Update from the Heartland
No.321
28.1.08 – 3.2.08
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
No.321
28.1.08 – 3.2.08
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
Another one bites the dust . . . hey, hey . . . This time, the Allies eliminated Abu Laith al-Libi, a top al-Qaeda commander, a Libyan, and presumably no relation to Abu Farraj al-Libbi [178] (captured and hopefully still incarcerated). The Press has speculated that a CIA Predator UAV might be responsible for the strike, in North Waziristan, Pakistan, but to my knowledge, no one has claimed responsibility. Silent death is fine by me; the more we kill, the sooner we can return to peace.
We do not find an abundance of praise from the uber-Left regarding war successes like the al-Libi strike. I suppose they are quite content enjoying the freedoms our military, intelligence and security forces provide while they remain sanctimonious, aloof and contemptible of all things violent. I have always wondered how one rationalizes reaping the benefits while condemning the process by which the benefits are protected.
The President gave a respectable State of the Union speech Monday night. I would give him more credit, except for two critical elements. His use of rather strident words and tone sprinkled throughout the hour long speech do absolutely nothing beyond extending the vast division in contemporary politics – not exactly the form of leadership the Nation so desperately needs. Then, the President finally finds his conscience to demand reductions in congressional earmarks. I am glad the President has taken the position, but 50% reduction is hardly enough. I would prefer zero earmarks – no funding for projects not voted upon by Congress, and thus all Federal spending should be open to public scrutiny. I recognize that the capability for earmarks is necessary, especially for certain quick response actions, but this congressional largess is insanity and directly contributes to corruption, abuse and this damnable, insane spending. The President’s “Johnny come lately” conscience only adds more division. Two other unrelated observations also struck me. What an incredible sight . . . all the uniforms in the gallery. For my generation, in our war, we were ordered to not wear our uniforms inside the Beltway – too inflammatory for the peaceniks. And, I do not recall any military professional other than the Joint Chiefs of Staff being invited to the Joint Session of Congress and the President's State of the Union report. My, how times have changed . . . for the good, in my view. I also listened to the opposition party response – Governor Kathleen Sibelius of Kansas. She started well, but the constant “join us” took the message right back into the mire and muck of divisive, parochial, party politics. When will we ever find a leader to heal the wounds, build the necessary bridges, and work for the general welfare of this Grand Republic instead of these equally damnable political parties? When?
As an unexpected follow-up to last week’s comment on voting selection criterion [320], I read with enthusiasm this week's Leonard Pitts column in the Wichita Eagle. He said it far better than me.
"Even if Obama were Muslim, so what?"
by Leonard Pitts
Wichita Eagle
Monday, 28.January.2008
For those who do not receive the Wichita Eagle, the same column can be found as:
"Obama foes make appeal to ignorance, fear"
by Leonard Pitts Jr.
Miami Herald
Posted: Sunday, January 27, 2008
http://www.miamiherald.com/living/columnists/leonard_pitts/story/393654.html
Jeanne recorded and asked me to watch Monday’s Dr. Phil show about baggy pants and featured these questions: “Do you think baggy pants are fashionable?,” and “Do you think it is OK for the government to ban baggy pants?” By ‘baggy pants,’ they mean the tendency of some young folks to wear loose fitting pants well below the waist with their underwear exposed. We have all seen the fad attire. I think the youthful fashion trend is silly, immature and self-limiting. I do not think saggy pants are fashionable. And, as I think everyone who has read previous editions will recognize, I absolutely do not think the government should be involved in such things. Like profanity in speech or writing, baggy or saggy pants simply demonstrate the immaturity of the individual. In a free society, individuals make choices important to them. Exposed tattoos, exposed body piercings, purple spiked hair, et cetera, may be individual, personal statements, but they are also public limiters. Many employers refuse to hire or employ people who use profanity, are intoxicated at work or in public, dress inappropriately, or otherwise present a poor public image . . . as it should be. Such discrimination is understandable, proper, and presents a societal ostracism, and yet using the law against such individuals violates their freedom of choice. Baggy or saggy pants leave no exposed skin or genitalia; there is no injury. I say, let them dress as they wish and limit their opportunities – their free choice. Just as I would object to a law forcing employers to accept these statements of attire or appearance, I would object to any law imposing our dress standards on individuals. Baggy pants are a parental issue, not a governmental one.
