BBC Blog Network

User Profile

arclightt

Listed below are comments made by arclightt between Thursday, 12th November 2009 and Thursday, 3rd December 2009.

«Newer
Older»

Selling Obama's Afghan strategy on Capitol Hill 1:57pm on 03 Dec 2009 I read the speech; it's easier than listening to radio or watching TV, and I can stop and mull over what's in it without reaching for a remote.

@22 (tpapp157):"I guess it comes down to the fact that Americans have gotten a little skittish since the fiasco in Vietnam (and elsewhere like Somalia)...Shouting "Vietnam" is as mindless and unbased in reality as believing Afghanistan can be turned into a beacon of democracy."

Nicely put, but Americans have tired of war at other times (even WWII). FDR decided to allow some pictures of American dead in the Pacific to be released precisely to spur the Americans on in late 1943. This is another reason not to start a war if it can be avoided.

I think, though, that far too many Americans who came of age during the late 1960s / early 1970s still view and process today's world based on memories, emotional reactions, and "truth" from that time. They think that for some reason that time was "special" in some way, or that they discovered for the first time some "special truth" about human nature and humanity that was different from times before. Our leadership from both "sides" is in the same basket, which helps to make our politics so poisoned. News flash for folks trapped in this fashion:

a. This is 2009, not 1969, and has to be processed as such.
b. Human nature is the same now, with the same propensity to do evil as well as good, as it was in 1969, 1939, and for all time, because human nature doesn't change on its own.
c. The baby boomers didn't discover anything about humanity that wasn't known long before they were even a twinkle in their parents' eyes; any belief to the contrary is arrogant nonsense.
d. Just because some person or group is right or wrong on one issue, that doesn't say anything about their rightness or wrongness on another issue. Smearing issues together is itself bad behavior.
Obama's Afghan announcement 6:41pm on 01 Dec 2009 30,000+ troops is not the significant piece. The significant piece is what he plans to accomplish with them, and whether or not it's realistic, and how he proposes to pay for the increase. That's the critical information.

The troop number is kinda like the old warhead count in the Cold War...it never had any real meaning, but was misused to provide a quick comparison.

Mark: Counter-insurgency may only mean nation-stabilization for a time. I don't think there's anyone who realistically expects to see any nation get built there; I certainly don't.
Afghanistan troops: Decision time for Obama 7:14pm on 25 Nov 2009 @119: I sure wouldn't want the job of anticipating the worst men can do. If I miss an event, I am castigated for failing; if I try extra hard not to, I get sneered at. Now that's certainly a rewarding career...
Afghanistan troops: Decision time for Obama 6:29pm on 25 Nov 2009 @106/107: Many countries maintain strategic plans to deal with other countries, specific events, etc. That's been common practice for a very long time. Most of those plans never see the light of day...they used to sit in locked file cabinets, and now reside on classified disk storage.

It's not so much, "We think Country A is a threat" as it is "IF Country A becomes a threat, then...".

That's just part of the world we live in. I think that's all that was being said.

As far as the President's decision is concerned, it's ugly no matter what he chooses. I'm with others, though, who have said that half-measures won't get it done and shouldn't be tried.

The "tax on the rich" to pay for the war, while emotionally satisfying, is something that can be done exactly once. Punitive taxes result in "the rich" taking a walk on salary increases, doing less work, and doing other things to get out from under, and there's nothing short of slavery that can require them to do otherwise. If the Congress wants to be that stupid, it will fit entirely with their long-term (50-year) character.
State dinner: the hottest ticket in town 3:18pm on 24 Nov 2009 @7 (squirrellist): "...it's more a consequence of a country concentrating with such tunnel vision on its 'war on terror' and its domestic impact while forgetting much of the rest of the world has been forging other, broader directions."

This is another example, if one were needed, of the decrepitude of the institution of Congress, and not just the current residents, either, or the ones before them, or the ones before them.

a. They control the budget, and we are $57-58 trillion in debt. This disaster has been building for far longer than just "the past 8 years" or similar nonsense.

b. They control the tax code, and at its best it is a behemoth that nobody anywhere understands; it has nested and aggregated loopholes for the affluent, and punishment for the rest. At its worst it is an ideological weapon. This is another disaster that has taken many years to metastasize.

c. They control the law, and far from being a bar before which all tremble, it is the preferred weapons system of the 21st century. The lawsuit, far from being the means whereby some measure of redress is meted out for civil wrongs, is now the neutron bomb (destroys the soul and spirit while leaving the mind and body functional to service the winner). Of the three, misuse of the law as practiced and allowed by the Congress is probably the worst, because as our citizens have confronted this misuse of the law, they have responded by devaluing the rule of law in general, because they cannot trust it. For a nation which is supposedly "a nation of laws", this devaluation of the rule of law destroys our foundations. It will not easily be recovered from, if at all.

