Missing Moderatism

An addendum to the 2007 Apache Attack in Iraq

2010-04-09T07:28:00.003-05:00

Apparently the wikileaks video, other than being edited for opinion about the evil-ness of American and Coalition forces, was also edited for content.

This picture is a scan and some details from the film. You can figure it out.

Changes

2010-04-08T08:58:00.004-05:00

Fact is, the Republican Party has been in power for much of the last one hundred and fifty years (starting with Lincoln). It was created to protect national unity, and a supremacy of nation over state. A side effect was that this was the party that originally abrogated a massive portion of the constitution and essentially said that the states did not have the power to secede, and the federal control over finance and trade was the way of progress.

But more importantly in the American consciousness, they are the party that fought slavery and won.

They are the party that created the national parks, anti-trust laws, the FDA, the interstate, Hoover dam, led the fight for equal civil rights, proposed nationalized health care, created the gold standard, opened China for trade, and a whole slew of further accomplishments.

And one day, the progressives split off. Despite originally being a segregationist and eugenics movement, promoting isolationism and protectionism, they joined the democratic party (the ones who fought FOR slavery) and then... bam, they had the minority vote, the immigrant vote, the urban vote.

The turning point for the fucking weirdos to come out in the GOP was during George H.W. Bush's bid for president. He was forced to start courting the fringe groups. Not conservatives, working forward but at a slow pace, these people were straight reactionaries, isolationists, or fundamentalists. All the things that the original Republican party was not.

And now we have a group of people who claim to be conservative, who are really just reactionary. Who claim to be small government but led the 2 largest expansions of government ever. They talk of "republican values" and "American values," and how the progressive plan for this country will ruin it. This is not the Republican party of Reagan, Eisenhower, Roosevelt, and McKinley. This is not the party of Lincoln. This is a travesty to the causes of free will, self-determination, civil rights, public rights, capitalism, and national identity. It has replaced reason and the quest for "prosperity at home, prestige abroad" with inflammatory soundbites, self aggrandizement, outright lies, religious fanaticism and a strange conglomeration of corporate fascism (I might go so far as to say financial feudalism)and neo-liberal idiocy.

This does not mean I support the Democrats, far from it. For a party that was based on states rights, much less slavery and reactionary ideas, they have done quite the flip flop, hammering together a coalition of smaller parties (communists, socialists, progressives, nationalists) into something that works as a hydra, with too many heads going in too many directions. I point out the mess made of the health care debate. Vastly stronger in numbers, they are ideologically unfocused. This party is essentially the real opposition party. Consistently trailing in polls, numbers, and true supporters they rely on the disaffected, the uninformed and the ignorant to get elected. Some of their players are straight shooters, aiming for real reform, true progress, and whatnot, but the vast majority seem to have gotten their way in with some creative lies, flexible positions and hypocritical funding.

Of course, this is true of the new republican party too.

The evolution and convolutions of the two main political parties in America make for some interesting reading. But goddamn, caring about this shit is tiring. And infuriating.

Excuse me

2010-04-06T08:06:00.004-05:00

Recently Wikilinks.org released a video showing an Apache helicopter firing into a group of people in 2007. Some are armed, but two are Reuter's journalists. The link follows: (though this version of the video also has a dramatic introduction and summary to appeal to the emotional aspect of the event.

I have read comments from a number of other sites/blogs, both for and against. Frankly I'm disturbed. For the same reasons the anti-war crowd is, but also for the same reasons the anti-government and pro-military people are. The US military being what it is, is a way to train already cruel teenagers (just look at high school really) into disciplined killing machines. Very cool, well dressed killing machines with some really cool equipment. They sign up for a variety of reasons; honor, duty, money, violent pathology, education. And they serve an essential function in the unfortunate world created by the human condition.

The anti-military people say things like "if they were really fighting for freedom from oppression they would refuse to follow these kinds of orders." or how "they are psychopaths who love murder." The truth there is the same as any other profession, you listen to the experienced people, you follow direction and if you like your job, or are at consumed by it 24/7 the way these men and women are, you enjoy a job well done. With any sufficient familiarity to a function you get better at it, it bothers you less, and you enjoy doing it right. Being a garbage man is gross, but I got used to the smell and enjoyed pulling pranks revolving around rotting food, same deal, smaller scale.

