1) The fundamental purpose of a healthcare program is to promote longevity of human life. The Wall Street Journal. I understand, has reported that for the US male life expectany is 75; female, close to 80. A healthcare program must address itself to life threatening conditions when they occur in patients. On the radio the other day, it was said that some older women could not obtain treatment for a life threatening condition because they could not afford the co-pay. We ought to expect better; and they should have demanded better, if true.
2) Another purpose is to provide remedy and treatment to enable its patients to functon as much as possible on their own. In some cases, the healthcare program provides an artificial limb or an electric wheelchair, allowing patients who otherwise would find it difficult, if not impossible, to get around.
3) Yet another purpose is to provide restorative "cures" so as to bring back its patients to normal look and action. Cosmestic surgery would fall in this category; even removing non-threatening cancerous growths. In short, restoring the patient's health to the point that he can do the things he's accustomed to doing.
I've had discussions with members of the Catholic Worker organization in L.A. about this thrid purpose. They encourage their people, if I understand their position, to withstand a certain amount of pain, certainly when the poatients can still function normally though experiencing pain. I am intrigued by the hero of Flynn's novel Consent to Kill. who is described as learning to cope with his manifold personal injuries and resultant pain for long periods of time. I think Americans tend to rely on pills and short-lived remedies too much, so as to run away from what I believe to be part of the human condition.
Should a public healthcare system pay for providing such remedies and prescriptive devices to meet this purpose? I think not in many instances of applying remedies.
Note that patients who subject their bodies to restorative treatments over time may find subsequently that their bodies are less capable of fighting more serious physical maladies.
.
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Politicians vs. Technocrats
Wonder why politians are so eager to cut back on financing entitlements and trimming entitlement budgets? That's because they have no control over how the money is allocated and spent once its placed in the hands of an administrative technocrat in charge of some particular entitlement program. And, as government continues to expand entitlements--first, social security, then medicare, now medicaid--Congress is going to become even more frustrated and feel even more left out of the decision-making processes in government.
Why just this morning, the technocrats in the Treasury and Federal Reserve were warning Congress that if it failed to pass the current tax-unemployment-extended package, a compromise, dire economic consequences would ensue, including an even steeper plunge in unemployment figures. Despite the fact that Democratic progressives are unhappy with the bill in its outline form, they are being told by these technocrats and the Vice President, who is heeding their words, to shut up and go along!
This morning, I was also listening to the Dr. Bill Bennett program on the radio. He was moaning over the fact that Congress seems to be losing control to a bunch of technocrats in governmental adminstrative positions. His view of a technocrat is a bit passe and dated, I believe, Remember Katrina? Bush had made a political appointment, placing someone in charge of the federal agency handling such physical disasters, someone who knew little about dealing with such matters but who was loyal to Bush's team. That appointment backfired; and the individual was removed in favor of someone who was a technocrat in the field. At one time, political appointments were the name of the game--support the winning candidate and you've got a job for four years. But the country has moved toward establishing its government as a technocracy--not socialist, communist, nor capitalist--not committed to any ideology, but instead making knowledge and science the basis for decision-making, e.g., formulating policy and administering it.
Bill Bennett thinks, I suppose, that technocrats are only in govcrnment and education. But he's wrong. Most technocrats are in industry! During and after the Gulf Oil Spill, BP brought in its own technocrats to analyze the situation and decide how to overcome it. That's what technocrats do: they engage situations using the best technology available and from their findings and trial-and-error solutiions to situational problems share what they have learned with the industry at large, viz., other oil companies, so everbody benefits. The procedure they follow, well known in technocratic circles, is known as action research.
Nonethelsss, in a technocracy, politicians play a vital role for its success. 1) They hire and fire adinistrative technocrats. Obama recently let go a techncrat from the Univeresity of California-Berkeley apparently for her inability to measure up to her assigned responsibilities; but he has hired since his becoming President several administrative technocrats he calls "czars!" 2) They serve as a go-between between the public and the technocrats, explaining matters of administrative policy made by technocrats, defending such decisions, while at the same time communicating to these technocrats the public's concerns, apprehensions and desired outcomes regarding a federal program. 3) They establish and close down programs through their control of the federal purse strings; and regulate the degree of financial support available to any such program; 4) They bring in their own technocratic consultants to evaluate a program or call upon the GAO to monitor. Particuarly is this function useful in detecting any politically motivated, rather than scientifically founded, policy or decision made by an administrative technocrat. This is no different than the way industry proceeds in evaluating their cadre of technocrats. BP's decisions and technological procedures were overseen by the US military and once the wells were capped sucessfully, BP technocrats had to account for their actions to numerous other technocrats in the oil and gas field as part of an evaluative process.
The US is not yet a technocracy, however, though I believe that it is taking the proper steps toward that end. Just last week, a Congressional committee offered its suggestions and recommendations for dramatically reducing the US debt. In a technocracy, only experts in the fields of economics and its applications to government should be formulating and refining and evaluating technical decisions of this nature.
Enough already!
Why just this morning, the technocrats in the Treasury and Federal Reserve were warning Congress that if it failed to pass the current tax-unemployment-extended package, a compromise, dire economic consequences would ensue, including an even steeper plunge in unemployment figures. Despite the fact that Democratic progressives are unhappy with the bill in its outline form, they are being told by these technocrats and the Vice President, who is heeding their words, to shut up and go along!
This morning, I was also listening to the Dr. Bill Bennett program on the radio. He was moaning over the fact that Congress seems to be losing control to a bunch of technocrats in governmental adminstrative positions. His view of a technocrat is a bit passe and dated, I believe, Remember Katrina? Bush had made a political appointment, placing someone in charge of the federal agency handling such physical disasters, someone who knew little about dealing with such matters but who was loyal to Bush's team. That appointment backfired; and the individual was removed in favor of someone who was a technocrat in the field. At one time, political appointments were the name of the game--support the winning candidate and you've got a job for four years. But the country has moved toward establishing its government as a technocracy--not socialist, communist, nor capitalist--not committed to any ideology, but instead making knowledge and science the basis for decision-making, e.g., formulating policy and administering it.
Bill Bennett thinks, I suppose, that technocrats are only in govcrnment and education. But he's wrong. Most technocrats are in industry! During and after the Gulf Oil Spill, BP brought in its own technocrats to analyze the situation and decide how to overcome it. That's what technocrats do: they engage situations using the best technology available and from their findings and trial-and-error solutiions to situational problems share what they have learned with the industry at large, viz., other oil companies, so everbody benefits. The procedure they follow, well known in technocratic circles, is known as action research.
Nonethelsss, in a technocracy, politicians play a vital role for its success. 1) They hire and fire adinistrative technocrats. Obama recently let go a techncrat from the Univeresity of California-Berkeley apparently for her inability to measure up to her assigned responsibilities; but he has hired since his becoming President several administrative technocrats he calls "czars!" 2) They serve as a go-between between the public and the technocrats, explaining matters of administrative policy made by technocrats, defending such decisions, while at the same time communicating to these technocrats the public's concerns, apprehensions and desired outcomes regarding a federal program. 3) They establish and close down programs through their control of the federal purse strings; and regulate the degree of financial support available to any such program; 4) They bring in their own technocratic consultants to evaluate a program or call upon the GAO to monitor. Particuarly is this function useful in detecting any politically motivated, rather than scientifically founded, policy or decision made by an administrative technocrat. This is no different than the way industry proceeds in evaluating their cadre of technocrats. BP's decisions and technological procedures were overseen by the US military and once the wells were capped sucessfully, BP technocrats had to account for their actions to numerous other technocrats in the oil and gas field as part of an evaluative process.
The US is not yet a technocracy, however, though I believe that it is taking the proper steps toward that end. Just last week, a Congressional committee offered its suggestions and recommendations for dramatically reducing the US debt. In a technocracy, only experts in the fields of economics and its applications to government should be formulating and refining and evaluating technical decisions of this nature.
Enough already!
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Important US CEOs Decry Capitalism
I can hardly believe it myself!
