Mr. Obama is a Capitalist...really!

Mr Obama is a (C)apitalist.  Oh, I acknowledge that he often speaks of that practice with derision and loathing, pointing to what he considers to be the evils that such a practice visits upon the "middle class", the "common folk".

But take a few moments to listen to, and analyze, his criticisms.  Listen to the activities he defines as the excesses of Capitalism that warrants government supervision that (he argues) would lessen the worst of Capitalism's excesses.

He has two major criticisms: excessive accumulation of wealth and excessive accumulation of power.  In his eyes, unfettered Capitalism will concentrate both wealth and power in those who practice free-trade Capitalism.  And, regardless of who those "successful" people or companies are, by gaining such a concentration, they become intrinsically "bad."

Well, we could spend weeks discussing the definitions of "bad"...and "good".  Such definitions depend on the point of view of the definer...and whether such a person is looking short or long term.  That is for a different time and different discussion.

For the sake of this discussion I will argue on the presumption that Mr. Obama's definitions and claims are currently the predominant point of view.

On that basis I claim that by his own words and actions, Mr. Obama proves that he...himself...is a dedicated Capitalist.

Most of his followers respond in horror, claiming that he is a politician with the peoples' interests at heart.  Well, I agree that that is what he claims.  But what is he actually doing and what are the results...

What Capitalists do...and what they want to do...is win.  That is the goal.  And that is defined by accumulation of wealth and power, with little regard to the wants and wishes of those who oppose them.  And when they have achieved something, they do not sit back in satisfaction and enjoy the fruits of their labors; no, they move immediately on to continue to destroy any opposition and to attend to any potential threats to their continuation in power and in riches.

Those politicians that are most revered in America have been those who, once an election was won and they had a certain amount of power, turned to governing; they realized that upon taking office, they represented not just their followers, but the entire country.  The realized that they had to protect citizens who did not agree with their vision.  And so they became more statesmanlike in their efforts, words and actions.  The time for pillaging was over and a time for governing at hand.

Campaigning has always taken on the practices and attitudes of unfettered Capitalism: win at all costs, truth be damned, and take no prisoners.

Governing is, essentially, reconstruction.

Candidate Obama was and remains the ultimate campaigner, tossing great sounding but undefined phrases around like candy and lying about his opponents with conviction and talent.  He is not alone; most politicians do this to some degree.  But he is in a class by himself in the degree and effectiveness of his efforts.

Great.  He won.

After sworn into office, he now had the chance to govern.  He had the chance to turn into a statesman.

Whether on purpose or lack of perception, he never made that turn.

He is like a Capitalist who is not yet sated; he has not yet gathered enough power to his administration nor taken enough of the wealth of the nation under the control of his administration.  Oh, he has tried.  He has spent money that he could only spend by borrowing.  He has made appointments that have been ruled unconstitutional in order to run government the way that best suits his view of an all-powerful government that provides a nanny-state for the citizens.  That is his definition of "good."

But he does this by concentrating on destroying his opposition, not convincing them through slow evolution of his governing concepts; it is his way or the highway, and any appearance of"working with others not of like mind" is a sham.

He is every bit as totalitarian as the robber barons of yore, or of the now-so-criticized Captains of Industry of the last century.  He is the epitome of the very persons and activities of which he so complains in his raids into the countryside to trumpet his rule.

President Obama....Capitalist.  Sneaky, able, ...and remarkably successful.

I Love Christmas

I love Christmas.  Well, more precisely, I love the idea of Christmas.  That is my current feeling.  Over the years it has changed...a lot.  In my old age I can sit back and mull over my feelings over the years and the evolution of my thoughts and emotions with a bit more detachment.  And...I love the idea of Christmas.

The start of it all is that I believe in God.  Of course, I started out as a child being taught...some would argue, indoctrinated...that there was a God and that included moral precepts and standards.  Well, I grew up in a disciplined home where there were rules and there were consequences when the rules were broken.  I didn't much like that...then.  But as a grew up, even in my teens, I came to appreciate the presence of rules...and of consequences.

When young, God...and religion...was represented by men and women: Ministers and teachers who claimed to tell me what God wanted and what was right and wrong.  I didn't much like it...I had other ideas...often.  But when those "adult" representatives of God were proven to be less than honorable, honest, and consistent, I came to be an agnostic. I spent years exploring other established faiths and religions.  I found much to admire...and the same failings in all of them: People ran them seemed to get in the business of profiting from declaring God's Will.

