phaedo2000.com Blog

A poem from Vietnam:

Flower Power
Flower power, Flower power, That’s the thing! ‘Got flowers on my helmet And my rifle sling.
Flower children, Flower children, Know the way. Love each other, Throw weapons away!!
Make love, Not war, A sensible cry__________ But_______what about The other guy?

Yes, what about the other guy?  Are we seeing it all happen once again?  The Arabs say the enemy of my friend is my friend.  We seem to be saying anyone opposed to patriarchal government (non-democratic) is our friend.  But who are these opposers?  Did we not get a taste of it in the Arab Springs?  If one and one is not two, does that mean it MUST be three?  Same logic.  Now we want to repeat it once again in Syria.  Do we love revolutionaries so much?  Apparently.  But think about them; and what about the other guy?  Surely “he” is chortling.

Are we so naive?  So ignorant of history?  Apparently.  After all, have you noticed the (another) apparent trend is under weigh: flock to the socialists?  Sounds like making gold from rocks to me.

Underlining the fact that people all over the world have a history of discontent, insurrections (as opposed to revolutions that general mean they were successful) have been with us for a long, long time, for all kinds of reasons, mostly due to discontent, although the discontent is as likely to be stirred up by power seekers as it is to be spontaneous.   That probably tells us as much about the people as it does about their governments.  The difference today is as much technology as anything: specifically bombs, communications and transportation.

Today we seem to prefer the word terrorism, although our current administration is apparently trying to downplay that name.  Terrorism is also not new and the most famous of the practitioners are probably the Nazari Ismailis sect led by hasan ibn al Sabbah after the death of Fatimid caliph al Mustansir in 1094.  The word assassin comes from the Persian hashishi which literally means hashish eaters.  The assassins promulgated their trade from a hill fortress in the outback of Persia during the 11th to the 13th century in the interest of forcing their religious beliefs on others.

War lords are another piece of the puzzle, particularly prevalent, periodically in China, but most notably between 1916 and 1928 when they were replaced by the republic.  War lords are leaders with both military and political control over a sub-national region when a central government has lost control.  China during that period was essentially divided among a virulent set of local war lords.  Today one occasionally sees the term associated with a failed state, particularly Somalia.  It might be stretching it a bit, but it is tempting to refer to what has been happening in Mexico and Central America as warlord-ism, suggesting an obvious link between insurrection/terrorism, warlords and criminal activities.

So what?  Well, the unpleasant combination won’t seem to go away and is proving very bothersome.  Power seekers, often tribal in nature or at least in inception, use insurrection to spread terrorism, punctuated by assassination, and led by what must increasingly be called warlords, at least when they successfully take over a chunk of territory and are ablt to hold it.  The technology that has assisted them so dramatically is obvious enough with leaders running around the world via airplane, with modern vehicles using cell phones and the Internet – and modern weapons, of course.  The most talked about modern weapon (not actually so modern) is the IED (improvised explosive device) deployed in vehicles, dug in beside roadways or strapped on suicide bombers (thus assassins).  The name originated in Ireland in the 1970s through the use of the IRA, but they were successfully employed in Malaya and Vietnam as well.

So what is the prognosis of the combinations today?  IEDs are effective today because they are very difficult to eliminate, especially when people are willing to conceal them in belts and explode themselves along with their often terror oriented assassination targets.  Insurrections are easily sold where ignorance and  discontent prevail, through effective propaganda spread by charismatic or otherwise influential leaders, who aspire to be warlords, particularly using religious fundamentalism as a motivator; at least that is the most visible prop.  That makes them rather popular in some places and at the very least, extremely inconvenient.

Will they take over the world?  Not likely, although using those tools they could – and might – take over the governments of some nations from their regionally successful bases.  Even that probably wouldn’t last, however, because people of this ilk and motivation are usually not the type to compromise and frequently become the targets of others who wish to depose them and assume their power.  So what’s the problem?  The process is very destructive, particularly in locales where it is prevalent, but also in the context of international trade – oil for example; international trade needs peaceful environments and cooperation to do its thing.  Not that it cannot survive without it, but it becomes much more disruptive, and much more expensive.  Which is why we have to give it concern and worry about it - beyond the obvious.

