Category Archives: Size Matters

The Long and Short of it.

by

A bit of math on writing…

A little math calculation indicates I am writing on average between 10 – 12 pages a week for school, some weeks a bit more.

Didn’t know I had it in me.

It will be interesting someday in the future, when my mind clears, to read what I have written and see what I said.

While I may be the author of the words, I am not at all sure what I have written or what it all means.

Luckily, the professors seem to like my writing so I guess I must be writing something interesting.

by

Classwork has me pondering…

A fellow student recently mentioned the conventional nature of war in the conflict between Israel and Lebanon.  This caused me to think about Israel and Iran.

Unlike Israel and Lebanon who share a common border and therefore can wage a conventional war rather easily, Israel and Iran are separated by a large land mass making direct conflict more difficult. On a smaller scale, they seem to be waging a “cold war” of rhetoric and defense build-up, but unlike in the Cold War, they have limited ability to “export” hot, conventional war.

This is where, I think, the US finds itself in a bad situation. Entangling alliances and diplomacy are threatening to pull us in to a regional battle that would leave us the big losers. While Iran does not seem like the ‘nicest’ of world players (especially with the crazy dude spouting craziness all the time), Israel is more dangerous because they seem to be looking for justification for a preemptive strike. When we made the preemptive argument for Iraq, we gave credibility to others who want to make the same argument.  Worse, no amount of justification can overshadow the chaos left behind, or the reality that even with our best intentions, we cannot “build” a foundation others won’t tear down once we are completely pulled out.  To keep the peace and preserve what we have tried to do, we have to be a modern version of an imperial power, i.e. we make the ‘sovereign’ nation dependent on our economic, political, and military strength. Or – the big elephant in the room – we pull out, cut our losses, and deal with the repercussions for the next few decades. If we take the second option, Israel will have further justification for preemptive strike, knowing they will not need to clean up any mess they make, because we set the precedent. I shudder to think what Pakistan would then do.

Then what, would we all take sides? Would it be like a game of Risk? Would we be lucky to end up in a new Cold War, or would we see a WWI chain reaction?

Just something to ponder…

 

News article found after posting – check it out.  http://hamptonroads.com/2012/10/exdefense-chief-says-hit-iran-would-be-disastrous

by

Saith Me … First and Last of the Day

My last thought of the day turns out to be my first, because the clock has struck the midnight hour and moved into the new day.

Does anyone else think news coverage is like reality tv? The news media wants to keep everything hyped-up, spectacular and extreme simply to attract viewers and sell more ad time. The bigger the controversy, the more ads sold.

When did news stop being news and start becoming tabloid tv?

by

Lives versus Pocketbooks

In the debate tonight, Romney may have been more aggressive in his debating, however, I think Romney may have reminded us of some concerning issues. Two issues that really concern me are,
  1. Consolidating bureaucracies = firing people;
  2. A stronger military = government paid for developmental military contracts & arms build-up.

These are the two points that still really make me uncomfortable voting for Romney. You see, Romney wants me to vote for him over President Obama, but he won’t clarify these points.  Unlike the president, Romney has to sell me on the fact that he would be the better president. So while I will look past the pained expression he always wears, (I give him the benefit of the doubt that it is a pained and not condescending expression), I can’t look past these points.

So can someone explain to me how you cut the budget but not cut military spending, medicare, or educational funding, as Romney promised he would do if elected?

What does that leave? Foreign aid, arts, Post-It notes, what am I missing here? Because my understanding is that the real ‘pork’ is spent by Congress, and the President is limited in his influence in that regard. The President can only change the ‘discretionary’ funds, not the Congressional pet projects. He can veto, but that is tough when the pork is attached to the salaries of men and women serving their country, or other vital spending.

So, as far as I can tell, unless we rapidly and substantially downsize govt, which puts people out of work, Romney’s plan involves two things: a magic wand coupled with really scary, Reagan-like military build-up, which by the way will not make us safer, but will make some developers rich. Will they employ people? Of course, but 12 million people? Or even enough to offset bureaucratic downsizing? Even with a trickle-down effect, I can’t fathom how Romney’s plan will work without magic?

I am not looking at this from a partisan point of view, because I agree that the bureaucracy is too big, and because I don’t care whether the military spending on new war machine development is a Republican or Democrat idea. I’m looking at this from the point of view of someone who was really glad to see the Cold War end. I do not want to see another arms race started by our actions. If Romney really intends to ‘fix’ our economy and create jobs through military build-up, I am very concerned. Because historically, when the US fixes its economy with military build-up, it soon after, goes to war.

FYI – replacing old machines with new is not the issue, but dumping loads of money into experimental development beyond what we already spend, is the issue.

Think about it – we won’t pay to keep our people healthy, but we will pay to create machines that will kill, not only our enemies, but also our own people. How is this right?

I am a proud supporter of the military and the purpose of the military, but I really want leadership who will think of the lives of people before the pocketbooks of people. There has to be a way to achieve health, safety, and economic prosperity, but I did not hear solutions tonight.  And as far as I am concerned that does not make anyone a winner, but all of us losers.  We just have to decide how we want to lose, healthy but poor in the short term, or rich but facing the potential of another arms race and war in the future all because we, again, only see US national interests, and not the world’s.

A link on the deficit crisis supplied by Leigh Ann.

http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/EW5IdwltaAc?rel=0

by

Cats in School

Anyone with a cat knows that they love reading a book with you. If the book is a small, one-hand-managed type, the cat’s pleasure is immense. From their perspective, you have become a dedicated lap focused on their pleasure.  

However, if the book is large, you know your sweet kitten will become an annoyingly discontented, purring, nipping beast until you put the book down and give them the required attention they feel they need. Then, and only then, will your precious ball of fur settle down to enjoy the book.

All of this changes dramatically if, in fact, you are trying to study with a book. For the shedding hair and the highlighter tip do not get along, and cause odd markings to litter your page.

by

Are we likable?

Joseph S. Nye, Jr. has developed a definition of Soft Power versus Hard Power.  Hard power is based on coercion (military, economic, etc.). Soft Power is based on creating a system others want to emulate.  He says,

“This soft power – getting others to want the outcomes that you want – co-opts people rather than coerces them.”

and

“When a country’s culture includes universal values and its policies promote values and interests that others share, it increases the relationship of attraction…”

“Narrow values and parochial cultures are less likely to produce soft power.”

So are we going about all this wrong?  Are we, with our polarization of politics and talk of enemies, making ourselves less likable and thereby less attractive to the rest of the world?

Once we were seen as the Yanks who came to save the day.  Then we became the worlds police force, or peacekeeping force.  But something seems to have changed, and often we are disliked more than liked. In our attempt to protect ourselves from bullies, have we crossed a line and become the bully?

Just something to ponder…

………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Nye, Joseph S., Jr. Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. New York: PublicAffairs Books, 2004.