In justifying tax cuts for the rich, Congressional Republican leaders have contended, in accord presumably with those whose interests they promote, that because the rich who head corporations are the ones actually doing the hiring of workers from the pool of the unemployed or underemployed, they, the rich, should be rewarded by government with a lower than customary tax burden!
Now, I thought that under capitalism, the Board of Directors of any corporation rewarded its top echelon. If the tax rate were high, a Board simply could provide ample consideration to its executives to meet such a burden. But are these CEOs crying to their Boards of Directors to increase their benefits? Hell no; they want their government, not private enterprise to come up with a tax relief schemata for them!
Some capitalists these guys are. They'll take money wherever they can grab it--call it yielding to socialistic tendencies or forsaking the major tenets of private enterprise under a capitalist model--so long as they come out winners of money, money, money!
In justifying tax cuts for the rich, Congressional Republican leaders have contended, in accord presumably with those whose interests they promote, that because the rich who head corporations are the ones actually doing the hiring of workers from the pool of the unemployed or underemployed, they, the rich, should be rewarded by government with a lower than customary tax burden!
Now, I thought that under capitalism, the Board of Directors of any corporation rewarded its top echelon. If the tax rate were high, a Board simply could provide ample consideration to its executives to meet such a burden. But are these CEOs crying to their Boards of Directors to increase their benefits? Hell no; they want their government, not private enterprise to come up with a tax relief schemata for them!
Some capitalists these guys are. They'll take money wherever they can grab it--call it yielding to socialistic tendencies or forsaking the major tenets of private enterprise under a capitalist model--so long as they come out winners of money, money, money!
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Reflections on Going to Nevada
I had been living in California, since 1989 San Francisco, then 1995, Santa Barbara for 6 months, then onto L.A. I had some terrible experiences with my health care diagnoses and treatments in San Francisco, so I went on to Santa Barbara, where the county health in my case was adequate, but I found the people snobbish. I moved to L.A., where I had good living conditions downtown, good food, but again lousy healthcare. Indeed, both in San Francisco and Los Angeles, I had to seek second-opinions out-of-state because in my case the situations under the healthcare systems in these two cities I ran into were life-threatening! I do not have a death wish! So, I began to think about leaving the state and living elsewhere.
The cities I found more to my liking were El Paso, Texas, where I'm now residing, Omaha, Nebraska, where I just came from (and it's cold there!); and Reno, Nevada, to where I wouldn't mind returning some day (but not now!). I found the healthcare in El Paso, Washington, DC and Omaha acording to my standards, but did not use a medical facility in either Raleigh nor Reno.
In any event, this item is about my stays in Reno, Nevada over a period of two years, amounting to about 8 months. I got to know the natives and many retirees over at the Downtown Senior Center and on the buses and at the libraries, where I used the computers.
The good things I remember about Reno. Good quality, affordable housing; great food, the best I've had at any senior center in the cities I lived in in California; Washington, DC, Raleigh, North Carolina, Omaha and El Paso. I'd say, by the way, that El Paso Downtown comes in second! Good quality clothes, etc. at the thrift stores, especially St. Anthony's, though I heard the Salvation Army has reaally good stuff, too.
For seniors, there's the Lifelong Learning Center developed by the University of Nevada, Reno. It's ok, but certainly not the qualitiy of offering and not the availability of their programs for all seniors who are enrolled in the Center. But they are changing as demonstrated by the new catologue they've just put.out.
There's plenty of free entertainment, mostly on the weekends downtown, but I must say it's offerings, e.g., country music by groups from the California Central Valley, is only average and hackneyed.
A wonderful transit system--the best for a mid-city. I noted that the townspeople and tourists really don't mix with the University students; and the young people and old people stay pretty much within their respective age groups. And, there's lots of old people. With over 14% unemployment, those able-bodied who can get out, do so--and that's from all over the state, but especially Vegas (I talked in Reno with people fleeing Vegas), but their housing prices just rose (so did Washington, DC's prices)..
What grabs you as you walk down Virginia Street downtown is how few people there are of any age. I talked with natives who said, "Yes, the crowds were here in the '80's, but not anymore!" Of course, with the blossoming of Vegas, you can appreciate how Reno has suffered.
But the most outstanding feature of Reno is its old people. I talked with several who were in their 90's and walking around sprightly and talking intelligently, coherently. I was especially impressed with a 96 year old gentleman I met at the Senior Center. My impression is that people live long in Reno.
The biggest problem I see for Nevada, which has a lot to offer old and young alike even amid this deep recession is that the state over the years has catered to the casino technology where bets are made at tables and payoffs occur at casino slot machines and cashiers. As I see it, casino gambling technology is almost passe. The gambling of the future is online, computer controlled--where the place of betting could be anywhere in the world. The state of Nevada is contemplating, I heard, serviciing online bets and gambling for which they would collect a fee, much like transpires offshore in the Bahamas.
Goodbye, Nevada, for now!
The cities I found more to my liking were El Paso, Texas, where I'm now residing, Omaha, Nebraska, where I just came from (and it's cold there!); and Reno, Nevada, to where I wouldn't mind returning some day (but not now!). I found the healthcare in El Paso, Washington, DC and Omaha acording to my standards, but did not use a medical facility in either Raleigh nor Reno.
In any event, this item is about my stays in Reno, Nevada over a period of two years, amounting to about 8 months. I got to know the natives and many retirees over at the Downtown Senior Center and on the buses and at the libraries, where I used the computers.
The good things I remember about Reno. Good quality, affordable housing; great food, the best I've had at any senior center in the cities I lived in in California; Washington, DC, Raleigh, North Carolina, Omaha and El Paso. I'd say, by the way, that El Paso Downtown comes in second! Good quality clothes, etc. at the thrift stores, especially St. Anthony's, though I heard the Salvation Army has reaally good stuff, too.
For seniors, there's the Lifelong Learning Center developed by the University of Nevada, Reno. It's ok, but certainly not the qualitiy of offering and not the availability of their programs for all seniors who are enrolled in the Center. But they are changing as demonstrated by the new catologue they've just put.out.
There's plenty of free entertainment, mostly on the weekends downtown, but I must say it's offerings, e.g., country music by groups from the California Central Valley, is only average and hackneyed.
A wonderful transit system--the best for a mid-city. I noted that the townspeople and tourists really don't mix with the University students; and the young people and old people stay pretty much within their respective age groups. And, there's lots of old people. With over 14% unemployment, those able-bodied who can get out, do so--and that's from all over the state, but especially Vegas (I talked in Reno with people fleeing Vegas), but their housing prices just rose (so did Washington, DC's prices)..
What grabs you as you walk down Virginia Street downtown is how few people there are of any age. I talked with natives who said, "Yes, the crowds were here in the '80's, but not anymore!" Of course, with the blossoming of Vegas, you can appreciate how Reno has suffered.
But the most outstanding feature of Reno is its old people. I talked with several who were in their 90's and walking around sprightly and talking intelligently, coherently. I was especially impressed with a 96 year old gentleman I met at the Senior Center. My impression is that people live long in Reno.
The biggest problem I see for Nevada, which has a lot to offer old and young alike even amid this deep recession is that the state over the years has catered to the casino technology where bets are made at tables and payoffs occur at casino slot machines and cashiers. As I see it, casino gambling technology is almost passe. The gambling of the future is online, computer controlled--where the place of betting could be anywhere in the world. The state of Nevada is contemplating, I heard, serviciing online bets and gambling for which they would collect a fee, much like transpires offshore in the Bahamas.
Goodbye, Nevada, for now!
Saturday, August 14, 2010
de facto Segregation: a fact of human existence
I've been thinking through what on earth happened to me in Washington, DC this past trip in the Winter, 2010. Briefly, I tried to live in a black neighborhood, because it was within my ability to pay, but was treated harshly and had to get out fast!
That got me to thinking. What had I done wrong? Perhaps, it was the same mistake that Dr. Laura made on her radio show when she several times, over and over again, mentioned the N-Word in a recent broadcast. I had not realized that blacks have their own culture, which they share with other blacks and few others. I was intruding on their space; and they resented it. If was as if they were saying, "Get yourself out of our area! And, don't pretend you're one of us!" Despite the fact I couldn't afford living elsewhere; and certainly did not mind living in a black area of town. I know that the southeast area near St. Elizabeth's wasn't bad, but I couldn't find anything there and kept looking around Georgia Avenue.