Can it be eliminated?  Not without difficulty – and loss of individual freedoms and liberty.  We already complain mightily about the inconvenience of body checks at airports, and even at some schools and public buildings.  And there is always chance of 9-11 type attacks which are VERY inconvenient and unpleasant, to say nothing of costly.  Additionally, we have those that oppose use of force and intelligence collection to attempt, at least, to control it.  There is clearly a conflict between freedom and liberty, and population controls for security purposes that inconvenience us, and for which we must pay.  Add to this discontents and even violence that are likely to arise from severe economic conditions, should they occur.  At a point in time it can be very difficult to make distinctions among criminality, insurrection, and violently expressed discontent.

Interestingly there is even a new video game entitled War Lord.  You have to take your hat off to popular innovations that grab the markets, even if you find it irritatingly distasteful; we have, after all, always been captivated by swashbuckling bad guys that tweak – even violently - the institutions upon which we rely while reviling their success.

The world about us is swirling about in a manner almost uncontrolled; at least that’s the way we are encouraged to view it.  And many use the swirl for their own benefit.  Who ever said democracy and free markets were going to be easy?

Everything, it was once said, in moderation.  Does that include politics?  If so, what does it mean?  In a bipolar world which seems to demand taking sides – meaning joining with one side or the other, IN EVERYTHING – meaning buying an ideological package and sticking to it, moderation only exists within the framework of the ideology.  The power brokers want it that way because it makes definition of position clearer (my way) and it makes fund raising easier because it is easier to inflame passions: take to the streets!  To the barricades!  Such, I would suggest is the beginning of an ideological struggle intended to end in the victory of one and the vanquishing of the other.  It hasn’t turned out that way in the past in this country for a very simple reason: there really do not exist alternatives where can satisfy everyone, or make all ”happy;” because our world of success has been one of competitiveness, and thus when one side gains power the other side always looks better.

That is a basic truism, actually, in most enterprises.  The faults of what one knows are always evident, and the faults of the other are not so, until they are sampled and found wanting.  And consider, with humanity and all its foibles what is the possibility of achieving anything that would make everyone satisfied and happy? it’s not in our selfish, jealous and envious nature.

That, however, is not moderation.  One cannot be moderate across the board when there are a collection of issues.  Take abortion, fiscal responsibility and aid to the poor for example; what are the chances that someone would feel passionately one way or the other for all three.  Those are just examples; consider the dozens of major issues that voters face, and the many different personal situations in which those voters find themselves.  We are, after all, self serving and protective of our own individual situations, as we must be to survive.  When it comes to goring oxen, everyone has his set and will not take kindly to the destruction of any within his set.

But the power brokers have established, through blatant propaganda, bought by most, that anyone who does not buy the entire package is a spineless ditherer.  What of principles? I know, it is a word that has fallen into disuse and thus has lost meaning.  There is, it seems, no longer a place for “moderates,” by which I mean people of principle who examine each issue in its own light.  But then might I suggest that this is the direction in which our professional politicians are deliberately driving us?  It’s not new; one was either for the monarch or against him and no position in between was permitted.  In fact it was in many cases a capital offense to be anti-monarchy.  We haven’t progressed to that point – yet – but would that not be pretty much the case if one or the other party became a permanent opposition, as each seems to dream for the other?  Moderation is maintaining the ability to make choices.

If, however, each party is insistent upon constituents supporting ALL platform issues without deviation, what is left of choices based on principles?  And how could that actually happen anyway?  Once upon a time there was compromise and it wasn’t a dirty word; our professional politicians have worked – successfully – to make it so.  The best example I can think of in our current melee has to do with taxes, spending, debt and deficit.  We are at ideological loggerheads that taken to their extreme could make things very, very unpleasant for most of us – even more so, that is - than it will be anyway; but we haven’t accepted that, so for most, it – the deadlock postion – is not a matter understood.  Although perhaps it would be more correct to say that each side thinks giving in to the other is the worst that could possibly happen; the propagandists have sold us on that.  The compromise position? a compromise that would include a principled and carefully crafted agreement that would include both.  But that is not the way elections are won any more, if ever they were.  And ironically, by standing our ground we will find that the result will be worse than a compromise, whichever side “wins.”  But then whichever candidate takes the moderate view of principled compromise loses.  Interestingly there were compromise positions available prior to the Civil War, and the result was worse than had they been pursued – my opinion, but taken from others who have explained them.

We have boxed ourselves into a lose/lose situation from which a way out is not readily apparent, or acceptable.  It was not what was intended by the founders of our form of government.  But then those founders did not anticipate – or favor – professional politicians.  However, there is a growing feeling that what the founders had in mind is anachronistic and needs to be changed anyway.  To what?  Well, there we go again.