I can agree that the training these kids have turn them into killing machines, but I don't begrudge them that. I do judge the bureaucratic policies that let these men and women serve for days at a time, for years at a time, with rare trips home, poor living conditions, and a lack of moral support. The BBC likes to talk about how much we revere our military here in the US, but the truth is that a lot of our civilians do (past service or no), but the people who get to make the decisions about where and how we deploy our forces around the world are missing large portions of the big picture. Warmongers are nearly always cowards, draft dodgers, or people who just never served or served but never fought(Cheney, Johnson, Clinton, George W. Bush among others).

I guess this is where the anti-government feelings settle in. I believe in the use of force, in having a large military that can be used for offense as well as defense. That is not how we are structured anymore, our deployments are overseas, our heavy divisions are overseas, our principle air bases and sea bases are overseas. In the case of invasion we have the National Guard (underfunded, lacking in training, and presently being deployed in rotation overseas), the police (not trained to repel anything and is having problems with the invasion of violent crime regardless), and the civilian militia (mocked in the media and constantly under attack by the ultra-progressive left). This is, of course, not the military's fault, or at the very least, not wholly. For years they were told, "use your budget or lose it" in very specific regards to material and research and development. Soldiers' pay was a background concern (making for ever decreasing education grants, pensions, benefits and living conditions (though the mid 70s were still the worst). I am getting off target: the military is the way it is because of bureaucrats (the cause of so many modern problems, I suggest you read Joseph Tainter's The Collapse of Complex Societies). The bidding process, the training process, the funding process all got out of control. This has nothing to do with the video, or the event, but it has everything to do with why we are even in Iraq, why we have such awesome toys for the military to use, and why we have such a high civilian casualty rate and one of the highest rates of friendly fire in a modern western military.

With a large standing army, there is an urge to use it. That the hammer will crush opposition and that force can end conflict. We know, at least in this new century, that this isn't the case. Which means the massively expensive organism that was created in case of another world war, bloated by a need to fund American companies, and wastefully spent to bankrupt the Russians is being used to fight people with little more than a third grade education and homespun clothes. Our soldiers are too expensive to risk fighting on the ground, too outnumbered to even try, and frankly we value human life quite a bit more than our erstwhile enemies. So we use helicopters, planes, drones, missiles and raids with long range visuals, unclear intel, bad intel, or just over stressed or over eager operators. It's a lose lose for the military in the eyes of the ever flighty and fickle American public. Either we risk Our Soldiers' Lives, or we kill the "poor ignorant savages who just want to live in peace."

I am personally of a mixed mind of this, I don't really agree with our Persian Gulf endeavors, or even with our operations in Afghanistan. I think we are there and it's important to do it right before leaving, but we probably shouldn't have gone in (I was all for it in 2001). Not because I think it was a waste of time, or even that it wasn't worth doing; because we moved the focus away from Home. It's been gone so long that our domestic policies are in shambles. The bureaucrats once again spun us a new conflict to prevent us from noticing the ax above our heads.

Again, I ramble. My points beyond "we are being screwed by our government, who is betraying what the country is founded upon," is that this mockery of liberty and freedom is still being bled for by high school football players and college students. Aggressive, sleep deprived, trained and heavily equipped children who follow the orders of a civilian government that appears to care little or nothing about WHY we keep fighting so long as we do. The GOP will refer to them as "defending our freedom and serving our nation, keeping it safe from terrorists on home soil" drawing attention to heroes and heroic deeds. This is a job better suited to our constantly embarrassed intelligence community, who seem to have the inability to adapt to the new war (partially the fault of the people who seem to be screaming bloody murder about civilian deaths Human Intelligence [spies] was killed during the Clinton years because it dealt with unsavory characters. No shit, bad guys talk to bad guys. So congress and the president decided to go more heavily with Signal Intelligence [wire taps, email monitoring, rendering]). The Democrats refer to the military as "men and women serving our country and protecting our freedom." They draw the focus to suffering families and crippled veterans. The far left purely point out the destruction of property, the devastation of lives and the violence of these action. They talk of bloodthirsty murderers who go out of their way to ruin the lives of peaceful people who, if they weren't being shot at by the army, would love to give us all hugs and blow jobs just to let them have our freedom to sue people for calling us names (a right protected by the first amendment) or to take away their ubiquitous AK-47s to keep them safe (a right protected by second amendment, which guarantees the first).