As ruthless as I may seem from time to time, especially in matters of warfighting, defending my home & family, or dealing with certain forms of criminal conduct, I am also quite a contradictory character when it comes to compassion for mankind. Needless to say, my compassion is tempered by an unwillingness to be made fool of or abused by those less scrupulous among us. I do not want any creature, including genus homo sapiens sapiens, to suffer . . . well, I do exclude a narrow class of capital criminals. I do not want any person to be hungry, or uncomfortable, or unhappy. And yet, I am not so naive to think we can, or even have a right or responsibility to, care for all those who may be in extremis. So many questions . . . does a homeless man actually want to work for a living? Does a brood-mare, welfare mother actually want to provide for her family or continue to have the State do it for her? I struggle with the fundamental challenging question of will, or desire, or motive. I learned the hard way, a long time ago, that individuals will change ONLY when they truly, deep in their gut, want to change or seek help; nothing else will alter their chosen path. Too many people are quite content having shelter and sustenance provided for them. The difficulty is finding those who truly want help. As I have written for many years, every individual’s freedom of choice should override all the ‘do-good-er’ motives of the rest of us. Just because a person is homeless does not mean he wants a home. In a similar vein, some indigenous people are quite content to live naked and forage for food. The notion that all humans want to live like us is silly, paternalistic nonsense. Nomadic tribes have survived for millennia with their hereditary skills to blend with nature as it is, not as some of us might wish it to be. This brings me to President Franklin Roosevelt’s Executive Order 7034, creating the Works Progress Administration (WPA) in 1935. The program was retrospectively funded by Congress a few months later. I acknowledge that not many things torch off conservative Republicans quicker than Roosevelt’s WPA, but I shall run the gauntlet. In my most humble opinion, the WPA was a necessary product of the time, and rightly ceased to exist in 1943. The WPA was many things, but predominately, it was a government public works employment program. Some lesser and limited version of the WPA might serve to weed out the leeches from the worthy, and allow detractors from society to be ‘collected’ into appropriate facilities for the public good. I have proposed a version of this concept before [128, et al] to insulate productive society from those possessed by a self-destructive penchant associated with substance abuse and other character anomalies. The WPA portion might be an appropriate stairway for those who truly seek improvement and offer public good in the process. The administration of a modern WPA would surely cost less than the degeneration of welfare. Those who choose not to be productive or choose a path of self-destruction should be allow their freedom of choice and the dignity of leaving them to their choice or helping them along the way. We must focus on those who truly seek help from those of us more fortunate, and save our societal remorse for those who find themselves in a spot of bad luck or a rough patch. In a reflective manner, we would find out how important freedom is to each individual. My bottom line . . . let us get the government working on those who do not want to contribute to society and get the government out of tinkering with private lives of the rest of us.
Please indulge me . . . another note from history. While I tempted the wrath of the uber-Right above, we can find a relevant lesson in the history files. Franklin Roosevelt took the oath of office as President on 4.March.1933, with the Nation deeply into the period we call The Great Depression. A mere few months later, on 16.June.1933, President Roosevelt signed into law, the National Industrial Recovery Act, (NIRA) [PL 73-67, HR 5755], that became the skeleton of the New Deal and the economic recovery program. Two years later and in the same month Roosevelt issued Executive Order 7034, the Supreme Court released its ruling in the case of Schechter v. United States [295 U.S. 495 (1935)], striking down the NIRA law. The Court decided that Congress had exceeded its authority under the Constitution when it extended the Commerce Clause into intrastate labor issues. The case sparked additional notoriety when Roosevelt objected to “nine old men” derailing his economic recovery efforts, and subsequently attempted to pack the Court to dilute sitting justices. We can find interesting parallels to the contemporary debate regarding the extension of Executive authority. The Court was correct in Schechter – the Constitution could not be suspended just because the country was hurting. The President’s war powers under the Constitution are substantially greater than his ability to affect intrastate commerce, and yet, the ambiguity of the President’s failure to seek a full declaration of war opens numerous questions of constitutionality similar to Roosevelt’s New Deal. The Court made a clear statement in 1935; it has yet to render a definitive ruling in the current debate. It does not appear President Bush will face his version of Schechter.
Comments and contributions from Update no.320:
“I read that the young suicide bomber was encouraged by his parents ... that is just not right.”
My response:
In the case of children becoming suicide bombers, you’re correct. Ultimately, I believe it is the clerics who have created and enflamed this jihadi environment, and the parents who convince the innocents to seek death. In this particular case, the parents and clergy set him up, i.e., put him into the martyr’s mentality, but this was an al-Qaeda mission. Jihadi suicide bombers are no different from or better than MS-13 drive-by shootings, or the Columbine HS massacre; parents failed their children. The parents got their kids in the frame of mind, but someone else loaded the weapon and pulled the trigger. What rabid ideology convinces children to kill themselves and take other innocent people with them? Radical, fundamentalist Islam lays beneath the surface, and the clergy must be our ultimate target.
. . . with this follow-up:
“I DO agree ... the clergy should be forced to wear a bomb attached to their bodies and place them in the middle of a desert to explode themselves and no one else. Perhaps THAT would stop this nonsense??”
. . . and my response to the follow-up:
A magnificent idea. Only problem is the whiners and hand-wringers would have conniption fits while blathering something about cruel and unusual punishment. If anything, I think your suggested remedy would be too kind for those who so wantonly destroy life. But hey, that’s just me.
This exchange was extracted from a separate threat regarding nuclear warfare and began with this article:
“Nuclear proliferation cannot be controlled now -- Former CIA agent says”
Hamid Mir, from Islamabad
The Daily Star
Published On: 2008-01-30
http://www.thedailystar.net/story.php?nid=21222
The opening comment:
“I think in many ways Einstein, Oppenheimer, Edward Teller, and others, likely regretted the future reach of their progress then. I have always thought it was that work that allowed the [Genie’s] escape from the bottle. Frankly, I am very surprised nukes have not been used since Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the Cold War (thank God it did not), and in the Kashmir theater with Pakistan v. India, or by North Korea against the South. It would not have surprised me if 9/11 would have involved tactical nukes, and since then with our own campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq, I am a bit surprised it has not happened yet somewhere on our globe, by so-called terrorists with potential stealth state actors.”
My response:
There is a reason nuclear weaponry is lumped together with Chemical and Biological warfare. I have a hard time rationalizing B & C, but the N is still viable, and if presented circumstances similar to what we faced with Imperial Japan, I would have no remorse to use all the weapons I have to win. But, hey, that's just me.
