JACK'S BLOG
|
|
1/29/2015 1 Comment Are you tired of being the #victim of unintended #consequences of #mistakes others make? I amOpinionPoliticians of every stripe are so focused on becoming and remaining incumbents, that they have little time to worry over the consequences of their actions and decisions. It's easy to see that the economic abyss into which we are descending is the unintended consequence of allowing them to extend their sphere of influence into every aspect of our lives. It can be argued that the ten plagues visited upon the Egyptians were the unintended consequences of Pharaoh's refusal to let Moses' people go. Even so, unintended consequences didn't receive serious study until Adam Smith introduced consequentialism during the Scottish Enlightenment, then languished in obscurity. The study of unintended consequences returned to public attention in the 20th Century with the publication of “The Unanticipated Consequences of Purposive Social Action”, a paper written by sociologist Robert Merton in 1936. Even so, awareness has brought scant relief.
1 Comment
OpinionThere are only two arguments that matter in support of granting citizenship to all who have slipped across the borders without permission. Political arguments do not matter. Latin Americans, especially Mexicans, argue that they have more right to occupy the Southwestern territories of the United States than US citizens inasmuch as the land was stolen from them. I addressed this issue in another posting regarding the legitimacy of conquest wherein I argued that the Spanish conquest of these regions is no more legitimate than the US conquest of them. In other words, we only stole what was stolen. Indeed, you would be hard pressed to find a square inch of habitable land on planet earth at any point of history that isn't held by right of conquest. In this posting, I would like to address a far more important issue: The Rule of Law. Obviously, those who have entered the United States without permission will be bewildered by my obsession with The Rule of Law. Their mere presence is clear evidence that it is of no importance to them. Sadly, many native born US citizens are likewise bereft of any understanding of it. The absence of civic lessons in our public schools, as well as many private schools, has denied them the opportunity of learning its importance.
OpinionChairman Mao wrote the book on guerrilla warfare. He advised insurgents to lose themselves among the population like fish swim in the sea, indistinguishable from any others. It proved to be an excellent strategy. However, today's conflicts require a different strategy for small nations to resist larger ones. Regardless of which state is in the right, small states now adhere to a new mentor, one who successfully flummoxed stronger opponents in the ring – Muhammad Ali. All stand in awe of Rope-a-Dope. The United States will deliver its punches, massive punches. When it's tired, its stamina drained, the Syrians will crawl out of their holes and resume killing each other just as happened in Iraq, Afghanistan, and so many other places.
Strategic bombing has never gained victory in any conflict. No amount of bombs brought Germany to its knees. In fact, Germany's industrial output rose during the heaviest of allied night and day bombing. Nuclear bombs, arguably the ultimate strategic weapons, failed to defeat Japan. Leaders of the Japanese Imperial armed forces were tempted to continue prosecuting the war even after atomic devices were detonated over two of their major cities. Likewise, strategic bombing of North Vietnam, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and other small nations accomplished nothing. Dumb bombs. Carpet bombing. Smart bombs. Cruise missiles. Hellfire missiles launched from drones. All may temporarily demoralize an enemy and limit their ability to fight, but only an infantryman armed with a rifle can occupy and dominate enemy territory. As the debate to win the support of Congress and the American public for bombing Syria advances, keep in mind these three tests: Is it militarily necessary? What is the military value of the proposed targets? Although nonmilitary facilities and personnel will be affected, will their losses be acceptable? Yes, the answers to every one of these questions is subjective. Although a consensus may be achieved, any decision will not be unanimous. However, we must all be prepared to accept the consequences. Moreover, don't set your expectations too high. Like I said, strategic bombing has never accomplished anything by itself. All the enemy has to do is take a break (just as Ali rested against the ropes) while the United States flails away with its might fists until it tires itself out. 8/11/2013 2 Comments The end is near, or is it?OpinionOnce upon a time we laughed at people who shouted that “The End Is Near”, or marched with signs to that effect. At the very least, we'd walk across the street to keep clear of them. Today, doomsday predictions have became a valuable tool in the growing industry of social engineering. I grew up watching westerns. Many of the villains of these morality plays were cattle rustlers. Often, they would sneak up on a sleeping herd and fire their six-shooters into the air to start a stampede. Modern social engineers employ the same tactic. They issue dire warnings about the consequences of our behavior in an effort to stampede the population at large, to redirect them along politically correct paths.