The honest to god truth why horrible things happen to people in other countries has nothing to do with our military. It happens because our civilian government wants them to. Because Congress wants them to. Not always because they feel its the best option (but the most public), but because of campaign donations(or backroom promises), or a fear of being called unamerican for not supporting our troops in an ongoing conflict (which used to be fine, its called a conscientious objector. In my case, I object to the half arsed way we are doing said conflict) , or for doing anything that the public does not want (public opinion being what it is, would require us to invade and retreat at least 4 times a week). And the public has no idea what it wants (as proven by the last 5 presidential elections with 50/50 splits). The only people with enough information to make an informed decision rarely do, they're too busy worrying about re-election to actually read what they are signing, much less to actually sit down and plan our domestic, fiscal and foreign policies. We are going bankrupt to placate the "conservatives" who have served in the military, while stabbing them in the back by using the stick unwisely, illegally, wastefully and idiotically. And we are going bankrupt to placate the "liberals" who have been screwed by previous administrations (they are poor due to free trade when it should be regulated, and regulation when it should be free) while stabbing them in the back by using the carrot irresponsibly, wastefully, and worst of all, scornfully (these people cannot take care of themselves, WE must do it for them!).

Stop blaming the military, blame the government. Don't blame the president, or his party, blame them both. And for god's sake, stop voting on what they say, but by what they do. Not what they say they are doing, but what the bills actually say.

March 4th: Education protests

2010-03-05T08:25:00.002-06:00

Yesterday there were national protests regarding education cuts. It started in California and exploded to College campuses across the country. There were arrests, and injuries, and rubber bullets.

There was also a political blog from Mark Mardell from the BBC asking if this year's election (and 2012) would be the most partisan US elections ever. He compared it to the Nixon era, asking if we could surpass ourselves in rage and division the way we did a few decades ago.

Oh yes. Oh yes I think we will.

We have protests over education, bank bailouts, foreclosures, health care, Iraq, Afghanistan, the deficit, gun rights, gay rights, civil rights and whatever else is the public rage du jour.

I used to think that the protests were all some kind of fruitless zealotry, and five years ago it was really the province of people I didn't know, and frankly didn't care to know.

Things are different now. Life is harder, people are poorer, the government is apparently incapable of actually helping us beyond promises, handfuls of borrowed money and poor planning and even worse performance. And people are getting much, much, much angrier and desperate.

Some of the things that the state governments' have decided to focus on leave me mystified as to what priorities they are focusing on. The federal government also. and the public.

We are being whipped into a frenzy by neglect and anxiety only reinforced by a decidedly panicked distrust of a government running wild and a media desperate to maintain relevance in an internet age. Negative news and over abundant "expert" commentary (of which this gets fairly close to, though I would call this barely amateur) have informed us of all the dangers of being alive in this age of crises. Without excessive research or multiple view biased news sources we fall into the pretty trap of information overload and "knowing" the answers.

The city/state government (at least Chicago/Illinois) has forgotten that in order to create jobs, there needs to be a demand for services and products, which require money willing to be spent. Our taxes have increased, our state and city fees keep climbing city services are cut, but the department of revenue is still roaming around booting and ticketing like the army of ravenous meter maids they are. They are making sure they are getting every free penny they can to stay alive and keep the people who work for the state are still employed.

But it is self defeating if they keep driving people into bankruptcy and insolvency, preventing them from paying taxes, owning cars to fee and fine, affording public transportation, or even living or working in the city. The CTA wants to increase the costs of public transportation while at the same time reducing services. So now it is cheaper to drive and even more convenient. That seems like a recipe for even greater failure.

