“What’s the successful alternative to Definition?” .... Is there any?
Suppose you say.....
A “cleric” describes what a martyr should accept as an outcome reward ....(virgins, olive oil....)
A “martyr” accepts the “outcome” and just wants to know “How to get there?”
Does this attempt to define a difference between the two?
Suppose you want to “define” the difference between a Specialist, a Generalist and an Analyst.....
An “Analyst” can become a “Specialist” if he deals with one subject.
An “Analyst” could also become a “Generalist” if he looks at a variety of subjects.
Does this attempt to define a difference between the three?
Suppose you want to define the differences between an “Immigrant” and a legal “Citizen”.......
An “Immigrant” is a person who resides in country but is not subject to all its laws and regulations.
A legal “Citizen” is a person who may reside in the country but IS subject to all its laws and regulations.
Can an “Immigrant” maintain his traditions, customs, language and heritage while still in this country?
Can a legal “Citizen” do the same?
This can be a problem.
Is the purpose to “absorb”, “to melt”? This can be a problem!...... Is it “defined”?
What is the USA trying to do?.... What is the policy?.... Is it “defined”?....... Is it a “Commitment”?.... Who pays the “price” if the policy fails?
Does this describe “The necessity of “Definition!”
P.S. ..... (Possible answers.....)
“I’m simply not interested!”
“People don’t think about this!”
Saturday, August 23, 2008
Definition - #301 - #26 - Context” versus “Contacts”
Which is more important ....”Context” or “Contacts”?
Without “Context” we have nothing to pass on.
Without “Contacts” we have no one to pass “it” on!
“Context” will always change. People have a habit of making “context” simple and, regrettably, ... “forgettable! The message will be simplified and, in the process, may be changed slightly. It will be forgotten as the newness wears off. As criticism and alternative views appear, the force of any new idea weakens.
Also, as peer review occurs, “the people” will become aware of “other” similar views.
“Peer” review is supposed to be a review by experts “in our world” from people who are supposedly experienced in the research and acknowledged by the elite of the world renowned experts. Who the hell are they? What can you do about that!!
Who is a “peer”? Who is “the people”? Do you have to be concerned about the answer?.....
Only if the views you present are meant to create change, or, if money is involved!
If social or political change is sought, the original “context or view” is terribly important. What can you do?
Now, what about “Contacts”?
“Contacts” are where you get your background information from.
“Contacts” are the people you are able to talk to, to communicate with, and yes, to blog with!
“Contacts” are the people who make it their business to communicate new ideas and new stories to “the people” in general.... the publishing community, the speaking agents, the media representatives, etc.
Do you write a book, do a blog, make a speech.... ?
Without “Contacts”, the right (powerful and successful) people are simply not there! These decisions cannot be made!
Who or what makes a “FACT”?
Does any book, peer, expert, etc. make a “FACT” so?
Who accumulates these so called “FACT”?.... Archivists? Book collectors (libraries)? The internet?
How can a “new idea or story” be permanent? ... Is this necessary? What if it isn’t “permanent”?
So is “Context” or “Content” more important?
Is it possible you have to have “both”? .... at the same time!!
“Not having any views is a sin!”
Without “Context” we have nothing to pass on.
Without “Contacts” we have no one to pass “it” on!
“Context” will always change. People have a habit of making “context” simple and, regrettably, ... “forgettable! The message will be simplified and, in the process, may be changed slightly. It will be forgotten as the newness wears off. As criticism and alternative views appear, the force of any new idea weakens.
Also, as peer review occurs, “the people” will become aware of “other” similar views.
“Peer” review is supposed to be a review by experts “in our world” from people who are supposedly experienced in the research and acknowledged by the elite of the world renowned experts. Who the hell are they? What can you do about that!!
Who is a “peer”? Who is “the people”? Do you have to be concerned about the answer?.....
Only if the views you present are meant to create change, or, if money is involved!
If social or political change is sought, the original “context or view” is terribly important. What can you do?
Now, what about “Contacts”?
“Contacts” are where you get your background information from.
“Contacts” are the people you are able to talk to, to communicate with, and yes, to blog with!
“Contacts” are the people who make it their business to communicate new ideas and new stories to “the people” in general.... the publishing community, the speaking agents, the media representatives, etc.
Do you write a book, do a blog, make a speech.... ?
Without “Contacts”, the right (powerful and successful) people are simply not there! These decisions cannot be made!
Who or what makes a “FACT”?
Does any book, peer, expert, etc. make a “FACT” so?
Who accumulates these so called “FACT”?.... Archivists? Book collectors (libraries)? The internet?
How can a “new idea or story” be permanent? ... Is this necessary? What if it isn’t “permanent”?
So is “Context” or “Content” more important?
Is it possible you have to have “both”? .... at the same time!!
“Not having any views is a sin!”
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Definitons - #301 - #25 – What is a real commitment?
First of all, what might be a definition of a “Commitment”?
Strap on an explosive vest and you have made a “commitment”!
A “commitment” is some action or idea for which you are willing to pay the “ultimate price”!
What does “the ultimate price” mean?.... (After all, you can willingly pursue a course of action without making it a “commitment”! You can quit anytime.)
What makes an “ultimate price”? ....Could it be that you take the “responsibility” for your action or statement? You realize that you could lose something of personal value for this “responsibility”. (Your career, your sense of honesty, your self worth, etc...)
Can you “commit” to something of lesser value? Of course...(diet, savings, job security....)! The greater the value of the “commitment” the greater the personal “price”!
You can change your commitment! You can accept challenges to your commitment. If you change your commitment it doesn’t change “the act of commitment” nor the “price” you accept!
“Advice” should be a “commitment”!
“Analysis” or “Policy” should be a “commitment”!... (It can or need not be a “commitment. It would be nice to know at the time it’s given!
Writing down helps create a “commitment”. (It makes the “commitment” more real, less open to interpretation.)
A person must check as to whether they are issuing a statement or are willing to make a real commitment.
People are looking for real “commitments” rather than political or policy statements.
Are you willing to pay “the ultimate price” for your statements?
Suppose you are wrong? .... Without the assurance of “ultimate payment”, people do not want to hear anything!!
Strap on an explosive vest and you have made a “commitment”!
A “commitment” is some action or idea for which you are willing to pay the “ultimate price”!
What does “the ultimate price” mean?.... (After all, you can willingly pursue a course of action without making it a “commitment”! You can quit anytime.)
What makes an “ultimate price”? ....Could it be that you take the “responsibility” for your action or statement? You realize that you could lose something of personal value for this “responsibility”. (Your career, your sense of honesty, your self worth, etc...)
Can you “commit” to something of lesser value? Of course...(diet, savings, job security....)! The greater the value of the “commitment” the greater the personal “price”!
You can change your commitment! You can accept challenges to your commitment. If you change your commitment it doesn’t change “the act of commitment” nor the “price” you accept!
“Advice” should be a “commitment”!
“Analysis” or “Policy” should be a “commitment”!... (It can or need not be a “commitment. It would be nice to know at the time it’s given!
Writing down helps create a “commitment”. (It makes the “commitment” more real, less open to interpretation.)
A person must check as to whether they are issuing a statement or are willing to make a real commitment.
People are looking for real “commitments” rather than political or policy statements.
Are you willing to pay “the ultimate price” for your statements?
Suppose you are wrong? .... Without the assurance of “ultimate payment”, people do not want to hear anything!!
Friday, August 15, 2008
Definition - #301 - #24 – What is really “possible”?
It all depends on what your definition of what “possible” is!!!
Let me try to explain......
If “possible” means that you can overcome a situation no matter what the cost or effort; that means something quite different than overcoming the same situation without decreasing your own present treasure or taxing your own present efforts.
If “possible” means without “cost” a lot of things become “possible”!
So then there is the matter of “cost” again, this depends on your definition of “cost”.
Again, let me try to explain.......
There are all measures of “cost”. Some “costs” are measured in treasure, again that means something different than the “costs” related to effort”.... (hours of physical labor, or the management and hours of effort required to solve anything).
If “costs”, including the amount of treasure and the amount of effort is not a factor; “costs” means nothing.
Who says “It costs too much!”? What are they measuring “too much!” against? What is the measure of “costs”?.......
So, “What is really possible?”.........
The world has plenty of horrendous issues. There’s no need to recount them. They are labeled “horrendous” by different social views. Not all issues are “horrendous” to the same degree. It, again, depends on the labeler!
So, “What are we going to do?”.......
Have I presented so many different options that we become “paralyzed”, unable to act? .......
