Are we trying to win hearts and minds or steal hearts in minds in the ongoing war in Afghanistan that has now expanded into Pakistan. It seems to me that if you want to win people over to your way of thinking you don't bomb them via remote controlled droids and you don't set up barbed wire to separate you and them when you are trying to help them (as in the medical visits to villages by our forces).
Now don't get me wrong. I was in the Marines Corps for several years and I believe that all of the people in our military are brave and deserve any benefits that they get. But they do not make policy and create strategy. They follow orders - some a little more aggressively than others - but the bottom line is that most of them are following orders and protecting each other.
Didn't we try to win hearts and minds in the 60s and 70s with our various Vietnam strategies. That worked out well, didn't it? Pardon my sarcasm but my understanding of the definition of insanity is doing the same things over and over and expecting different results.
Here's a great article titled "Democracy at Gunpoint Guarantees U.S. Defeat". I wish the author was wrong, but alas.... Just think, if someone rolled into your neighborhood in an armored vehicle after several hours or days of suppressive fire and bombs - how much would you be swayed to their way of thinking?
I don't think the Taliban or the militants or the Islamic fundamentalists are right. Any group that is totally intolerant of others and their views (Christian fundamentalists included) are wrong. They aren't tolerant and they should not be allowed to dictate how people other than themselves live, but continuing to "influence" people to our point of view from the end of a gun might help their cause more than ours.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
So What Happened?
"A party can live only by growing. Intolerance of ideas brings its death."
These words were spoken by Republican Senator Albert Beveridge of Indiana in 1910.
"If a majority can exclude the whole or a part of the minority because it deems the political views entertained by them hurtful, then free government is at an end."
These words were spoken by Charles Evans Hughes in 1920. Mr. Hughes was a prominent attorney, Governor of New York, US Supreme Court Justice, Secretary of State and a Presidential nominee - all under the Republican party banner.
These words of wisdom were spoken by leaders who knew that inclusiveness is much more representative of the needs of the people than a rigid doctrine of ideas that alienates a high percentage of the American citizenry.
So what happened? Values and principles are important - regardless of your political views, however it is counterproductive when any group, organization or party dictates how you should live - from the right or from the left.
Though the right should look at their history which recently they have limited to Lincoln and Reagan - the left could heed these words as well.
These words were spoken by Republican Senator Albert Beveridge of Indiana in 1910.
"If a majority can exclude the whole or a part of the minority because it deems the political views entertained by them hurtful, then free government is at an end."
These words were spoken by Charles Evans Hughes in 1920. Mr. Hughes was a prominent attorney, Governor of New York, US Supreme Court Justice, Secretary of State and a Presidential nominee - all under the Republican party banner.
These words of wisdom were spoken by leaders who knew that inclusiveness is much more representative of the needs of the people than a rigid doctrine of ideas that alienates a high percentage of the American citizenry.
So what happened? Values and principles are important - regardless of your political views, however it is counterproductive when any group, organization or party dictates how you should live - from the right or from the left.
Though the right should look at their history which recently they have limited to Lincoln and Reagan - the left could heed these words as well.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
The "Uncivil" War
Wow, how times are changing. Barack Obama was right, the American people do want change. The thing that is interesting is that the party that lost sounds like the new anti-American bunch. They lost the election. We have to assume that they presented their issues, concerns and policies to the American people and that the American people rejected them.
That's a democracy.
So why do we have so much animosity and disrespect from the party that says it loves traditional American values so much that some of its leaders have openly discussed secession. The last time this was tried was about 150 years ago and we all know how that ended up.
A democracy means that the people are represented by their government. Great nations need strong leaders. As the times change the leaders must change to reflect the needs, demands and values of the people. That is what happened with our most recent election. The people have spoken, but some believe the people really don't know what they want.
The American people believe in the rule of law, not fear mongering and adhering to the law when it is convenient and breaking the law when adherence is inconvenient. Maybe I'm wrong, but I didn't know that disobeying the rule of law was a "Republican" value.