Maybe I am missing the "big picture" or I don't understand politics (which i obsess over enough that I think I at least see a little of the pie), but doesn't it seem not only counter productive, but outright destructive for the federal government to borrow money we can't afford to pay back to give tax cuts and incentives and checks to individuals which then almost immediately go to state or local taxes, fines and fees which have been raised to cover the state's deficit (which was an issue during the "golden years" of the last decade, and only made worse now by the loss of jobs/income). The state then begins cutting services, costs, funding, jobs and programs in an attempt to curtail the enormous amount of money they are inefficiently flinging at god knows what.

The argument for privatizing a government program is to increase efficiency and lower costs paid by the local, state or federal government. To increase competition and employ more people. For a boom time, this makes a little sense for some things, and certainly when it becomes clear that the program in nearing obsolescence. But for a disaster like the last few years it becomes relatively obvious that the argument for government control and spending is necessary. For price control and a suspension of supply and demand.

I am rambling. My point is this: During the boom time was when the government should have been taxing the shit out of us. Subsidizing growth markets. Investing in infrastructure. and paying off bills. Tax cuts when we are flying to record highs is irresponsible. And now that we are at a new low, and getting worse, no one who should have the ability to help us, to fund us, to carry us through this recession caused by idiocy, immorality, and intentional sabotage of the american people, does.

Education, arguably the SINGLE most important aspect of HAVING a state or federal government beyond protection of our borders, is DYING. Something that was being run poorly and inefficiently was fed a ton of money, which used that money, poorly and inefficiently, to expand. And then that money was removed and teachers pay got worse, and test scores got worse and everything started to fall apart. Instead of discipline, personal attention, study habits and individual growth we had... epic failure.

Now our over worked, underpaid, unappreciated teachers and our over capacity, crime filled crumbling public schools are facing furlough days, pay cuts, job cuts, funding cuts, program cuts and generally speaking, being driven towards inevitable collapse. I firmly believe that healthcare reform is necessary, and that immigration reform is necessary. Most certainly that our political structure needs reform. BUT MOST OF ALL, OUR EDUCATION SYSTEM NEEDS REFORM AND FUNDING. And here we are. completely incapable of doing anything about it besides protest the failure we have been complaining about for 30 years.

Without education expansion into realms of personal finance, art, and sciences we cannot hope to compete in a global marketplace, avoid a recession like the one we are in or advance mankind. Without education maintenance (continuing as was before No Child Left Behind) we may barely get ourselves out of the mess we are in. And without minimum funding (where we are heading) we are 100% totally fucked.

I do not support a gigantic federal government, or a bloated state bureaucracy, but there are a few things that are rights for every developed country's citizens. Defense, education, health care, electricity and an infrastructure capable of supporting its size (road network, sewers, ports). Maybe internet falls into that as well in this new era.

Both of our two parties have largely ignored long term planning for the better part of 40 years, aiming instead for quick fixes and public balms created to ease our fears. Increased spending and funding to bloated programs that merely create a dependence on assisted living, which increase the standard of living for our poor, but steers money away from the advancement of the poor.

Gays in the military... and in the US

2010-02-04T08:19:00.003-06:00

I think really the only time that homosexuals bother me is when drag queens expose themselves to me on Halloween. This is, in fact, totally reasonable, and kind of makes me envious. Personally I get in trouble when I expose myself, Halloween or no.

That was my disclaimer, obviously not legally binding in anyway. This morning I was reading an opinion piece from an openly gay airman about his view of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8495793.stm

There are really only a few arguments being made against gay rights and for this policy. Against gay rights: it's against God, it's gross, it's unnatural, it ruins the sanctity of marriage. Against gays in the military: see previous,it erodes morale, and the system works.

A few bullet points:
- Homosexuality is against God's law: To be frank, I don't care, this has never bothered me. And continuing this frankness, neither do the people who say this. The only people who can honestly make this argument are Orthodox and Hasidic Jews, or Orthodox Christians. So many of the old testament rules, laws and practices have been entirely eroded away or ignored by the amalgam of Christianity that it is impossible to take them seriously, or at least, by a reasonably informed person. God's law also says don't kill, don't steal, etc. These get ignored all the time and they are the big Ten. "Man shall not lie with man as he does with woman" falls into the same parts of the old testament as: you can't shave, cover your head, get circumsized, don't eat pork or other rules and laws that "good Christians" ignore 24/7. And finally, no law in a secular society where "freedom of religion" is held sacred should be based off the morals or dictates of one particular faith.