Some of these rustlers of the public weal achieve fame and fortune. Sad. It only encourages others to employ fake science to scare the public. Take, for example, Al Gore. Although the man has a larger “carbon footprint” than a small city, he has won a Nobel Peace Prize and an Academy Award for his exemplary work warning us about Global Warming. Strike that: Global Climate Change. The herd bolts as he shouts from his pulpit even though he is clueless about any scientific subject and the people whose expertise he relies upon have no credentials as climatologists. Please. The man should have appeared in his movie, An Inconvenient Truth, with a black hat and a bandanna tied around the lower half of his face. Even sadder, public wealth has been wasted financing green energy industries. Not one has produced any significant portion of the world's power requirements nor have any shown any potential for the future. However, that matters little. Solving the world's problems is not on their agenda. No, these rustlers are only interested scaring the herd to alter human behavior. As I said, social engineering. In that, they have been a success. 3/12/2013 5 Comments Are you feeling vulnerable?OpinionI'LL ADMIT IT. I'm feeling vulnerable. A man came pounding on my front door the other night. It was about 7 pm. As I approached the door, I could hear him shouting at the next door neighbor who was shouting back. Now, my neighbor is given to speaking in a loud voice. It seems natural to him. Maybe he's hard of hearing. I don't know. But, these two were shouting when I looked out the peep hole to see who it was. I didn't recognize him. Obviously, I'm not the only one feeling vulnerable I asked who was there and he replied that he was a new neighbor. Okay, what did he want. Before he could respond, he had another shouting exchange with my neighbor. Apparently there was some unfinished business between them. I couldn't immediately discern what they were saying. My hearing in one ear is impaired and my neighbor's accent (African I believe) wasn't helping. That brings me to my sense of vulnerability. I have impaired hearing. Its not much of a disability, but I seem to have accumulated a few with age. Age is another source of my sense of vulnerability. I'm not the man at seventy that I was even just a decade ago. Then there's sciatica. That really left me debilitated for several weeks. I'm still getting over it. I'm still carrying a cane, fearful that my left knee will fold with any step, especially if I attempt to change direction without lifting the foot. So, yes, I'm feeling vulnerable. I admit it. Meanwhile, the stranger at the door finished his shouting match with the neighbor and pounded on my door again. Again I asked what he wanted. He mumbled something. It sounded like mumbling to me. Remember, the hearing loss? I told him it was late. He objected that it was only 7 pm. It was. Even so I refused to open the door for him and he went away, obviously perturbed with me. I haven't seen this “neighbor” since. I don't like feeling vulnerable. I was a rough and tumble sort of a kid, trained as an infantry officer. I've studied martial arts. I am expert with every sort of weapon placed in my hands: bows and arrows, guns of all types and calibers, I even used a sling effectively to throw snowballs as a kid. I'm not used to feeling vulnerable. Maybe that's why I'm reacting passionately to the current assault on our Second Amendment rights. Why are they doing this? What is their goal? Make our world safer? Of course not! As any fool can see if they look at the statistics, guns used in crime are down to historically low levels and still dropping. Indeed, those jurisdictions that have the most restrictive laws on gun ownership are suffering the greatest incidence of gun-related crimes. There is no rational excuse for disarming law-abiding citizens. So, we can only assume that the proponents of infringing on our Second Amendment rights have some unnamed, ulterior motive, and it's making me feel even more vulnerable. I'm not the only one. Women are feeling more vulnerable. So are minorities. Anyone traditionally victimized by bullies, bigots, and criminals is feeling vulnerable and they will be vulnerable if denied their right to defend themselves. Still, the anti-gun proponents wage their unrelenting war on us, the vulnerable ones.