It is truly frustrating for those who actually give thought to such things.

The track record for prognosticators has always been pretty poor, whatever they might tell you, but in these difficult times it is as bad as it has ever been.  Not that that stops them from forecasting all manner of things, with as many different conclusions as there are positions to take.  We do not know, we can not know which way specifics will jump, but that does not keep us from seeing a developing big picture of challenge ahead.

Unfortunately we – humans – tend to be restricted by short sightedness, myopia and a tendency to extrapolate from the past, often seeing the past with rose colored glasses yearnings.  And by keeping our heads down we seem to want to overdo that, burying them in the sand.  This poses a challenge for those who have already piled on years, but a serious problem for those who are just starting out.  Things are changing rapidly and standing in place waiting for it to come is likely to leave them in the dust.

Michael Barone talks about those who dream about the “safe” manufacturing jobs of the past where one could work from start to finish with a single company and retire comfortably, pointing out that those times are past.  Many are writing about demographic challenges that will obviously impact retirement – but additionally provide challenge for the young who are prepared, since there will be fewer workers.  The future of medicine and medical benefits are up in the air, but so are unknowns facing lawyers.  College education and its costs are becoming another big question mark, as are deterioration of our national infrastructure.  The economy? jobs, jobs, jobs.  But where will they come from?

With these challenges, we seem to have almost nothing with which to face them but an entitlement mentality and lethargy; and a vast hunger for more and more entertainment and leisure.  We seem to be waiting for the solutions to come to us, and for someone – anyone – to discover them for us, while resenting those with the capability and ability to do so.  We are conflicted.

But the future, as always, rests with the young, and they are the most conflicted of all.  They clamour for college degrees, without an inkling of which might lead to successful careers, thinking that the piece of paper will be enough;  they seek the easy as opposed to the challenging, and expect everything to come to them; and they resist those that would attempt to inspire them to effort on their own behalf.  They are, however, aided and abetted by parents that have little more insight and provide only encouragement with the same lack of direction.  Where is the initiative and responsibility that have carried us so far?  Where is the discipline and flexibility that are required for us to continue?  Where is the self-sufficiency that is our trademark?

Things have changed.  We no longer have family farms to fall back on; we no longer have a proliferation of low and moderate skill jobs to fall into; we are hemmed in by cities and subburbs, traffic and bills – and entitlement.  And related national challenges beyond our understanding weigh us down with confusion and frustration.  In a word we are not prepared – and seem to be making little progress in becoming prepared; nor do we have the effective leadership in that direction.  We are confused.

Where will it all end?  When will it settle down?  For each of us it will end when we realize the need to take responsibility for ourselves; a very difficult challenge that will require guidance and assistance  – not from government, but from concerned and supportive families, communities and personal initiative.  For the young that begins in school and at home, where it does not seem to be happening; and when we make them understand that it is not going to be handed to them, but will require that they work for it.  Ours is the land of opportunity as is clearly evident by those from elsewhere that clamber to come here, even if illegally.  But opportunity must be realized, met, grasped and taken advantage of.  That means initiative.  It’s all there, waiting for those willing to accept the challenge and pay the price; it has never been as easy as today’s young seem to think it has been.  But we will not get there until we begin, and the longer we wait the longer it will take to get there.  We will persevere – in the end – but those who sit and wait for someone to do it for them, will remain far behind, complaining all the while that it’s not fair, while never understanding that they are the cause of their own problems.

Have you ever heard that?  Have you ever asked why and found that he/she who said it couldn’t tell you?  Why do people take such a position?  Why do we dislike so intensely and so easily?  Maybe we are just conditioned to do so; nahhh, that’s a cop-out.

We do it, I submit, because we all have so many differences, and focus upon them.  It is very easy to do; but that’s not all.  We often dislike because someone has told us about the differences of another, probably embellished upon them with plenty of opinion piled on, and we just went along (sheep-hood).  Many people are prone to do that – just go along; or worse, believe whatever they are told without question.  That, incidentally, is why propaganda is so successful; and the less the target thinks, the more effective it is.