What I'm saying is that the American Experience of trying to become a melting pot of the races really doesn't work--in my opinion; or, it will have mixed results. While blacks call among themselves N's, they don't want those not of that culture to use the word to apply to them. I attended a concert in Wingfield Park in wonderful Reno recently and a black performer said to a predominantly, almost entirely, black audience that it was wonderful being among "his people for a little while" before he want back to perform at one of the casinos downtown. There's that identity of being black, of realizing oneself by being black. After all, "black is beautiful!"
I recall several years ago applying for a job at Laney College in downtown Oakland, California. I thought it was strange that I was one of few white people in the halls of the college; but in thinking it through, I see that the neighborhood had been changing--which, being from the Chicago area, I hadn't known--and I really had no chance of being hired, because I didn't fit.
The phenomenon I'm discussing is true of the Chinese living in Chinatown. They share common customs and ways of thinking; and a common language heritage. It's true of the northern Europeans who settled in the northern middle states, especially Minnesota. It's true of the orthodox Jews who live by Yeshiva University in New York City. Yet it's also true of families: though it's perfectly alright for a mother to say to her child "Do you have to go pee-pee?" it's probably not as acceptable for a stranger to be as familiar. It just doesn't click.
Sad to say, I think the American Experience of intgrating works for some people, but if the ties are strong to the heritage, it won't work for them. They want to be among their own. By blacks finding their identity in being African Americans, they have achieved self-actualization but at the cost of separation. That's the terrible thing of being trapped and cornered by one's heritage. When I was in Russia, I urged the Russians to give up their history and look to the future.
Glenn Beck contends we must study history. No, history is gone; and its lessons are tied to other circumstances. Reach out courageously into a new world with new opportunities; and don't look back (as Lot's wife had done)!
That got me to thinking. What had I done wrong? Perhaps, it was the same mistake that Dr. Laura made on her radio show when she several times, over and over again, mentioned the N-Word in a recent broadcast. I had not realized that blacks have their own culture, which they share with other blacks and few others. I was intruding on their space; and they resented it. If was as if they were saying, "Get yourself out of our area! And, don't pretend you're one of us!" Despite the fact I couldn't afford living elsewhere; and certainly did not mind living in a black area of town. I know that the southeast area near St. Elizabeth's wasn't bad, but I couldn't find anything there and kept looking around Georgia Avenue.
What I'm saying is that the American Experience of trying to become a melting pot of the races really doesn't work--in my opinion; or, it will have mixed results. While blacks call among themselves N's, they don't want those not of that culture to use the word to apply to them. I attended a concert in Wingfield Park in wonderful Reno recently and a black performer said to a predominantly, almost entirely, black audience that it was wonderful being among "his people for a little while" before he want back to perform at one of the casinos downtown. There's that identity of being black, of realizing oneself by being black. After all, "black is beautiful!"
I recall several years ago applying for a job at Laney College in downtown Oakland, California. I thought it was strange that I was one of few white people in the halls of the college; but in thinking it through, I see that the neighborhood had been changing--which, being from the Chicago area, I hadn't known--and I really had no chance of being hired, because I didn't fit.
The phenomenon I'm discussing is true of the Chinese living in Chinatown. They share common customs and ways of thinking; and a common language heritage. It's true of the northern Europeans who settled in the northern middle states, especially Minnesota. It's true of the orthodox Jews who live by Yeshiva University in New York City. Yet it's also true of families: though it's perfectly alright for a mother to say to her child "Do you have to go pee-pee?" it's probably not as acceptable for a stranger to be as familiar. It just doesn't click.
Sad to say, I think the American Experience of intgrating works for some people, but if the ties are strong to the heritage, it won't work for them. They want to be among their own. By blacks finding their identity in being African Americans, they have achieved self-actualization but at the cost of separation. That's the terrible thing of being trapped and cornered by one's heritage. When I was in Russia, I urged the Russians to give up their history and look to the future.
Glenn Beck contends we must study history. No, history is gone; and its lessons are tied to other circumstances. Reach out courageously into a new world with new opportunities; and don't look back (as Lot's wife had done)!
Monday, July 26, 2010
With the Cross of Jesus, Marching as Before!
The Europeans in the Middle Ages began the Holy War known then as the Crusades. It was launched against the Infidel in the Middle East. The Crusades netted land and booty as their reward.
Somehow, we've carried on their tradition. Interested in the Middle East for reasons of oil, we've become embued with a hunger to conquer, even destroy the Infidel, wherever he be in the area. It probably began for us in the Vietnam War, where we were attempting to protect the Catholics in South Vietnam. Our cause was just, but we were not sufficiently inspired to conquer the heathen of the North! May God forgive our lack of courage!
It is true there were a handful of Al Queda who broke through our defense network in 9/11. The event has led to an overhaul, much needed, of our intelligence agencies. But we are not after the Terrorist in the Middle East, because we leave Pakistan alone; and do not invade Yemen. No, we are after the Infidel. We search him out in Iraq, Afghanistan, and await the day when we destroy him in Iran. There is no place he can hide from our might, for we come in the name of Jesus, the Christ, the Savior of the World. We shall aid the Zionist to conquer the Infidel in the Holy Land, even as we spread the Truth of the Gospel among the Infidel in other Middle Eastern lands. We shall courageously withstand the arrows the Infidel aims at us. In the Name of Jesus, Infidel, bow down before the true and lasting God and surrender, for your Jihad is nothing to compare with ours!
Is this what the United States has become? Is this what history shall record? The craziness of a people gone mad with religious zeal?
Somehow, we've carried on their tradition. Interested in the Middle East for reasons of oil, we've become embued with a hunger to conquer, even destroy the Infidel, wherever he be in the area. It probably began for us in the Vietnam War, where we were attempting to protect the Catholics in South Vietnam. Our cause was just, but we were not sufficiently inspired to conquer the heathen of the North! May God forgive our lack of courage!
It is true there were a handful of Al Queda who broke through our defense network in 9/11. The event has led to an overhaul, much needed, of our intelligence agencies. But we are not after the Terrorist in the Middle East, because we leave Pakistan alone; and do not invade Yemen. No, we are after the Infidel. We search him out in Iraq, Afghanistan, and await the day when we destroy him in Iran. There is no place he can hide from our might, for we come in the name of Jesus, the Christ, the Savior of the World. We shall aid the Zionist to conquer the Infidel in the Holy Land, even as we spread the Truth of the Gospel among the Infidel in other Middle Eastern lands. We shall courageously withstand the arrows the Infidel aims at us. In the Name of Jesus, Infidel, bow down before the true and lasting God and surrender, for your Jihad is nothing to compare with ours!
Is this what the United States has become? Is this what history shall record? The craziness of a people gone mad with religious zeal?
Friday, July 9, 2010
John Dewey's "Keep 'Em Busy, Charlie!"
I attend a current events class at the Osher Lifelong Learning Center of the University of Nevada, Reno. This past week we got thinking about the significance of the phenomenon of a rising educated populace all around the world; and how the common man in countries once deemed "primitive" is demanding, more and more, a piece of the action and a share of the world's goodies.
What's the alternative? Suppose the demands of the commoner aren't heeded. We envisioned unrest, class warfare, even war with guns and missiles deployed.
In any case, the point to human existence, if there is one, is to be kept busy doing what man's developed potentials enable him to do. That point was hammered home by the American philosopher John Dewey, who studied the common man seriously.
I think since there's so many educated persons the world over; and the numbers are growing exponentially, they clearly need to be kept busy doing the things they are trained to do. Nations of the world through such organizations as G20 must find the wherewithal to enable the citizens of the world to interact with respect to their training--to prevent worldwide holocaust, caused by the discontent of an educated populace aimlessly shunted about.
What's the alternative? Suppose the demands of the commoner aren't heeded. We envisioned unrest, class warfare, even war with guns and missiles deployed.
