreements and relationship quid pro quo.

The on going Administration, the Iraqi's, were not impressed with the division in America, and were boxed into doing what was primarily self reliant. They were never blind to American politics, and what looked like a fickle alliance.

Obama was always the favorite to beat McCain, the Iraqi's saw this early and often, and reacted in accordance to their own self preservation and pride. Could you expect them to behave any different to an America that was, clearly, not 100% behind them?

The out going Administration, the Bush people, were trying to salvage what they could out of a bad situation. They were trying to impress upon the Iraqi people of America's resolve and commitment.

The incoming Administration, the Obama, was doing everything plainly possible, since the opening rhetoric of the election campaign, to tell the Iraqi's that what the Bush people were saying wasn't shared by them.

Yet to hear of the heralds of the left put it, their negativity was never a factor in the politics of war. That our enemies, and our presumptive allies would never comprehend what a divided America could and would mean in the war arena.

The fault always lay somewhere else.

Now I'm not going to be able to make more out of this than what it is, just some personal observations.

With that being said, I think its wise to remember some history moving forward.

The left lacks no hubris in their claims of righteousness and their "I told you so" mentality. I happen to believe that a certain part of that is not good, and a product of their own choosing. They are absolutely not above reproach, but try telling them that.

Manifest destiny and/or willful neglect? The balance lies somewhere between the two in respect to the issues this country continues to face. Issues the left has been thick as thieves in producing.

And if you think otherwise, that the Democrats are always right, gaze upon yonder Afghanistan. If I recall correctly, that was the fight Obama was going to win right, to pay the price, to show America's strength.

Well that is screwed up now too... It's not Bush's fault, its well documented how this Administration bungled that relationship.

But even in the face of this latest Iraq turmoil, which at this point Obama is hands off, his supporters still say its Bush's fault. I can't see how, for example, Iran providing assistant to Iraq is either 1.) good and 2.) Bush's fault.

I used to hear another meme constantly from the left, that is how the world hates us because of Bush. I never was sold on that either. But I do know our enemies hated us. Whereas today, more allies are strained from us, while our enemies are filling the void left by us.

When they are not laughing at us.

Review: Innovative State.

Just finished reading, http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00APDAYFS/ref=as_li_tl…">Innovative State: How New Technologies Can Transform Government

http://ir-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/ir…" width="1" height="1" border="0" alt="" style="border:none !important; margin:0px !important;" />
.

Although a small book, what it brings to light should open even the most partisan of minds among us, to what really should be discussed and considered when choosing a candidate for office today.

A Great Opportunity to Not Police the World

Stemming from a conversation I was having with my lovely wife I declared that I wouldn't be surprised if Obama and I, and her, all shall the same opinion about being involved in Ukraine or Crimea. The opinion being we shouldn't. Although he, Obama, doesn't have much of a choice.

While its not legally binding to do so, historical precedent along with the Budapest Memorandum obliges the U.S. to do something.
.

So what's the history and the affects this past has in the present situation?

The first realization is that we are talking about Russia because of Putin. Which really puts into question why should we be concerning ourselves over there anyways.

From a historical perspective only, Putin characteristically is like many other of his predecessors, but I also could reasonably argue that he has been one of the better angels by comparison. Ever hear of Catherine the Great, or Ivan the Terrible, or Peter the Great? Sure you have, that's because they made a name for themselves through tyranny, brutality, and also territory expansion.

Putin may be like all three of those, but he isn't one of them. Not quite yet. The reassuring thought is the fact that those other three did what they did before the mighty United States was a player. For this reason alone, I'm not too afraid of Mr. Putin's grand ambitions. Real or imagined.

Especially in regards to Crimea and Ukraine. Honestly, he may gain territory, but he also gains head aches. If one thing has been born true in this modern age, its that super states have problems staying cohesive or solvent. He wants to expand his state? That is his folly. He'll just have that many more to take care of, if he can.

Considerations of oil pipe lines, Europe held hostage, etc. are mitigated by the fact he already has that undue influence on those matters without the added burden of a trouble some population to govern and bankrupt to begin with.
.
So what if he has plans to reunite the old Russia, or Soviet Union? I can live with that. It may not be optimal, but its not unprecedented. In fact, for only twenty of the last hundred years has it has been otherwise.

And Obama surely is not unaware of my generalities. Certainly there are concerns I'm glossing over, but where aren't there in the world? If we are going to stop policing the world, here may be the first opportunity. 