Come to think of it, the anti-gun proponents are clearly demonstrating all the characteristics of bullies and bigots. Furthermore, attempting to infringe on our natural right to defend ourselves, they are making themselves enemies of the Constitution, which should be regarded as criminal activity. Obviously, the anti-gun proponents are attracting the support of people of good will and good intentions. Just remember, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. They perceive guns as the “devil” and feel justified in cutting down any laws that stand in their way. However, as the character of Sir Thomas Moore proclaims in the play, A Man For All Seasons, “...what is to protect them when the devil turns round about?” Regardless of what laws they may pass, I shall regard them as unconstitutional and hang onto my guns. Then I won't feel so vulnerable in the presence of tyrants. OpinionI'm not feeling well. I'm still recovering from sciatica and another ailment has struck. I don't fear death. I simply fear that I won't have a complete set of functioning parts when I reach the grave. They'll just toss what's left into a compost bin and I'll return as a stalk of celery. I suppose that's why I'm feeling less hopeful today. Solve society's problems? I doubt it. First, the issues are complex, very complex. I suspect all simplistic responses. Proposals such as ban guns and bring back school prayer are emotionally driven in response to horrific acts of violence. Unfortunately, although each proposal may have some validity, none receive rational discussion. People generally divide into two camps, pro and con, and shout at each other until they've vented their spleen. They then retire to neutral territory, grumbling about each other, until the next act occurs.
We need to sit down and apply our energy better instead of wasting it on such feuds. Secondly, we have greatly diminished our resources to respond. Whatever solution we agree upon will probably languish unfunded because our government has been spending our treasury on useless programs whose only outcome is to insure the continued reelection of incumbents. Indeed, things are going to get worse as cities and counties go bankrupt and can no longer provide police and other emergency services to the same degree with enjoy them today. You can bet that acts of violence will proliferate in such conditions. Ideology has gotten in the way of education. Even if we are motivated to sit down and discuss these issues rationally, and we have the resources to effect the solutions that we craft, we are quickly losing the ability to think and solve problems effectively because educators are more concerned with indoctrinating our children with their brand of ideology rather than teaching them critical thinking skills. Indeed, critical thinking is the enemy of their indoctrination efforts. Go ahead and argue with me on this one. There is plenty of extant research to support my claim. I could go on, but suspect that I have already upset or lost most readers by this point. That is why I choose to prepare to defend myself and my family, much like the wild west. I fear that we are descending into lawlessness. Just look at the proof of history. Every nation that has followed the course we have now adopted, has entered periods of economic strife. Scapegoats were identified and persecuted. Guns were seized so that minorities couldn't defend themselves and holocausts ensued. That, I fear, is where we are headed. Then again, maybe I'll feel better next week, but we still won't be any closer to learning how to think critically, will we? PRESIDENTS DAY HAS been a great disappointment to me since its inception. We used to acknowledge Lincoln's Birthday, and celebrate Washington's with a day off. Then someone decided that we should celebrate all of our Presidents. Really? How many of them are worthy of celebration? I don't believe that any of the others equaled the accomplishments of Washington and Lincoln. Few even approached them. Yes, many were popular with some segment of the citizenry, but popularity is a poor test of greatness. George Washington wasn't just the first President. He defined the office. He could have been king, but refused the offer. As a military officer, Washington understood the value and importance of delegation. Thus, he invented the Cabinet. Go ahead and look in the Constitution. You won't find any mention of Secretaries of Defense, Treasury, Commerce, etc. Washington also established the precedent of limited terms of office. He understood that a perpetual president could easily become a tyrant no matter how well-intentioned that person might be. Thus, he limited himself to two four-year terms even though there is no question that he could have remained in office until he died.