Is it still possible to simply state what we believe is “horrendous”, and what we believe we are willing to pay in “costs” and effort ..... “What is really possible for us?”
It requires a clear, unequivocal statement from someone we are willing to follow. If we are arguing, debating, and unable to come to a consensus; we must assume that it is not “possible”. Those willing to spend the time and effort to pursue a “possible” outcome can continue to try. Those who wish to turn their heads in another direction, simply turn their heads.
An accurate analysis is not enough!!! ...... We must also be able to “follow” a spokesman into action!.....
Regardless of the obvious dangers involved by not doing something, if we don’t accept and follow to action, the dangers will certainly appear! (paralysis by analysis)
Can we all agree on these conclusions?
Is what we’re really talking about, the difference between “possible” and “practical”?
Is “possible” without sacrifice? And, is “practical” with some acceptable burden?
Do we have anything unless we try to exchange ideas on these differences?
Will we be so adamant in our discussions that we throw ourselves into paralysis?
Should we start to spend more of our time on trying to find a definition most of us agree on?
Should we start to spend more of our time on trying to find agreement in our choice of leadership?
Should we turn more against constant disagreement? (with no “Successful Alternatives”)?
Is meaningless, constant repetition of disagreement, constant repetition of criticism an actual “harm” to us? ......
Again.....
Is what we’re really talking about, the difference between “possible” and “practical”?
Let me try to explain......
If “possible” means that you can overcome a situation no matter what the cost or effort; that means something quite different than overcoming the same situation without decreasing your own present treasure or taxing your own present efforts.
If “possible” means without “cost” a lot of things become “possible”!
So then there is the matter of “cost” again, this depends on your definition of “cost”.
Again, let me try to explain.......
There are all measures of “cost”. Some “costs” are measured in treasure, again that means something different than the “costs” related to effort”.... (hours of physical labor, or the management and hours of effort required to solve anything).
If “costs”, including the amount of treasure and the amount of effort is not a factor; “costs” means nothing.
Who says “It costs too much!”? What are they measuring “too much!” against? What is the measure of “costs”?.......
So, “What is really possible?”.........
The world has plenty of horrendous issues. There’s no need to recount them. They are labeled “horrendous” by different social views. Not all issues are “horrendous” to the same degree. It, again, depends on the labeler!
So, “What are we going to do?”.......
Have I presented so many different options that we become “paralyzed”, unable to act? .......
Is it still possible to simply state what we believe is “horrendous”, and what we believe we are willing to pay in “costs” and effort ..... “What is really possible for us?”
It requires a clear, unequivocal statement from someone we are willing to follow. If we are arguing, debating, and unable to come to a consensus; we must assume that it is not “possible”. Those willing to spend the time and effort to pursue a “possible” outcome can continue to try. Those who wish to turn their heads in another direction, simply turn their heads.
An accurate analysis is not enough!!! ...... We must also be able to “follow” a spokesman into action!.....
Regardless of the obvious dangers involved by not doing something, if we don’t accept and follow to action, the dangers will certainly appear! (paralysis by analysis)
Can we all agree on these conclusions?
Is what we’re really talking about, the difference between “possible” and “practical”?
Is “possible” without sacrifice? And, is “practical” with some acceptable burden?
Do we have anything unless we try to exchange ideas on these differences?
Will we be so adamant in our discussions that we throw ourselves into paralysis?
Should we start to spend more of our time on trying to find a definition most of us agree on?
Should we start to spend more of our time on trying to find agreement in our choice of leadership?
Should we turn more against constant disagreement? (with no “Successful Alternatives”)?
Is meaningless, constant repetition of disagreement, constant repetition of criticism an actual “harm” to us? ......
Again.....
Is what we’re really talking about, the difference between “possible” and “practical”?
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Definition - #301 - #23 - New Leadership? Yeah!! But “who” are we going to “lead”?
What’s “leadership” anyway?
If you have no one to “lead”; what’s “leadership”/
So “who” are you going to “lead”?
Is there only one group or are there many?
If there are many groups, which group are you going to “lead”?
Do you expect to “lead” many at one time?
What can you say to “many”?
If you want to address one group at a time, what do you want to say to that group that’s different than what you are going to say to another group? How many “sayings” do you have?
Do you really understand what it takes to be a “leader”?
Perhaps a definition of a real “leader” should be........
A “leader” is a voice or image that most people seem to “understand” and want to emulate... to follow! The content of this communication should be understood and appeal to most people. It should be something they all seem to want. The content is a “policy”; not a specific “how to”. (Most people would have their own way to achieve this “policy” anyhow.)
If the policy is too general or too vague, either most people won’t understand or won’t be interested.
The “content” is what makes a leader!
What general things do I want to achieve?
What “general way” do I propose to achieve these things?
It is the success in presenting this “content” that will make a “leader”!
If you are too vague (We’ll do more!.... We’ll do better!... You’ll have two chickens in every pot! ...etc.) or are too complicated; you will lose your audience!
You will not become a leader!
It is the “mystique of relevance” that makes a leader. It is the way he proposes to present his content.
If it changes group to group; most people will be able to track this. If he offers different things to different groups; most people will be able to track this.
It is in the “message” that one becomes a leader!
So!..... Who are “you” speaking to?
Who do “you” want to lead?
Does the government really create jobs? .... How?
Can we really have a specific, detailed conclusion in Iraq? ..... Is it possible? .... How?
What does the general “leadership” in Washington now think about jobs, the economy, war and peace, terrorist threats worldwide, the real threat to the American way.....
What will a “change” be? What changes in positions are being proposed? What “should” the new Washington positions be?
This is the rhetoric, this is the “content” the people should be hearing.
This should be the basis for a “leadership” decision!
If you have no one to “lead”; what’s “leadership”/
So “who” are you going to “lead”?
Is there only one group or are there many?
If there are many groups, which group are you going to “lead”?
Do you expect to “lead” many at one time?
What can you say to “many”?
If you want to address one group at a time, what do you want to say to that group that’s different than what you are going to say to another group? How many “sayings” do you have?
Do you really understand what it takes to be a “leader”?
Perhaps a definition of a real “leader” should be........
A “leader” is a voice or image that most people seem to “understand” and want to emulate... to follow! The content of this communication should be understood and appeal to most people. It should be something they all seem to want. The content is a “policy”; not a specific “how to”. (Most people would have their own way to achieve this “policy” anyhow.)
If the policy is too general or too vague, either most people won’t understand or won’t be interested.
The “content” is what makes a leader!
What general things do I want to achieve?
What “general way” do I propose to achieve these things?
It is the success in presenting this “content” that will make a “leader”!
If you are too vague (We’ll do more!.... We’ll do better!... You’ll have two chickens in every pot! ...etc.) or are too complicated; you will lose your audience!
You will not become a leader!
It is the “mystique of relevance” that makes a leader. It is the way he proposes to present his content.
If it changes group to group; most people will be able to track this. If he offers different things to different groups; most people will be able to track this.
It is in the “message” that one becomes a leader!
So!..... Who are “you” speaking to?
Who do “you” want to lead?
Does the government really create jobs? .... How?
Can we really have a specific, detailed conclusion in Iraq? ..... Is it possible? .... How?
What does the general “leadership” in Washington now think about jobs, the economy, war and peace, terrorist threats worldwide, the real threat to the American way.....
What will a “change” be? What changes in positions are being proposed? What “should” the new Washington positions be?
This is the rhetoric, this is the “content” the people should be hearing.
This should be the basis for a “leadership” decision!
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Definitions - #301 - #22 - What does it mean to be a “good corporate citizen”?
Can free enterprise survive?
First let’s take a typical “start-up” corporation. The “risk taker” has an idea for a product. He is willing to risk most of what he’s got, say $5000, and he borrows from parents and friends another $10,000. He and an unpaid friend begin to make this product and sell it in the open marketplace.
The difference in his actual costs and what he receives from the sales is a so-called “profit”.
His actual costs must include at least, say 5% interest, on the $10,000 he borrowed from his parents and friends plus a minimum amount so he and his friend can live and eat.
Now let’s say he gets a new order at his selling price for $100,000. Wow! He needs to hire some extra production and shipping help so he goes to the bank and on the basis of his order and his character the bank loans him an additional $50,000 for four years. His costs have now gone up to include his new production help, and an interest payment of 5% on his original of $10,000, and his new loan which carries and interest on the unpaid balance of 7% and a payment of one fourth the total borrowed amount (or $25,000) to the bank as well as his and his friend’s living costs.