A proper and useful response to such a comment is to ask why - even when the comment comes from self.  First, why was it said, then what lay behind it?  Differences, differences; we are all different.  We think differently; we act differently; we have different habits, beliefs; and we have different prejudices, yes, we all have prejudices.  What use the why? if the capability and interest are there it generates thinking.  Why do we think we dislike someone; it is very helpful to break it down, to explain it to ourselves, and analyze it.  It is something irritating they do?  is it something they said or how they said it? is it a belief that is different from ours? is it envy?  Since there are so many differences among us, there is no end to the probability we can find something to latch on to.  And with any luck we can isolate upon what it is that generates the emotion.

And then what?  Think about it; one at a time if there are more than one.  Actually the same approach can be taking to establishing mate-hood.  When we select a mate, and think about it, there will always be something, and frequently many somethings, that cause us irritation.  And when does irritation become dislike?  Usually when we dwell upon it – not think about it, but dwell upon it and let it fester.  The secret to successful mate-hood is identifying the irritations up front and thinking about them.  If they are so serious we feel we cannot deal with them (game changers) we should terminate the quest – move on.  But if we feel we can accept them we have to buy them outright.  She/he is terminally messy.  Ok, known and bought; live with it.  Overlook it?  No, that’s not the way it works; we are unlikely to be able to just not see it any more.  But when we see it, we have to accept it because we bought it.  It’s easier than it seems because, after all, we all have traits, thoughts, attitudes, beliefs that clash with others.  That helps too, to recognize the traits we have that bother others; and it even helps to talk about them if the relationship is intimate.

It’s easier when the relationship is not intimate, however, because then we don’t have to deal with it continually.  Maybe we learn to avoid it by working around it; maybe we end up avoiding the person because the effort to deal with it is more than we wish to expend.  But dislike?  Hate?  Why?  First it’s not worth the effort; second it generates problems that are not worth generating; and third it’s unpleasant for any and all involved.  Finally it can lead to serious problems of many kinds that are avoidable.  During the days of Arab Springs I often asked myself why people bothered to go to the places where throngs of people were screaming their hatred, particularly when the act resulted in death or injury.  Why do people seek out venues for spewing hatred?  All mobs are susceptible, so why don’t people avoid mobs?

Essentially because they give in to rule of emotion and eschew thinking.  But isn’t it somewhat the same one on one when one resorts to: I hate him?  Evaluated, most often the difference that generated the emotion can be found not important enough to give into it.  So, don’t give into it.  It would make the world a better place, and life far more pleasant.  Even better, balancing the good that is there against the bad that is perceived helps too.  There are few that are so bad – that is, are so different from us and what we expect, that we can’t find balancing good.  And when that is the case just STAY FAR AWAY from anyone like that.

What brought this on?  I don’t know; it just popped in there and gave me something to think about.

Humans are an unusual type of pack animal.  Our strength (and survival) is based on ability to reason, but is dependent upon capability to work together.  The first begets incredible development, but the second results in destruction, pollution, waste and violence.  We have made progress, but it is spotty.

Religion has contributed particularly in bringing peoples together for shared objectives.  It has been spotty however because it lacks cohesiveness – and, it must be said, has been too often a victim of that powerful human curse of blatant self serving selfishness – derived from a self preservation that is dependent upon that very dependence upon reliance upon each other.  Thus we are a very conflicted and confused entity, wrestling continually between the community that sustains us and the individual selfish pursuance of personal power: the collective versus the individual.  Specifically the collective is constantly being undermined by the individual since the collective is based upon rough equality where the individual is quite the opposite.  On the other hand we have proven that the collective at the expense of the individual has similar dangers.

Religion, with the “right” objectives is therefore often opposed to religion with the “wrong” objectives.  The right objectives can result in personal peace and individual strength; the wrong objectives can result in coercive desire for imposing the views of one upon another, and we have seen plenty of each throughout our history.   Underlying the problem between the two is a basic and persistent inequality with causes that begin with the individual, proceed through environment and extend to cultural, which include both individual and environmental.

Why can’t humans live together in peace and harmony?  Different advantages, envy and survival stand out from the many.  But there is another as well, that derives from these three: we are different and we are suspicious of differences among us, including the above but adding what results from them, with addition of how we look and act.  People, probably dating back to primeval basic survival, are innately suspicious of each other.  The enlightened among us contend, correctly, that that could be reconciled by a spreading of that enlightenment to all.  But since only a small number have achieved such a level of enlightenment, we are continually and almost universally defeated by the lack of it – essentially expressed as selfishness and ignorance fueled by differences.