. . . with this follow-up:
“I am far from any ‘bleeding heart liberal’ (use to think I was more fiscal-conservative, but lately I think that party got hijacked) but in my conscience, I would have had a very hard time ordering the use of the atomic weapons on Japan, for many reasons. As one who endorses and believes in much of what Christ taught, I have a hard time reconciling that perceived paradigm with using weapons of mass destruction. On a more logical and some would even say humane angle, there are many who provide fairly good evidence that by not having dropped the two atomic bombs, the global injury, death, misery, costs and destruction would have been far exceeded as compared to the losses in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I've also often thought one must be careful (especially organized groups) from creative rationalizations or justifications.
“In a more esoteric moment, I have feared that our own use of the weapons, might have set an almost karmic course where the weapons could be used on America, or at least give some form of justification to a terrorist or state actor for such use, because we had green-lighted the development and only use of them. Then again, in the chaos of the human condition, I suspect had we not, someone else would have.”
. . . with my follow-up response:
There are several points here.
1. The casualty estimates for Operations OLYMPIC and CORONET (the invasion of the Japanese home islands) projected 1 million Allied dead, 5 million wounded, and 2-5 million Japanese dead with 10 million wounded and up to 20 million displaced & homeless. There was no question the majority of the Japanese people would have chosen to die for the Emperor. Whether we like it or not, war is killing and destruction; the sooner the enemy can be convinced to capitulate the better. So, I am with Harry; he did precisely the right thing. He repeated his demands for unconditional surrender. They refused. Harry did what had to be done, and he saved millions of Japanese and Allied lives.
2. The enemy we fight today is not total war, but a broad scale insurgency with the fighters embedded in a generally sympathetic population. Using nuclear weapons would be like using a sawed off shotgun with a single kidnapper among a group of hostages – an inappropriate weapon for the conditions. The same is true for the IRI or even the DPRK; the populace is not engaged.
3. I doubt very much that the IRI would use nuclear weapons even if they had them, because they know what would come their way. But, just as Saddam’s Iraq or the IRI probably would not use such weapons directly, they would get their surrogates to deliver the death they sought, as they have done for decades. Therein lies the dilemma. If we do not stop them before they gain the technology, then we would have no choice but to respond in kind.
4. We face an enemy who has repeatedly demonstrated his ruthlessness and paucity of any semblance of humanity, comparable to Imperial Japan and Hitler’s Schutzstaffeln. There is only one choice – kill them as quickly and efficiently as possible until they decide to stop their indiscriminate terrorism of innocent people.
5. The day we refuse to kill our enemies . . . le commencement de la fin.
“That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”
The following sequence came from yet another separate exchange regarding a commercial pilot’s in-cockpit breakdown (please look beyond the Britney Spears medium) and the continuing issue of parental / societal responsibility:
“The stuff on Britney I find tragic. Not only are her children victims, but to a degree she is. She has demonstrated she cannot manage her life nor the fame (and perhaps abundance of money/material factor). Hopefully she is getting the help she needs. I never considered her an actress or gifted musician per my tastes, but I do know many young people grew up in pivotal and memorable years with Britney their idol, and so I think those young adults now, and some are no doubt affected by watching this stage show play out with Britney, and others in her league.”
My reply:
Yeah, my wife and I talk about Britney every time she comes on the news, and ask ourselves what we would do if she was our daughter. She is a train wreak, self-destructive, and otherwise a very troubled young woman. She needs major treatment, but her money makes everyone reluctant to intervene. I suspect she is not longed for this world.
. . . round two:
“Hopefully Britney will make some kind of surprising comeback, and be a symbol of recovery and hope for those that idolized her years back, or may still do so. I believe if they can keep her away from chemicals, she could climb out of her low situation but will likely need to accept the public fall and harsh critics (and changes in her income/balance sheet). You'd think the opportunity of motherhood would have been adequate motivation for her, with many things coming easy for her and caring for her children with the massive cash-flows she has, but it is another story of selfish actions/behavior and chemical addiction, that has harmed far too many individuals and families. And that seems to go back to the Psychological and Spiritual 'P' + 'S' in the BPSSF equation or acronym above, although if she was/is eating drugs like candy, she is damaging her biological state most seriously too.”
. . . my reply to round two:
I suspect Britney never had an opportunity to mature, and it sounds like she had complacent and/or dysfunctional parents. Motherhood probably pushed her over the edge. Whatever is going on, she's a troubled young woman who needs one hellava lot of professional help, or she will continue in the death spiral she's in.
. . . round three:
“I agree on Britney. I also think she had come from a dysfunctional family, which is too common these days. Hopefully she will get the help and come through, but maybe not, and the poor kids will suffer, although they deserve functional parents, and maybe adoption is better in this case. One would have thought when the courts gave Britney opportunity to be a mom and keep custody, she would have met their standards, but she did everything to defy them (and thus her own kids). It is character/behavior that seems far too common with the younger generation, most sadly. Thus why she should not be the beacon or idol that young girls take their cues from?
“What I also meant to say in my dissertation[above], is I believe our most basic yet most high calling (purpose) in our lives is to be of service to others, our community, our Earth and universe. Even the guy that has to empty trash at the park is of service to all of us, and someone is there to do the many various jobs that keep the gears oiled and moving.”
. . . my reply to round three:
As I have written many times, I truly believe many of our societal problems are a direct product of poor to injurious parenting. I would add to your high calling . . . service to our children. Parenthood is a long-duration sacrifice for the good of our children. Once we have children, we no longer enjoy the freedom we once knew or might wish for, and we have an obligation to provide for, instruct, and most importantly love our children. I do not know the Spears family, but the public evidence strongly suggests Britney did not have the best of parents and certainly does not possess the life skills to handle the fame and fortunate she acquired. The train wreck she is today formed in her infancy; her parents failed her. Remedy will take considerable work and willingness on her part to correct, and help her becoming a productive member of society.