Review: The Map and the Territory

Just finished a book entitled, "The Map and the Territory" by Alan Greenspan, the former Fed. Chairman. Earlier this year I read, "The Great Deformation" by David Stockman.

I recommend both books to everyone. They are economics, they are complex, they are dismal, but they cover real important issues affecting each and every one of us, and anyone to be born. They over lap. Greenspan's is much shorter, yet more disjointed IMO. Stockman's is epic and comprehensive.

The long and short of it is that this economy, this government, this reality isn't working out. Stockman argues that the top 1% are exploiting every one else abetted with the generous helping of the Fed. and the government regardless of which political party is in power.

Greenspan argues that unless we change its the entire species that will ultimately suffer lower raises in standard of living, lower wages, and more strife.

They both agree, as do I, that the lack of civil discourse, compromise, leadership, and growth of government are at the core of the problems.

For example, generally speaking regardless of party politicians do what benefits them in the short term, not what benefits the country in the long term. As a result government grows and its that growth that needs financed that ultimately crowds out money that could be put to better use by the private sector.

The nation is in serious debt as it it, so the debt alone is crowding out private sector investments in jobs, which obvious to everyone are quite rare and not very lucrative. Yet every election cycle politicians are compounding the problem by promising more of the same.

Both authors argue that a a readjustment is inevitable. The amount of pain brought on by the readjustment is the only thing uncertain.

Lest we discount the opinions of these two men, it would be wise to consider their personal esteem and accomplishments, as well as the fact that they are at the ends of their lives and still concerned -- akin to an old man who plants a tree though he knows the leaves will never shade him.

on Guns

taken from a thread on Gun Control,

You know what the problem with guns is? People pulling the trigger. That's the long and the short of it. Personally I consider the violence and abuse, the horrors humans commit on each other is the problem. Government and well reasoned people have endeavored to correct a lot of bias and behaviors, like littering and equality, but somehow we all have been a marked failure in civilizing everyone who needs to be civilized. You'd think after all this time, and all we know, that we could somehow apply some sort of civic peer pressure to the lessor beings among us to grow up. I think that's the ultimate answer to the gun question--maturity. Something that is evidently hard to produce in people.

on Government Shut Down

from a thread on the Federal Gov. Shut down:

its tough being against a government shut down. I empathize with the sentiment, but as the fed. government exist to reward or punish, the absence of government equates to a punishment for the people caught in its socialism embrace. And not that I like the socialist embrace myself, but to do this shut down ad hoc, after such a long lead in to this Obamacare hurts real people akin to a punishment. Sure it should be a lesson to NOT BE in that embrace in the first place, but the reality is such. Second, as the reality is everything is stable because the markets are stable, then they(those in the House of Representatives holding the shut down in place) should understand how seriously bad affairs could be if the house of cards comes down. Keeping the house of cards intact ought to be a very real concern too, IMO they are playing with a fire that shouldn't be played with--the economy.

Tea Party, I Hardly Knew Ye

To the Tea Party, I Hardly Knew You.

I was hoping this time it was going to be different. No, I’m not talking about the fortieth vote to derail ObamaCare. I’m talking about the whole Tea Party movement. I really was. The Tea Party seemed a common sense concoction. Pressure the Republican Party to adhere to its principles. Or something like that.

Principles, ethics, whatever it takes. I won’t bring it up again, why waste time…

Anyways, what happened to the Tea Party? Some say a bunch of racists, others say the last hope of our civilization. Both sides are wrong, the Tea Party isn’t a bunch of racists, but they are also too late to save anything.

What could of been! But instead of pressuring the GOP to reform. They instead wanted to reform government, and we all know that isn’t going to happen.

They could of, anticipating the probable snafus, lodged their protest to ObamaCare in the first place, allowed it to quietly take place, and be the wise old souls who are ready to take on more moralistic crusades within government. Sorry.

Nope. Forty votes later, ObamaCare is here and we may be seeing the end of the Tea Party’s effectiveness. But then again, the Republicans need them to retain any image whatsoever of being class indifferent.

When there is so much going wrong, I gotta think they could of moved on a while ago and been in a much better position when something does eventually go wrong again.

Now, even the benefit of the doubt is gone. For me anyways.

RE: ObamaCare

RE: ObamaCare.

The people for it don't seem to acknowledge the tangible reasons why people are against it. For whatever reasons.