To combat that wide gap of difference the enlightened and their apostles pretend it doesn’t exist, which, in my opinion, is exactly the wrong thing to do; nothing can be changed if it is not recognized and understood.  What we call political correctness is an example of this, but that is merely the tip; the general approach of the “enlightened” is to merely wish away that which they do not want to see, and the difficulty is exacerbated by the fact that their enlightenment is tinged by their own arrogance and selfishness.

A very negative view?  I prefer to see it as a realistic view.  Why pretend while all are trying to impose their will upon all the others at least partly due to their suspicion of the intents of those same others?  The world, has made progress in realism if not in its differences, but it has a long way to go.  Perhaps and hopefully the progress will continue, but only if the reality is understood; and that reality?  People have evolved differently, think differently and view life differently, often from necessity.  Perhaps for awhile we would be better maintaining universal mutual suspicion while striving for respect than to try and inflict change.  And as long as there are those that refuse to respect individual rights – even while imposing the need for collective rights, at all levels, the need for mutual suspicion and self security will not go away.

That, in a nutshell, is my view of civilization; not perfect, but the best we can hope for at present.

Wow, that’s heavy for a quiet and peaceful Sunday; well, quiet and peaceful for me anyway – and there’s the rub.

Perception, it has been said more than once, is everything.  And in a world of relative ignorance and vehement propaganda perception surely is everything.  And that’s why negative politics and virulent smears are so prevalent: they work.  And why do they work? they create a perception that is often not based on fact or in some cases even reasonable, that are accepted without question.  But politics is not the only place they are found; in fact they are found everywhere.  Face book? we have all heard of some of the blatant lies that have been spread on Face Book, creating damaging negative perception without facts.  How about those we haven’t heard about?

And what of trial by media? or mob for that matter?  What of simple mistakes that are blown of of context to create a negative perception that is ruinous?  It has often been said that in our “new” culture mistakes can be deadly; they are just not condoned.  You can readily see that today with people who leave prison after serving their time with almost zero chance of regaining a productive life; but you can see it elsewhere too – almost everywhere.  Which is not to condone the repeat offender or the con artist, but not only have many careers been ruined by a single mistake, but leaders have learned to manage in such a way that they do not allow mistakes to happen - other than their own.  That results in several things: good talent is sacrificed, opportunities that we used to have to learn from mistakes has been seriously truncated, and leaders are beginning to learn to be dictators allegedly to keep mistakes from happening: the old elitist approach of deciding that those in charge (by those in charge) KNOW what’s best for everyone and make all the decisions.

So what is the current perception of our national financial situation?  Who can say? there are too many of them – and those who hold them and create them are absolutely sure theirs are the true ones.  And some create the perceptions of this, and other things, with out-and-out lies, which they sell through propaganda.  Perceptions are not inherently bad; in fact they are a necessary fact of life because no one can know everything, but when they are derived through towering hubris and sold via black (meaning knowingly incorrect) propaganda, we have a problem.

It is my opinion that we have a problem that is increasing in intensity; and I am not alone.  But I may be in the minority.

Some time ago, during a period in which everyone (media particularly) was beating the drums for curricula change I sat down and gave it some serious thought; it ought not be so difficult to come up with the RIGHT curricula, should it?  Try it some time.

First thing is that we are not all the same, have same interests or same needs.  Second thing, and perhaps even more important, is that student motivation is also not the same, nor are the things that will keep them in school until graduation.  What is school for?  Grade school is easier to address because I think we all realize that basic grounding is needed for all young people growing towards maturity, whether it is at home or in a public or private school, and certainly there is no argument that they must learn to read, write and understand the basic mathematical basis of our economic culture.  And knowing something about their country and where it fits and how it has developed is also pretty non-controversial.  I should not need to add that the discipline of working with others, listening to instructions and learning how to learn are also pretty fundamental.  Middle school?  It’s pretty much accepted as the transition bridge between the regimen of grade school and the growing independence of high school.

So what about high school?  It entails choices and assumes (sometimes erroneously) individual discipline that comes with choices.  It also spans the age where students can make the decision, for whatever reason, to leave and not complete a degree.  If that doesn’t sound like much it should.  So what should the curricula be in high school?  Think about it.

