Tag Archives: Elections

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

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

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.

by

We Need a Hero

I went to bed last night thinking how sad it is the way people go about fitting in with a crowd, often putting down others to do so.  Popularity is a mighty strong enticement for our youth.  We try to teach them to ‘be themselves’ and not copy the behavior of others.

As adults, do we follow the same advice?  In our attempts to gain the favor of one group, do we feel we must offend someone else?

As youth, our influence on others is often limited, either by locale or by relative anonymity, but our adult influence is often greater than we realize.

It is probably safe to say that we all slip-up time to time by putting down others in order to fit in with a crowd, but do we take the time to rectify our actions?  When we get caught, do we apologize? Do we do the very thing we ask our children to do?  Or do we feel we are justified in our speech or actions more than our children are?

During an election, much will be said that will irritate others.  Much will be said for the shear campaign value of it.  This is, and has been, part of our political culture, but is there a line we cross when we move from putting down our opponent and instead put down our opponent’s followers, the very people we want to represent?

While Mitt Romney is the latest to be called out for this, by no means is he the first to attempt gaining favor of a smaller group of citizens by insulting a larger group. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, I am going to conclude that if one of his children or grandchildren acted in a similar manner, he would require them to make amends.  This is probably the greatest reason for my sadness today.  For as a fellow Christian, especially as a fellow Mormon, and certainly as a fellow citizen, I recognize most of us make mistakes such as Romney’s, and most of us struggle to make amends.

The expectation of doing what is right should be an equal expectation placed on all of us, but sometimes I wonder if it is of greater importance for those with a greater audience to hold a higher standard of themselves than they might expect of others.  Making mistakes is part of human nature, but amending one’s mistakes is somewhat divine. It shows greater character and a greater humility.  It should not be seen as a weakness, while often it is labeled as such by detractors.  But these same detractors are the ones who would require we gain their favor by insulting and offending in the first place.

So I went to bed last night feeling sad, but this morning I woke up with a song running through my head, a song that says, “I need a hero!”  Maybe instead of counting the number of mistakes a person makes in their life, we should spend more time evaluating their reaction once they have made a mistake. For a hero is not a perfect person, but is rather a humble person willing to serve others and who attempts to make amends for their mistakes. For while they may often seem to fall short of our standards, they should never fall short of their standards without making amends.

Other YouTube versions of Holding Out For A Hero:

Shrek Version

Tribute for Peace (this one chokes me up, but it is a must see)

If anyone can find a link to the Paramount VHS promo, the romantic one not the violent one, could you please share it with me.  

by

Saith Me… To My Face

If you want to insult me, call me names, or disparage me in any way, do so to my face, please.

And if you are a politician, you, more than anyone, should understand if it can only be shared with “some” of the people and not “all” of the people, then you should not share it at all. Especially when you are asking to represent ALL of the people and not just some of them.

This of course does not mean you can’t have closed door meetings or share your opinions with your advisers and staff. Because WE THE PEOPLE do not need to know everything you think or do, but if you plan to share it with some of us, share it with all of us, because that is the respectful way to do business.

by

Meet the Mooch

I have just found out that I am a mooch on the American Dream.

Worse yet, I am a mooch many times over: a military wife living off of a government pay check and receiving government healthcare, a stay-at-home mom not paying taxes, and a recipient of government assisted education. (But at least I don’t mooch off of the public school system with my kids, right?)

And here, I thought that by supporting my husband, and raising my kids to be productive members of society, I was part of the American Dream. But maybe I was just a dreaming.

Maybe I was wrong all along in not realizing the only American Dream that matters is how large your bank account is when you die?

Or maybe the other guys have it all wrong…

by

Saith Me… Courage of Conviction

A look to the past – my blogging past that is.

Jessie Hagen, M.A.'s avatarPithy Ponderings

Commend those who will stand on a principle.  Do not commend those who revile the belief of another.  Even when in opposition of someone’s stand, commend those with the courage to stand on their principle despite those who will revile them.

View original post