Saturday, February 26, 2011
Unions in Government
Unions should not be allowed to operate within government organizations.
Collective bargaining by unions has no place in the government sector.
Government wage scales and benefits are set by Legislatures and the Administrative sector of government, both of which are elected representatives of the people.
If you allow unions to muscle into this picture, you have totally subverted the role and mission of the Legislature and the Administration, and hence, the fundamental citizen-representative relationship of a Republic. For some, the union members, you have added a citizen-union-representative relationship; but for the majority you have forced non-union members to accept and pay for the wage negotiations conducted solely between the representatives and the union. Further, it is obvious that union contributions in the form of funds and votes can sway the Legislators.
Unions have self-preservation as their primary goal, not service to the nation or state. Thus, the very objectives of unions are antithetical to good order in the state, so that when the state needs to proceed in a certain direction that turns out to be against the union’s objectives, there is a an unnecessary and wrenching fight.
Unions can and do call for strikes when they are not succeeding in their mission to up the ante for their people, and themselves. A union strike or walk-out in a government sector operation is injurious to all of the citizens relying on that operation. This is unacceptable.
Labels: Unions
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Is this Administration Really Evil?
Evil is as Evil Does!
Pursuing a radically different leftwing political philosophy, and a collective, socialistic course of action after it has been proven to be manifestly, demonstratively and massively damaging to this nation, or to any nation for that matter, is pure evil.
This cannot be excused by claiming ignorance, since there are so many brilliant, detailed and well–documented examples of the failures of leftist collectivism available in the nearest library and on the internet, plus many, many intelligent people available to advise the President on every subject imaginable—especially the failure of collectivism!
The one possible explanation that might be offered for this national catastrophe is that the Leader has such an overweening ego and narcissistic mindset that he cannot possibly admit failure in the least; hence, he must pursue his dreams and programs to the end, come what may. He therefore does not wish to listen to the advice of knowledgeable people or spend the considerable effort needed to grasp the true fundamentals of economics that he must master from the resources in the country. The Leader cannot change course!
If this is true, then the evil we see has not one but two parts: 1) the evil disaster of the nation’s finances brought on by reckless spending and commitments to la la land programs by this Administration, with its attendant joblessness and misery of 20% unemployment in real terms; and, 2)the evil, narcissistic ego of a flawed and ignorant President, and his muted advisors, czars and legislators that are forced to or are delighted to continue the same philosophy and courses of action in the midst of the screams of the unemployed, the wreckage of the commercial sector, and despite the dire warnings that have been given for over two to ten years from responsible and knowledgeable economists, financiers and businessmen. (The last Administration failed to heed their advice; our last chance was for this Administration to heal the nation’s sicknesses, but it has also failed.)
That is true evil!
Labels: Obama, Philosophy, Politics and Iraq, Progressivism, Radicalism
Monday, February 21, 2011
Financial Chaos in the US
The light in the tunnel is that of a train coming our way.
Do you realize the extent of real and countable US liabilities right now? It is north of $112.6 trillion, or about a million dollars per taxpayer. Our total GDP is on the order of $13 trillion. This implies that we are underwater for keeps. There has been no effective response from the Obama team about this crushing number. Real unemployment is north of 20% now, when you count those who have given up looking and are hence excluded from the administration’s count, and this will soon explode further. Yet Obama proposes a budget of over $3 trillion after ignoring a bipartisan committee that had good recommendations.
The idea of printing dollars to pay our way out will shortly be blocked by a group of international monitary people backed by their governments, and the US Dollar will cease being the world’s reserve monitary base. We will enter hyperinflation at about that point or a little after. These are the facts that have trickled down and sparked much of the hysteria, and I, for one, don’t blame people for becoming very highly concerned and emotional.
Labels: Fiscal Responsibility, Money Matters, National Debt
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Hunting No More
Let the Animals Roam Free!
I suppose I am no longer a hunter. I find that I cannot shoot beautiful animals any more for the sport of it, and the oft used excuse that what I kill can be given to a charity for food doesn't erase the horror I feel when I see a magnificent buck fall to the ground mortally wounded. Others can do this, and I am happy if they do give food to the needy as a result, but it is no longer something I will do, or want to witness.
Going further, creating a life-threatening situation in order to prove one's bravery and courage strikes me as idiotic. Beating the bushes to scare up lions or tigers or hogs or whatever to shoot before they reach and maul or kill you is a fool's game, and we are all lessened by the loss of such animals. That there is a trophy head on a wall somewhere does not impress me at all; rather, it saddens me to see a small part of what was once a free-roaming and proud beast adorning the abode of a fool.
At one time, I was a very good shot, both on the range and in the bush, but that skill has been allowed to wither as I realized how my feelings had changed so drastically. I don't miss it. I can still hit what I want to hit if needed, but now the birds and the beasts are safe from my guns.
Labels: Hunting
Friday, February 11, 2011
Preparedness for War
We Cycle Up and Down Needlessly
Virtually every statesman and general of note has taken the position that America must make steady and continuing preparations for possible wars, even in times of relative peace. There is great controversy as to just what this means in practical terms. Just how big a military force must we maintain on a yearly basis, and just how much must we spend on development of new weapons and equipment to support war activities? To figure this out, many analysts have resorted to the postulation of how many of what kinds of wars we should be ready to fight at the same time.
For years, the criteria were, first, to defend America from attack, and then to be able to conduct two major wars, one in Europe and one in Asia or the Middle East. Plus, added to that were one or two minor wars or “police actions” involving at the utmost a few divisions of troops plus air and sea support. From this basic threat definition our forces were allocated funds to achieve full preparedness to execute these missions.