How much math do they need?  How much English?  Foreign language?  History?  Science?  How much?  I tried and failed to convince myself that I knew what it should be.  Are they ready to make choices or should they be told what to take and how much?  What do they really need? most have little real appreciation of the outside world, and much less understanding of what they want to do in it, even if they understood what the options look like.  And let’s face it, the maturity level of many high school students has not progressed as it should have, and often the proclivity is to do as little as possible.  So in such cases is high school just a way to keep such students off the streets and out of trouble?

What if we just let them take whatever they want to take?  That’s what is done in college; are they ready for that?  Probably not entirely; but does the average student really need four years of math and three of science?  Listening to them, one would conclude that they probably need as much English as they can get, although what do they get out of that? obviously it depends on their motivation, and we know – or should – that that is one of the major problems in our schools at the middle and high school levels of education today: poor motivation; not all, certainly, but far too many can not or will not properly motivate themselves and the entire system suffers from that.  So if they are not motivated to learn one year of mathematics, how can we expect four?

A very real conundrum is that high schools seem to all have been oriented toward college preparation; why?  Mainly, I believe, because we have convinced them (and their parents) that kids that graduate from college make a million dollars more over a life time than those that do not.  Two problems with that; the first is that about half the students that go to college don’t graduate anyway; so where does that leave them on that scale?  which leads to the other problem and that is that that million dollar number is an average, with outliers extending from the extremes of losers who do nothing when they leave school and professionals that pursue advanced degrees and pursue extremely demanding and therfore high paying careers.  And I wonder how it treats personal investment in the mix.  I have very little confidence in that number and its effect on individuals, and I am aware that some students just don’t do well in a classroom environment.  But the one million dollar enticement figure seems to have pushed aside the trades, where many would be far better off than trying to pursue “an office job,” and I am, and have always been a fan of the old – and now scorned – industrial arts curricula – for those that would benefit from it.  Why scorned?  Because in a culture of egalitarian expectations the trades are a put down.  So we are continually short of well trained and highly motivated skilled labor; which, incidentally, boasts positions that elicit a great deal of respect.  In fact there are jobs in this category that are so important that if companies requiring them could find someone with the requisite skills they would hire them on the spot, whether they have a job opening or not.  We make some products in the United States that no one else makes, requiring high skills that are not available.  Believe it.  Sure they take special training – and skill; what doesn’t?

So I didn’t supply an answer to what do we need to do about high school curricula did I?  But maybe, just maybe, it’s not as easy as it sounds – because we are not all the same, and we are not going to be the same, and should be searching early for indications of what we might be good at, rather than what might make us richer.  And perhaps one might want to look at differences in opportunites and satisfaction among “office” or retail sales jobs and say mechanics, plumbers, electricians and carpenters.  Not that any one is automatically better than any other, but each may be a great deal better for people that are motivated to do them and gain the requisite skills to do them well.

And what standard high school curricula will do that?  Or, as been suggested, we set the curricula so the curricula so that students will become better citizens?  I have trouble with that too.

A recent announcement that Guinea-Bissau has seen another coup staged makes that five, either attempted of successful, since 2009 – in West Africa.  That does not include any elsewhere, such as in North Africa or Yemen.  I can’t say whether what’s happening in the Sudan or Somalia counts or not.  Of course there have been several wars as well.  What’s happening?  In a nutshell it comes down to weak governments, economic difficulties and tribal differences, among, probably other things.  Democracy? hardly; it’s mostly power struggles led by either the military or militias.  Hey, why not.  The latest was also involved in drug trafficking from South America; the president said he would do something about it and the military, who enjoy a cut, didn’t care for that.

Ironically, I would argue that pushing democracy and showing its fruits through the magic screen has had a strong effect in terms of encouraging the overthrow of those in power, titillating the populace with all those goodies and shouting the praises of power to the people.  Of course with the degree of education in Africa rule by “the people” is something of a joke.  But then one might remember that Robespierre’s definition of “the people” after the French Revolution in 1789 was Robespierre.  In fact democracy and power “of the people” has had many, many definitions throughout the world, and most have very little to do with common individuals (the little people) influencing policy.  First they don’t have the understanding and second “the people” do not speak with one voice.  So democracy at best has been representative democracy and at worst rule by an elite under a thin democratic cover.  An elite rules everywhere, because they are the only ones qualified to do so, and considering the nature of representation one has to question whether an elected elite is even qualified to do that.  Why?  because they are too beholden to contributors, powerful constituents and influential brokers.  It is truly a mess – but better, Churchill assured us, than the next best; it surely CAN be, but whether it is is sometimes questionable.