Abraham Lincoln preserved the nation. He surrounded himself with the most capable Cabinet of advisors and administrators ever assembled in the Republic's history, largely chosen from his very own rivals for the presidency. Many of them had little respect for Lincoln when his administration began and assumed that they would govern the nation as a committee while Lincoln served only as a figurehead. He quickly disabused them of that notion. Although it was their considered opinion that the South should be allowed to secede, Lincoln chose otherwise, and he held the nation together through nothing more than the force of his character. There are still some who believe that the two halves would have been better off had they split, but the evidence shows that America became an economic and political powerhouse only because it remained united. A special day for celebrating Presidents is utterly unnecessary. We are celebrating our Presidents far too much all year long. We focus on them constantly. Their comings and goings are reported with breathless anticipation. They are rock stars, celebrities. Some have, in effect, elevated the President to the stature that Washington refused, a sovereign. Barack Obama epitomizes this danger. He openly threatens to take unilateral action by executive fiat if Congress refuses to enact the legislation that he wants. This is the action of a sovereign, a tyrant. No, I'm not happy with our government, especially our Presidents. I don't want to celebrate them. I believe its time to put an end to Presidents Day. I'll be happy to celebrate George Washington's and Abraham Lincoln's birthdays. They deserve such adulation. However, I will never be among those who blindly follow an American king. Besides, I would like to have a day off each year again, on my birthday, February 22nd. 1/6/2013 4 Comments The world may not understand America's problem. What other people celebrated individualists?OpinionTHE UNITED STATES was conceived by individualists, its wilderness was tamed by individualists, and its economy was built by individualists. Americans used to celebrate individualists and their individualism, but that all changed. The majority of Americans now seem to abhor them. The adolescent need to be part of a group, to seek identity in a group, and be comforted by a group, persists into adulthood. It's a defensible attitude when you consider that the world and life are far more complex than they used to be. They're often overwhelming, especially if you suffer from any insecurities. The responsibilities and liberties that individuals thrive on are a heavy load. To many, it is an unnatural burden. If the study of history has taught me anything, it is that few societies have tolerated individuals. Indeed, most have strict social codes against individual liberty and responsibility. This lesson can be seen clearly in the Bible. The Jews were alloted far more liberty than most peoples of the early world. However, they ultimately decided that they too needed a king, someone to make decisions for the community and bear the responsibility for their consequences. David was presented with the mantle of authority after slaying Goliath, and he faltered when he became besotted with Bathsheba. Solomon became king and then became besotted with the Queen of Sheba. It seems that the Bible is warning us. Even the bravest and wisest among us have a hard time making good decisions and the mistakes of the mighty fall on everyone's head. Still, as I have observed, the majority in America seem to want to follow this course. They have elected a new breed of bullies to eradicate individualism through the application of rules and regulations. Inasmuch as these laws are extra-Constitutional, a majority of Americans are beginning to agitate to diminish the Constitution. A recent New York Times article penned by a professor of Constitutional Law at Georgetown University, advocates abandoning the blueprint of America's government as antiquated and ill-conceived. I can't imagine that his students will be champions of liberty when they graduate. Fortunately for those of use who prize our individuality and our liberties, America is not yet a democracy. The majority does not rule. Although its influence is flagging, the Constitution still rules and individual rights prevail. The Attorney General has launched an all out assault on individual rights without waiting for the people to cast aside the Constitution. With the mainstream press providing cover by not publicizing his more flagrant assaults, Mr. Holder has been sending teams of armed federal agents to bully individuals and small businesses without bothering to provide even a modicum of legal cover. Ignoring Constitutional mandates for Writ of Habeas Corpus and legally specific search warrants has become standard operating procedure for America's Justice Department. One can only wonder when his goon squads will begin appearing on the steps of local and state governments and America will become a de facto federal democracy. I don't expect to alarm the majority with any of this. By their votes, most Americans seem to concur with the Administration in these actions. The minority, the individualists who fume and bluster daring federal agents to just try and take away their rights, lack organization and may be picked off one-by-one by these Gestapo-like tactics.