I came finally to a point where God and I seemed to work out a dependable relationship...as long as I didn't allow other human beings to get in the way.  All organizations, including and perhaps especially religions, lose their way and purpose over time and become more interested in their own power rather than in helping people find, know, and communicate with God.


But through it all was Christmas.  A time when all the people with whom I came in contact were happier, more kind and seemed to re-set their moral compass...for a time.  At least until mid-January.

Everyone uses Christmas for something different.  Evangelicals use it to re-focus their hearts and souls in the manner of their belief and hold all the various symbols of the time of year dear: the creche, the tree, the star of Bethlehem, the Wise Men and all the rest are dear to them, as they are to the other Christian faiths.  To Atheists  Christmas is just as important, as they point to the pagan elements that have been folded into the Christmas Story and the probability that Jesus was not born on Christmas as proofs of their point of view.  And Businesses love Christmas because it promises increased sales and profits.  Those lukewarm about Christmas as a religious occurence even love it because it means time off and a paid holiday.

Christmas, however, for me has become an opportunity to sit back and ponder on my belief in God and to appreciate the guidance that, when I take the time to listen for and to it, has benefited me all of my life.  I don't worry about the proofs about the Bible...or Christmas...or Science in general; my life experiences have unexplained events that can be explained by no other concept than God exists and...my age and experience notwithstanding...I can always benefit from guidance from a higher source.

I have discounted those who argue humanism as a guiding standard; humans have proven themselves over the ages to be notoriously inhuman to their fellow man at  the most trivial of excuses.  The natural tendency of man is to be narcissistic and care not a wit for anyone unless there is self-benefit involved.  So...the only excuse for those who act with love and kindness toward others is that they are guided by God.

But, while I criticize often what I decree to be the excesses of the Christmas Season, I do not really object too much.  Whatever the motivation, the more people who support the celebration of Christmas, the better.  I want that opportunity to sit back and reflect on the year, my decisions, my foibles and my good fortune to remember... albeit all to seldom...to sit back and listen to that small voice before embarking on any significant effort.

It is the idea...the Faith...in Christ and in Christmas Spirit that sets me up to start yet another year.  Other points of view are fine with me...as long as I am not forced to embrace them: I won't proselytize and I will not allow other to proselytize me in return.

Merry Christmas to all.

"Cliffs" sometimes mean climbing, not falling

There is so much bleating about the "Fiscal Cliff" that faces us at the beginning of 2013 that one would think that the end of the world is imminent. Maybe a calm step back and reality check are in order here.  Really.

First, everyone is clamoring for the President and the Congress to "do something."  Really?  Seems to me that they have already done it.

In order to insure that we got our finances under control, the President came up with the idea...and Congress voted in agreement...that Congress would try to find a kinder, gentler way to achieve fiscal sanity, but if they were unable to agree, that taxes would go up and spending would go down.

That is a "balanced approach", to quote the President, and in line with his campaign mantra.

Second, not all cliffs mean a fall.  I mean, try imagining that the cliff in front of us involves a climb UP, not a fall down.  That doesn't seem quite as daunting, does it?  It never does, although once you start, you can get quite a shock when and if you look down instead of concentrating on your goal.

But, we have been digging ourselves a fiscal hole for years, so I maintain that the cliff coming in January is one going UP and that we can choose to successfully climb it.  And in the process, everyone goes back to the tax rates that the Democrat party found so desirable during the campaign;  it would be nice to know that more people receiving benefits from the government were actually contributing to them in a current fashion even as the amount being paid by the government-proclaimed "rich" also went up.  Balanced billing is good.

Some of my Progressive "friends" don't like that, but my response is that my father really didn't like it when they started taxing the interest on his savings, insisting that he had already paid taxes on that money and that they were hitting him twice.  he insisted that if they couldn't try him twice for the same crime, they shouldn't have the right to tax him twice...it wasn't fair.  In later years, he acknowledged that expecting the government to be fair was a fantasy.  I disagreed then, but totally agree now.

Anyway, we all could save a lot of time, anguish and "agida" by simply shutting up and getting our climbing gear on; let's just get on with the necessary climb...ALL of us.

The Founding Fathers' America died Nov. 6, 2012

Some of my friends and acquaintances insisted 4 years ago that America had turned away from the precepts of our Founding Fathers, that there was no going back.  I insisted that, to the contrary, America had rejected what the government had become and wanted to see what then-candidate Obama promised come to fruition.  True, he had no track record or identifiable accomplishments, but he spoke well and promised what every American wanted, so we needed to see how it worked out.