The people against it don't seem to recognize its been vetted by two elections and the Supreme Court. Among other courts and votes.

I don't think I can squarely place myself on either side, except to say after having survived everything so far, the adult thing would be to enact it.

I seriously doubt "most Americans" are going to sign up, I believe many are going to pay the fine. Then what? Does that skew the intended benefits, consequences, and results?

Don't know. We will find out though, after its been in place for a while, and I don't see anything changing that.

Obama doesn't have to negotiate. That phase is over. Like it or not.

INFO: Individual Mandate

RE: Obamacare.

Interesting link: http://www.forbes.com/…/how-a-conservative-think-tank-inve…/

For the record, my record. The GOP is embarrassing. The individual mandate is a long time coming, IMO. Excepting a lot of bad, the fact that this is part of ObamaCare ought to be enough for many who have to accept the fact its here.

Jeez, its not like we are sending people to war....

One Thing I Know For Certain

Taken from a thread on Obamacare:

"I didn't think so, lol. But you know, its not the any one lady in the line buying high end products all the while you can easily and correctly surmise she hasn't worked a day in twenty years, but its also the fact that her parents are in front of her and her five kids are behind her too, with no chance of a real life. And speaking of life, the taxes it takes to ruin those generations of a family on the dole is robbing the life of anyone who works for a living. We all only got so much time, and when we got to pay taxes that is in fact robbing us of life. Every hour I work to pay a tax is an hour of my life I don't get back. That stealing my life. AND there is nothing I no as certain as that. Taxes rob life. Also the welfare life is not a real life either. so many lives are being robbed or diminished through socialism."

Why I'm Independent

Taken from a thread on Obamacare:

"well yeah. I mean I'm not an Independent so that I can only take the good and disregard the bad of either party of which I belonged to. I agree with you on that. See, I'm an independent so that I can see the good in either party I choose. If I just wanted to hate on Democrats all the time, well that seems to be one half of what a Republican is anyways, and I already tried that, to my dissatisfaction. I'm of the certain belief only that it is statistically impossible for any President to be completely wrong all the time. Especially one raising kids. So I know that, and so I look for the good. Finding the bad is obvious. Just ask a Democrat when a Republican is in office."

Immigration & Wealth Disparity

Taken from a thread on Immigration:

Here's a broader conspiracy on the left: immigrants, legal or otherwise, are predominately poor. Given that, and now take this: the liberals constantly evoke the imagery of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. It absolutely serves their purpose to allow as many poor people in this country as possible to massage that statistic. You would think that if they really wanted to shrink the gap between the have's and the have not's, then they would prevent more of have not's from entering this grand society. Doesn't it seem logical to fix the disparity problem we got to address the problem? I don't know anything about the proposed law(immigration), but I do realize that its a little disingenuous to blithely go about harping about the disparity of wealth in this country, while shooing in as many people as you can that would make your statistic more profound.

The Limits of Legislation and Gun Control

Another shooting, and another round of gun control debate up ahead.

My position comes from supporting liberty.

There was another shooting , this time at a Naval Shipyard in Washington D.C. Again the perpetrator was, as they say, "a known subject."

And there is my point.

To think that legislation will make us safer when legislation can't even keep guns out of the hands of people who legislation should know shouldn't have guns?

How about this perspective, legislation has legislated a society where keeping guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have guns is the problem.

The problem isn't good gun owners doing bad things, its bad gun owners who legislation knows is bad doing what would be expected of "a known subject."

In the end, I'm siding with the idea that gun rights are liberties, that can be taken away, but I'm not going to be that guy to want to take it away from people who might very well need it someday.

Legislation ought to prove effective first, before taking more of my liberties for itself.

Legislation has created a society where I may need all my liberties, especially a gun, but legislation wants to take that liberty away?

Consider the personnel inside the Naval Yard could not carry guns. Legislation must know that within the walls it controls, there are people who shouldn't carry guns. Yet legislation was incapable
of protecting the people inside its own walls, against someone who shouldn't have a gun, where someone carrying a gun could of done some good.

Cicero

"The one who engages in conversation should not debar others from participating in it, as if he were entering upon a private monopoly; but, as in other things, so in a general conversation he should think it not unfair for each to have his turn."

-- Cicero

Zealot ?

http://www.foxnews.com/…/cool-headed-academic-scholar-real…/

This is great!