-It's gross: Why? how? There was a comedian I heard a few years ago; I have no idea who anymore, who said (I paraphrase) "My father asked, 'what do you guys do?' and I said 'all the things you've been trying to get mom to do since you got married'". I love it. But this is opinion, and for all the forcefulness of it, that is not a good reason for law, discrimination, or really anything. (I am guilty of this, obviously, as I have a blog that does nothing but rant.)

-It's unnatural: So what? So is Viagra, steel belted tires, automobiles, glasses, TVs, airplanes, and anything else mankind has ever thought up. Also, it's obviously not, because other species practice same sex relationships and coupling. If it were unnatural, it would require some kind of mechanism to be produced to even be possible, not just two or more consenting people.

-It ruins the sanctity of marriage: I think it reinforces it. These are people who are willing to commit themselves to a binding contract out of love, attraction, and commitment. There is no pregnancy obligation, no "because it is expected of me" obligation. And if they want to adopt children, then let them. At least those kids will know that someone wanted them, to love them and raise them. There are plenty of accidental births and kids whose parents never wanted them but got married or gave birth regardless. Those are unhappy families and unhappy children all over the world, obviously the sanctity of marriage is just a sound bite anyways. From the same people who talk about the bible, which I might remind you says polygamy, underage brides, marrying sisters and having concubines are acceptable forms of marriage. Even if someone is arguing that "society defines marriage as a man and a woman," then it can be pointed out that "society" once defined a black man as three fifths of a white man, or that "society" once defined Jews as "untermensch," or that "society" called opium a wonder drug. Society is wrong all the time, and has been since the word was conceived.

-It erodes morale: This is a direct response to the military policy, but directly correlates with the previous point. Mixing the races in units used "erode morale." The truth is, it erodes the morale of the ignorant and the intolerant, and both of those are affected with familiarity and information. Not solved, mind you, just affected.

-The system works: Obviously not. Even if I were to support this policy, it would need serious overhaul so that people cannot be "outed" by a third party member, or be discharged due to activities out of uniform, off base, or in private life. Homosexuality is not a mental disease or a crime anymore, stop treating it like one.

I honestly think I have covered my bases here. Leave me a message if you have a question.

My response to SOTU

2010-01-28T12:15:00.004-06:00

I frequently disagree with politicians, knowing full well that my version of government would be a disaster, fraught with tyranny and bullying. I don't handle bullshit very well. This of course would lead to ruin, as qualified people abandon me to the wolves and my limited understanding of the oblique rules of politics, arcane policies, and bureaucratic agencies running my country.

But President Obama has been too, "hands off" in terms of dealing with partisanship. You can call Washington on it all day long. You can admonish both parties for spinning their wheels and twisting in the wind. It's as popular, and true as anything could be.

However, each speech involves the same statement or theme, "it's not a Democratic problem, or a Republican problem. It's an American problem." True, but fewer Americans are Democrats than Republicans. Even more people are Independents and have to pick "between the lesser of two evils." They/we never get mentioned. No one tries to tell Independent voters to get their partisan act together. Or to quit squabbling. Of course, we don't have one of those problems as we aren't a party.

It's obvious that we are a huge voting bloc, and one that demands to be heard; our options are limited, though, and everyone forgets about us.

Scooting past that point.

What I want (besides Presidential recognition, and possibly dictatorial power) is for the President to lean into the camera during an address and say, "Dear Congress, quit dicking around. Get off your fat asses or I will start reading names of dirty, stinking idiots." A calm reserved president is great in terms of crisis, by a dynamic President motivates people. That's what last night's speech was missing, and what this presidency is missing. Hope. Change. Great values, and promises, and goals.

But no one ever took out the trash when they were a kid because once a month their parents calmly and rationally asked them to do it weekly.

President Obama; crack your knuckles, drop a few f-bombs on live TV, grit your teeth. Scare these Left Wing and Right Wing bozos into getting something accomplished. Be aggressive. Get mean.