America is now fragmented, possibly irrevocably. Compromise seems to be out of the question. Is it time to consider a splitting of America? Should we allow those who are willing to trade their rights and liberties for security to live in one part of the country while the individualists stalk their dreams in another? Or, will the individualists simply vent their annoyance ineffectually while the majority refashions America. 1/5/2013 2 Comments Why do fairy tales portray nobility as noble or romantic when most are descended from bullies?OpinionBEFORE THE GUN, bullies ruled the world. A man who was given the leisure to practice every day with his weapons, developed the skills necessary to oppress his community. Peasants, farmers, artisans, craftsmen, and scholars, all feared him. They strove to keep him happy and fed, warmed and well-housed. It didn't matter to them if he were their lord and master or their lord and master's enemy. All people lived in fear of bullies. Dominance was based on upper body strength. Casting a javelin. Swinging a sword. Smashing with a fist. Absorbing an enemy's blow. All required well-developed arms and chests. Running was for cowards, and cowards lost the luxury of being taken care of by their communities. Human physiology dictates that upper body strength is the domain of the male. Despite the illusions (or delusions) portrayed in today's films and TV shows, women have always been, and might always have been, victims to the physical dominance of brutes. Although no one has ever proven that nobles exercised droit du seigneur – the putative right of a feudal lord to take the virginity of his serfs' daughters – it is far more believable than scenes of anorexic women overwhelming men using brute force only. However, a woman with a gun is a force to be reckoned with. Very little imagination is required to see how the gun, especially the handgun, came to be known as the “peacemaker” and an “equalizer”. Why then are guns feared? Is it because they appeal to the same primitive emotions that caused early man to cower before thunder and lightning? After all, the gun also delivers its lethal charge with a flash and a bang. Benjamin Franklin taught us the nature of lightning and how to tame it. We no longer have to fear it as a capricious and malevolent god. Still, more than 24,000 people die every year from lightning strikes. An average of fifty-one in the United States. You didn't know that? I'm not surprised. It's not a well reported fact. Who's concerned with the lives of 24,000 killed by “an act of God”? We don't seem too concerned with children killed in the barrios of our cities either. Countless hundreds of them are murdered every year and there is no public outcry. Their passings are hardly noticed in our news media. However, when a tragedy strikes close to the homes of decent folk, there is a public outcry: “Ban guns!” How silly. It's obvious that removing all guns, even if such were possible, would destroy the peace and we would return to living in fear of bullies. Some may argue that we don't need guns to protect ourselves. We have the police. There are two problems with that argument. Firstly, there is no policeman sitting here in this room as I write this, and I daresay there is none sitting at your side as you read it. I doubt if there is one within earshot. Certainly, there are many only minutes away. Just dial 911 and they'll come, and they'll arrive long after they're needed. In countries, such as Great Britain, where gun ownership has been significantly curtailed, violent crimes against people in their homes has risen markedly. Criminals are assured that they can invade houses with impunity. The occupants have been disarmed by their government. Secondly, there is a new problem. Many cities are losing their police forces. They and other public servants are being dismissed as municipalities are becoming bankrupt. Critical public services are being curtailed. How sad that voters didn't concern themselves more with electing people who would manage their affairs, especially their budgets, responsibly, rather than looking for ways to interfere with our natural rights to fashion a better, fairer society.