Check out this latest "spin" from our Republican party leaders:
That's a democracy.
So why do we have so much animosity and disrespect from the party that says it loves traditional American values so much that some of its leaders have openly discussed secession. The last time this was tried was about 150 years ago and we all know how that ended up.
A democracy means that the people are represented by their government. Great nations need strong leaders. As the times change the leaders must change to reflect the needs, demands and values of the people. That is what happened with our most recent election. The people have spoken, but some believe the people really don't know what they want.
The American people believe in the rule of law, not fear mongering and adhering to the law when it is convenient and breaking the law when adherence is inconvenient. Maybe I'm wrong, but I didn't know that disobeying the rule of law was a "Republican" value.
Check out this latest "spin" from our Republican party leaders:
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Saudis want lower oil prices too
We are all impacted by the high oil prices. This is a fact of life and something that we will all have to adjust to in the days, weeks, months and years to come. We long for the relatively low oil prices of $2.50/gallon.
Ironically, the world's largest oil producing nation is starting to long for those prices also. The fear that the Saudis have is that the party may be coming to an end. They believe that these extremely high prices may be pushing us to a pain point that causes us to embrace conservation and alternative energies. These solutions would ultimately lead us to use less of their crude oil and therefore reduce the amount of money that flows into their coffers.
When you combine this with the fact that many people are becoming concerned about climate change and that the Saudis best friends in Washington will be packing up and leaving in 6 months, they are starting to see their "perfect storm". Less pro-Saudi political pull, more concern for carbon emissions, and total frustration over high fuel prices they can only come to one logical conclusion - it is better to have lower prices and long term viability than higher prices and global animosity.
Of course if the Saudis can lower the price of crude in the next few months (prior to the November Presidential election) Senator McCain's chances of winning the White House will improve. With gas prices at $4.00+/gallon the Republican party will have a much more challenging time winning the White House.
It will be interesting how this plays out over the next year or two, but one thing is certain. They will do all that they can to maintain their global position which includes lowering crude prices.
Ironically, the world's largest oil producing nation is starting to long for those prices also. The fear that the Saudis have is that the party may be coming to an end. They believe that these extremely high prices may be pushing us to a pain point that causes us to embrace conservation and alternative energies. These solutions would ultimately lead us to use less of their crude oil and therefore reduce the amount of money that flows into their coffers.
When you combine this with the fact that many people are becoming concerned about climate change and that the Saudis best friends in Washington will be packing up and leaving in 6 months, they are starting to see their "perfect storm". Less pro-Saudi political pull, more concern for carbon emissions, and total frustration over high fuel prices they can only come to one logical conclusion - it is better to have lower prices and long term viability than higher prices and global animosity.
Of course if the Saudis can lower the price of crude in the next few months (prior to the November Presidential election) Senator McCain's chances of winning the White House will improve. With gas prices at $4.00+/gallon the Republican party will have a much more challenging time winning the White House.
It will be interesting how this plays out over the next year or two, but one thing is certain. They will do all that they can to maintain their global position which includes lowering crude prices.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Gas, Geopolitics and Oil Tankers at Anchor
We are at record gas prices. Those of us who live in areas that do not have the greatest public transportation systems are too aware of this phenomena. There are a lot of reasons for the high gas prices and up until a few days ago everyone has basically said that it is because of basic economics - supply and demand or advanced economics - futures trading. There is of course some truth to all of this.
In many past oil crisis there have been times when oil tankers were held at anchor waiting for the spot prices of crude to increase. Of course, a rise in the per barrel price of oil can have a significant impact on the value of a tanker full of oil. With the largest oil tankers being able to transport about 500,000 tons of crude oil and a barrel of oil weighing a little less than 300 lbs. you can see that holding a tanker at anchor for a few days can bring a significant windfall profit if the price goes up just a few bucks.