Our Intelligence

2010-01-05T12:04:00.002-06:00

http://www.cnas.org/node/3924

A wonderfully honest, if cynical and scornful, report on the United States' intelligence failings.

Between this and Gen. McChrystal's public domain requests for more troops in Afghanistan it makes me wonder about the status of the Pentagon and the Capital if our military leaders feel that they need to publicly state their case in order to be heard or cause reform. Should we be frightened (further) that so many of our dollars go to the umpteen intelligence services, and the results are ...useless?

When the Cold War ended and the "Spy War" document's were released it was obvious then that we may have beaten the USSR in the end, they kicked our asses in the espionage game. With a smaller budget. We spend millions on inventions, on bribes, on secret facilities and untraceable vehicles, and banana republics... and yet, a the CIA was infiltrated by a double agent. Our double agent's never seem to blow up anyone's base... we just hear about how a 1 million dollar drone fired a quarter million dollar missile into a cave or brick hut to kill 2 militants.

The media does a good enough job destroying our civilian morale and faith in this war without having our bureaucrats undermining our generals, or having our monstrous intelligence community fail at supporting and educating the people who really matter about the things that really matter.

Summing up Average American Interests

2009-12-21T08:06:00.003-06:00

One of the more frustrating things about being from a politically interested family, and having a driving need to know what is going on in the world and in my country, is that you frequently run into people who do not care about politics. At all. They don't read the news, they don't vote for local elections, and sometimes don't vote for president because it is a "waste of time" or "it doesn't matter."

Some people care, but only through esoteric theory, "I am a Marxist/Anarchist/Socialist," or a combination thereof. They have a stance and a point of view, but they focus on the negative or overview of the system leaving out legislation that reflects their views, or historical precedent that shows a complete failure in terms of application. These people will generalize and name call their way through black and white arguments, where clear-cut right and wrong define the world. They also don't vote because, deciding that the status quo will drown out their voices. They have a point, radicals and revolutionaries are frequently so fractured in goals and issues that they cannot create a loud enough voice to accomplish much. A pity really, at least about some topics.

To get back to my real issue; the people who just don't care. They feel that there are more interesting and more important things in life. The picture is of this morning's CNN front page. Another celebrity died this year, and thankfully she was not popular enough/idolized to give us another 8 months of culturally inundating "biographic tributes" the way Michael Jackson did.

Below this "popular story" we see a reference to the Health-Care bill working its way through the partisan and morbidly convoluted halls of government. A topic that is hard to discuss with anyone who only cares to read the top layer of their favorite newspaper/site. If you are going to care enough to talk about the importance of this massive reform, please read enough that "death panels" "public options" "socialism" and "saving American lives" become information beyond buzzwords and angry accusations.

At the same time as this, rather long-winded and winding rant/op-ed, there are a few dozen articles about how Americans are only intellectually aware of the Afghan war. They describe the differences of how we are perceiving this war versus World War II and Vietnam. Some describe appalling conditions in bases and how foreign governments are approaching their respective roles. There are articles and op-eds and research papers being posted about immigration and how employers need to be truly taken to task for hiring illegal immigrants. Or about how manufacturing in America can be helped to grow. Unfortunately, of course, Brittany Murphy died yesterday, and some large portion of people won't get beyond that story.

To paraphrase Emma Goldman: To avoid real discussion on change, we are distracted by the trivial and the re-discovery of old problems long ignored and unresolvable.

In Keeping With the News: 2000-2010

2009-12-09T11:08:00.002-06:00

I am not going to recount the last ten years' headlines or world events; I do not have the time, the patience, and frankly I am not a good enough writer to even come close to keeping you entertained long enough to make it past Y2K. I am, instead, going to summarize what I think the theme of the decade was (is for another few weeks). The term is "zeitgeist."

Essentially it is the all encompassing defining trait of a period of time; there was the era wherein a ton of old monarchies fell and colonies became independent, this was the "revolutionary era." Or some such.