Along comes the government and says he now has to pay an income tax.
Along comes the unions and he has to meet certain wage, hour, pension and health costs.
Along comes the application of certain worker’s benefits including Workman’s Compensation Insurance, disability laws and labor regulations, also included is a mandatory owner’s contribution to Social Security benefits. The costs have gone higher but his sales price stayed the same. He must raise his sales price to equal the increases in costs. Can he still maintain his competitive position with his new sale of $100,000?
Suppose he is able to successfully increase his price to cover his increased costs.
Suppose he shortly is able to get an order for $500,000! He goes back to the bank with his new order and the bank loans him an additional $400,000. Same terms as before!
This new risk taker now has to add to his production and shipping labor, he must now have a full time accountant, he must have a budget for legal counsel, he must now have managerial help...... etc. He is in big business!
Soon his original borrowers want to be paid off with interest and a profit for their “risk taking”. His friend wants more than his “living costs”. The bank wants him to go public so he can collaterize his loans with stock. He, the original “risk taker and inventor” wants some kind of increase in his “living costs” and He wants to build a future for his family.
All these considerations must come out of so-called “profits”.
Query........
What % of the “profit” is the original “risk taker and inventor” entitled to?
What % of the “profit” is his friend entitled to?
What % of the “profit” is “being a good corporate citizen” and satisfying union and worker demands .
Can the company still sell its product at the new price which includes all these demands?
Query.....
If, in order to survive in a free, competitive environment, the company must use labor which is at a lower cost (outsourcing) in order to maintain as much of the company as it can; or, should it fold up and close its doors?
If the owner or his staff or labor ask for an unreasonable payment for services and causes this company to raise its prices above the competitive level and thus fail in the marketplace, who should bear the burden? What are the “reasonable” costs of service? Who determines? What is “free enterprise”?
What does it mean to be a “good corporate citizen”? Who determines a “living wage”?
Who determines the “value” of the contributions made? Is there even a question without the original “invention”?
Is “free enterprise” viable?
First let’s take a typical “start-up” corporation. The “risk taker” has an idea for a product. He is willing to risk most of what he’s got, say $5000, and he borrows from parents and friends another $10,000. He and an unpaid friend begin to make this product and sell it in the open marketplace.
The difference in his actual costs and what he receives from the sales is a so-called “profit”.
His actual costs must include at least, say 5% interest, on the $10,000 he borrowed from his parents and friends plus a minimum amount so he and his friend can live and eat.
Now let’s say he gets a new order at his selling price for $100,000. Wow! He needs to hire some extra production and shipping help so he goes to the bank and on the basis of his order and his character the bank loans him an additional $50,000 for four years. His costs have now gone up to include his new production help, and an interest payment of 5% on his original of $10,000, and his new loan which carries and interest on the unpaid balance of 7% and a payment of one fourth the total borrowed amount (or $25,000) to the bank as well as his and his friend’s living costs.
Along comes the government and says he now has to pay an income tax.
Along comes the unions and he has to meet certain wage, hour, pension and health costs.
Along comes the application of certain worker’s benefits including Workman’s Compensation Insurance, disability laws and labor regulations, also included is a mandatory owner’s contribution to Social Security benefits. The costs have gone higher but his sales price stayed the same. He must raise his sales price to equal the increases in costs. Can he still maintain his competitive position with his new sale of $100,000?
Suppose he is able to successfully increase his price to cover his increased costs.
Suppose he shortly is able to get an order for $500,000! He goes back to the bank with his new order and the bank loans him an additional $400,000. Same terms as before!
This new risk taker now has to add to his production and shipping labor, he must now have a full time accountant, he must have a budget for legal counsel, he must now have managerial help...... etc. He is in big business!
Soon his original borrowers want to be paid off with interest and a profit for their “risk taking”. His friend wants more than his “living costs”. The bank wants him to go public so he can collaterize his loans with stock. He, the original “risk taker and inventor” wants some kind of increase in his “living costs” and He wants to build a future for his family.
All these considerations must come out of so-called “profits”.
Query........
What % of the “profit” is the original “risk taker and inventor” entitled to?
What % of the “profit” is his friend entitled to?
What % of the “profit” is “being a good corporate citizen” and satisfying union and worker demands .
Can the company still sell its product at the new price which includes all these demands?
Query.....
If, in order to survive in a free, competitive environment, the company must use labor which is at a lower cost (outsourcing) in order to maintain as much of the company as it can; or, should it fold up and close its doors?
If the owner or his staff or labor ask for an unreasonable payment for services and causes this company to raise its prices above the competitive level and thus fail in the marketplace, who should bear the burden? What are the “reasonable” costs of service? Who determines? What is “free enterprise”?
What does it mean to be a “good corporate citizen”? Who determines a “living wage”?
Who determines the “value” of the contributions made? Is there even a question without the original “invention”?
Is “free enterprise” viable?
Friday, August 8, 2008
Current Events - #201 – #30 - Will changing the political parties change policies?
I don’t think so!
What changes do you think we need?
Has any group said what changes they’re going to make?.... Should we abandon Iraq? What then?
Does the other party have a plan to make the intelligence better? How?
How should we pressure Iran? Exactly how? … What do we leverage with?
Will changing the political parties change policies?
“Let’s reduce the National Debt”!
The existing situation on education (Leave no child behind!) also requires money!
Our current prison system needs to be upgraded. It also requires money.
Our economy is faltering. It requires money, so let’s abandon the tax incentatives and give the money to these causes. But what about the people who say that because of the tax incentatives, we have even more money to spend and the economy is doing better! ….Whose policy should we follow?
Our borders need more protection. This also needs money!
Our soldiers need higher pay and incentatives. This also needs more money!
So, let’s reduce the National Debt!.... But how?.... Since all these complaints (and many more!) require more money, what policy will change all this?
Will merely changing one party for another bring “enlightenment”?
Doesn’t one side or the other have a plan? If so, what are they?
The “thinking people” want to know. The “mob” is not interested or doesn’t care! So what’s the good of an election? What does a “vote” really mean?
Do you really know the person or the parties new plans? ….or do they have any?
This is real serious!
We have in the world people and Nations who do not care about life or death. They do not think about a “No Win War”. They don’t care about the future. As a matter of fact, they really don’t care about their people or the existence of a world. They want to get even!
Will changing the political parties change policies?
What changes do you think we need?
Has any group said what changes they’re going to make?.... Should we abandon Iraq? What then?
Does the other party have a plan to make the intelligence better? How?
How should we pressure Iran? Exactly how? … What do we leverage with?
Will changing the political parties change policies?
“Let’s reduce the National Debt”!
The existing situation on education (Leave no child behind!) also requires money!
Our current prison system needs to be upgraded. It also requires money.
Our economy is faltering. It requires money, so let’s abandon the tax incentatives and give the money to these causes. But what about the people who say that because of the tax incentatives, we have even more money to spend and the economy is doing better! ….Whose policy should we follow?
Our borders need more protection. This also needs money!
Our soldiers need higher pay and incentatives. This also needs more money!
So, let’s reduce the National Debt!.... But how?.... Since all these complaints (and many more!) require more money, what policy will change all this?
Will merely changing one party for another bring “enlightenment”?
Doesn’t one side or the other have a plan? If so, what are they?
The “thinking people” want to know. The “mob” is not interested or doesn’t care! So what’s the good of an election? What does a “vote” really mean?
Do you really know the person or the parties new plans? ….or do they have any?
This is real serious!
We have in the world people and Nations who do not care about life or death. They do not think about a “No Win War”. They don’t care about the future. As a matter of fact, they really don’t care about their people or the existence of a world. They want to get even!
Will changing the political parties change policies?
Thursday, August 7, 2008
Current Events - #201 – #29 – The Welfare State and Katrina
September 5, 2005
Unnatural Disaster: A Hurricane Exposes the Man-Made Disaster of the Welfare State
By Robert Tracinski
It took four long days for state and federal officials to figure out how to deal with the disaster in New Orleans. I can't blame them, because it also took me four long days to figure out what was going on there. The reason is that the events there make no sense if you think that we are confronting a natural disaster.
If this is just a natural disaster, the response for public officials is obvious: you bring in food, water, and doctors; you send transportation to evacuate refugees to temporary shelters; you send engineers to stop the flooding and rebuild the city's infrastructure. For journalists, natural disasters also have a familiar pattern: the heroism of ordinary people pulling together to survive; the hard work and dedication of doctors, nurses, and rescue workers; the steps being taken to clean up and rebuild.