So the question of the day is - are there oil tankers currently being held at anchor during this global oil crisis - truckers in Spain are blocking access to a major city as a protest against the rising diesel costs. Also, many oil tankers being owned by independent oil companies (Companies in Panama own the largest oil tanker fleet). Are they waiting for the highest bidder, such as China or India for their services?
Tanker transportation costs/gallon of gas are very small - around $.02/gallon. This cost is much less than the taxes per gallon that the various layers of governments impose on fuel. The shipping industry itself has always been a small percentage of the fuel prices. However, there are numerous times in history when this industry was controlled or restricted in order to manipulate the value of the commodity that it transports.
Our politicians will address the oil problem in their usual day late and several dollars short manner such as tax the oil companies more (they already made $40B in profit with gas 30% cheaper than it is now).
With the consumer being at the end of the oil food chain and having little or no say in what happens in our "democracy" in Washington, it is going to be an interesting adaptation of our lifestyles to adjust to the higher oil prices.
In many past oil crisis there have been times when oil tankers were held at anchor waiting for the spot prices of crude to increase. Of course, a rise in the per barrel price of oil can have a significant impact on the value of a tanker full of oil. With the largest oil tankers being able to transport about 500,000 tons of crude oil and a barrel of oil weighing a little less than 300 lbs. you can see that holding a tanker at anchor for a few days can bring a significant windfall profit if the price goes up just a few bucks.
So the question of the day is - are there oil tankers currently being held at anchor during this global oil crisis - truckers in Spain are blocking access to a major city as a protest against the rising diesel costs. Also, many oil tankers being owned by independent oil companies (Companies in Panama own the largest oil tanker fleet). Are they waiting for the highest bidder, such as China or India for their services?
Tanker transportation costs/gallon of gas are very small - around $.02/gallon. This cost is much less than the taxes per gallon that the various layers of governments impose on fuel. The shipping industry itself has always been a small percentage of the fuel prices. However, there are numerous times in history when this industry was controlled or restricted in order to manipulate the value of the commodity that it transports.
Our politicians will address the oil problem in their usual day late and several dollars short manner such as tax the oil companies more (they already made $40B in profit with gas 30% cheaper than it is now).
With the consumer being at the end of the oil food chain and having little or no say in what happens in our "democracy" in Washington, it is going to be an interesting adaptation of our lifestyles to adjust to the higher oil prices.
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Tenacity = Hillary
No matter what you may think about Hillary Clinton, you have to take your hat off to her tenacity. The lady is as determined as they come. She is like the Energizer Bunny - she just keeps going and going. We could all learn from her. When all seems lost and we are at the end of our rope, tie a knot in it and hold on.
Most candidates follow the rules of their party and would have graciously extended an olive branch and conceded after their opponent achieved the required number of delegates (based on the rules). Barack Obama has the delegates and the support of the party (per the stated rules).
It reminds me of Winston Churchill who stated, "Never give in! Never give in! Never, never, never, never... In nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions or honor and good sense!"
Hillary is nothing if not rational and smart. Therefore there must be a good reason that she has not yet conceded. Her conviction is that she will be in the White House, some way and some how. That means that she wants the VP nod.
The definition of tenacious used to be not readily letting go of something or giving up. Of course Websters could change and better define that by just posting a picture of Hillary.
Most candidates follow the rules of their party and would have graciously extended an olive branch and conceded after their opponent achieved the required number of delegates (based on the rules). Barack Obama has the delegates and the support of the party (per the stated rules).
It reminds me of Winston Churchill who stated, "Never give in! Never give in! Never, never, never, never... In nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions or honor and good sense!"
Hillary is nothing if not rational and smart. Therefore there must be a good reason that she has not yet conceded. Her conviction is that she will be in the White House, some way and some how. That means that she wants the VP nod.
The definition of tenacious used to be not readily letting go of something or giving up. Of course Websters could change and better define that by just posting a picture of Hillary.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
A modern CCC for our times
I was hiking trough a park near my home yesterday. The hike was very relaxing. The park was created by the CCC. What is the CCC you might ask? That would be a legitimate question for those who don't recall some of the details of the first Franklin D. Roosevelt administration.