A couple of observation, but first I didn't see the interview, didn't read the interview, didn't get caught up with the interview, and I know nothing about the book.

But. 1.) I got a post from the conservative sites I track scrutinizing his credentials, and those points read well. He's not that which he claims to be? I dunno, just parroting.

2.) I got posts from the liberal sites and liberal friends that on "Faux" news he tore a new a-hole into the interviewer. OK, just parroting.

Now this new new scrutiny of his Twitter activity.

How come liberals are quick to the potty mouth, all the while quick also to condemn a conservative for that very activity.

Its too blatant and obvious so often. Time and again, liberals want to be portrayed as the intelligent among us. Ridiculing conservatives even for making up their own science. But in the end, there are good and intelligent liberals and there are fools and worse among them. Just as there are those among conservatives.

One other observation of mine, and maybe just mine alone, and that is when conservatives do a wrong, they are self-cleansing. The perp usually gets marginalize by everyone, even his 'own'. Not always but often enough.

When a liberal does a wrong, too often there isn't a self-cleansing. In fact, the opposite usually occurs -- a rallying behind the perp.

Scholar Reza Aslan, just the latest example.

Its enough to continue to remind me that in the war between the political views in America, liberals aren't all they are wanting us to believe they are, including being the side of civility.

Take It All!

July 13, 2013

I had a conversation the other day with a neighbor.  A young(er) neighbor who had been a solid.  Now I'm starting to worry.

Stop me if you've heard this rant before, but bear with me, I may have something novel to put forth.

One of my favorite books, because it made me think the most appreciatively, is undoubtedly Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged.  If you ever read it you'll know where I'm coming from,  if you haven't read it, I highly recommend it.  If you find my writing  disagreeable, read it.  You may still disagree, but I guarantee you'll think about things a good deal differently.

My conversation with C.  is probably worth retelling if for no other reason than my approach to presenting a differing view of his.  My friend was advocating wealth redistribution.  Full blown, rob the rich, give to the poor, they have more than they ever need,  its an immoral imbalance, wealth readjustment.  Seemingly its the fashionable thing to advocate now a days.

Everyone is doing it, so it must be good.  Oh, and by the way, when I say everyone is doing it.  Everyone is.  No one is unmoved by this mentality.  From the very rich to the very poor.

Voluntary or not.  I'll support that contention later.

I allowed C. to speak uninterrupted for long moments.  I interrupted at one point, it was obvious, asking how much he payed for the Washington Redskin branded mini football.

About twenty bucks he said.  O.K.  I answered.  He didn't get my point.  Of course high paid athletes were a target of his envy,  yet never once did he consider how much of his wealth he has distributed freely in the opposite direction of his prescription for what ails America.  But I withhold final judgement,  maybe he bought all his memorabilia before his socialist change of heart.

Trust me,  if he hasn't, and he broaches the subject again,  I'll feel compelled to point it out.  Hey, I can't have friends running around unprincipled.   Get rid of those brand name and star sponsored wares!

Right?  I mean if you are following the Kardashian's or Honey Boo Boo AND you complain about the wealth of stars, athletes,  or any otherwise blessed person of wealth,  then my friend, you and I ought to have a private conversation too.   Not to judge you,  but to cleanse you.   You think Che Guevara had a man cave?  Okay, he probably did,  except it had guns and books.

Not football and basketball trinkets.  He's fashionable today too.  For all the same reasons.

So back to my story, C.  had his say.  Feeling there was a certain thresh hold of wealth, and anything over that was unnecessary he saw it was right and just to take it.   Frankly,  instead of embellishing the story, I must point out he was sorely lacking on the practical aspects of his sentiments.  I never did get out of him who would take the wealth, other than it would be taken;  who would get the money, other than the poor;  or even how much money the emasculated tycoon would have left, which I think was a fair set of questions to ask.

I rebutted playing the role of Bill Gates, and why not,  he was once the wealthiest on the planet, he'd be one of the most affected, and I thought it would be neat to be in his shoes.

I asked C., "What gives you the right to take my money?"

I had too much. . . .

"If you take my wealth today, what do I do tomorrow?"

I go back to work, like nothing has happened!

"Why would I do that?"

Because that is what I do,  I work.

(hold the smirk)

"Why don't I just run my company and wealth into the ground before you take it?"

umm,  ahh.

"C.  do you realize how many millionaires, billionaires, and otherwise well paid people I've created?"