Public officials did not expect that the first thing they would have to do is to send thousands of armed troops in armored vehicle, as if they are suppressing an enemy insurgency. And journalists—myself included—did not expect that the story would not be about rain, wind, and flooding, but about rape, murder, and looting.
But this is not a natural disaster. It is a man-made disaster.
The man-made disaster is not an inadequate or incompetent response by federal relief agencies, and it was not directly caused by Hurricane Katrina. This is where just about every newspaper and television channel has gotten the story wrong.
The man-made disaster we are now witnessing in New Orleans did not happen over four days last week. It happened over the past four decades. Hurricane Katrina merely exposed it to public view.
The man-made disaster is the welfare state.
For the past few days, I have found the news from New Orleans to be confusing. People were not behaving as you would expect them to behave in an emergency—indeed, they were not behaving as they have behaved in other emergencies. That is what has shocked so many people: they have been saying that this is not what we expect from America.
In fact, it is not even what we expect from a Third World country.
When confronted with a disaster, people usually rise to the occasion. They work together to rescue people in danger, and they spontaneously organize to keep order and solve problems. This is especially true in America. We are an enterprising people, used to relying on our own initiative rather than waiting around for the government to take care of us. I have seen this a hundred times, in small examples (a small town whose main traffic light had gone out, causing ordinary citizens to get out of their cars and serve as impromptu traffic cops, directing cars through the intersection) and large ones (the spontaneous response of New Yorkers to September 11).
So what explains the chaos in New Orleans?
To give you an idea of the magnitude of what is going on, here is a description from a Washington Times story:
"Storm victims are raped and beaten; fights erupt with flying fists, knives and guns; fires are breaking out; corpses litter the streets; and police and rescue helicopters are repeatedly fired on.
"The plea from Mayor C. Ray Nagin came even as National Guardsmen poured in to restore order and stop the looting, carjackings and gunfire....
"Last night, Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco said 300 Iraq-hardened Arkansas National Guard members were inside New Orleans with shoot-to-kill orders.
"'These troops are...under my orders to restore order in the streets,' she said. 'They have M-16s, and they are locked and loaded. These troops know how to shoot and kill and they are more than willing to do so if necessary and I expect they will.'"
The reference to Iraq is eerie. The photo that accompanies this article shows a SWAT team with rifles and armored vests riding on an armored vehicle through trash-strewn streets lined by a rabble of squalid, listless people, one of whom appears to be yelling at them. It looks exactly like a scene from Sadr City in Baghdad.
What explains bands of thugs using a natural disaster as an excuse for an orgy of looting, armed robbery, and rape?
What causes unruly mobs to storm the very buses that have arrived to evacuate them, causing the drivers to speed away, frightened for their lives? What causes people to attack the doctors trying to treat patients at the Superdome?
Why are people responding to natural destruction by causing further destruction? Why are they attacking the people who are trying to help them?
My wife, Sherri, figured it out first, and she figured it out on a sense-of-life level. While watching the coverage one night on Fox News Channel, she told me that she was getting a familiar feeling. She studied architecture at the Illinois Institute of Chicago, which is located in the South Side of Chicago just blocks away from the Robert Taylor Homes, one of the largest high-rise public housing projects in America. "The projects," as they were known, were infamous for uncontrollable crime and irremediable squalor. (They have since, mercifully, been demolished.)
What Sherri was getting from last night's television coverage was a whiff of the sense of life of "the projects." Then the "crawl"—the informational phrases flashed at the bottom of the screen on most news channels—gave some vital statistics to confirm this sense: 75% of the residents of New Orleans had already evacuated before the hurricane, and of those who remained, a large number were from the city's public housing projects. Jack Wakeland then told me that early reports from CNN and Fox indicated that the city had no plan for evacuating all of the prisoners in the city's jails—so they just let many of them loose.
[Update: I have been searching for news reports on this last story, but I have not been able to confirm it. Instead, I have found numerous reports about the collapse of the corrupt and incompetent New Orleans Police Department; see here and here.]
There is no doubt a significant overlap between these two populations--that is, a large number of people in the jails used to live in the housing projects, and vice versa.
There were many decent, innocent people trapped in New Orleans when the deluge hit—but they were trapped alongside large numbers of people from two groups: criminals—and wards of the welfare state, people selected, over decades, for their lack of initiative and self-induced helplessness. The welfare wards were a mass of sheep—on whom the incompetent administration of New Orleans unleashed a pack of wolves.
All of this is related, incidentally, to the incompetence of the city government, which failed to plan for a total evacuation of the city, despite the knowledge that this might be necessary. In a city corrupted by the welfare state, the job of city officials is to ensure the flow of handouts to welfare recipients and patronage to political supporters—not to ensure a lawful, orderly evacuation in case of emergency.
No one has really reported this story, as far as I can tell.
In fact, some are already actively distorting it, blaming President Bush, for example, for failing to personally ensure that the Mayor of New Orleans had drafted an adequate evacuation plan.
The worst example is an execrable piece from the Toronto Globe and Mail, by a supercilious Canadian who blames the chaos on American "individualism." But the truth is precisely the opposite: the chaos was caused by a system that was the exact opposite of individualism.
What Hurricane Katrina exposed was the psychological consequences of the welfare state. What we consider "normal" behavior in an emergency is behavior that is normal for people who have values and take the responsibility to pursue and protect them. People with values respond to a disaster by fighting against it and doing whatever it takes to overcome the difficulties they face. They don't sit around and complain that the government hasn't taken care of them. And they don't use the chaos of a disaster as an opportunity to prey on their fellow men.
But what about criminals and welfare parasites? Do they worry about saving their houses and property? They don't, because they don't own anything. Do they worry about what is going to happen to their businesses or how they are going to make a living? They never worried about those things before. Do they worry about crime and looting? But living off of stolen wealth is a way of life for them.
People living in piles of their own trash, while petulantly complaining that other people aren't doing enough to take care of them and then shooting at those who come to rescue them—this is not just a description of the chaos at the Superdome. It is a perfect summary of the 40-year history of the welfare state and its public housing projects.
The welfare state—and the brutish, uncivilized mentality it sustains and encourages—is the man-made disaster that explains the moral ugliness that has swamped New Orleans. And that is the story that no one is reporting.
Part of “Another Comment”
What Hurricane Katrina exposed was the psychological consequences of the welfare state. What we consider "normal" behavior in an emergency is behavior that is normal for people who have values and take the responsibility to pursue and protect them. People with values respond to a disaster by fighting against it and doing whatever it takes to overcome the difficulties they face. They don't sit around and complain that the government hasn't taken care of them. They don't use the chaos of a disaster as an opportunity to prey on their fellow men.
But what about criminals and welfare parasites? Do they worry about saving their houses and property? They don't, because they don't own anything. Do they worry about what is going to happen to their businesses or how they are going to make a living? They never worried about those things before. Do they worry about crime and looting? But living off of stolen wealth is a way of life for them.
The welfare state--and the brutish, uncivilized mentality it sustains and encourages--is the man-made disaster that explains the moral ugliness that has swamped New Orleans. And that is the story that no one is reporting.
Unnatural Disaster: A Hurricane Exposes the Man-Made Disaster of the Welfare State
By Robert Tracinski
It took four long days for state and federal officials to figure out how to deal with the disaster in New Orleans. I can't blame them, because it also took me four long days to figure out what was going on there. The reason is that the events there make no sense if you think that we are confronting a natural disaster.
If this is just a natural disaster, the response for public officials is obvious: you bring in food, water, and doctors; you send transportation to evacuate refugees to temporary shelters; you send engineers to stop the flooding and rebuild the city's infrastructure. For journalists, natural disasters also have a familiar pattern: the heroism of ordinary people pulling together to survive; the hard work and dedication of doctors, nurses, and rescue workers; the steps being taken to clean up and rebuild.
Public officials did not expect that the first thing they would have to do is to send thousands of armed troops in armored vehicle, as if they are suppressing an enemy insurgency. And journalists—myself included—did not expect that the story would not be about rain, wind, and flooding, but about rape, murder, and looting.
But this is not a natural disaster. It is a man-made disaster.
The man-made disaster is not an inadequate or incompetent response by federal relief agencies, and it was not directly caused by Hurricane Katrina. This is where just about every newspaper and television channel has gotten the story wrong.
The man-made disaster we are now witnessing in New Orleans did not happen over four days last week. It happened over the past four decades. Hurricane Katrina merely exposed it to public view.