. . . and this rather lengthy but relevant and important follow-up:
“We live in a strange and surreal world in many ways. In some respects, the children coming out of the poor areas in our world, may have more love and attention, and thus grow up more emotionally balanced, than too often we have in more "advanced" countries like our own.
“The great and too quickly late management author and professor Peter Drucker, who passed away a few years ago at a young 96 years old, once said something in one of his books I read, about being an observer of everything/everyone in life, was the best way to truly learn. I think that was in the book ADVENTURES OF A BYSTANDER. I have tried to observe some things with the parent-child interactions, models, behaviors, and one thing I see that some parents make a big mistake doing is trying to be popular with their children. I also think it is because of their own lacking self-esteem, they try to win their own child's approval, when nothing could be further from proper nurturing. The tough-love stuff might be much better, like you suggest about "instructing" our children yet "loving them."
“As I have always thought about proper management and leadership actions, you cannot develop people and organizations by trying to be popular, it will never work, and it does not work with parenting. Kids are even better than subordinates at detecting any possible small gap between the walk and talk. servant leadership models could even be applied to parenting, serving your children with unconditional love and instruction, yet having sensible rules, boundaries and consequences for breaches of those instruction-sets taught by parent.
“The broken family syndrome is causing terrible things to children and grown adults. Fathers that are MIA not because of war, but because of lack of responsibility/accountability. Mothers that don't want the children but keep having them because it increases their monthly benefit check.
“I recall someone telling me a story about a mom and dad that were always busy putting time with their kids in a calendar, and racing from soccer game to school, to shopping center, timing dinners and juggling the household like a business enterprise. One day the car broke down and the dad forgot the cell phone. The mom and dad had to sit for an hour with their children waiting for a tow. The kids told the parents later that was the best time they ever had, they all talked in one car, were not racing to get somewhere, no cell phones, no dropping one kid off to go hitch another. Maybe people are trying to keep too busy, and they just need to go back to the old fashion ways of the Cleavers...maybe a nightly dinner at the table.
“I also believe teenagers are being time-warped ahead too fast, with all the exposure to adult shows, sex, violence, angry music, and all that. What happened to being able to be 5, 10, 12, 15, 17, 19? Why are so many 13 year olds acting as if they are an adult? And also too many kids are not being taught that one must have discipline, and sacrifice things today for better things in the future. Teens do not need credit cards to get anything they want, without parental controls. My first two cars in life, I had to work for, and they were not easy to get or luxury cars, they were transportation, and if I wanted something better, I had to work for it, earn it, then buy it. There was no easy money.
“In reading the wires this weekend, I cannot help from occasionally clicking on the constant Britney updates although I realize it is not a news event in importance, but yet many are captivated by the almost Shakespearean play of a falling star. She is now in on the mental hold well to exceed 72 hours. Her estate is being placed into a temporary conservatorship. I believe her dad will get some control. I don't know if he should or should not. Hopefully the access potential to her money by other family, is not going to cause dirty traps, tricks and tactics by any/all involved. I think her recovery besides severe avoidance of any chemical agents including alcohol for her, needs to include heavy counseling and privacy which means she must stay out of the spotlight and not want the stage that she is use to. She needs to be given some hope that she can regain custody of her children and win their love and desire to be with her, as much as she desires to be a good parent without being selfish, meeting many of the those principles you outlined below.
“While I do not want Britney to get taken in by any cult-like churches or religions, I have seen many people in the past who were in the wilderness, find wholeness or something much better than the dark hell Ms. Spears is now in, by embracing something bigger, a calling, maybe it could be worship, study, being humbled even more than I bet she now is, and then putting much of her problems in God's hands or for those that don't accept that, a higher intelligence and loving creator we don't really understand, yet sense an awesome beauty, order and future from.
“And if that all does not work for her, maybe they need to send her down to the Marines boot camp, let her go through that and take an Iraqi tour. Or, send her to Tijuana or Calcutta for 3 months to see how good she really had it in the material and monetary realms, but was so mixed up psychologically and spiritually, thus doing self-destruction physically, that she will no longer take that for granted when she sees 60 year old men, with no health insurance, no retirement, begging to shine someone's shoes for $2 so at the end of their day they can go home with some food to feed their family.”
. . . and I could not pass adding another few observations:
Very good points, parenthood is not a popularity contest, but rather teaching and sacrificing for the benefit of our progeny.
As with leadership and management, parenthood can and should be firm and disciplined, but where some go awry comes with not treating children with respect. They are not minions, slaves, or some other form of untermenschen. Children are young, impressionable, absorbent and quite sensitive. They need oooodles of love, affection, attention and interaction.
Many of us were taught: “Judge not, lest ye be judged,” and “Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone.” We do not confront dysfunctional, complacent or abusive parents, because of those precepts. And yet, when we withhold our confrontation, society fails those children, and then we have school yard bullies, petty criminals, and those who seek the numbing intoxication of substance abuse. From there, we gain capital criminals, traitors, and those who perpetuate the cycle into the next generation. Society must hold parents accountable . . . more as an example, since so much of a child’s character is formed in infancy and firmed by age 5.