No.

"C.  Do you know that I'm giving away all my billions to help the people of the entire planet?  I intend to give it all away,  saving a modest some for my children,  before I die? "

No.

"C.  Do you know that Andrew Carnegie,  nearly a hundred years ago, formulated this philosophy of  philanthrophy and put it in a book, The Gospel of Wealth Essays and Other Writings (Penguin Classics), and many of the super wealthy have done just that over the years?  Or do you understand that there is a huge movement afoot, led by me and Warren Buffett to conspire and inspire the super wealthy of today to do just the same thing?  Give it all away before they die?"

No.

"So I should stop giving my money away, and instead allow who to take it?  The Government?"

"Why wouldn't I just leave the country before this plan of taking my money is ever put in place?"

Enough of the dialog.  But believe me,  it was real.  I really don't have to point that out do I,  that it was a real conversation.  'Cause we all know someone like this.  Someone bent on wealth redistribution.

I advocate listening to them.  Its quite breath taking.  I had a long role play with my friend.  Perhaps its worthy of a play.   We'll see,  I can ask for money from one of those new crowd sourcing sights I read about.

In the end,  I'm left thinking,  maybe more than those advocating wealth redistribution,  if I were Bill Gates they would take my wealth away and then expect me to go to work tomorrow.?

What then are they going to do with my wealth tomorrow?

The Flaw

There is a problem with Socialism.  As there are with every political philosophy.  If this were not so, then humanity would be blessed by an intrinsic and universal idea of the best form of governance, and would be practicing it by this point in time.  You would think.  But it hasn't happened.

It hasn't happened because all political philosophies have flaws.  Socialism is fashionable, and despite of its alleged dominance with the electorate today it still has flaws.

Even if the eloquent disciples of the left elaborate around those flaws.  They are still flaws if they ignore them altogether as well.

Without speaking on a subject matter that I don't know in its entirety, the liberal mind -- for I do not have one, I will limit my opinion on one flaw of the philosophy of modern liberalism.  Its sustainability.

How do you sustain socialism through the years as its practiced today?

This is of practical concern.  Socialism today is unsustainable.  Its an elephant in the room and of some concern, but not too serious concern.  Posit this, when the socialists acquired control of government in its entirety in 2008 the first accomplishment was universal health care, not a balanced budget, nor anything close to a sustainable budget.

Now talk is cheap,  actions have consequences.  This behavior is unsustainable.  Talk all you want.  I know, I KNOW-- its the Republicans standing in the way of tax increases that would lead to a balanced budget by some far distant time in the future.  I heard it all before.

Fact of the matter is, Health Care, not universally wanted, was universally enacted.  Balancing the budget was put off.

This practice of socialism in unsustainable.  Everything falls  and fails after that.

You can't bring better life to all, if you are damning future generations to pay for what you spend now.  How is that improving their lot?

We argue about gun rights.  A debate allowed by the freedom of owning a gun handed down from earlier Americans.  An American in 2050 may or may not have guns, but you can be darn sure that that American is going to have our debt to pay back.

That bluntly speaking is robbing our progeny of life.  There will be only so much time in a life to live.  Paying taxes takes time in form of labor.  You work more hours to pay those taxes, or you accept less for your labors because of taxes, that's a life wasted away directly as a result of the grand socialism in fashion from earlier times.

This a practical concern.  It will catch up to someone.  Debt.

Liberals are very smart, ask anyone of them, or visit their sites.  They won't be too modest to tell you how right they are and how wrong you are.

So I direct my liberal minded citizens to look up how Austria-Hungary fell.  Or why the British Empire isn't so much of an Empire anymore.

That can wait, the crib note is DEBT.

Without controlling our debt, socialism's grand and beautiful plans aren't sustainable.

Socialism then has a task.  Perhaps they don't want to face it, but again its a matter of practicality.  Modern Socialism has to address the flaw in its being.  It has to address Debt.

A socialist might not like it.  After all, its much wiser and more altruistic to talk about the wonderfulness of Universal Health care and ignore the debt future Americans face from this fashionable politics of today.

Its cleaner to talk about the environment.

Its safer to blame some one else, like the loyal opposition.  Or just Bush.

But in practice modern socialism is adding debt not lessening the burden, and the burden is already unsustainable.

Then again, and I admit I don't know the entirety of the liberal mind, they may have a plan already worked out.  They are that smart, just ask them.