In any case, the point to human existence, if there is one, is to be kept busy doing what man's developed potentials enable him to do. That point was hammered home by the American philosopher John Dewey, who studied the common man seriously.
I think since there's so many educated persons the world over; and the numbers are growing exponentially, they clearly need to be kept busy doing the things they are trained to do. Nations of the world through such organizations as G20 must find the wherewithal to enable the citizens of the world to interact with respect to their training--to prevent worldwide holocaust, caused by the discontent of an educated populace aimlessly shunted about.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Russian Constitution is Pretty Good
By the way, I am glad to see that today President Obama is recommending that Russia join the World Trade Organization. I'm sure Russia will make lasting contributions.
But I want to bring up my travel to the Soviet Union, Moscow, in the late 1980's. I was privileged to discuss the Soviet's new constitution for several hours over the course of my visit through an interpreter with personages I understood were to be involved in its construction.
It's been a long time since, but I remember making the following critical discussion points:
1. The old Soviet Union should be divided up into several independent republics. It's good for economic competition and for efficiency in industrial organization. Altogether, they should form a confederation, working in unity for the good of the whole. I thought the term suitable to the identity of the whole would be The Confederation of Independent States; and their term today does not sharply differ.
2. Since many of these identifiable entities that would form the Confederation have separate languages and cultures, I recommended that the national language of each be reflected in the textbooks and legal documents of each region (rather than in Russian). This promotes pride and nationalism per republic. Of course, each would have its own economy and independent ways, though together they would be interrelated as was the case already.
I believe that over the many years since its adoption, the Constitution has served the republics well. I am glad they have retained the sense of a confederation of independent states.
Just recently in Georgia, there has been opportunity to create yet another republic for Russians living in an area of the region, enabling them to retain a unique self identity--again, showing the viability of the new Constitution to handle ethnic divisions and cultural diversity yet promoting unity of purpose.
Good luck Russia with the new Constitution! I was glad to be present during the formation of such an important document! I try to keep up with what's happening in that region of the world through the Kennan Institute in Washington, DC, whenever I'm on the East Coast.
But I want to bring up my travel to the Soviet Union, Moscow, in the late 1980's. I was privileged to discuss the Soviet's new constitution for several hours over the course of my visit through an interpreter with personages I understood were to be involved in its construction.
It's been a long time since, but I remember making the following critical discussion points:
1. The old Soviet Union should be divided up into several independent republics. It's good for economic competition and for efficiency in industrial organization. Altogether, they should form a confederation, working in unity for the good of the whole. I thought the term suitable to the identity of the whole would be The Confederation of Independent States; and their term today does not sharply differ.
2. Since many of these identifiable entities that would form the Confederation have separate languages and cultures, I recommended that the national language of each be reflected in the textbooks and legal documents of each region (rather than in Russian). This promotes pride and nationalism per republic. Of course, each would have its own economy and independent ways, though together they would be interrelated as was the case already.
I believe that over the many years since its adoption, the Constitution has served the republics well. I am glad they have retained the sense of a confederation of independent states.
Just recently in Georgia, there has been opportunity to create yet another republic for Russians living in an area of the region, enabling them to retain a unique self identity--again, showing the viability of the new Constitution to handle ethnic divisions and cultural diversity yet promoting unity of purpose.
Good luck Russia with the new Constitution! I was glad to be present during the formation of such an important document! I try to keep up with what's happening in that region of the world through the Kennan Institute in Washington, DC, whenever I'm on the East Coast.
Monday, June 14, 2010
Insincerity: the glue in human relations
The Existemtialists since Rousseau argued that to live in society is to live in "bad faith," to sacrifice your personal feelings and wants for the "good of society." To live in society is to do what others expect of you, whether or not you want to do as they say! Well, today, I think we'd say insincerity is the hallmark of living with others; by what you do, you have to make it "seem" you're pleasing them--and that keeps your relationship with them running smoothly.
Now, Dr. Laura, whose talk show program takes up topics revolving around "how to get along with others," reminded me of the Existentialist point of view in her recent statements--and I trust I've got them right. She pointed out on one occasion that though she may come home tired and may not want to take out her dog, she does so anyway, because she sees how it pleases him! Similarly, she argues a grandmother who wants to see her grandchild regularly, needs to comply with the wishes of the child's mother--her daughter--or risk not being able to see her grandchild on a regular basis. For example, if the child's mother demands that the grandmother babysit the kid at least two nights a week, so the daughter can go out, if the grandmother wants to see the kid, she should readily comply.
Dr. Laura, I believe, gave another instance in talking with a caller: a wife finds the husband wants sex too frequently; wants sex all too often when she doesn't want to participate in the activity. I think Dr. Laura may have replied, for the sake of the marriage, go through with it! (You understand, this is how I interpreted the repartee.)
Now, I found in my research into caring for baby, that several authorities on the subject encourage the parent to hide how they feel at the moment in order to attend to the baby's wants and needs. Suppose, a parent comes home in a foul, angry mood from work. No, she must not reveal how angry she is but instead put on the mask of a gentle, caring parent, totally involved with baby!
Contrast the notion of play-acting that appears so important to accepting and caring for another person, no matter how one feels at the moment, with "being yourself--laying it all out there!" "I'm me; take me or leave me." If you've watched the housewives series, e.g., the housewives of New Jersey, you know what I mean. If a housewife feels insulted or ignored by another housewife, she tells her off; she says "You're no longer my friend; I never want to see you again!" In short, she cuts the relationship off; no more glue to be applied.
Now, Dr. Laura, whose talk show program takes up topics revolving around "how to get along with others," reminded me of the Existentialist point of view in her recent statements--and I trust I've got them right. She pointed out on one occasion that though she may come home tired and may not want to take out her dog, she does so anyway, because she sees how it pleases him! Similarly, she argues a grandmother who wants to see her grandchild regularly, needs to comply with the wishes of the child's mother--her daughter--or risk not being able to see her grandchild on a regular basis. For example, if the child's mother demands that the grandmother babysit the kid at least two nights a week, so the daughter can go out, if the grandmother wants to see the kid, she should readily comply.
Dr. Laura, I believe, gave another instance in talking with a caller: a wife finds the husband wants sex too frequently; wants sex all too often when she doesn't want to participate in the activity. I think Dr. Laura may have replied, for the sake of the marriage, go through with it! (You understand, this is how I interpreted the repartee.)
Now, I found in my research into caring for baby, that several authorities on the subject encourage the parent to hide how they feel at the moment in order to attend to the baby's wants and needs. Suppose, a parent comes home in a foul, angry mood from work. No, she must not reveal how angry she is but instead put on the mask of a gentle, caring parent, totally involved with baby!
Contrast the notion of play-acting that appears so important to accepting and caring for another person, no matter how one feels at the moment, with "being yourself--laying it all out there!" "I'm me; take me or leave me." If you've watched the housewives series, e.g., the housewives of New Jersey, you know what I mean. If a housewife feels insulted or ignored by another housewife, she tells her off; she says "You're no longer my friend; I never want to see you again!" In short, she cuts the relationship off; no more glue to be applied.
Sunday, May 23, 2010
In Defense of Faith-based Initiatives
I've talked with clergymen and religious leaders of various faiths about the concept of Faith-based Initiatives. At the International Dream Church in LA, (Assembly of God church), as the concept was being formulated, the discussion centered about whether the concept could work. Those who talked with me at the Dream Church were enthusiastic about it. Discussions I've had with the Catholic Worker organization in LA, after the concept was put into use under the leadership of President George Bush, were centered around criticisms they made of the concept and why they wouldn't make use of it. I know that the Evangelical Christian leadership is opposed to the program and wants it repealed, but I haven't discussed it with any of them.. Currently, the program is up and running and seems a tremendous success. I endorse it wholeheartedly! Some Episcopal clergy from England I met at the Hollywood Episcopal church were amazed and confounded that such a program could be successfully undertaken, when I shared my knowledge of the program with them!
The program is modelled after elements of the food distribution program in the US, whereby government supplies food to church and religious agencies who then distribute it. For example, in the Reno area, I receive an allotment of food (supplied by the local Food Bank) at a Christian Church which in turn supplies both the area for the food to be distributed and the volunteer labor who do clerical and food handling stuff. This food distribution to the needy is carried out across the country using church sites, etc. Its is an example of church and state working together for social good.