For the great majority of parents out there, thank you very much. One day, we shall see all society’s children as vital to our stability and future, and hold those parents accountable, who wreak such havoc upon our societal well-being.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
Another one bites the dust . . . hey, hey . . . This time, the Allies eliminated Abu Laith al-Libi, a top al-Qaeda commander, a Libyan, and presumably no relation to Abu Farraj al-Libbi [178] (captured and hopefully still incarcerated). The Press has speculated that a CIA Predator UAV might be responsible for the strike, in North Waziristan, Pakistan, but to my knowledge, no one has claimed responsibility. Silent death is fine by me; the more we kill, the sooner we can return to peace.
We do not find an abundance of praise from the uber-Left regarding war successes like the al-Libi strike. I suppose they are quite content enjoying the freedoms our military, intelligence and security forces provide while they remain sanctimonious, aloof and contemptible of all things violent. I have always wondered how one rationalizes reaping the benefits while condemning the process by which the benefits are protected.
The President gave a respectable State of the Union speech Monday night. I would give him more credit, except for two critical elements. His use of rather strident words and tone sprinkled throughout the hour long speech do absolutely nothing beyond extending the vast division in contemporary politics – not exactly the form of leadership the Nation so desperately needs. Then, the President finally finds his conscience to demand reductions in congressional earmarks. I am glad the President has taken the position, but 50% reduction is hardly enough. I would prefer zero earmarks – no funding for projects not voted upon by Congress, and thus all Federal spending should be open to public scrutiny. I recognize that the capability for earmarks is necessary, especially for certain quick response actions, but this congressional largess is insanity and directly contributes to corruption, abuse and this damnable, insane spending. The President’s “Johnny come lately” conscience only adds more division. Two other unrelated observations also struck me. What an incredible sight . . . all the uniforms in the gallery. For my generation, in our war, we were ordered to not wear our uniforms inside the Beltway – too inflammatory for the peaceniks. And, I do not recall any military professional other than the Joint Chiefs of Staff being invited to the Joint Session of Congress and the President's State of the Union report. My, how times have changed . . . for the good, in my view. I also listened to the opposition party response – Governor Kathleen Sibelius of Kansas. She started well, but the constant “join us” took the message right back into the mire and muck of divisive, parochial, party politics. When will we ever find a leader to heal the wounds, build the necessary bridges, and work for the general welfare of this Grand Republic instead of these equally damnable political parties? When?
As an unexpected follow-up to last week’s comment on voting selection criterion [320], I read with enthusiasm this week's Leonard Pitts column in the Wichita Eagle. He said it far better than me.
"Even if Obama were Muslim, so what?"
by Leonard Pitts
Wichita Eagle
Monday, 28.January.2008
For those who do not receive the Wichita Eagle, the same column can be found as:
"Obama foes make appeal to ignorance, fear"
by Leonard Pitts Jr.
Miami Herald
Posted: Sunday, January 27, 2008
http://www.miamiherald.com/living/columnists/leonard_pitts/story/393654.html
Jeanne recorded and asked me to watch Monday’s Dr. Phil show about baggy pants and featured these questions: “Do you think baggy pants are fashionable?,” and “Do you think it is OK for the government to ban baggy pants?” By ‘baggy pants,’ they mean the tendency of some young folks to wear loose fitting pants well below the waist with their underwear exposed. We have all seen the fad attire. I think the youthful fashion trend is silly, immature and self-limiting. I do not think saggy pants are fashionable. And, as I think everyone who has read previous editions will recognize, I absolutely do not think the government should be involved in such things. Like profanity in speech or writing, baggy or saggy pants simply demonstrate the immaturity of the individual. In a free society, individuals make choices important to them. Exposed tattoos, exposed body piercings, purple spiked hair, et cetera, may be individual, personal statements, but they are also public limiters. Many employers refuse to hire or employ people who use profanity, are intoxicated at work or in public, dress inappropriately, or otherwise present a poor public image . . . as it should be. Such discrimination is understandable, proper, and presents a societal ostracism, and yet using the law against such individuals violates their freedom of choice. Baggy or saggy pants leave no exposed skin or genitalia; there is no injury. I say, let them dress as they wish and limit their opportunities – their free choice. Just as I would object to a law forcing employers to accept these statements of attire or appearance, I would object to any law imposing our dress standards on individuals. Baggy pants are a parental issue, not a governmental one.