The man-made disaster is the welfare state.
For the past few days, I have found the news from New Orleans to be confusing. People were not behaving as you would expect them to behave in an emergency—indeed, they were not behaving as they have behaved in other emergencies. That is what has shocked so many people: they have been saying that this is not what we expect from America.
In fact, it is not even what we expect from a Third World country.
When confronted with a disaster, people usually rise to the occasion. They work together to rescue people in danger, and they spontaneously organize to keep order and solve problems. This is especially true in America. We are an enterprising people, used to relying on our own initiative rather than waiting around for the government to take care of us. I have seen this a hundred times, in small examples (a small town whose main traffic light had gone out, causing ordinary citizens to get out of their cars and serve as impromptu traffic cops, directing cars through the intersection) and large ones (the spontaneous response of New Yorkers to September 11).
So what explains the chaos in New Orleans?
To give you an idea of the magnitude of what is going on, here is a description from a Washington Times story:
"Storm victims are raped and beaten; fights erupt with flying fists, knives and guns; fires are breaking out; corpses litter the streets; and police and rescue helicopters are repeatedly fired on.
"The plea from Mayor C. Ray Nagin came even as National Guardsmen poured in to restore order and stop the looting, carjackings and gunfire....
"Last night, Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco said 300 Iraq-hardened Arkansas National Guard members were inside New Orleans with shoot-to-kill orders.
"'These troops are...under my orders to restore order in the streets,' she said. 'They have M-16s, and they are locked and loaded. These troops know how to shoot and kill and they are more than willing to do so if necessary and I expect they will.'"
The reference to Iraq is eerie. The photo that accompanies this article shows a SWAT team with rifles and armored vests riding on an armored vehicle through trash-strewn streets lined by a rabble of squalid, listless people, one of whom appears to be yelling at them. It looks exactly like a scene from Sadr City in Baghdad.
What explains bands of thugs using a natural disaster as an excuse for an orgy of looting, armed robbery, and rape?
What causes unruly mobs to storm the very buses that have arrived to evacuate them, causing the drivers to speed away, frightened for their lives? What causes people to attack the doctors trying to treat patients at the Superdome?
Why are people responding to natural destruction by causing further destruction? Why are they attacking the people who are trying to help them?
My wife, Sherri, figured it out first, and she figured it out on a sense-of-life level. While watching the coverage one night on Fox News Channel, she told me that she was getting a familiar feeling. She studied architecture at the Illinois Institute of Chicago, which is located in the South Side of Chicago just blocks away from the Robert Taylor Homes, one of the largest high-rise public housing projects in America. "The projects," as they were known, were infamous for uncontrollable crime and irremediable squalor. (They have since, mercifully, been demolished.)
What Sherri was getting from last night's television coverage was a whiff of the sense of life of "the projects." Then the "crawl"—the informational phrases flashed at the bottom of the screen on most news channels—gave some vital statistics to confirm this sense: 75% of the residents of New Orleans had already evacuated before the hurricane, and of those who remained, a large number were from the city's public housing projects. Jack Wakeland then told me that early reports from CNN and Fox indicated that the city had no plan for evacuating all of the prisoners in the city's jails—so they just let many of them loose.
[Update: I have been searching for news reports on this last story, but I have not been able to confirm it. Instead, I have found numerous reports about the collapse of the corrupt and incompetent New Orleans Police Department; see here and here.]
There is no doubt a significant overlap between these two populations--that is, a large number of people in the jails used to live in the housing projects, and vice versa.
There were many decent, innocent people trapped in New Orleans when the deluge hit—but they were trapped alongside large numbers of people from two groups: criminals—and wards of the welfare state, people selected, over decades, for their lack of initiative and self-induced helplessness. The welfare wards were a mass of sheep—on whom the incompetent administration of New Orleans unleashed a pack of wolves.
All of this is related, incidentally, to the incompetence of the city government, which failed to plan for a total evacuation of the city, despite the knowledge that this might be necessary. In a city corrupted by the welfare state, the job of city officials is to ensure the flow of handouts to welfare recipients and patronage to political supporters—not to ensure a lawful, orderly evacuation in case of emergency.
No one has really reported this story, as far as I can tell.
In fact, some are already actively distorting it, blaming President Bush, for example, for failing to personally ensure that the Mayor of New Orleans had drafted an adequate evacuation plan.
The worst example is an execrable piece from the Toronto Globe and Mail, by a supercilious Canadian who blames the chaos on American "individualism." But the truth is precisely the opposite: the chaos was caused by a system that was the exact opposite of individualism.
What Hurricane Katrina exposed was the psychological consequences of the welfare state. What we consider "normal" behavior in an emergency is behavior that is normal for people who have values and take the responsibility to pursue and protect them. People with values respond to a disaster by fighting against it and doing whatever it takes to overcome the difficulties they face. They don't sit around and complain that the government hasn't taken care of them. And they don't use the chaos of a disaster as an opportunity to prey on their fellow men.
But what about criminals and welfare parasites? Do they worry about saving their houses and property? They don't, because they don't own anything. Do they worry about what is going to happen to their businesses or how they are going to make a living? They never worried about those things before. Do they worry about crime and looting? But living off of stolen wealth is a way of life for them.
People living in piles of their own trash, while petulantly complaining that other people aren't doing enough to take care of them and then shooting at those who come to rescue them—this is not just a description of the chaos at the Superdome. It is a perfect summary of the 40-year history of the welfare state and its public housing projects.
The welfare state—and the brutish, uncivilized mentality it sustains and encourages—is the man-made disaster that explains the moral ugliness that has swamped New Orleans. And that is the story that no one is reporting.
Part of “Another Comment”
What Hurricane Katrina exposed was the psychological consequences of the welfare state. What we consider "normal" behavior in an emergency is behavior that is normal for people who have values and take the responsibility to pursue and protect them. People with values respond to a disaster by fighting against it and doing whatever it takes to overcome the difficulties they face. They don't sit around and complain that the government hasn't taken care of them. They don't use the chaos of a disaster as an opportunity to prey on their fellow men.
But what about criminals and welfare parasites? Do they worry about saving their houses and property? They don't, because they don't own anything. Do they worry about what is going to happen to their businesses or how they are going to make a living? They never worried about those things before. Do they worry about crime and looting? But living off of stolen wealth is a way of life for them.
The welfare state--and the brutish, uncivilized mentality it sustains and encourages--is the man-made disaster that explains the moral ugliness that has swamped New Orleans. And that is the story that no one is reporting.
Current Events - 201 - #28 - Opening “Katrina’s Box”!!!!
“Katrina’s Box!” has a whole set of issues that need to be thought about!!
1 – If many (20% to 40%) of the citizen’s of New Orleans are on some kind of Government assistance and (it is estimated that....) over 40% of the children live in “poverty”; what kind of program should be constructed that will “take care of” these people. What is “take care of”? .... What is the meaning of “support”?
Are the taxpayers who are not receiving Government assistance supposed to give money to “support” these people for the rest of their lives? What is “support”? To what degree?
Are the taxpayers supposed to provide “good paying” jobs for these people?
Are the taxpayers supposed to provide permanent “good housing” for these people?
How about “others” along the coast and inland that are also “in need”?
2 – In general, this brings up the question of what the US is supposed to do for those that either are poverty stricken, or, who remain unmotivated and are able to exist under their present circumstances. Nations have tried Communism, Socialism and outright Dictatorship to, at least, “control” the less advantaged. (That is, until the “mob” hits the streets!) This issue of what the “standard of living” by the majority will accept to “assist the less advantaged”, and, to what degree it is willing to provide “assistance”, has been an unspoken problem for our society. How much are you willing to reduce your own, personal standard of living to provide for some “others”?
3 – Will the US, as it stands now, have to change? Will the average standard of living have to decrease to take care of these new “refugees”? (Forget the illegal alien situation....that’s another burden!) This is the unspoken, third rail political situation. Think of the problem the US has in covering its own Social Security problem!..... It’s all a “money” situation. The nation does NOT have an unlimited budget!!!
4 – And what about the “war” situation? How much can our budget bare?
5 – Will the heart of our government speak about these issues?
Will the politicians speak?
Will any one risk the votes that may come from these issues?
Is this still a battle between the “haves” and “have nots”?
Can we afford now to “mumble “ this to death?
6- Do we have the time to think about the environment, gasoline prices, outsourcing, etc, if we have a true limitation to our resources? ...... Maybe we have “unlimited resources”? .... It sure would be nice to know! Should we “all” (including the media and the talking heads) be more concerned about the “Katrina’s Box” situation? ..... Isn’t money still the real issue?