The philosophy of the faith-based initiative program is just that simple: religious organizations (e.g., churches) and government (i.e., federal, state, county, municipal) team up together to solve social problems and promote the social welfare for the good of society. Importantly, the one without the other could not do as well; and society would suffer.
HOW THE PROGRAM WORKS (AS I UNDERSTAND IT)
Let's use an example. A church establishes an after-school program for the kids in its neighborhood. The program gets off the ground due to the leadership and direction of its clergy. Then, all of a sudden for whatever reason--say, a business downturn amounting to a recession--the funds the church had no longer are coming in sufficiently to keep the after-school program going. The church would ordinarily have to close the program down--neighborhood kids no longer would have access to that place to study and play after school that the church was providing. These kids might then turn to the streets, once again, and might get into trouble, even engage in social deviant behaviors But because of the Faith-based Initiative program is in existence, the church can apply for government funding! Government to the rescue where community effort left on its own gave insufficient support. The government grants the church sufficient funds to keep the program going. Now, it may be that at some future time, the church will not need those extra funds that the government was giving them; or the church may be able to expand the program with those government funds. That's up to the government agency and the particular church to work out together.
The point is, there's numerous cases in which some religious agency, which runs its own program, and the government can strike a deal for the good of society, especially in hard financial times unforeseen by those who put the program together and run it.
AN ADDENDUM (OF MINE)
The religious person who dedicates himself for a social cause, e.g., building a house or digging a well, in the name of his God will do a fine job. But, if he were to think that he's simply a government worker doing the bidding of some bureaucrat, he would walk off the job! He does what he does, makes the sacrifices involved because he is dedicated to his religious belief. You can't argue with that. So, the social good he does by digging the well, for example, ought to be supported by any means possible. See Varieties of Religious Experience by William James, who makes this point far better than I: religious dedication has social worth as well as religious merit.
And, these Evangelicals and religious purists who decry government and religion working together seem to me espousing a philosophy that would deprive society of the benefits of religious action that has social worth.
The program is modelled after elements of the food distribution program in the US, whereby government supplies food to church and religious agencies who then distribute it. For example, in the Reno area, I receive an allotment of food (supplied by the local Food Bank) at a Christian Church which in turn supplies both the area for the food to be distributed and the volunteer labor who do clerical and food handling stuff. This food distribution to the needy is carried out across the country using church sites, etc. Its is an example of church and state working together for social good.
The philosophy of the faith-based initiative program is just that simple: religious organizations (e.g., churches) and government (i.e., federal, state, county, municipal) team up together to solve social problems and promote the social welfare for the good of society. Importantly, the one without the other could not do as well; and society would suffer.
HOW THE PROGRAM WORKS (AS I UNDERSTAND IT)
Let's use an example. A church establishes an after-school program for the kids in its neighborhood. The program gets off the ground due to the leadership and direction of its clergy. Then, all of a sudden for whatever reason--say, a business downturn amounting to a recession--the funds the church had no longer are coming in sufficiently to keep the after-school program going. The church would ordinarily have to close the program down--neighborhood kids no longer would have access to that place to study and play after school that the church was providing. These kids might then turn to the streets, once again, and might get into trouble, even engage in social deviant behaviors But because of the Faith-based Initiative program is in existence, the church can apply for government funding! Government to the rescue where community effort left on its own gave insufficient support. The government grants the church sufficient funds to keep the program going. Now, it may be that at some future time, the church will not need those extra funds that the government was giving them; or the church may be able to expand the program with those government funds. That's up to the government agency and the particular church to work out together.
The point is, there's numerous cases in which some religious agency, which runs its own program, and the government can strike a deal for the good of society, especially in hard financial times unforeseen by those who put the program together and run it.
AN ADDENDUM (OF MINE)
The religious person who dedicates himself for a social cause, e.g., building a house or digging a well, in the name of his God will do a fine job. But, if he were to think that he's simply a government worker doing the bidding of some bureaucrat, he would walk off the job! He does what he does, makes the sacrifices involved because he is dedicated to his religious belief. You can't argue with that. So, the social good he does by digging the well, for example, ought to be supported by any means possible. See Varieties of Religious Experience by William James, who makes this point far better than I: religious dedication has social worth as well as religious merit.
And, these Evangelicals and religious purists who decry government and religion working together seem to me espousing a philosophy that would deprive society of the benefits of religious action that has social worth.
Saturday, May 22, 2010
How US Can Assert Leadership: continued
On the radio today, Glenn Beck predicted that countries the world over will blame the US for the global financial crisis being experienced. To my mind he really doesn't answer to what otherwise would be a dilemma for the US foreign policy makers, though I concur in his analysis.
However, the situation isn't really that bad, if the US pursues a policy that led to NAFTA and other trade agreements. On C-Span a few days ago (you can see I listen to the news a lot out here in Reno!), a seminar on navigational rules and regulations held in Virginia was broadcast. The participants were bemoaning that for the last 23 years, apparently, the US Senate has refused to endorse US participation in multi-national navigational, marine tribunals, preferring instead to "go it alone"--as was the case in the US' refusal to endorse the Kyoto agreements for some years. As was pointed out in this navy-sponsored (in-part) seminar, the Republicans have long endorsed the policy of "my way or no way" in US foreign policy.
Yet, some participants in this seminar pointed out that should the US join such multi-national institutions and structures regulating international waters, it could exert great influence upon the thinking and doing of other nations in this area. Indeed, Congress is fashiioning, I believe, that the banking regulations and rules being developed now in their halls be applicable to financial situations in the entire G20 bloc. This Congressional deliberate intention, I believe, is how the US can maintain and even further develop its leadership potential among all nations in the world.
Presently, Okinawa wants the US troops out of their territories. The US military there have countered by insisting that the US presence in this strategic location is a vital force to maintain peace and stability in the Far East. I strongly agree with the US military position!
The US is needed as a major player for peace in the world, I believe. It strengthens its leadership among other countries whenever it insists upon participating with othher nations for peace.
However, the situation isn't really that bad, if the US pursues a policy that led to NAFTA and other trade agreements. On C-Span a few days ago (you can see I listen to the news a lot out here in Reno!), a seminar on navigational rules and regulations held in Virginia was broadcast. The participants were bemoaning that for the last 23 years, apparently, the US Senate has refused to endorse US participation in multi-national navigational, marine tribunals, preferring instead to "go it alone"--as was the case in the US' refusal to endorse the Kyoto agreements for some years. As was pointed out in this navy-sponsored (in-part) seminar, the Republicans have long endorsed the policy of "my way or no way" in US foreign policy.
Yet, some participants in this seminar pointed out that should the US join such multi-national institutions and structures regulating international waters, it could exert great influence upon the thinking and doing of other nations in this area. Indeed, Congress is fashiioning, I believe, that the banking regulations and rules being developed now in their halls be applicable to financial situations in the entire G20 bloc. This Congressional deliberate intention, I believe, is how the US can maintain and even further develop its leadership potential among all nations in the world.
Presently, Okinawa wants the US troops out of their territories. The US military there have countered by insisting that the US presence in this strategic location is a vital force to maintain peace and stability in the Far East. I strongly agree with the US military position!
The US is needed as a major player for peace in the world, I believe. It strengthens its leadership among other countries whenever it insists upon participating with othher nations for peace.
Thursday, May 6, 2010
US Role of Leadship Today: Is the US Up to It?
I was listening to Senator Christopher Dodd this morning on C-Span; and he made a most important historical point (in my opinion).
The US government and Big Business are naturally at odds. This is because business wants to make the greatest profits it can. It wants little interference; indeed, it seeks support and help from governments to do as told, i.e.., do its bidding. Perhaps, this is why to this point Big Business has been locating here: less taxes (when you take account of the deductions they're allowed). Government, on the other hand, wants to maintain a fair playing field (see John Rawl's book Justice as Fairness). It wants to maintain a tension between interested parties. It wants no "slam dunk" winners--neither business nor the unions; nor the federal government itself. The radio and many TV talk shows merely regurgitate the "Big Business" line of business being persecuted.