Four years later, we find ourselves with a President who is: a proven liar; a partisan, ideologue; an inept administrator; a Progressive Socialist at best and a fan of Communism at worst; and a voyeur rather than a practitioner of governing.

And America chose to keep him in office for an additional 4 years.

And it wasn't as if they had no choice.  They had, as an alternative, a man with a proven record of administrative and job-creating accomplishments in both the governmental and private sectors, a man with a proven record of personal kindness, and truthfulness, as well as an record of being able to work in the political world in a bi-partisan way. But they rejected this candidate in favor of a divider, a partisan, a socialist, and a liar.

Why?

Apparently the American people have chosen to pursue the illusion of "free" stuff over the reality of personal freedom with the accompanying reality of "consequences."  Apparently the American people have chosen a path of guaranteed mediocrity over the non-guaranteed right pursue ultimate success with the companion of possible failure.  Apparently the American people have opted for a guaranteed existence without the obligation of "earning" it over the right and obligation of self-sufficiency.

The Founding Fathers' America died last night.

President Obama will now exercise the additional freedom to act that he referenced to Russian President Putin.  He will continue to spend.  He will continue to ignore the deficit as much as he can.  We will continue to spiral out of control financially and by the end of his term the current difficulties being suffered by Greek, Spanish and other citizens in Europe will look like a minor pimple on the back end of an elephant.

And the American people will go on (most of them) with their lives totally ignoring these developments, accepting the reassuring blandishments of their President,...until the "free" stuff stops coming.  And then they will look to blame someone other than themselves for the catastrophic times that will have arrived.

My America died last night.  And my grandchildren will suffer for it.  I apologize to them for not being able to do more to stop it.

 

Cybersecurity: achievable or a Conundrum?

I use the internet a lot...for communication and other things.  I am not at the cutting edge of knowledge like my grandchildren, who seem to be prescient as to how to handle stuff that I haven't even yet discovered exist, but it doesn't scare me.  It is just another tool, like the phone or a hammer.

But I have read articles lately about what is described as the threat of lack of cyber-security, which I interpret to be the possibility of purposeful interference with the ability of folks to communicate and do business over the internet and even the possibility of bringing targeted businesses and even the system itself down in total collapse.

That is scary.  Sort of.  Although there are times when I watch young people text each other when sitting in the same room that maybe the total elimination of the internet and electronic "communication" might not be the worst thing for the long term survival of mankind...but, I digress.

I used to have to write and mail a check to pay my bills.  I used to have to write a letter and communicate with others, if they didn't live in the same town.  I used to actually meet and discuss things with folks face to face.  It was a good thing...it encouraged civility and mutual understanding, because there was no electronic anonymity.  This could be a useful thing to re-acquire, I think.

But, assuming that we can never go back...even if there would be a benefit...what is the logical approach to this cyber-security problem?  I am not an expert.  I don't know what is possible.  But logic...even from an old fogy like me...suggests a few things:
1)  Legislation is not...and never will be...the answer.

Folks who bread the law are not impressed by legislation; their activities are neither influenced nor controlled by right or wrong.  You aren't hitting the target.  Likewise, those using the internet for lawful purposes aren't protected by legislation; they hire smart people...sometime people who can solve the problem (surprise) without government "help."

2) Perfection and providing 100% reliability is impossible.

Systems sometimes crash for reasons having nothing at all to do with ill-intent of others.  "Stuff happens."  There is no need to focus on security...except for personal records and fraud...as more than an inconvenience.

3)  We have enough laws for fraudulent behavior now.

Certainly we should inspect and where necessary amend current laws to include electronic and internet activity within the covered purview of current laws, but that aside, there is no reason to add another volume to the already voluminous Statutes of the United States.

4) I would guess that the answer is in technology and trace-ability.

Perhaps our electronic information systems gurus could develop some useful things:
a) an electronic "trap" that would prevent a hacker from erasing traces of their entry into systems; b) an automatic shut down of a system if there is an overload of requests (demands for service) to prevent damage to the system. (this may already be in place); and c) a means of limiting the number of cut-outs available to users of the internet so as to make it impossible to utilize multiple routing origin points, making it easier to locate the source of activity.  This last would make it much easier to zero in on miscreants and apply the penalties of existing law(s).