BUT!!!
There is a “flip” side!!!
There are approximately 1,500,000 citizens involved in the Katrina catastrophe. But there are approximately 250,000,000 citizens in the US today. That’s less than 1% for the Katrina total!!!
Only approximately 40% of the so-called “victims” were already on Government aid programs. This was in the US budget, already. The only basically new thing is the government has to build new housing for the 40%. No new “except this “re-building” financial support has to be incurred.
What about jobs for the other 1,000,000 citizens? What about government aid for the 1,000,000 people who lost everything? If you give $10,000 to each one of them it will amount to $10 billion dollars! If you give $100,000 to each of the remaining 1,000,000 that amounts to $100 billion! But the present debt is over $7 trillion. That is 700 times the National debt we owe now! The yearly National debt is already about $400 Billion per year. What’s a $100 billion in 5 or 10 years!!
The politicians, who need the votes, and the media, that needs public opinion, are only concerned with what “looks good”! ..... Financially, all is possible! ..... That’s the “BUT” in all this. ......That’s the “flip side”!
So what’s it gonna’ be??
P.S........
Does the “War on Poverty” strike a bell?
The cry of “Eliminate poverty”!!
The cry that “The “poor” always suffer the most”!!
What’s possible in a Nation that is trying to keep its “standard of living” above the “poverty or third world” level? Can we compete and still “eliminate” poverty? Are these just slogans?
Do you really expect answers.... from anyone?
Just think about it!!
NO, not to find an answer! ... but just find a personal way to live with it.
PS II.......
Just in case you haven’t heard......
Louisiana had a Government approved plan to evacuate New Orleans. This included the 100 plus school buses that are still in the waterlogged parking lot. Their excuse is they could not get drivers for these buses!!
How much did the state of Louisiana get from the Federal government for these “evacuations”? Where did the money go? Why didn’t the Mayor of New Orleans do something BEFORE Katrina hit? He had at least two days....
1 – If many (20% to 40%) of the citizen’s of New Orleans are on some kind of Government assistance and (it is estimated that....) over 40% of the children live in “poverty”; what kind of program should be constructed that will “take care of” these people. What is “take care of”? .... What is the meaning of “support”?
Are the taxpayers who are not receiving Government assistance supposed to give money to “support” these people for the rest of their lives? What is “support”? To what degree?
Are the taxpayers supposed to provide “good paying” jobs for these people?
Are the taxpayers supposed to provide permanent “good housing” for these people?
How about “others” along the coast and inland that are also “in need”?
2 – In general, this brings up the question of what the US is supposed to do for those that either are poverty stricken, or, who remain unmotivated and are able to exist under their present circumstances. Nations have tried Communism, Socialism and outright Dictatorship to, at least, “control” the less advantaged. (That is, until the “mob” hits the streets!) This issue of what the “standard of living” by the majority will accept to “assist the less advantaged”, and, to what degree it is willing to provide “assistance”, has been an unspoken problem for our society. How much are you willing to reduce your own, personal standard of living to provide for some “others”?
3 – Will the US, as it stands now, have to change? Will the average standard of living have to decrease to take care of these new “refugees”? (Forget the illegal alien situation....that’s another burden!) This is the unspoken, third rail political situation. Think of the problem the US has in covering its own Social Security problem!..... It’s all a “money” situation. The nation does NOT have an unlimited budget!!!
4 – And what about the “war” situation? How much can our budget bare?
5 – Will the heart of our government speak about these issues?
Will the politicians speak?
Will any one risk the votes that may come from these issues?
Is this still a battle between the “haves” and “have nots”?
Can we afford now to “mumble “ this to death?
6- Do we have the time to think about the environment, gasoline prices, outsourcing, etc, if we have a true limitation to our resources? ...... Maybe we have “unlimited resources”? .... It sure would be nice to know! Should we “all” (including the media and the talking heads) be more concerned about the “Katrina’s Box” situation? ..... Isn’t money still the real issue?
BUT!!!
There is a “flip” side!!!
There are approximately 1,500,000 citizens involved in the Katrina catastrophe. But there are approximately 250,000,000 citizens in the US today. That’s less than 1% for the Katrina total!!!
Only approximately 40% of the so-called “victims” were already on Government aid programs. This was in the US budget, already. The only basically new thing is the government has to build new housing for the 40%. No new “except this “re-building” financial support has to be incurred.
What about jobs for the other 1,000,000 citizens? What about government aid for the 1,000,000 people who lost everything? If you give $10,000 to each one of them it will amount to $10 billion dollars! If you give $100,000 to each of the remaining 1,000,000 that amounts to $100 billion! But the present debt is over $7 trillion. That is 700 times the National debt we owe now! The yearly National debt is already about $400 Billion per year. What’s a $100 billion in 5 or 10 years!!
The politicians, who need the votes, and the media, that needs public opinion, are only concerned with what “looks good”! ..... Financially, all is possible! ..... That’s the “BUT” in all this. ......That’s the “flip side”!
So what’s it gonna’ be??
P.S........
Does the “War on Poverty” strike a bell?
The cry of “Eliminate poverty”!!
The cry that “The “poor” always suffer the most”!!
What’s possible in a Nation that is trying to keep its “standard of living” above the “poverty or third world” level? Can we compete and still “eliminate” poverty? Are these just slogans?
Do you really expect answers.... from anyone?
Just think about it!!
NO, not to find an answer! ... but just find a personal way to live with it.
PS II.......
Just in case you haven’t heard......
Louisiana had a Government approved plan to evacuate New Orleans. This included the 100 plus school buses that are still in the waterlogged parking lot. Their excuse is they could not get drivers for these buses!!
How much did the state of Louisiana get from the Federal government for these “evacuations”? Where did the money go? Why didn’t the Mayor of New Orleans do something BEFORE Katrina hit? He had at least two days....
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Current Events - #201 - #27 - What happened to the “wise men”?
Raw intellect and information are NOT enough!
What happened to “informed debate”?
No, not political speeches! Not “analyst’s” reports! Not more “opinions” or commentators’s reflections!
We want more “facts” that are suitable for public discourse (nothing to hurt our “real national security”)!
If an individual can run a company, become a “professional” doctor, lawyer or professor, if he can read or reason; he is becoming less enchanted with the “drivel” he is able to receive. He is becoming more “dropped out”, more “disconnected”, every day. He is giving up the hope that the Constitution and the Legal system can be influenced by his vote or his concern. He is, by this National deficiency, becoming more introverted, more for himself, more “selfish”!
The so-called “intellects” are unknowingly becoming LESS influential, less relevant! The so-called “ordinary citizens” are changing the attitudes, their hopes for the future. Yes.... we are loosing the future!
The so-called “power structure”, the so-called “informed” are losing their audience!
A person (or couple, of course...) that can work, raise a family, prepare for a future must be able to “THINK”!
What we hear from the media is a constant refrain of opinion, some informed, some with “unfounded resources”. The “internet” has become an unfathomable source of invective, distortions and truths. These are all placed in a cauldron of “misunderstanding” and “confusion”! Which or Who do you believe?
We are all looking for guidance! What we are receiving is such a mixture of communication that we are confused. We “drop out”.
We are looking for “Leadership”! People who have the good of the people in mind. We don’t need more
”information” .... we need some people to translate what we are already receiving.... some one(s) we can trust!
There are already too many challenges to the meaning of law and order, too many challenges to the meaning of the Constitution. The basics of the definition of Education, of Standard of Living, of the American way....all need translation by someone(s) we trust!!!!!
The people of America are dividing.... dividing in their interest of their allegiance and support of the American way of life. They are confused by the mass of un-translated communications. We need a “translator” we can trust!
Mere policy, mere unfounded information, mere opinion are things we DON”T need! We don’t need to have someone tell us how to live, what to buy, what to think! Give us a TRANSLATER we can trust so we can make up our own minds. (By the way, we also understand you can’t commit murder or run through a red light!) We realize that Democracy has some restrictions in order to survive!)
What we CAN do is to be a good “translator”, NOT a gossip, NOT just a repeater of misinformation. Individually we must try to reason what are “facts”, what is a reasoned position. We must listen to other opinions and policies and, at least, learn what the “opposition’s point of view is. We must learn to better “communicate”, to define, to honestly debate NOT just argue.
Can you be of HELP?
What happened to “informed debate”?
What happened to “informed debate”?