Within weeks of moving into the Oval Office, FDR established the Civilian Conservation Corps. It employed young men to do public works and nature conservation projects. Over the CCC's nine year history it employed over 3M men between the ages of 18 and 25. The CCC built bridges, planted trees and created and maintained many state parks.
Though this exact program would not be appropriate today, it could be used as a model with a new twist. Unlike the "Great Depression" when the nation was gripped by a stagnating economy with high unemployment and little immediate potential for recovery there are several sectors of our population who are gripped by a "Great Depression" of the mind which has an even more devastating effect.
A modern day CCC may provide hope and opportunity for some of the 13M men and women who are incarcerated in our prison system. Proper training for infrastructure development and repair, conservation, environmental and agricultural employment opportunities as well as entry level work in these areas could create value.
Value for the individual because they get a choice and a chance, and value for society because we get someone with new hope who chooses to participate versus prey. A big difference - just ask anyone who has ever been a victim of crime or worse, lost a loved one to a repeat offender's poor choices.
There are 100s if not 1000s of civil infrastructure projects that are public works that need to be repaired or replaced. Think of the bridges, water systems and flood controls that need to be repaired. Any increase in sea level will lead to different infrastructure needs, barriers and levees. Though much of the work that has to be done requires special skills with years of training, there is no better place to start than now. Training can happen while the individuals do the manual and menial tasks that are the basics of many apprentice, military, and development programs world wide.
Some will say that this will open the door to cheap labor and possibly more separatism, racism and exploitation. I can only ask if the current system is working to minimize this societal problem or is it inadvertently making it worse. Though it is comfortable (relatively speaking) and easy to avoid changing the system we all know that there is a better way.
The CCC of today would empower young men and women to develop the infrastructure of this nation for the next 200 years. There are many things to be done but the local, state and federal governments - as currently configured and governing - will never get them done.
Let's go for a win-win model. A person gets a chance to make wise choices and society gains. If only society could choose!?
Within weeks of moving into the Oval Office, FDR established the Civilian Conservation Corps. It employed young men to do public works and nature conservation projects. Over the CCC's nine year history it employed over 3M men between the ages of 18 and 25. The CCC built bridges, planted trees and created and maintained many state parks.
Though this exact program would not be appropriate today, it could be used as a model with a new twist. Unlike the "Great Depression" when the nation was gripped by a stagnating economy with high unemployment and little immediate potential for recovery there are several sectors of our population who are gripped by a "Great Depression" of the mind which has an even more devastating effect.
A modern day CCC may provide hope and opportunity for some of the 13M men and women who are incarcerated in our prison system. Proper training for infrastructure development and repair, conservation, environmental and agricultural employment opportunities as well as entry level work in these areas could create value.
Value for the individual because they get a choice and a chance, and value for society because we get someone with new hope who chooses to participate versus prey. A big difference - just ask anyone who has ever been a victim of crime or worse, lost a loved one to a repeat offender's poor choices.
There are 100s if not 1000s of civil infrastructure projects that are public works that need to be repaired or replaced. Think of the bridges, water systems and flood controls that need to be repaired. Any increase in sea level will lead to different infrastructure needs, barriers and levees. Though much of the work that has to be done requires special skills with years of training, there is no better place to start than now. Training can happen while the individuals do the manual and menial tasks that are the basics of many apprentice, military, and development programs world wide.
Some will say that this will open the door to cheap labor and possibly more separatism, racism and exploitation. I can only ask if the current system is working to minimize this societal problem or is it inadvertently making it worse. Though it is comfortable (relatively speaking) and easy to avoid changing the system we all know that there is a better way.
The CCC of today would empower young men and women to develop the infrastructure of this nation for the next 200 years. There are many things to be done but the local, state and federal governments - as currently configured and governing - will never get them done.
Let's go for a win-win model. A person gets a chance to make wise choices and society gains. If only society could choose!?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