Unfortunately, the politicians who are elected are among the worst of hypocrites when it comes to guns. Recognizing that it is politically expedient to be against crime and natural catastrophes, and to preach the evils of guns as well as fornication and addiction, those preaching the loudest are often the first to avail themselves of these vices. They also send their own children to well-guarded schools while announcing to the monsters of the world that our children are attending schools where no such protection as armed teachers or guards will interfere in any massacres that they may wish to perpetrate. Now, as we begin a new year, look back at the old one and we are confronted with a stark reality. It stares back at us from Chicago. Its overlord, Mayor Rahm Emanuel, is one of the greatest political bullies of our day. He has led the fight to make his city a gun free zone and every year, under his stewardship, violent death by criminals wielding guns has risen to new records. Chicago is now the murder capital of the country, possibly the world. Still, our President will not touch this fact as he shed tears over the tragic deaths of school children in Connecticut, but will not mention the even more horrific blood trail that follows him from his home district. Also, consider the strident call by Senator Diane Feinstein to ban “assault weapons” like the one used by the mass murderer in Connecticut. Is the Senator so blinded by her fear and ideology that she can't see that Connecticut already bans such weapons? Why would she believe that another such ban would make children safer? OpinionYOU'RE ONE OR THE OTHER, a bully or a victim. There is no third option for school children under Zero Tolerance. One day adults may also loose the right to defend themselves. Anyone caught fighting back will be as guilty as the person who started the fight just as it is now in schools. Is this lesson being taught to our children to prepare us? Bullying is similar to combat among males that determines mating rights in almost every herd. In the wild, bullying insures that only the strongest, most viable survival traits are propagated by the dominant male. The same was true among humans in the dawn of time. Do we want to return to those glorious days of yesteryear? (Please, forgive me, Lone Ranger.)
Predation is not bullying, but among humans, bullies often are predators. In the wild, the herd will shield their young and go to their defense when a predator breaks into their perimeter. Herds identify predators easily. They look like predators. However, in human encounters, predators aren't clearly distinguishable from their victims except by behavior and this recognition often comes too late. Humans have an uncanny ability to rationalize the abhorrent behavior of bullies as harmless aggression until it is too late. In fact, many bullies are celebrated. Influential Americans went so far as to praise Hitler for his domestic accomplishments: “Herr Hitler likes martial demonstrations, but he keeps the railroads running on time”. Similar praise was heard in France and England. Thus, although at the outset of World War II the French possessed a much stronger army than Germany and the British possessed a much stronger navy, they stood by as Hitler expropriated his neighbors' territory and people, deeming it somehow justified. Their reluctance to enforce limits only served to encourage the Nazis and millions of deaths ensued. They should have observed the common wisdom that held that the best way to handle bullies was to stand up to them. Such wisdom was common because it worked. When confronted with equal or greater force, the bully would seek a victim elsewhere. If victims could not apply sufficient force to defend themselves, they cooperated, presenting an unassailable front, much as a herd forces the lion to retreat. But, as I observed at the outset, this tactic has been outlawed by a new breed of bully, the progressives. Progressives seem to abhor individuality. They use the law to bully us into conforming. They are the ones who instituted Zero Tolerance in our schools. They arrange pointless games for our children so that no one should suffer the indignation of losing. They are now pressing to confiscate more and more of the money earned by those who succeed. The result is that successful traits are repressed and the human herd is weakened. Does anyone think that a weakened herd will survive? Progressives argue that the authorities will protect us from the bullies. Really? The school teacher will always be there to stop the bullies before they attack the victims? The policeman will always be there to stop the crime? Actually, they rarely are. Listen carefully to the introduction of the popular television series Law & Order: “In the criminal justice system, there are two separate and distinct groups, the police who investigate crimes and the district attorneys who prosecute the offenders...” The narration is absolutely correct. The police investigate crime. To serve and protect sounds nice, but even the dumbest criminals at least make an attempt to commit crimes when the police aren't there. In school, under Zero Tolerance, the teachers simply apprehend and punish everyone without any attempt to sort out the bullies and their victims. That is the world that the progressives will fashion for us when they deny us the right to protect ourselves. |
More than 500 postings have accumulated since 2011. Some categories (listed below) are self explanatory, others require some explanation (see below):
CategoriesAll America Army Life Blogging Cuba Election 2012 Election 2014 Election 2016 Entrepreneurs Food Good Reads History Humor Infantry School In The News Korea Middle East Oh Dark Thirty Opinion Sea Scouts Short Story Sponsored Survey Technology Television Terrorism Today's Chuckle Veterans Vietnam Writing Explanations |
Copyright © 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022 Jack Durish All rights reserved
|
Web Hosting by iPage
|