No, not political speeches! Not “analyst’s” reports! Not more “opinions” or commentators’s reflections!
We want more “facts” that are suitable for public discourse (nothing to hurt our “real national security”)!
If an individual can run a company, become a “professional” doctor, lawyer or professor, if he can read or reason; he is becoming less enchanted with the “drivel” he is able to receive. He is becoming more “dropped out”, more “disconnected”, every day. He is giving up the hope that the Constitution and the Legal system can be influenced by his vote or his concern. He is, by this National deficiency, becoming more introverted, more for himself, more “selfish”!
The so-called “intellects” are unknowingly becoming LESS influential, less relevant! The so-called “ordinary citizens” are changing the attitudes, their hopes for the future. Yes.... we are loosing the future!
The so-called “power structure”, the so-called “informed” are losing their audience!
A person (or couple, of course...) that can work, raise a family, prepare for a future must be able to “THINK”!
What we hear from the media is a constant refrain of opinion, some informed, some with “unfounded resources”. The “internet” has become an unfathomable source of invective, distortions and truths. These are all placed in a cauldron of “misunderstanding” and “confusion”! Which or Who do you believe?
We are all looking for guidance! What we are receiving is such a mixture of communication that we are confused. We “drop out”.
We are looking for “Leadership”! People who have the good of the people in mind. We don’t need more
”information” .... we need some people to translate what we are already receiving.... some one(s) we can trust!
There are already too many challenges to the meaning of law and order, too many challenges to the meaning of the Constitution. The basics of the definition of Education, of Standard of Living, of the American way....all need translation by someone(s) we trust!!!!!
The people of America are dividing.... dividing in their interest of their allegiance and support of the American way of life. They are confused by the mass of un-translated communications. We need a “translator” we can trust!
Mere policy, mere unfounded information, mere opinion are things we DON”T need! We don’t need to have someone tell us how to live, what to buy, what to think! Give us a TRANSLATER we can trust so we can make up our own minds. (By the way, we also understand you can’t commit murder or run through a red light!) We realize that Democracy has some restrictions in order to survive!)
What we CAN do is to be a good “translator”, NOT a gossip, NOT just a repeater of misinformation. Individually we must try to reason what are “facts”, what is a reasoned position. We must listen to other opinions and policies and, at least, learn what the “opposition’s point of view is. We must learn to better “communicate”, to define, to honestly debate NOT just argue.
Can you be of HELP?
What happened to “informed debate”?
Sunday, August 3, 2008
Current Events - #201 - #25 – So, “we” (the white folks) are now in the minority!
So now what?
(Maybe you don’t want to think about this prospect)
At least in California, the Spanish speaking are in the “new majority”. What can the “previous” majority expect?
The new Spanish speaking majority will try is best to gain political power.... nationally and locally.
History shows us that the minority, once it gains power, it will strongly oppress its own base ... the very same minority. (You see it in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Africa, Sudan, etc.) The new leaders will try to gain power over this “new majority” the way they always have.... through secret police, so-called defense forces, and political maneuvering. This “new majority” must be controlled by someone. History shows that the “controlled new majority” is the source of wealth and power for the leaders of this “new majority”. So it has been and always will be!
The USA is unique in that the so-called present leadership of the old majority has been more subdued in its desires for power and money. The laws that govern the USA have, to a large degree, been a model for its growth. The USA is a new and unique civilization.
Not so for this “new majority”. It is steeped in its old culture. In fact, its old culture has been encouraged unfortunately by too many of the “present intelligentsia” in the hope for good in “cultural differences”.
You reap what you sow!!!
What should the New Minority (the present white folks) do?
It should do what has already been done. It will try to hide. It will try to finance all sides of the “new majority”.... its police force, its army and its politicians. It will try to survive!
But what of the older middle class? It will lose its present standard of living and will become some of the oppressed.... a third worlder.
The USA will no longer be the country it once was! It will be different!
How long are we talking about?
Who knows for sure ..... maybe ten or twenty or fifty years! It’s a slow but sure process.
We will “fiddle” while Rome burns!
(I told you, in the beginning, this may not be what you want to hear!)
Of course the “new majority” can change; but will it?......
(Maybe you don’t want to think about this prospect)
At least in California, the Spanish speaking are in the “new majority”. What can the “previous” majority expect?
The new Spanish speaking majority will try is best to gain political power.... nationally and locally.
History shows us that the minority, once it gains power, it will strongly oppress its own base ... the very same minority. (You see it in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Africa, Sudan, etc.) The new leaders will try to gain power over this “new majority” the way they always have.... through secret police, so-called defense forces, and political maneuvering. This “new majority” must be controlled by someone. History shows that the “controlled new majority” is the source of wealth and power for the leaders of this “new majority”. So it has been and always will be!
The USA is unique in that the so-called present leadership of the old majority has been more subdued in its desires for power and money. The laws that govern the USA have, to a large degree, been a model for its growth. The USA is a new and unique civilization.
Not so for this “new majority”. It is steeped in its old culture. In fact, its old culture has been encouraged unfortunately by too many of the “present intelligentsia” in the hope for good in “cultural differences”.
You reap what you sow!!!
What should the New Minority (the present white folks) do?
It should do what has already been done. It will try to hide. It will try to finance all sides of the “new majority”.... its police force, its army and its politicians. It will try to survive!
But what of the older middle class? It will lose its present standard of living and will become some of the oppressed.... a third worlder.
The USA will no longer be the country it once was! It will be different!
How long are we talking about?
Who knows for sure ..... maybe ten or twenty or fifty years! It’s a slow but sure process.
We will “fiddle” while Rome burns!
(I told you, in the beginning, this may not be what you want to hear!)
Of course the “new majority” can change; but will it?......
Current Events - #201 - #26 - Are we “just satisfied” with the “misdirection”?
The media and the TV “bombard” us with “We can do better...!”, “We ought to bring others to help us!”, “We can do more..! etc. But there is never a “How?”. The producers of these shows try to make it controversial, souped up, loud and aggressive. They give us “good looking” spokespeople who can serve up the producer’s wishes, talk loud and fast and will never include a “How?’.
This is indeed a steady “bombardment”. It does not allow a person time to think! Perhaps this is the reason for this mass “misdirection”!
And yes, this is “misdirection”. This is filling the media experience with such noise and change in subject that the listeners do not have a chance to think about the real “important” issues The listeners, however, do not generally feel they lack important information. They feel “informed”. They do not feel motivated to stop and consider what the really important issues are. “Misdirection” is working! Take the people’s mind off the important issues and fill the air with many issues and make them loud enough and fast enough so the people will not think about selecting the most “important”. They all feel “informed”! They do not feel they need any “real” specific answers....... Gay marriage, Wall Mart discrimination suit, Dope addiction, School money, Welfare, Minimum wage, Medicare, Prescription drugs, etc.; and, oh yes, the war in Iraq and the cost of Homeland security.
What’s really important?
What specific solutions are offered?
Is “We must do more!” or “We must do better!” an answer?...... Where are the specifics?
(If you want to just complain, I guess that’s OK, but it doesn’t lead anywhere. It’s just more loud noise!)
Unfortunately an election is coming up. People must decide who they want to run the country. Is this decision based on “real information” or the steady drone of “misdirection”? How, exactly “How” do they want the country to run? Be specific.... Be truly informed as to the “Successful Alternatives”!
To many, the internet “must be true”....... To others the media must be well informed! Hogwash! Even our government has succumbed to lies and interpretations.
Well then, how do we truly become “informed”?
It’s the old “reason and logic” thinking. Question every source but at least be aware of what other sources think, Then, and only then, can you reasonably make up your mind.
Our Nation is in a crisis.
What is really “important”?
Do you have a Nation if Homeland Security is not possible?
No matter what, can anything else survive if the Nation does not?
Yeh! But what about Gay marriage, Welfare, The National debt, etc.?
Does it really matter if the Nation does not survive!!
This is indeed a steady “bombardment”. It does not allow a person time to think! Perhaps this is the reason for this mass “misdirection”!
And yes, this is “misdirection”. This is filling the media experience with such noise and change in subject that the listeners do not have a chance to think about the real “important” issues The listeners, however, do not generally feel they lack important information. They feel “informed”. They do not feel motivated to stop and consider what the really important issues are. “Misdirection” is working! Take the people’s mind off the important issues and fill the air with many issues and make them loud enough and fast enough so the people will not think about selecting the most “important”. They all feel “informed”! They do not feel they need any “real” specific answers....... Gay marriage, Wall Mart discrimination suit, Dope addiction, School money, Welfare, Minimum wage, Medicare, Prescription drugs, etc.; and, oh yes, the war in Iraq and the cost of Homeland security.