But this antipathy of commercial interests and government is by no means new. It has frequently been cited as promoting the phenomena of globalization, practiced first in the Netherlands in the 17th Century, then England in the Nineteenth Century; the United States in the Twentieth Century. Globalization enables Big Business to wheel and deal in the financial markets, while keeping in check the power of national governments to dictate national and international policy on behalf of their citizenry. By moving money around from country to country--each of these mentioned serving the interests of international, powerful money groups--business maintains its position of "king of the mountain," i ,e,, the old divide and conquer principle.
If I am right in my analysis, we can understand why governments seek the money and power big business groups can offer them. In a fictionalized account, Germany prior or during the Second World War is portrayed to have sought the support from international financiers for its war efforts, only to be turned down. The book is entitled Dragon Harvest; and though fiction, it reads plausibly. Author Upton Sinclair makes the further point that once Germany had been turned down, Roosevelt committed the US to supplying Britain with airplanes.
Today, what Big Business is demanding from the US governmennt for the sake of its derivative transactions is that banking institutions of substantial worth be able to make investments as well as become insurers and engage in banking transcations. Senator Dodd wants transpareny of these transactions in order to insinuate a modicum of accountability. Will the US stand up to Big Business and protect the US citizens and citizens around the world, including presently Greece, from its practices involving fraud and usury? If not, perhaps China, as the major world leader will!
The US government and Big Business are naturally at odds. This is because business wants to make the greatest profits it can. It wants little interference; indeed, it seeks support and help from governments to do as told, i.e.., do its bidding. Perhaps, this is why to this point Big Business has been locating here: less taxes (when you take account of the deductions they're allowed). Government, on the other hand, wants to maintain a fair playing field (see John Rawl's book Justice as Fairness). It wants to maintain a tension between interested parties. It wants no "slam dunk" winners--neither business nor the unions; nor the federal government itself. The radio and many TV talk shows merely regurgitate the "Big Business" line of business being persecuted.
But this antipathy of commercial interests and government is by no means new. It has frequently been cited as promoting the phenomena of globalization, practiced first in the Netherlands in the 17th Century, then England in the Nineteenth Century; the United States in the Twentieth Century. Globalization enables Big Business to wheel and deal in the financial markets, while keeping in check the power of national governments to dictate national and international policy on behalf of their citizenry. By moving money around from country to country--each of these mentioned serving the interests of international, powerful money groups--business maintains its position of "king of the mountain," i ,e,, the old divide and conquer principle.
If I am right in my analysis, we can understand why governments seek the money and power big business groups can offer them. In a fictionalized account, Germany prior or during the Second World War is portrayed to have sought the support from international financiers for its war efforts, only to be turned down. The book is entitled Dragon Harvest; and though fiction, it reads plausibly. Author Upton Sinclair makes the further point that once Germany had been turned down, Roosevelt committed the US to supplying Britain with airplanes.
Today, what Big Business is demanding from the US governmennt for the sake of its derivative transactions is that banking institutions of substantial worth be able to make investments as well as become insurers and engage in banking transcations. Senator Dodd wants transpareny of these transactions in order to insinuate a modicum of accountability. Will the US stand up to Big Business and protect the US citizens and citizens around the world, including presently Greece, from its practices involving fraud and usury? If not, perhaps China, as the major world leader will!
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Harry Reid's Position of Political Power in the Senate at Stake
I saw an ad for the Harry Reid incumbent candidacy for the US Senate on TV yesterday. It claimed that Senator Reid has done a lot to promote the interests of Nevada in his position as Senator.
I'm new to Nevada, but I do know that as Majority Leader of the Senate and a Senator with years of seniority, Reid has ready channels through which to feed any pork, i.e., projects he is promoting on behalf of the State; and he is a national, if not international, power broker--witness, his setting the agenda for items the Senate will take up.
What I'm trying to say that if Reid is ousted as Senator, with his ouster goes the seniority he has attained. I recognize that the polls have him trailing his rival candidates. But none of the latter will be able to achieve on behalf of the State what he, qua his stature in the Senate, might be accomplishing, since any replacement will be "low-man-on-the-totem-pole!"
In Britain, for example, political personages of Reid's stature run in what are regarded as "safe" counties, for the country wants to avoid sharp power breaks.
I'm new to Nevada, but I do know that as Majority Leader of the Senate and a Senator with years of seniority, Reid has ready channels through which to feed any pork, i.e., projects he is promoting on behalf of the State; and he is a national, if not international, power broker--witness, his setting the agenda for items the Senate will take up.
What I'm trying to say that if Reid is ousted as Senator, with his ouster goes the seniority he has attained. I recognize that the polls have him trailing his rival candidates. But none of the latter will be able to achieve on behalf of the State what he, qua his stature in the Senate, might be accomplishing, since any replacement will be "low-man-on-the-totem-pole!"
In Britain, for example, political personages of Reid's stature run in what are regarded as "safe" counties, for the country wants to avoid sharp power breaks.
Friday, April 16, 2010
The US Could Become a Christian Nation!
During the recent Healthcare Reform debate, many who opposed the federal legislation referred to their own circumstance as reason for their opposition: They include healthcare insurance among their budgeted items and made sure to provide for adequate coverage. They do not go crying to the federal government for help to meet their healthcare needs. Importantly, they do not see why they should have to pay higher premiums and costs for healthcare services so as to cover those who have little financial means for their own healthcare needs. Further, several opponents to healthcare reform have described most of those who must rely upon the government as slothful, lazy miscreants desirous to take advantage of other people's goodwill!
Their argument has changed as healthcare costs have risen. Particularly, the passage of healthcare reform found the middle class initially in support of the legislation. With the thought in mind that the federal government would lover costs legislation were passed in the medical field, they sympathized with the lower class, until they found out that the government was not really intending to HC lower costs, merely slow down its increases.
Today, there's widespread endorsement of the opponent's claim that the Constitution in no way acknowledges a right of an individual to healthcare services, i.e., does not recognize universal healthcare of the citizenry. Nor may individuals be forced to participate in some healthcare plan for the sake of their own well-being, they aver.
Nevertheless, many opponents contend this is a Christian nation, though no acknowledgement of this proposition exists in legislative documents nor in the Constitution. Citing acts of US charity and philanthropy, e.g., in times of disaster abroad and at time, they argue that the US stands for Christian ideals and precepts. Some cynics counter-argue that the US federal government acts charitably only when it suits them. They contend that there is usually some natural resource the US companies want to tap into that comes into play in considering which country to aid, e.g., natural gas in Haiti; oil in Iraq. And they point to instances where the US has backed away from assisting: the South Sudanese revolt; the Rwanda human travesty.
I think we should become clear to what guiding Christian principle is involved in determining whether or not the United States should be considered a Christian nation. I contend the precept is the Golden Rule: Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you.
It seems this precept is motivating in the work of the United Nations. In any case, if adversaries and proponents of Healthcare Reform alike would bring into the debate a desire to make the US into a Christian nation, there could be forthcoming a Christian-based foundation in all areas of US governmental policies, wherein the Golden Rule becomes a guiding light.
Their argument has changed as healthcare costs have risen. Particularly, the passage of healthcare reform found the middle class initially in support of the legislation. With the thought in mind that the federal government would lover costs legislation were passed in the medical field, they sympathized with the lower class, until they found out that the government was not really intending to HC lower costs, merely slow down its increases.
Today, there's widespread endorsement of the opponent's claim that the Constitution in no way acknowledges a right of an individual to healthcare services, i.e., does not recognize universal healthcare of the citizenry. Nor may individuals be forced to participate in some healthcare plan for the sake of their own well-being, they aver.
Nevertheless, many opponents contend this is a Christian nation, though no acknowledgement of this proposition exists in legislative documents nor in the Constitution. Citing acts of US charity and philanthropy, e.g., in times of disaster abroad and at time, they argue that the US stands for Christian ideals and precepts. Some cynics counter-argue that the US federal government acts charitably only when it suits them. They contend that there is usually some natural resource the US companies want to tap into that comes into play in considering which country to aid, e.g., natural gas in Haiti; oil in Iraq. And they point to instances where the US has backed away from assisting: the South Sudanese revolt; the Rwanda human travesty.