Until I see that plan in action though, its all talk.  Along with all the dreams of how great Socialism is.

Name me one great socialist state anyways?  It would help in understanding this zealousness and righteousness in Socialism.

Random Post Election Thoughts

Random thoughts I've had since the election.

Next time, if you want to save time and find out who won the election well before any network is airing it, pay attention to the talking heads from late afternoon on.  Sean Hannity goes on the air at three, and he was at first optimistic, then after he became privy to the exit polling data, he became desperate sounding.   Fox News, or Faux News as the liberals who never watch it, call it, was like a wake.  CNN was buoyant.  I started the day thinking a Romney win, but by six  it was dawning on me.

I've noticed this about Hannity years ago,  every four years I have a reason to listen to Hannity, and that is to determine, as soon as possible, how the night is going to go.


The talk about how the GOP needs to evaluate who they are is indeed relevant.  I dropped them like a bad habit, perhaps the only bad habit I ever dropped.  So no, Obama's win isn't shattering for me.  Long ago I realized my way of thinking isn't represented often in Presidential elections.  I'm O.K. with that,  not thrilled, but I'm O.K.

I had thoughts once, that coincided with a party, but not anymore.  I am a minority, I am the 3%.  Only I was hoping for at least 5%.


I was hoping for a Romney win, if only to enjoy the liberals complaining again.  They do it so well.  Realized that they blamed a hurricane on a President.  A hurricane!  When the conservatives tried to do that this year, it was like watching stand-ins on a Broadway hit.   One day maybe, but not that good right now.

Which brings me to the President.  One day maybe, but not that good right now.  But it may as well be him,  he's already there, and we've put difficult decisions off long enough.  Now with a second term, Obama is either going to accomplish something or not.  It's that simple.  Do something, or don't do something Mr. President.

It's going to be interesting.  It has to be, or you just aren't paying attention.  Serious problems confront us.  I wish him well.   

Congrats to Obama!

Congrats to President Obama.  By winning a second term you have created an opportunity for yourself to accomplish something that will span generations, again.  

Actions such as ObamaCare, are here to stay.  New ideas may find a place for the ages, while others may disappear altogether. 

As I said after every election, I hope you do well Mr. President.  Heck, that is an easy sentiment, every president- elect has promised the earth, sky, and sometimes the moon.

But can we all agree that it's in our best interest that things get better, and that that expectation should reign over party affiliation?

Everyone wants things to get better,  even those that don't vote.  Let's get some metrics together, so that in four years we all can be debating about something or some issues that are novel, or yet unseen.  Instead of repeating 2008 all over again.  

Did I say 2008, I meant 2012.  Sorry.

It would not only be a shame, but a strong indication that some ideas aren't just helping out, even though their intentions are paved in gold,  if we are giving a pass on some numbers, or blaming Bush still four years from now.  

Its not a metric, but can we not be blaming Bush, or lustily remembering how good the Clinton years were, when we have our next Presidential election?

Here's is a metric, unemployment.  It's about 8% right now.  Can we agree on a number where it would have to be, to validate Obama's policies?  

At least some scrutiny?

Listen, I know we won't have Obama to elect again, but honestly,  if its still at about 8%, and then some are still claiming we need to continue onward by electing the successor Democrat, they are out of their mind, not me.

Deficit.  I'm of the sort that believes zero deficit is about right.  Smaller than it is today would be a passable grade.  Little difference, one way or another, is a failure.  

Debt.  Another metric where zero sounds right to me.  But I'll face reality, if you do too.  We got to do something about this.  A big difference is needed, or I say failure.
  
Let's get together on some metrics.  People are posting and tweeting that we need to get together.  I agree.  But I don't believe in abandoning scrutiny.  

This year Obama won with horrible numbers by saying he needed more time.  O.K.  But we ought to be observant enough that in four years time, if the numbers are still horrible, we know the difference between talk and action.

I Endorse....!

My kids usually bear the brunt of my long soliloquies.  Especially when they are sick, as she is now, or when they broach a subject in the first place, not actually in search of a long dialog.  They prefer the shoe be on the other foot, and fire questions at me unceasingly.

Addie says they are voting in her class for President, and she only has two choices.  Which of course is a racket in any sense of the term.  Its typically called a monopoly in business circles, or near monopoly, and Governments usually force a change in the situation.