What’s really important?
What specific solutions are offered?
Is “We must do more!” or “We must do better!” an answer?...... Where are the specifics?
(If you want to just complain, I guess that’s OK, but it doesn’t lead anywhere. It’s just more loud noise!)
Unfortunately an election is coming up. People must decide who they want to run the country. Is this decision based on “real information” or the steady drone of “misdirection”? How, exactly “How” do they want the country to run? Be specific.... Be truly informed as to the “Successful Alternatives”!
To many, the internet “must be true”....... To others the media must be well informed! Hogwash! Even our government has succumbed to lies and interpretations.
Well then, how do we truly become “informed”?
It’s the old “reason and logic” thinking. Question every source but at least be aware of what other sources think, Then, and only then, can you reasonably make up your mind.
Our Nation is in a crisis.
What is really “important”?
Do you have a Nation if Homeland Security is not possible?
No matter what, can anything else survive if the Nation does not?
Yeh! But what about Gay marriage, Welfare, The National debt, etc.?
Does it really matter if the Nation does not survive!!
Current Events - #201 - #24 -Is it going to be Judeo-Christian ethics, Moslem theocracy, or American Democracy???
It looks like the world will have to decide which one is to survive!
This is a “future” world….fifty years from now!
The birthrate in so-called Europe is so low that there will be less people of younger age in Europe in 20 or 30 years than there will be an the increase in Moslem population throughout the world.
“Europe” will find itself becoming more Moslem. It will probably go to war to protect itself. It won’t be a civil war, it will be another type of conflict. But it will seem a war of “survival”. Survival of a type of “European culture” versus a survival of a so-called “Moslem culture” based on its religion.
Then, of course, “American democracy” and its so-called idea of “culture” will be at war with the surviving cultural battle between “Europe” and the “Moslem” culture or religion.
It looks like “war” is inevitable. As Winston Churchill said “…victory is the only successful result of war!!!”
After all, war is “survival of the fittest” .. the “survival of the strongest”.. the “survival of the most warlike”!
It is great to muse over the “results” of war, but, first and foremost, “victory is the only successful result of war”! Then go ahead and muse on….!!!
Perhaps this subject is giving you a headache!
Perhaps you may not wish to go on? …… Bye now!!! … But for those that wish to think ahead……
Think …Suppose we take a look at what made us think “war was inevitable” in the first place….
1).Birthrate in “so-called Europe” is lowering…. This is a present statistical fact. But why? Is the present generation so “material-survival” conscious that sharing a limited amount of material resource among more people is self defeating? Why is there such a “material” shortage? Could it be that in order to keep “living” easy, the governments have adopted ideas and regulations that encourage less effort and more government subsidy? Therefore, the production of more “material” has become less important than “living the easy life”? To keep the same standards of “living”, less material equals less people to share it with… lower birthrates!
2).If the so-called “standard of material living” is lowered, (i.e. less food, older homes, less maintained roads, schools, less of “material” things….) and there is no negative response, the populace merely acknowledges and will do with less … NO PROBLEM!!! BUT….
If there is an outcry, a discontent, what then? Do we look for someone or something to blame? Do we change our government, our policies, “our living is easy” culture? Do we just declare a war and divert our attentions to “victory is the only successful result in war” and try and figure out what to do “after”? There are choices!
3).Can we look to history for any constructive ideas? Some think America offers nothing to look at. After all, America is new… untested! America has, after all, survived many unique trials and tribulations in its 300 year old history. It’s not 3000 years old but certainly something that has stood a few hundred years has something to look at! America has, after all, achieved at least a “material standard of life” that is being envied by some. America has adopted laws and regulations that has encouraged individual rights and entrepreneurship. It’s not perfect but there is a continuing effort. America may not be everyone’s image of a “good life” (including some Americans themselves) but certainly there is SOMETHING to be studied and considered.
Some think that other cultures have other things to be considered… Religious theocracy, Monarchy, Dictatorship, Anarchy, Tribal rule, etc. All have something to be evaluated! Both good and bad!!! Even if war is not an answer, it will be inevitable unless thinking people once again are a major influence in policy. An intellectual idea is not a replacement for a human being… any human being. Because you possess an idea, a policy, does not necessarily mean that it would work or be successful … “for the greater good”. But war is the result of running out of useful ideas and the ability to communicate them to the majority of the people.
Do we have any real thinkers left?
Are we running out of ideas … ideas for “the greater good” of the people?
Do we have successful communicators?
Is a real “leader” a communicator or a “mighty ruler”? … Is physical force the only answer?
There is nothing in this world we can’t learn something from … good or bad!
Are we learning or don’t we want to be bothered?
Are we leaving the future to “momentum” or are we “thinking”?
“WAR is inevitable if we don’t learn, change and adapt.”
BUT …“Victory is the only successful result in war!”
This is a “future” world….fifty years from now!
The birthrate in so-called Europe is so low that there will be less people of younger age in Europe in 20 or 30 years than there will be an the increase in Moslem population throughout the world.
“Europe” will find itself becoming more Moslem. It will probably go to war to protect itself. It won’t be a civil war, it will be another type of conflict. But it will seem a war of “survival”. Survival of a type of “European culture” versus a survival of a so-called “Moslem culture” based on its religion.
Then, of course, “American democracy” and its so-called idea of “culture” will be at war with the surviving cultural battle between “Europe” and the “Moslem” culture or religion.
It looks like “war” is inevitable. As Winston Churchill said “…victory is the only successful result of war!!!”
After all, war is “survival of the fittest” .. the “survival of the strongest”.. the “survival of the most warlike”!
It is great to muse over the “results” of war, but, first and foremost, “victory is the only successful result of war”! Then go ahead and muse on….!!!
Perhaps this subject is giving you a headache!
Perhaps you may not wish to go on? …… Bye now!!! … But for those that wish to think ahead……
Think …Suppose we take a look at what made us think “war was inevitable” in the first place….
1).Birthrate in “so-called Europe” is lowering…. This is a present statistical fact. But why? Is the present generation so “material-survival” conscious that sharing a limited amount of material resource among more people is self defeating? Why is there such a “material” shortage? Could it be that in order to keep “living” easy, the governments have adopted ideas and regulations that encourage less effort and more government subsidy? Therefore, the production of more “material” has become less important than “living the easy life”? To keep the same standards of “living”, less material equals less people to share it with… lower birthrates!
2).If the so-called “standard of material living” is lowered, (i.e. less food, older homes, less maintained roads, schools, less of “material” things….) and there is no negative response, the populace merely acknowledges and will do with less … NO PROBLEM!!! BUT….
If there is an outcry, a discontent, what then? Do we look for someone or something to blame? Do we change our government, our policies, “our living is easy” culture? Do we just declare a war and divert our attentions to “victory is the only successful result in war” and try and figure out what to do “after”? There are choices!
3).Can we look to history for any constructive ideas? Some think America offers nothing to look at. After all, America is new… untested! America has, after all, survived many unique trials and tribulations in its 300 year old history. It’s not 3000 years old but certainly something that has stood a few hundred years has something to look at! America has, after all, achieved at least a “material standard of life” that is being envied by some. America has adopted laws and regulations that has encouraged individual rights and entrepreneurship. It’s not perfect but there is a continuing effort. America may not be everyone’s image of a “good life” (including some Americans themselves) but certainly there is SOMETHING to be studied and considered.
Some think that other cultures have other things to be considered… Religious theocracy, Monarchy, Dictatorship, Anarchy, Tribal rule, etc. All have something to be evaluated! Both good and bad!!! Even if war is not an answer, it will be inevitable unless thinking people once again are a major influence in policy. An intellectual idea is not a replacement for a human being… any human being. Because you possess an idea, a policy, does not necessarily mean that it would work or be successful … “for the greater good”. But war is the result of running out of useful ideas and the ability to communicate them to the majority of the people.
Do we have any real thinkers left?
Are we running out of ideas … ideas for “the greater good” of the people?
Do we have successful communicators?
Is a real “leader” a communicator or a “mighty ruler”? … Is physical force the only answer?
There is nothing in this world we can’t learn something from … good or bad!
Are we learning or don’t we want to be bothered?
Are we leaving the future to “momentum” or are we “thinking”?
“WAR is inevitable if we don’t learn, change and adapt.”
BUT …“Victory is the only successful result in war!”
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)