I think we should become clear to what guiding Christian principle is involved in determining whether or not the United States should be considered a Christian nation. I contend the precept is the Golden Rule: Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you.
It seems this precept is motivating in the work of the United Nations. In any case, if adversaries and proponents of Healthcare Reform alike would bring into the debate a desire to make the US into a Christian nation, there could be forthcoming a Christian-based foundation in all areas of US governmental policies, wherein the Golden Rule becomes a guiding light.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Don't fear; the US Military is here!
At a current events discussion group meeting in Santa Barbara last Fall, we discussed the significance of the US debt. Many participants argued that there would be grave consequences reaped upon our children as a result of the debt we are incurring today as a nation; and they expressed fear and hysterical dismay over our continuing to pile up the US deficit.
I encouraged them to direct their attention to the United State Military, which has always stood as a bulwark to protect the country's very existence ever since its founding. Remember, I told them, George Washington was a General!
Personally, I look at the debt situation in the US as a facet of the liabilities appearing on the US financial ledger, but I am reminded that this is only one of two main elements of its balance sheet. I am drawn also to consider the US assets. Now a country's liabilities are its financial obligations--what it owes to itself and to other countries. Its assets I take to be the value of all its properties, including its physical resources such as oil and gas; and its cash. Ascertaining the US assets and liabilities we might then determine the US financial worth.
The current discussion of America's financial picture focuses on the debt issue largely because it has recently ballooned. Certain economists, in an effort to counterbalance the recognized indebtedness of the US, allude to its GNP, the size of the US economy produced by its goods and services as the major indicator of US assets. There are certain problems in using the GNP for this purpose. Firstly, the GNP cannot reference, it seems to me, the value of the manifold properties in minerals, etc. nor estimate the value of goodwill other countries bestow upon the US in an international situation of floating currency. More importanly, the GNP can't contain financial information that might be construed as jeopardizing our international posture and security if made public. Now, the US Military with its tentacles in over 150 foreign countries, prima facie, can't disclose the value of US assets in these countries if already construed as top secret data. Nor could it disclose any financial transactions involving national security and our international military commitments which may be between these countries and the US.
It was rumored at one time that the CIA was actually a profit center for the US in some countries, particularly those in South America. To me it is conceivable not only the CIA but the FBI with its offices worldwide, as well as the US Military are profit centers, servicing countries abroad. I'm not aware of such cases, but if actually happening, any information about such financial dealings would no doubt be filtered before being placed in the public domain.
Be that as it may, the worth of the US states--specifically, whether and when the US might be a debtor nation--is not readily ascertainable, so long as the US maintains its position of leader among nations on the planet earth. The US Military doesn't tell all, for one thing; nor may agencies having to do with national security.
At the conclusion of the session, one of the members summarized, "If we're not privy to all the relevant information, we may never estimate with a high degree of confidence, the US financial condition and its overall financial worth. I raised my hand as a sign of agreement and blurted out, "I'm afraid you're right!"
I encouraged them to direct their attention to the United State Military, which has always stood as a bulwark to protect the country's very existence ever since its founding. Remember, I told them, George Washington was a General!
Personally, I look at the debt situation in the US as a facet of the liabilities appearing on the US financial ledger, but I am reminded that this is only one of two main elements of its balance sheet. I am drawn also to consider the US assets. Now a country's liabilities are its financial obligations--what it owes to itself and to other countries. Its assets I take to be the value of all its properties, including its physical resources such as oil and gas; and its cash. Ascertaining the US assets and liabilities we might then determine the US financial worth.
The current discussion of America's financial picture focuses on the debt issue largely because it has recently ballooned. Certain economists, in an effort to counterbalance the recognized indebtedness of the US, allude to its GNP, the size of the US economy produced by its goods and services as the major indicator of US assets. There are certain problems in using the GNP for this purpose. Firstly, the GNP cannot reference, it seems to me, the value of the manifold properties in minerals, etc. nor estimate the value of goodwill other countries bestow upon the US in an international situation of floating currency. More importanly, the GNP can't contain financial information that might be construed as jeopardizing our international posture and security if made public. Now, the US Military with its tentacles in over 150 foreign countries, prima facie, can't disclose the value of US assets in these countries if already construed as top secret data. Nor could it disclose any financial transactions involving national security and our international military commitments which may be between these countries and the US.
It was rumored at one time that the CIA was actually a profit center for the US in some countries, particularly those in South America. To me it is conceivable not only the CIA but the FBI with its offices worldwide, as well as the US Military are profit centers, servicing countries abroad. I'm not aware of such cases, but if actually happening, any information about such financial dealings would no doubt be filtered before being placed in the public domain.
Be that as it may, the worth of the US states--specifically, whether and when the US might be a debtor nation--is not readily ascertainable, so long as the US maintains its position of leader among nations on the planet earth. The US Military doesn't tell all, for one thing; nor may agencies having to do with national security.
At the conclusion of the session, one of the members summarized, "If we're not privy to all the relevant information, we may never estimate with a high degree of confidence, the US financial condition and its overall financial worth. I raised my hand as a sign of agreement and blurted out, "I'm afraid you're right!"
Friday, March 26, 2010
ruminations blog linkage
I have another ruminations blogspot "out there"--JohnOastler.blogspot.com. For technical reasons, I have resorted to this current, i.e., new blogspot as a continuance of the topic: ruminations.
The theme of these two blogspots in the ruminations series is a reflection upon current affairs and events in the past that come to my mind upon which I wish to comment.
There is yet another current blog I'm maintaining dealing with the analysis of the social impact of certain readily identifiable relationships among human beings in some social setting. The current blogspot in this series takes up the concept of Social Love. See http://renooastler.blogspot.com: Social-X, where x is some concept combined to indicate the study of the phenomenon's social impact.
The theme of these two blogspots in the ruminations series is a reflection upon current affairs and events in the past that come to my mind upon which I wish to comment.
There is yet another current blog I'm maintaining dealing with the analysis of the social impact of certain readily identifiable relationships among human beings in some social setting. The current blogspot in this series takes up the concept of Social Love. See http://renooastler.blogspot.com: Social-X, where x is some concept combined to indicate the study of the phenomenon's social impact.
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Chatter vs. Rational Discourse
Should we human beings with a mind of our own settle for chatter, forsaking aiming for rationality?
Lately, I've been traveling across country on a Greyhound bus: back and forth, then forth and back. The time on the bus provided an especial opportunity to listen in to the conversations, howbeit one-sided, taking place over cellular phones. The usual gist of such repartee took the form: "Hello, I'm just arriving in your town. I'll be there in ten minutes; no eight minutes..." ending with the anticipated plea, "Can you pick me up?...How soon?" And, so it went--the usual thing.
However, some conversations lasted for hours. Each traveler of this classification was apparently lonely. He or she didn't want to be on the bus among so many strangers, so the individual sought some friend to vicariously and selfishly accompany him or her on the trip. On and on the conversation droned. There was I, listening to multiple conversations usually conducted in hushed tones but loud enough for my ears to pick up.
This was a profound experience for me, for it dawned on me that each party to the lengthy conversation via a phone cell was evincing an emotional reaction to the sounds of the other. The chatter served to bring each participant together in a lingering personal experience, much like when birds chirp to one another in a locality, evoking a togetherness with others of their species.
However, such experiences are emotional reactions to what is said and how it is said. It is not rational discourse. It's an identifying togetherness, a visceral reaction. For rational discourse to occur, each party would have to think over what is important to communicate to the listener: how might the communication add to the knowledge and well-being of the other? I am reminded of J. L. Moreno's phrase, "the warm up." It's a period of preparation of thinking over what to say that the hearer will benefit as a result of the communication. There needs to be forethought to say something intelligent and meaningful.
It looks, however, that rational discourse is on the wane, rapidly being replaced by chatter--like two animals emoting! People are no longer prepared to take the time to make use of their minds in communicating. They're becoming content to make significant noise--like grunting during their eating dinner!