I think this decade has been the "exclusive era" or maybe the "polarized era." Personally, I favor the less polished "Us Versus Them Era." Competition, difference of opinion, patriotism and nationalism are not new concepts, but in the last 10 years we have experienced a ...division... into black and white, you and me, us and them along every line of every topic. Are you pro life or pro choice? red state or blue? Intelligent Design or Darwinist? Are you pro Walmart or for small businesses?

The middle ground eroded away into two camps. It did not matter the topic, or the importance; compromise was reviled and rejected. All-in, on everything. You could change sides, but god forbid you soften your leftist stance and say, "Maybe George Bush has some good points" or "I think Iraq needed to happen." You were now; despite voting democrat, or driving a Prius, or attending pro-choice rallies every alternate Thursday nights, a red blooded tried and true tyranny-loving Republican. Your family owned slaves and burned gasoline for fun, all while worshiping Jesus Christ and the holy trinity of guns, free trade, and racism.

Conversely if you argued the opposite; you became a traitor or a pussy or any number of unclever and hurtful names. Either G.W. was going to kill everyone and destroy America, or the terrorists were.

I am not excluding myself from this; I have veered from a pro-agrarian Liberal Anarchist (original definition of "Liberal" not the present one); essentially a "burn it all down and start from scratch" type. Governments were evil and the dependence on law and money was crushing the inherent goodness of mankind. I would now have problems defining my political views, or even whether or not I believe mankind to be essentially good, evil, or neither.

It is still going strong, this distaste for shades-of-gray thinking. The last election was a good example, health care a better one, and global warming another. This kind of thinking is what drove me to create this blog.

And it is global; Russia vs. Ukraine, Europe vs. Iran, Christianity vs. Islam, UN vs. North Korea. On and on, someone vs someone else. Inside a country, a town, or even a family... we are losing common ground.

Which really just means we are losing the only real game in town; the one for progress.

Issue 2: Afghanistan

2009-12-04T08:54:00.002-06:00

With the announcement of a likely additional 7,000 troops coming from our NATO allies I have started to think a bit more about how I understand the situation.

International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) is going to grow in the next year, by troops, by funding, and by social service projects. We know, and have known for a while, that the government in place in Kabul is weak, corrupt, and undisciplined... and for some reason that does not prevent NATO from pouring money into it. Nearly every member country is facing public disapproval, funding shortages and a lack of morale. Part of that public disapproval is that Afghanistan seems so far away that people do not associate it with being a threat back home (a problem that has been an issue since at least World War I), and outside of another massive attack on home soil that does not seem likely to change.

The other major part is the cost, the investment of time, money and lives. Every region we seem to secure is later fraught with poppy production, insurgents, corruption and a general lack of progress. We send thousands of soldiers from about 25 or 30 counties in modern and expensive vehicles, with modern and expensive weapons and modern and expensive training to protect huts? Rocks? Farmers? Criminals? The ineffable "American way of life?"

The government is releasing information in a way that I think is self defeating in terms of public support. We have news releases of civilian deaths, killed in action reports, insurgent attacks, drone missile attacks and a series of other disheartening and generally depressing items of information. I propose an positive propaganda campaign. No "kill the enemy because they are so-and-sos," or any other type of dehumanizing advertising, but certainly we could do with a press release or two that specifically and clearly lays out what has been accomplished, protected and built. A series of award ceremonies, so we can put a face to the men and women fighting, as well as some heroes. I am tired of reading stories where some faceless soldier did some great thing and the first I hear about it, if I hear about it, is something unrelated and unremarkable about 4 years later. Without that, the situation feeds the anti-war sentiment and the resentment.

Without a specificpositive message beyond "it's important to be there" or "we are spreading democracy," we are not driving it home that this is helpful, that this is productive, and that there is a point.

To that end, I suggest a clear report, or press release, that lists the specific examples of what we are fighting for and what we are funding.

Which brings me back to the corruption that causes so much rancor. Sending money to Kabul is risky. Let us, and our allies, create projects and efforts for goodwill, both at home and in Afghanistan with the money we would otherwise be using to prop up functionaries and crooks. While they sort out the rampant nastiness in the capital, we can build wind-farms, irrigation, and schools. We can replace bridges and make parks. To be fair, we do these things already, but they cost an exorbitant amount of money for shoddy work because we go through a government too riddled with lined pockets and greased palms.