Alas, what should we do?  WE?  Why is it that we assume it’s OUR responsibility – or right for that matter – to tell them what to do?  But we do in many ways: encouragement, even urging; assistance to armed opposition, including weapons and even troops: aid to anyone and everyone, and all kinds of other support, or withholding of it.

But the world is changing and no longer responds to what we tell them THEY should do – either side or any faction - although they all welcome our assistance (that is, arms and money at least).  Perhaps it is time that we consider taking the stand of defending ourselves and stopping meddling.  Ah, so simple.  What of world trade upon which our economy depends?  What of resources such as oil and minerals that must be purchased from abroad?  What of Americans working abroad?  And then there are weapons of mass destruction that can be hurled from afar.  Some might say forget about that; but they would be extremely naive in doing so.  Isolationism was once a policy; it was never terribly effective and certainly could not be today.  What is done elsewhere in the world affects us whether we like it or not.  But could we not stop meddling in other people’s business?  Such as fighting for women’s rights in nations that see women’s rights in a different light than we?  Or even slavery for that matter, or human rights in general?  But where would the lines be drawn between what we get into and what we ignore?  There is, it would appear little agreement where that line should be, and that’s why we are where we are.

This is the responsibility we place upon our political leaders who we – all of us, with almost no consistency – attempt to influence with our opinions – and votes.  It has been suggested that the natural state of the world is peace.  I would demur; the natural state, I would argue, is argument, strife, fighting and war; because we can not agree on much, and particularly on who deserves to enjoy the spoils of nature and their distribution.

I think isolation is impossible today; but I also would contend that national leadership – politics, regardless of how politicians are selected or appointed, is a very serious business that can make a big difference in our lives, or even the fate of our nations or the world.  It’s a pity we don’t make a bit more effort to select those, since we have that capability – even responsibility, who are qualified and motivated to do the best job, instead of those we “like” or will satisfy our own personal desires and expectations.  Leadership is tough; perhaps we could begin by merely appreciating that.

In a Washington Post article Charles Lane suggests, in an article entitled “When Uncle Sam Plays Banker” that “Federal lending is always done in the name of some socially beneficial objective that the private banking system would insufficiently support, if left to its own devices.”  He goes on in much greater detail, but just that much got me to thinking, and my conclusion, albeit not a bit surprising, made a lot of sense; of course it would, it was my conclusion.

The part that got me to thinking was that about lending always being done in the name of some socially beneficial objective.  I think that goes a long way to defining government.  Socially beneficial objectives, meaning those things upon which most can, if not believe in, at least have difficulty in objecting to, such as anything to do with helping children or the poor – usually not so very well defined.  Ok, we have done that, and that’s not the point I am trying to make.  That point is that regardless of how worthwhile the “objective” is, the decision to lend (or make an entitlement) is almost always made without consideration of anything else, such as ultimate cost, unintended consequences, reason related to market implications (why government has to do it), and availability of funding.

In other words the decision is made entirely on emotion – or at least with an emotion based argument; meaning real financial facts are almost always murky.  One of his examples was student loans and the reasoning was that college education makes for a more civilized nation.  I’ll not get into even his specifics, and much more has been written lately about colleges, degrees (or lack of due to drop outs) and costs, but will just say (my opinion) that there are strong idications that we are sending too many people to college for too much cost with too little to show for it.  But the problem is that too little thought goes into those aspects of it and it is supported because it feels so good to support it – as an isolated decision.

Why does Congress make all of its decisions in isolation?  Budget be damned; it FEELS good and so it’s just something we MUST do.  I think a lot of personal spending is done similarly, which is why personal debt is also high and steady.  Which might seem good for the economy (read jobs) but in the long run just cannot be sustained (not just my opinion).  I wonder what would happen if they were required to prioritize and justify their economic decisions.  Isn’t that what the argument against so-called (pork barrel) ear marks was all about?  And we were incensed with ear marks; but isn’t everything Congress does is done in essentially the same way?  Each in isolation, often with little in terms of economic justification or even priority.  And incidentally we know what came of identifying where funding for budget items comes from.

Is that any way to do business?  But then maybe that’s the problem; it’s not business.  So what is it?  Emotional, feel good social spending?  Apparently without any kind of limit.  And let us remember, that applies to Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid – and their automatic increases.  Which is not an argument against them, and their automatic increases, but a criticism of the process of their funding (and deficits).

I tend to keep coming back to that; have you noticed?