Lately, I've been traveling across country on a Greyhound bus: back and forth, then forth and back. The time on the bus provided an especial opportunity to listen in to the conversations, howbeit one-sided, taking place over cellular phones. The usual gist of such repartee took the form: "Hello, I'm just arriving in your town. I'll be there in ten minutes; no eight minutes..." ending with the anticipated plea, "Can you pick me up?...How soon?" And, so it went--the usual thing.
However, some conversations lasted for hours. Each traveler of this classification was apparently lonely. He or she didn't want to be on the bus among so many strangers, so the individual sought some friend to vicariously and selfishly accompany him or her on the trip. On and on the conversation droned. There was I, listening to multiple conversations usually conducted in hushed tones but loud enough for my ears to pick up.
This was a profound experience for me, for it dawned on me that each party to the lengthy conversation via a phone cell was evincing an emotional reaction to the sounds of the other. The chatter served to bring each participant together in a lingering personal experience, much like when birds chirp to one another in a locality, evoking a togetherness with others of their species.
However, such experiences are emotional reactions to what is said and how it is said. It is not rational discourse. It's an identifying togetherness, a visceral reaction. For rational discourse to occur, each party would have to think over what is important to communicate to the listener: how might the communication add to the knowledge and well-being of the other? I am reminded of J. L. Moreno's phrase, "the warm up." It's a period of preparation of thinking over what to say that the hearer will benefit as a result of the communication. There needs to be forethought to say something intelligent and meaningful.
It looks, however, that rational discourse is on the wane, rapidly being replaced by chatter--like two animals emoting! People are no longer prepared to take the time to make use of their minds in communicating. They're becoming content to make significant noise--like grunting during their eating dinner!
Friday, March 19, 2010
Racial Strife in Washington, DC
I could see it coming. For the past several years, I tried to relocate to Washington, DC. They've got a wonderful senior program there, not to mention the attractions at the Kennedy Center, the several museums of the Smithsonian Institution (all free!) and the excitement of being on the East Coast.
Slowly, however, I could detect the city is changing for the worse. The only housing I could afford, since I'm retired is shared housing--rent a room in someone's house, use the bathroom and kitchen facilities. What I soon found was that most shared housing locations were in black neighborhoods; and I wasn't welcome for long--once word got around the neighborhood that a "white" was living in a predominantly black neighborhood. I tried the Southeast area--which actually was less predjudiced, but mostly I found housing around Georgia Avenue. Raw hatred was coming from black teenagers and guys in their twenties. So, I finally gave up on living in black neighborhoods--too many cat calls!
Then, I came up with the idea, how about living close to DC. I went to Raleigh, NC and lived there awhile, but found there wasn't any possibility of commuting to DC--just too far away. I found really nice housing there, however.
Finally, I alighted upon the thought, what if I just came to DC occasionally and got to see and do what I liked. Well, I tried the homeless shelters--some required coming into the shelter at 2 PM--would you believe? One was great--the Franklin School, but the city closed it, alas; and back to Los Angeles, I hurried. The advantage to living in a shelter for a time is the shelters have a staff wallking about and a security group, which sometimes is effective.
I've just returned from DC. This last trip of a few months was awful. I stayed at the New York Avenue Shelter, run by Catholic Charities. The residents were almost all blacks, and to my amazement, I noticed a profound change among the black youths this time. They were really HOSTILE to whites, especially old whites like me. I think part of the reason is that the downtown has become transformed by re-development into swanky apartments and lofts. And, there's the recession which is hitting black youths and their elders really hard. Another factor is that DC doesn't have a welfare assistance program--just food stamps. I tell you, I was harrassed and terrified for my life; and the staff and security could care less! I will never go back there, unless it's to a motel-6 for a night or two! Good riddance to that town. It's being torn apart by racial strife.
Slowly, however, I could detect the city is changing for the worse. The only housing I could afford, since I'm retired is shared housing--rent a room in someone's house, use the bathroom and kitchen facilities. What I soon found was that most shared housing locations were in black neighborhoods; and I wasn't welcome for long--once word got around the neighborhood that a "white" was living in a predominantly black neighborhood. I tried the Southeast area--which actually was less predjudiced, but mostly I found housing around Georgia Avenue. Raw hatred was coming from black teenagers and guys in their twenties. So, I finally gave up on living in black neighborhoods--too many cat calls!
Then, I came up with the idea, how about living close to DC. I went to Raleigh, NC and lived there awhile, but found there wasn't any possibility of commuting to DC--just too far away. I found really nice housing there, however.
Finally, I alighted upon the thought, what if I just came to DC occasionally and got to see and do what I liked. Well, I tried the homeless shelters--some required coming into the shelter at 2 PM--would you believe? One was great--the Franklin School, but the city closed it, alas; and back to Los Angeles, I hurried. The advantage to living in a shelter for a time is the shelters have a staff wallking about and a security group, which sometimes is effective.
I've just returned from DC. This last trip of a few months was awful. I stayed at the New York Avenue Shelter, run by Catholic Charities. The residents were almost all blacks, and to my amazement, I noticed a profound change among the black youths this time. They were really HOSTILE to whites, especially old whites like me. I think part of the reason is that the downtown has become transformed by re-development into swanky apartments and lofts. And, there's the recession which is hitting black youths and their elders really hard. Another factor is that DC doesn't have a welfare assistance program--just food stamps. I tell you, I was harrassed and terrified for my life; and the staff and security could care less! I will never go back there, unless it's to a motel-6 for a night or two! Good riddance to that town. It's being torn apart by racial strife.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Afghanistan and Haiti: The Xtreme Hurdle
Nation-building with the US military in control. If the US can truly construct the infrastructure of nations, it can realize itself over and over again in the global theater. That is to say, its values and culture will spread across the globe in dramatic fashion!
What marks the US's contemporary surge toward nation building is the added know-how of getting people from divergent backgrounds to live together peaceably,e.g., Bosnia and Iraq.
But the US nation building has--let's face it--a real goal. It wants a nation friendly that supplies its natural resources to the US and its Allies.
Afghanistan has well-known natural resources; and Haiti has apparently natural gas reserves (just found). The English (in India), the Russians, etc. all have attempted nation building with the same goal in mind: to establish through "occupation" (Chavez is right in this claim, but he doesn't see that powerful nations have been doing this for centuries!) stable governments in third-world countries. The point is, infrastructure and a stable society is what is offered in return; and the world becomes ever safer for democracy. So, these countries benefit (really?) and so does the US!
What marks the US's contemporary surge toward nation building is the added know-how of getting people from divergent backgrounds to live together peaceably,e.g., Bosnia and Iraq.
But the US nation building has--let's face it--a real goal. It wants a nation friendly that supplies its natural resources to the US and its Allies.
Afghanistan has well-known natural resources; and Haiti has apparently natural gas reserves (just found). The English (in India), the Russians, etc. all have attempted nation building with the same goal in mind: to establish through "occupation" (Chavez is right in this claim, but he doesn't see that powerful nations have been doing this for centuries!) stable governments in third-world countries. The point is, infrastructure and a stable society is what is offered in return; and the world becomes ever safer for democracy. So, these countries benefit (really?) and so does the US!
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Signifiicance of US bases in 150 Countries
Last fall, the McLaughlin Group reported over PBS that the US military has over 700 bases and installations in some 150 countries.
Consensus of the participants seemed favorably inclined, pointing out that this activity supports the war on terror.
But to my mind, the move also is a step towards promoting peace and ending war. If I recall correctly, there is less war today than at any time in the recorded history of mankind.
President Obama accepted the Nobel prize as commander-in-chief of the armed forces. For I believe the presence of US troops globally goes far to develop a peaceful ambience for us all.
Consensus of the participants seemed favorably inclined, pointing out that this activity supports the war on terror.
But to my mind, the move also is a step towards promoting peace and ending war. If I recall correctly, there is less war today than at any time in the recorded history of mankind.
President Obama accepted the Nobel prize as commander-in-chief of the armed forces. For I believe the presence of US troops globally goes far to develop a peaceful ambience for us all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)