Obviously, the European mission was to foil the USSR expansion into Western Europe. The second mission, somewhat vaguely defined as Asia or the Middle East, was supposed to cover a number of contingencies: a) Taiwan vs China; or, India vs Pakistan; or North vs South Korea, but not all three, and not a direct confrontation with China.
In hindsight, one of these became a major war with NK, and the other two have sputtered for decades verging on open hostilities rather regularly.
The foremost contingency was the USSR Cold War, which absorbed the lion’s share of our development budget and a major share of our troop expenses, especially in Europe itself under NATO. We relied upon the US Navy to intervene in Taiwan, and kept hands off in the various India vs Pakistan fights until more recently, since both of these nations have joined the nuclear club.
Another incidental effort included the Falklands fight by England vs Argentina, where we lent England considerable intelligence support, but little else.
In this mission set are several other highly significant tasks that need to be set forth: 1) we must maintain control of the seas if we are to support our troop deployments in wartime and our commerce in peacetime, in spite of other’s wars; 2) we must do our best to contain the proliferation of nuclear weapons worldwide; 3) we must continue our support to the United Nations, especially the Security Council, whether they are really useful to us or not, simply because they are the source of legitimacy for a conflict in the eyes of the rest of the world, whether we like it or not; and 4) we must continue the façade of the NATO organization for the defense of Europe, although our role and money could be reduced drastically over time.
The concept of sending contingents of troops to act as tripwires guaranteeing US support to any war that might break out must be ended: that means about 85,000 troops in Europe should be withdrawn from there, and another 31,000 troops withdrawn from South Korea, all of this with adequate preparations and gradual timelines. The fundamental ideas behind these withdrawals are twofold: we cannot afford their expense now; and the host nations can and should step up to their own defense given some time.
With these considerations in mind, we need to reestablish the base possible wars we should be prepared to meet.
My oh so very personal belief is that we need somewhere around 70 to 80 combat brigades of all types, instead of the currently planned 48. The world today seethes with resentment and the smell of revolution, combined with the musty and fetid odor of Muslims massing for a really big Jihad, and the acrid smell of AK-47 rounds being shot in the air in celebration of the fall of Egypt, the mess in Tunisia, and the verging revolutions elsewhere in the Middle East.
Along with these brigades we need a bunch of Air Force wings to manage about 3,000 seats in F-15s, F-16s, F-22s, And F-35s plus a host of transport and other aircraft.
The Navy has 10 carrier groups now, and I believe they should be increased to 12, with a parallel increase in other naval forces, especially heavy landing equipment.
Starting right now, these forces will not be available for from two to five years at best, the way things are going in the world of finance, industry and the government. Thus, we will have to make do with what we have per usual for some time to come. I do hate to see the multiple tour call ups that our reserves and guard units are forced to make because of the lack of a sufficient standing army.
Friday, February 04, 2011
Traits and Attitudes and their Persistence
People and their Opposite Attitudes and Traits.
Obviously, these are not binary attitudes or traits, but degree-to-which traits depending on many factors. These are the poles that people lean towards or away from, and at times surprise even themselves at their attitudes either way in a given instance.
Selfish;Unselfish
Virtuous;Non-Virtuous
Self-Centered;Other-Centered
Aggressive;Passive
Honest;Dishonest
Religious;Non-Religious
Believers;Non-Believers
Strong;Weak
Energetic;Listless
Intelligent;Dumb
Educated;Ignorant
Industrious;Lazy
Perceptive;Unperceptive
Skilled;Unskilled
Friendly;Unfriendly
Gregarious;Retiring
Personable;Drab/Boring
Straight-forward;Devious
False;True
Pride;Humbleness
True Citizen;Citizen in Name Only
Bigoted;Unbigoted
Gun Lover;Gun-Hater
Abortionist;Pro-Lifer
Same-Sex Marriage;Conventional Marriage
Liberal;Conservative
Far Left;Far Right
Collectivist;Individualist
Patriotic;Unpatriotic
Intellectual;Anti-Intellectual
Criminal;Law-Abiding
Democrat;Republican;Independent
Totalitarian;Anarchist
Secularist;Religious
Moral;Immoral
Acquisitive;Complacent
Applied to individuals, these attitudes and traits are somewhat malleable and can drift from one pole to the other over time as a function of many factors, including education, training, faith, experiences, maturation, stress, and so forth.
Applied to individual groups these traits tend more uniformly towards the poles in their outward behavior, because groups tend to form around one or more of these common attitudes, traits and positions.
Applied to groups of groups, serious conflicts can arise between the groups over one or more of the attitudes or traits, if one or more of their polar positions are in opposite directions.
Applied to a nation made up of groups, it requires strong laws and law enforcement to keep the conflicts between groups (and super-groups) at a minimum, such as represented by our Constitutional, State and Civil laws at many levels of government, together with their enforcement, as well as strong application of our mores, ethics, morals, institutions, customs and traditions.
The higher up in the government chain a conflict progresses the more polarized one way or another it tends to become, and the common factors and nuances between the groups tend to become lost as positions harden in their own defense. (This is one argument for subsidiarity in government. Justice can be better served the closer the impartial jurist is to the site of conflict.)
Then we arrive at the super-groups called nations, and their conflicting attitudes and traits, together with their goals and ambitions, their resources in men and material, and their will to succeed. Here lies the stuff of wars, of conquest, of subjugation, and of capture of resources and strategic territory.
Judging by the history of the past 50 years or so, we as a people have not arrived at a sound solution to either international conflicts between nations or internal insurrections within nations.
That a conflict such as Israel-Palestine can last for hundreds of years, even thousands of years by some accounts, speaks to the intractability of the problem. This conflict has brought to bear each and every attitude and trait identified above on both sides of the conflict, from each of the individuals through layers of groups (or tribes and religions) up to the national level, and no intermediation has had the slightest long-term effect.
Labels: Morality, Virtue, Worldview