As ruthless as I may seem from time to time, especially in matters of warfighting, defending my home & family, or dealing with certain forms of criminal conduct, I am also quite a contradictory character when it comes to compassion for mankind. Needless to say, my compassion is tempered by an unwillingness to be made fool of or abused by those less scrupulous among us. I do not want any creature, including genus homo sapiens sapiens, to suffer . . . well, I do exclude a narrow class of capital criminals. I do not want any person to be hungry, or uncomfortable, or unhappy. And yet, I am not so naive to think we can, or even have a right or responsibility to, care for all those who may be in extremis. So many questions . . . does a homeless man actually want to work for a living? Does a brood-mare, welfare mother actually want to provide for her family or continue to have the State do it for her? I struggle with the fundamental challenging question of will, or desire, or motive. I learned the hard way, a long time ago, that individuals will change ONLY when they truly, deep in their gut, want to change or seek help; nothing else will alter their chosen path. Too many people are quite content having shelter and sustenance provided for them. The difficulty is finding those who truly want help. As I have written for many years, every individual’s freedom of choice should override all the ‘do-good-er’ motives of the rest of us. Just because a person is homeless does not mean he wants a home. In a similar vein, some indigenous people are quite content to live naked and forage for food. The notion that all humans want to live like us is silly, paternalistic nonsense. Nomadic tribes have survived for millennia with their hereditary skills to blend with nature as it is, not as some of us might wish it to be. This brings me to President Franklin Roosevelt’s Executive Order 7034, creating the Works Progress Administration (WPA) in 1935. The program was retrospectively funded by Congress a few months later. I acknowledge that not many things torch off conservative Republicans quicker than Roosevelt’s WPA, but I shall run the gauntlet. In my most humble opinion, the WPA was a necessary product of the time, and rightly ceased to exist in 1943. The WPA was many things, but predominately, it was a government public works employment program. Some lesser and limited version of the WPA might serve to weed out the leeches from the worthy, and allow detractors from society to be ‘collected’ into appropriate facilities for the public good. I have proposed a version of this concept before [128, et al] to insulate productive society from those possessed by a self-destructive penchant associated with substance abuse and other character anomalies. The WPA portion might be an appropriate stairway for those who truly seek improvement and offer public good in the process. The administration of a modern WPA would surely cost less than the degeneration of welfare. Those who choose not to be productive or choose a path of self-destruction should be allow their freedom of choice and the dignity of leaving them to their choice or helping them along the way. We must focus on those who truly seek help from those of us more fortunate, and save our societal remorse for those who find themselves in a spot of bad luck or a rough patch. In a reflective manner, we would find out how important freedom is to each individual. My bottom line . . . let us get the government working on those who do not want to contribute to society and get the government out of tinkering with private lives of the rest of us.
Please indulge me . . . another note from history. While I tempted the wrath of the uber-Right above, we can find a relevant lesson in the history files. Franklin Roosevelt took the oath of office as President on 4.March.1933, with the Nation deeply into the period we call The Great Depression. A mere few months later, on 16.June.1933, President Roosevelt signed into law, the National Industrial Recovery Act, (NIRA) [PL 73-67, HR 5755], that became the skeleton of the New Deal and the economic recovery program. Two years later and in the same month Roosevelt issued Executive Order 7034, the Supreme Court released its ruling in the case of Schechter v. United States [295 U.S. 495 (1935)], striking down the NIRA law. The Court decided that Congress had exceeded its authority under the Constitution when it extended the Commerce Clause into intrastate labor issues. The case sparked additional notoriety when Roosevelt objected to “nine old men” derailing his economic recovery efforts, and subsequently attempted to pack the Court to dilute sitting justices. We can find interesting parallels to the contemporary debate regarding the extension of Executive authority. The Court was correct in Schechter – the Constitution could not be suspended just because the country was hurting. The President’s war powers under the Constitution are substantially greater than his ability to affect intrastate commerce, and yet, the ambiguity of the President’s failure to seek a full declaration of war opens numerous questions of constitutionality similar to Roosevelt’s New Deal. The Court made a clear statement in 1935; it has yet to render a definitive ruling in the current debate. It does not appear President Bush will face his version of Schechter.
Comments and contributions from Update no.320:
“I read that the young suicide bomber was encouraged by his parents ... that is just not right.”
My response:
In the case of children becoming suicide bombers, you’re correct. Ultimately, I believe it is the clerics who have created and enflamed this jihadi environment, and the parents who convince the innocents to seek death. In this particular case, the parents and clergy set him up, i.e., put him into the martyr’s mentality, but this was an al-Qaeda mission. Jihadi suicide bombers are no different from or better than MS-13 drive-by shootings, or the Columbine HS massacre; parents failed their children. The parents got their kids in the frame of mind, but someone else loaded the weapon and pulled the trigger. What rabid ideology convinces children to kill themselves and take other innocent people with them? Radical, fundamentalist Islam lays beneath the surface, and the clergy must be our ultimate target.
. . . with this follow-up:
“I DO agree ... the clergy should be forced to wear a bomb attached to their bodies and place them in the middle of a desert to explode themselves and no one else. Perhaps THAT would stop this nonsense??”
. . . and my response to the follow-up:
A magnificent idea. Only problem is the whiners and hand-wringers would have conniption fits while blathering something about cruel and unusual punishment. If anything, I think your suggested remedy would be too kind for those who so wantonly destroy life. But hey, that’s just me.
This exchange was extracted from a separate threat regarding nuclear warfare and began with this article:
“Nuclear proliferation cannot be controlled now -- Former CIA agent says”
Hamid Mir, from Islamabad
The Daily Star
Published On: 2008-01-30
http://www.thedailystar.net/story.php?nid=21222
The opening comment:
“I think in many ways Einstein, Oppenheimer, Edward Teller, and others, likely regretted the future reach of their progress then. I have always thought it was that work that allowed the [Genie’s] escape from the bottle. Frankly, I am very surprised nukes have not been used since Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the Cold War (thank God it did not), and in the Kashmir theater with Pakistan v. India, or by North Korea against the South. It would not have surprised me if 9/11 would have involved tactical nukes, and since then with our own campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq, I am a bit surprised it has not happened yet somewhere on our globe, by so-called terrorists with potential stealth state actors.”
My response:
There is a reason nuclear weaponry is lumped together with Chemical and Biological warfare. I have a hard time rationalizing B & C, but the N is still viable, and if presented circumstances similar to what we faced with Imperial Japan, I would have no remorse to use all the weapons I have to win. But, hey, that's just me.