5)  For Nation-State activity in this area, I would thing that a declaration of the old cold-war, nuclear threat policy of Mutually Assured Destruction might have the same effect here as it did then; if an attack occurs, it will result in the same response, leaving both entities totally at the mercy of the rest of the world nations.

These are ideas, not declarations of solutions.  I don't know if they are workable, either now or in the future.  But they have the attractive element of not inviting additional governmental activity and attempting to target the problem, not create another bureaucracy or further limit individual freedoms.

What do you think?
         

Is loss of guilt a stepping stone to self-destruction?

I read still another article today on riots in Greece in response to austerity implemented by the Greek government, including comments by rioters agreeing with the same type of reactions in Spain to the same sort of government actions.

The question that arose was..."what rights and privileges does any human being have simply as a part of existence" followed by "How does any government entity of any type of ideology claim any more power to provide than does the individual?"

Early on in our lives, we all come to realize...sometime belatedly, I grant...that there is no such thing as a "free" lunch.  We recognize the need to work, not just as a fulfillment of our need to do something soul-satisfying, but as a means of survival.  Modern mad likes to ignore this second fact, and does a remarkably good job of it, but at our very center we all realize that need...to eat, to live, to exist we need to earn it somehow.

Now...enter government.  The reasons are many and not for this discussion, but governments want to provide us with "stuff."  And they do: apparently "free" stuff, like tax relief even as the government continues to do thing for us that require funding and increased unemployment benefits for NOT working which haven't been paid for either.  I could go on and on.

Receiving something which you haven't worked for is a gift, and is nice.  ONCE! Or maybe on your birthday or at certain holidays.  But if it happens continually; if it becomes the source of your existence, you start to feel guilty and you resent that feeling of guilt...even as you continue to take the easy road and accept the benefits.

Some people haven't a choice: they are disabled in some way, or circumstances prevent them from taking a different road.  Those are understandable and not to be criticized.  I don't.  But do not doubt that those people develop a certain resentment of both their situation and the reliance on that un-earned support (with the exception of disabled veterans who have earned every single benefit...and more...that they receive).  And even those feel a certain ambivalence about it.

Life is difficult.  And guilt adds to the level of difficulty.  The constant receipt of unearned benefits, and the developed reliance on them, becomes unmanageable over time.  Two things will happen: either there will be violence from the build up of anger an resentment...or there will be a mental re-definition of the benefits into...not unearned, but....a deserved right to live at a level commensurate, not with our work effort or product but, with our desires.

Problem solved!

No more guilt and now no embarrassment in either receiving or demanding more "free" stuff.

That, of course, leads to the question asked above...if the individual cannot provide for him or herself, how can the government...which only operates with a portion of the funds earned by that same individual, provide what hasn't been earned?

Well of course the answer is that a portion of the money taken from those that do...in fact...work and earn is taken and given to those that do not.

Fine...so far.  But...what happens when those that take outnumber those that earn?

Our...and most...government(s) is directed by those elected by majority vote.  If the majority are "takers" and not "earners", then those elected will be those that promise more and more "stuff."

Logic suggests that eventually the government will take more and more of the earnings of those that work until there is no more to take.  Not only that, it is entirely logical to predict that at some time those earners will decide that they need to live elsewhere, and that many who would otherwise be inclined to be earners would decide that the benefits are non-existent and that they were better off choosing to be "takers."

Ultimately, the system runs out of money and collapses.  But...note that since the takers have fostered a self-serving amnesia as to the fact that their "benefits" have been and are not now earned, there is a violent, indignent reaction to suddenly being presented with a cessation of those benefits until and unless the bill is paid.

The world can be an ugly and cruel place...but ultimately justice prevails.

We're back...with a question...

Wow.  6 months go by fast.  Well, politics in general have turned me off so much I couldn't see any point in writing.  It seems to go into a great void and it wasn't making me feel any better.  But...I have managed to loose a bit of my hard won cynicism and am back.  Sorry about that.

Finally I have gotten far enough away from politics to look at the competing ideologies as a study of systems, questioning them from a bit of a distance.  And the basic question I have for anyone is this:

HAS ANY GOVERNMENTAL SYSTEM OR IDEOLOGY EVER PROVEN ITSELF AS A GENERAL BENEFIT OVER TIME?

I would suggest that history proves that answer to be NO.

Democracy in one form or another...Greece in ancient times comes to mind...has not lasted, crumbling in the face of challenges from without the country's borders.