In an earlier topic Gavrielle LaPoste wrote an excellent summary of how a large bill is reviewed. What was not discussed is what political calculations go through those staffers' heads as they review and write comments, and especially what calculations the chief of staff of Pol A goes through as he works with and advises The Boss.

Recall that while civil servants are governed by Civil Service regulations, Congressional staffers are not, because they aren't civil servants. That being the case, what is the potential for misbehavior on the part of the Congressional staff relative to that of Executive Branch civil servants? My estimation is that it's far higher, because who polices them? The Ethics Committees? Don't make me laugh.

This is not to say that Congress cannot possibly do better, or that it does everything badly. It appears true, however, that their actions absolutely do not comport with their span of responsibility, and that a thorough housecleaning is in order.
US report on 'harm' of testing for cancer too young 5:20pm on 18 Nov 2009 @75 (ft): I agree with you that stress is much underrated as the cause of not just cancer but other medical problems.

The Wall Street Journal ran an article some 2 years ago relating stress early in life to dementia later in life. My mother had a hugely-stressful marriage (she survived Dad); it's sad to see how quickly she is now deteriorating due to dementia. I won't immediately tie the two together, but it's interesting that the dementia came basically out of nowhere and clobbered her within a matter of about 3 years.
US report on 'harm' of testing for cancer too young 10:56am on 18 Nov 2009 @50 (cjwd): Great post. Statistics are a great way to misrepresent things, unfortunately. I hope you'll post more like that.

@43 (squirrelist): Absolutely on track. In the US we have an obsession with trying to stay alive on this planet just a little longer, instead of accepting and preparing for inevitable death and moving into eternity.

@14/22 (guns / gav): Both tort reform and malpractice reform are required in this situation. Either one without the other is incomplete.

I read with sadness in the Washy Post a very blunt statement from the Dem leadership that they couldn't really tackle any serious tort reform in the health care bill because the trial lawyers are a well-heeled interest group upon which the Dems depend for campaign contributions. Very open, matter-of-fact admission that they are doing the bidding of their financial masters. The Rs, of course, are absolutely the same.

@all: It seems more and more to me that we "average folks" are caught between multiple well-heeled groups who are wielding titanic concentrations of power. There seems to be less and less opportunity for us to get those groups to stop pushing with all their might, and more and more opportunity for us to be trampled under their feet. It's easy to believe that that's all there is, and that there's no reason to hope things can really be better. I don't want to sound preachy here, but I still do believe that God still reigns, and sends His love to us, and even to them, every day.

There's no question these are "stern times" as Churchill referred to (you Brits are blessed indeed to have someone who could so express himself and inspire with his words), but perhaps this is our opportunity to build or rebuild something of more lasting value than the latest reality TV show, or the latest mall visit, or whatever transitory pleasure we are offered. Wonder what the history books will say about us 100 years from now?

Regards to all from just off the Capitol Beltway this morning...
Too many questions? 6:15pm on 16 Nov 2009 @26 (sl): I read your external post.

I did not wish to cause offense by my previous post. It seemed like a good way to point out that Senators and lobbyists (as well as Representatives, but they weren't named) tend very much to want (and apparently need) campaign contributions in ever-increasing amounts, which sets the stage for inherent corruption of the process.

Sorry if the reference was inappropriate.
Too many questions? 1:38pm on 16 Nov 2009 @9 (sl): "They all talked about "needing greens" which a Party caucus concluded must be something to do with the effects of these Atkins diets, and pointed out, being squirrels not sheep, no 'greens' were available.)"

Considering you approached lobbyists and Senators, are you sure you didn't mishear? It was probably "needing GREEN", as in contributions (large bills preferred)...

(snicker)
"America won't let you down" 00:07am on 12 Nov 2009 All: On this day we honor those men and women.

They weren't policymakers, or leftist / rightist "visionaries" (may they collectively choke on their "visions" for the future), or "the beautiful people", or captains of industry, or rock stars, or sports figures, or any of the others that we spend so much time paying so much attention to.

All they had was the depth of commitment to the United States to enter into loneliness, suffering, pain, and in many cases eternity, on its behalf.

Want to complain about the United States? About the war? About policy? About the left, the right, the center? Economy? Laws? Something else???

Fine.

Just see if maybe, just maybe, you can somewhere in your heart find just a bit of thankfulness for their sacrifice.

@25 (ag) "Continue to beat each other and me with words. Perhaps that is better than rocks but remember that you really should eat what you kill."

Nicely put. Too bad folks can't see what they kill with their tongues and keyboards.

Regards to all.

Arclight

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

arclightt