. . . with this follow-up:
“I am far from any ‘bleeding heart liberal’ (use to think I was more fiscal-conservative, but lately I think that party got hijacked) but in my conscience, I would have had a very hard time ordering the use of the atomic weapons on Japan, for many reasons. As one who endorses and believes in much of what Christ taught, I have a hard time reconciling that perceived paradigm with using weapons of mass destruction. On a more logical and some would even say humane angle, there are many who provide fairly good evidence that by not having dropped the two atomic bombs, the global injury, death, misery, costs and destruction would have been far exceeded as compared to the losses in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I've also often thought one must be careful (especially organized groups) from creative rationalizations or justifications.
“In a more esoteric moment, I have feared that our own use of the weapons, might have set an almost karmic course where the weapons could be used on America, or at least give some form of justification to a terrorist or state actor for such use, because we had green-lighted the development and only use of them. Then again, in the chaos of the human condition, I suspect had we not, someone else would have.”
. . . with my follow-up response:
There are several points here.
1. The casualty estimates for Operations OLYMPIC and CORONET (the invasion of the Japanese home islands) projected 1 million Allied dead, 5 million wounded, and 2-5 million Japanese dead with 10 million wounded and up to 20 million displaced & homeless. There was no question the majority of the Japanese people would have chosen to die for the Emperor. Whether we like it or not, war is killing and destruction; the sooner the enemy can be convinced to capitulate the better. So, I am with Harry; he did precisely the right thing. He repeated his demands for unconditional surrender. They refused. Harry did what had to be done, and he saved millions of Japanese and Allied lives.
2. The enemy we fight today is not total war, but a broad scale insurgency with the fighters embedded in a generally sympathetic population. Using nuclear weapons would be like using a sawed off shotgun with a single kidnapper among a group of hostages – an inappropriate weapon for the conditions. The same is true for the IRI or even the DPRK; the populace is not engaged.
3. I doubt very much that the IRI would use nuclear weapons even if they had them, because they know what would come their way. But, just as Saddam’s Iraq or the IRI probably would not use such weapons directly, they would get their surrogates to deliver the death they sought, as they have done for decades. Therein lies the dilemma. If we do not stop them before they gain the technology, then we would have no choice but to respond in kind.
4. We face an enemy who has repeatedly demonstrated his ruthlessness and paucity of any semblance of humanity, comparable to Imperial Japan and Hitler’s Schutzstaffeln. There is only one choice – kill them as quickly and efficiently as possible until they decide to stop their indiscriminate terrorism of innocent people.
5. The day we refuse to kill our enemies . . . le commencement de la fin.
“That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”
The following sequence came from yet another separate exchange regarding a commercial pilot’s in-cockpit breakdown (please look beyond the Britney Spears medium) and the continuing issue of parental / societal responsibility:
“The stuff on Britney I find tragic. Not only are her children victims, but to a degree she is. She has demonstrated she cannot manage her life nor the fame (and perhaps abundance of money/material factor). Hopefully she is getting the help she needs. I never considered her an actress or gifted musician per my tastes, but I do know many young people grew up in pivotal and memorable years with Britney their idol, and so I think those young adults now, and some are no doubt affected by watching this stage show play out with Britney, and others in her league.”
My reply:
Yeah, my wife and I talk about Britney every time she comes on the news, and ask ourselves what we would do if she was our daughter. She is a train wreak, self-destructive, and otherwise a very troubled young woman. She needs major treatment, but her money makes everyone reluctant to intervene. I suspect she is not longed for this world.
. . . round two:
“Hopefully Britney will make some kind of surprising comeback, and be a symbol of recovery and hope for those that idolized her years back, or may still do so. I believe if they can keep her away from chemicals, she could climb out of her low situation but will likely need to accept the public fall and harsh critics (and changes in her income/balance sheet). You'd think the opportunity of motherhood would have been adequate motivation for her, with many things coming easy for her and caring for her children with the massive cash-flows she has, but it is another story of selfish actions/behavior and chemical addiction, that has harmed far too many individuals and families. And that seems to go back to the Psychological and Spiritual 'P' + 'S' in the BPSSF equation or acronym above, although if she was/is eating drugs like candy, she is damaging her biological state most seriously too.”
. . . my reply to round two:
I suspect Britney never had an opportunity to mature, and it sounds like she had complacent and/or dysfunctional parents. Motherhood probably pushed her over the edge. Whatever is going on, she's a troubled young woman who needs one hellava lot of professional help, or she will continue in the death spiral she's in.
. . . round three:
“I agree on Britney. I also think she had come from a dysfunctional family, which is too common these days. Hopefully she will get the help and come through, but maybe not, and the poor kids will suffer, although they deserve functional parents, and maybe adoption is better in this case. One would have thought when the courts gave Britney opportunity to be a mom and keep custody, she would have met their standards, but she did everything to defy them (and thus her own kids). It is character/behavior that seems far too common with the younger generation, most sadly. Thus why she should not be the beacon or idol that young girls take their cues from?
“What I also meant to say in my dissertation[above], is I believe our most basic yet most high calling (purpose) in our lives is to be of service to others, our community, our Earth and universe. Even the guy that has to empty trash at the park is of service to all of us, and someone is there to do the many various jobs that keep the gears oiled and moving.”
. . . my reply to round three:
As I have written many times, I truly believe many of our societal problems are a direct product of poor to injurious parenting. I would add to your high calling . . . service to our children. Parenthood is a long-duration sacrifice for the good of our children. Once we have children, we no longer enjoy the freedom we once knew or might wish for, and we have an obligation to provide for, instruct, and most importantly love our children. I do not know the Spears family, but the public evidence strongly suggests Britney did not have the best of parents and certainly does not possess the life skills to handle the fame and fortunate she acquired. The train wreck she is today formed in her infancy; her parents failed her. Remedy will take considerable work and willingness on her part to correct, and help her becoming a productive member of society.