I told her simply.  Write in the name Gary Johnson or Mickey Mouse.  I mean gheeze,  there ought to be a write in.  I can know longer wonder why we only have two main parties, its inoculated in people from an early age.    I wish they inoculate the "Do not litter" campaign again, not a two party system.


But I digress, as I did with her.

In her situation, I said,  Obama hasn't earn your vote.  He hasn't earned mine.    

I expect more, and that's just not a campaign slogan from Romney.  Its been what I think, that a President should live up to and behave in the highest of manners and standards. 

He's the ruler of the world, so to speak.  History.  This isn't the PTO presidency.

I'm not voting for Obama.  I expect better.  

But you all go ahead and vote the next president out of the two main parties,  I'm note particularly afraid of either one.  Romney or Obama.  I'd prefer Romney.  But I have no way of knowing if he'd turn out any better.  Because of that, my vote is for change.  

I don't think any one person now a days can do the job well enough for widespread acclaim.  Or in other words,  the job is too big, and the situation too screwed for any one person to be well accomplished.

Obama is the devil I know.  Literary speaking.  I mean no slander beyond the old adage.  I've read enough, by credible sources, that I don't believe Obama is driven by any damn America agenda.  He's a liberal.  That's bad enough, and destructive enough.

He's well-intentioned, but obviously in over his head.  

Romney isn't exactly the new embodiment of the most, well,  of , well, of whom ever is the worst conservative the liberals are afraid of.

Which is to say,  he and Obama aren't that much different.  But I prefer him.

But you all go elect him.  If he does well,  I got his back next time.  

That's all I can promise.

One lasting thought,  Romney thanked the crowd in front of him remarking that they all support him, even though he isn't promising a big check to any of them.

I like that kind of promise from a politician.  It seems more honest.  Its not a promise at all.

Moving the 47%

Obviously redistribution is here to stay.

In its most base form, redistribution is essentially government.  Or government is essentially redistribution.  But there is a Redistribution movement that gotten things all turned around.

Romney made his remarks about the 47%, which seemed to land on America like the pilgrims landing on the Indians.  Shocker!

There was never any doubt that the Democrat in a race would get the benefit of the doubt from the 47%.  But why is that?

A little examination of the recent history of the tax code is in order.

In my life, of just over four decades, there have been only Republicans who cut taxes.  Starting with Reagan, then Gingrich, and lastly Bush, the younger.

Increasingly, as the rates have been slashed, more and more Americans began to find themselves in the position whereby they do not pay federal income tax.

That 47% was built with Republican tax cuts.  Obama didn't build that.

Bill Clinton didn't build that either.

For all the animosity thrown at Republicans, that they only care for the rich, its all thrown blindly.

Some of the 47% equate their position as an act of generosity and love from the Democrats.  Loyalties are made from this notion.

But its just not true.

As to Romney, listen closely,  he promises tax cuts.  He says people on the low end will pay less.  He will grow the 47%.

The Numbers

Regarding the jobs issue, its such an easy identifier of integrity.

I remember when, eight years ago, John Kerry ran against the incumbent Bush, time and time again Bush's numbers were disparaged because his net numbers were the worst in decades.

Year	Qtr1	Qtr2	Qtr3	Qtr4
2001	8491(1)	7991(1)	7630(1)	7547(1)
2002	8071(1)	7868(1)	7630(1)	7483(1)
2003	7467(1)	7398(1)	7392(1)	7521(1)
2004	7715(1)	7754(1)	7633(1)	7844(1)
2005	7620(1)	7774(1)	7965(1)	7807(1)
2006	7797(1)	7758(1)	7499(1)	7740(1)
2007	7723(1)	7630(1)	7333(1)	7642(1)
2008	7234(1)	7255(1)	6893(1)	6698(1)
2009	5830(1)	6395(1)	6345(1)	6634(1)
2010	6246(1)	6969(1)	6685(1)	7009(1)
2011	6338(1)	6892(1)	7058(1)	6854(1)

But you see from this data, from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, (  http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?bd  ) that Obamanomics hasn't created as many jobs as his predecessor over the first term.

I bring up Kerry of course, because if I were paying attention then, and I was, then I would of been lectured day in and day out of how bad Bush was, and how much better that we could do.

I was a good student,  I learned a lot.

We aren't even doing a Bush now.

History repeats itself.  So why should I treat this re-election effort any different?  Why shouldn't I expect more?