Then, and here's the kicker, We (NATO/investors, not just America, though we could too) tell the whole damn world, in glorious bullet points, human interest stories and pictures. If pro-ratings media want to report only the bad news, then we have to shove the heroes, the awards, and the beneficial actions down their throats.

You can not win over the television generation with silence, bad news and anonymous faces. We require stories, plot and victories.

A quick irritation

2009-11-20T07:50:00.003-06:00

I am not a Republican, and even if I were, I am not the type to vote party lines. However, I find myself irritated by the strange stereotyping of Republicans as a bunch of old rich white dudes, overly zealous Christian white people, NASCAR fans, and Jingoists. This keeps showing up on websites, in magazines, sit-coms. It's as bad as the stereotype of Democrats as pot smoking, tree hugging, pro-choicers that feel bad when they say something politically incorrect. Both are the extreme versions of the party, and I have always felt that judging anything by its worst part is probably a really piss-poor way to understand anything.

This division amongst the general voting population is killing us, and distracting us.

As J. Billingston Bulworth once said, "Black people and white people have more in common than they have with rich people." Well I think, the average Republican has more in common with the average Democrat, than either has for a Rush Limbaugh, or a Nancy Pelosi.

Issue 1: Education

2009-11-12T09:16:00.000-06:00

This may not be the most important today, but it is an important one regardless.

It's falling apart around here, and as far as I can tell from talking to teachers and friends, it is pretty much falling apart across the country. We still produce the occasional genius or bottom to top underdog story, but they are fewer than they used to be. As a whole we are developing poor work habits, study habits and eating habits from an early age.

This is not the fault of the educator, they are a product of a society that doesn't want to pay them, ties them down with restrictions and bureaucracy and does not have the resources to allow the children to compete in a global market. And increasingly seems to not want them to compete.

We still have school days that run on a farm calendar, despite the fact that we have passed through an agrarian society to a manufacturing one, and passed that into a service one. That isn't my biggest issue though. My largest concern is about subject matter.

There are two classes that need to be taught in schools; basic personal finance and basic nutrition. If your response is that these things are the responsibility of the parents, then look around you. We are all scrambling around because most adults do not understand these two very basic ideas. How many times did you have to talk to someone about what APR is? What is a 401k and how does it work? What is an HSA? How do you sign up for unemployment benefits if you need them? How do you get a car loan and whats a good rate? We have no idea until after the fact, or we have a parent who did their homework.

Nutrition is absolutely lacking, and it is having an effect on us and our image. We are suffering from obesity on an epic scale, heart disease and diabetes are rampant, basic body functions are failing, all because we want that laaaaaast slice of cake. For the arguement that there are people who suffer from thyroid or genetic issues that prevent them from being thin: yes there are, but because they feel they can never be thin they give up. I live in the midwest, where "husky" and "bigboned" or "big appetite" have been excuses for years.

Whole business empires have been created to cater to our failing to understand what is good for us, finacially or nutritionally. If nothng else, we need to learn to teach these things before we go through another credit crunch by a country unwilling to do an abdominal one.

It Begins

2009-11-12T08:04:00.000-06:00

I created this to write down my thoughts on modern day America, and obviously, how I feel about daily politics, the direction I think things are going in, and where I feel we would be better off going.

I am a Moderate, and I feel that the polarizations and self-absorptive behavior in present day America is disgusting. Strong words I know, but its true. It is Palin vs. Pelosi in a grudge match for the future of this country, and considering how much influence we still have, the world.

I want to put in my two cents, and if no one hears them, that is fine (not really). If you feel that this description follows yours, I ask that you join me in pursuit of dignity and progress. If you are reactionary or radical, you will find little you agree with here. I will admit that my opinions and ideas do have somethings in common with both, here or there. I am not "moderate" by being middle of the road on everything, but by being a mixture of everything. You will not find hemming and hawing here, but strong words and strong opinions.

But if you have been Missing Moderatism in this crazed quest for "winning America" then maybe you will find some things you agree with here. We will have differences of opinion on some things, but hopefully we can remain friends despite that.