. . . and this rather lengthy but relevant and important follow-up:
“We live in a strange and surreal world in many ways. In some respects, the children coming out of the poor areas in our world, may have more love and attention, and thus grow up more emotionally balanced, than too often we have in more "advanced" countries like our own.
“The great and too quickly late management author and professor Peter Drucker, who passed away a few years ago at a young 96 years old, once said something in one of his books I read, about being an observer of everything/everyone in life, was the best way to truly learn. I think that was in the book ADVENTURES OF A BYSTANDER. I have tried to observe some things with the parent-child interactions, models, behaviors, and one thing I see that some parents make a big mistake doing is trying to be popular with their children. I also think it is because of their own lacking self-esteem, they try to win their own child's approval, when nothing could be further from proper nurturing. The tough-love stuff might be much better, like you suggest about "instructing" our children yet "loving them."
“As I have always thought about proper management and leadership actions, you cannot develop people and organizations by trying to be popular, it will never work, and it does not work with parenting. Kids are even better than subordinates at detecting any possible small gap between the walk and talk. servant leadership models could even be applied to parenting, serving your children with unconditional love and instruction, yet having sensible rules, boundaries and consequences for breaches of those instruction-sets taught by parent.
“The broken family syndrome is causing terrible things to children and grown adults. Fathers that are MIA not because of war, but because of lack of responsibility/accountability. Mothers that don't want the children but keep having them because it increases their monthly benefit check.
“I recall someone telling me a story about a mom and dad that were always busy putting time with their kids in a calendar, and racing from soccer game to school, to shopping center, timing dinners and juggling the household like a business enterprise. One day the car broke down and the dad forgot the cell phone. The mom and dad had to sit for an hour with their children waiting for a tow. The kids told the parents later that was the best time they ever had, they all talked in one car, were not racing to get somewhere, no cell phones, no dropping one kid off to go hitch another. Maybe people are trying to keep too busy, and they just need to go back to the old fashion ways of the Cleavers...maybe a nightly dinner at the table.
“I also believe teenagers are being time-warped ahead too fast, with all the exposure to adult shows, sex, violence, angry music, and all that. What happened to being able to be 5, 10, 12, 15, 17, 19? Why are so many 13 year olds acting as if they are an adult? And also too many kids are not being taught that one must have discipline, and sacrifice things today for better things in the future. Teens do not need credit cards to get anything they want, without parental controls. My first two cars in life, I had to work for, and they were not easy to get or luxury cars, they were transportation, and if I wanted something better, I had to work for it, earn it, then buy it. There was no easy money.
“In reading the wires this weekend, I cannot help from occasionally clicking on the constant Britney updates although I realize it is not a news event in importance, but yet many are captivated by the almost Shakespearean play of a falling star. She is now in on the mental hold well to exceed 72 hours. Her estate is being placed into a temporary conservatorship. I believe her dad will get some control. I don't know if he should or should not. Hopefully the access potential to her money by other family, is not going to cause dirty traps, tricks and tactics by any/all involved. I think her recovery besides severe avoidance of any chemical agents including alcohol for her, needs to include heavy counseling and privacy which means she must stay out of the spotlight and not want the stage that she is use to. She needs to be given some hope that she can regain custody of her children and win their love and desire to be with her, as much as she desires to be a good parent without being selfish, meeting many of the those principles you outlined below.
“While I do not want Britney to get taken in by any cult-like churches or religions, I have seen many people in the past who were in the wilderness, find wholeness or something much better than the dark hell Ms. Spears is now in, by embracing something bigger, a calling, maybe it could be worship, study, being humbled even more than I bet she now is, and then putting much of her problems in God's hands or for those that don't accept that, a higher intelligence and loving creator we don't really understand, yet sense an awesome beauty, order and future from.
“And if that all does not work for her, maybe they need to send her down to the Marines boot camp, let her go through that and take an Iraqi tour. Or, send her to Tijuana or Calcutta for 3 months to see how good she really had it in the material and monetary realms, but was so mixed up psychologically and spiritually, thus doing self-destruction physically, that she will no longer take that for granted when she sees 60 year old men, with no health insurance, no retirement, begging to shine someone's shoes for $2 so at the end of their day they can go home with some food to feed their family.”
. . . and I could not pass adding another few observations:
Very good points, parenthood is not a popularity contest, but rather teaching and sacrificing for the benefit of our progeny.
As with leadership and management, parenthood can and should be firm and disciplined, but where some go awry comes with not treating children with respect. They are not minions, slaves, or some other form of untermenschen. Children are young, impressionable, absorbent and quite sensitive. They need oooodles of love, affection, attention and interaction.
Many of us were taught: “Judge not, lest ye be judged,” and “Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone.” We do not confront dysfunctional, complacent or abusive parents, because of those precepts. And yet, when we withhold our confrontation, society fails those children, and then we have school yard bullies, petty criminals, and those who seek the numbing intoxication of substance abuse. From there, we gain capital criminals, traitors, and those who perpetuate the cycle into the next generation. Society must hold parents accountable . . . more as an example, since so much of a child’s character is formed in infancy and firmed by age 5.
For the great majority of parents out there, thank you very much. One day, we shall see all society’s children as vital to our stability and future, and hold those parents accountable, who wreak such havoc upon our societal well-being.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
No comments:
Post a Comment