Communism, a world-conquering ideology, has never succeeded in sustaining itself.

Dictatorships have, likewise, only lasted for limited periods only to be destroyed...usually from within.

So, my own (and your) preferences aside, what does historical perspective say about governance?

It seems to me that the problem is not with ideologies, and it is not with the form of government. They all have much to offer various people with various points of view that seemingly make the existence of mankind either better or more organized.

IT IS LIKELY THAT THE FAILURE OF ALL THESE GOVERNING SYSTEMS IS THE RESULT OF HUMAN NATURE; THAT MANKIND SIMPLY IS NOT A GOVERNABLE CREATURE...AT LEAST IN THE LONG RUN.

Consider the dichotomies.  Man universally utters cries for justice, fairness and kindness.  But man's actions show a general disregard for justice, fairness and kindness unless it is directed at oneself...at least in a constant sense and never when it involves self-deprivation.  We can be kind for awhile, but when push comes to shove, its number one, baby.

And different individuals have different genetic tendencies for defining what is "good" and "pleasurable."  A Mother Theresa sees helping others as "good" and "Pleasurable" and turns away from any other existence.  A Manson sees hurting and killing others as "good" and "pleasurable."  And the rest of us fall somewhere between these two extremes, but never settling on an enduring majority view of where we stand on those definitions.

And that leads us to the governmental choices we make, first as to form, then as to those that will act as the representatives of whatever form we settle on...for now.

So...with that in mind let's briefly consider the benefits and practicality of the various governmental ideologies from the standpoint of practicality and efficiency (I will hold for another time a discussion of the reasons for having government at all).

The two most practical and efficient would be the Dictatorship and the absolute Democracy.  Why? Because they can dispense with contrary arguments and problems immediately, providing a sense of responsiveness and eliminating strife.  A Dictatorship would eliminate (that means "kill") all opposition to his points of view, leaving a society and group in complete (at least outwardly) agreement.  The Democracy, unfettered by any concern for minority "rights", would respond to that majority by eliminating (yep...that means "kill" too) all non-conforming points of view.  These two approaches have the advantage of affecting a genetic disposition to a point of view, since those not in conformity would be killed, preventing any non-conforming progeny.

Well...if so efficient, why haven't any pure democracies or Dictatorships survived?  Well, Dictatorship is hard work and there is no vacation.  Putting someone else in charge while you take a vacation is libel to leave you out of a job when your return...and as I have always said, the best form of government is absolutely a Dictatorship...providing I am it.  So...dictators make enemies, fail to kill all those enemies, and one of them eventually takes over.  But that is short lived because by that time the masses have become disillusioned with the form of government since they are not universally happy;  they don't want a replacement, they want to try something new, so the replacement doesn't last long.

Absolute democracies fall to the same fate and for the same reason; unhappiness with the status quo leads to experiments, all of which weaken the government because of expanded an fractured direction...until it collapses under it's own weight.

How about Lenin/Marxist/Communism (world-wide ideology), or Socialism (nationalistic form of communism)?  These identify the dangers of individuals at the top and try to focus on universal "fairness" and "goodness."  The problem is that a majority of mankind is oriented only to those ideals when it applies directly to themselves.  Over time, all people see themselves as "fairly"deserving more than others.  That, of course means that ultimately all see themselves as being the recipient of unfair treatment.  That leads to working less and ultimately to everyone sinking to the lowest common denominator...which itself keeps sinking.  That is why the U.S.S.R. ultimately failed; it combined all the weaknesses of both the commune and the dictatorship with socialistic overtones.

Capitalism is not, strictly speaking, a governmental form, but it is an ideology of which government plays a resented and inefficient part.  It has always survived, even in communist regimes...although in badly kept secret while officially being prohibited.  Why?  Because it feeds on the human nature to benefit oneself.

Government in any form lasts...and, arguably, grows more acceptable and becomes stronger...when it honors and encourages Capitalism.  It allows man to strive, overcome others, and that results in kindness to those less avaricious, greedy or able which is then defined as "justice" and "good" by the majority.  It allows the appearance of moral virtue even as it acts in other directions.

Governments of all kind start their inevitable slide to destruction and oblivion when they lose sight of their secondary position in the existence of mankind; when they start thinking that they are in control instead of being supportive they interfere with the capitalistic nature of man and that leads man to destroy that government.

It has happened throughout history...and, absent some scientific discovery, and implementation,  of some genetic operation that can be done to all of mankind...it will continue.