Financial Goals
One of the "sponsors" of the PBS News Hour advertises, "there are as many financial objectives as there are people". I beg to differ. I would assert there is only one financial goal: "maximize my net worth at any time, within the limits of my conscience".
In this way, my more modest financial goals are identical to those of, say, Bernie Ebbers.
The difference is not the financial goal, it's the limit of one's conscience.
I offer these insights as the Mrs and I approach the moment of "fixed income". I think we will be comfortable: our social-security-as-a percent-of-retirement-income figure is in the range of 25%. I'd be happier if that figure were lower; I know too many people for whom it's much closer to 100%.
In a side note, Brother Dan, along with other liberal commentators on the latest assault by the Bushites, is that there should be _no_ means testing for social security. The options are either a wellfare program, or, as originally conceived, a social security safety net.
Let's leave it at that. Social security = safety net. The less of that net we rely on, the better.
Friday, July 1, 2005
Monday, June 6, 2005
Let's call it G-BAY.
You've heard of eBay; heck you may be using it. What I'm proposing here should lock down every remaining letter from A to Z. What is G-Bay?
Why Guantanimo Bay, soon to be widely recognized by its alternate name: Gulag Bay. Ergo G-BAY!
Your editor's father toured G-Bay in the summer of '52, as one of six editors touring the Atlantic, courtesy of the US Navy and the taxpayer. Since Malcolm Forbes was along for star-power, the Navy of those days needn't worry about media scrutiny. And since my dad's biggest organ (news-speak) was the "National Rabbit Raiser" (no kidding), his clout didn't rise to that of Sir Malcolm's.
Flash to the present moment. The current news media is head-in-sand over the allegations of Gulag. St Ronbo defeated the Gulag; they can't be talking about us, can they? Well Virginia, there is a Gulag, and in the words of Pogo, "We've met the Gulag, and the Gulag is US".
Let's go forth from this time and place, and proclaim the vision the world holds: G-Bay, Gulag Bay, or Guantanimo Bay, what ever you call it is the stain on our national ideals.
You've heard of eBay; heck you may be using it. What I'm proposing here should lock down every remaining letter from A to Z. What is G-Bay?
Why Guantanimo Bay, soon to be widely recognized by its alternate name: Gulag Bay. Ergo G-BAY!
Your editor's father toured G-Bay in the summer of '52, as one of six editors touring the Atlantic, courtesy of the US Navy and the taxpayer. Since Malcolm Forbes was along for star-power, the Navy of those days needn't worry about media scrutiny. And since my dad's biggest organ (news-speak) was the "National Rabbit Raiser" (no kidding), his clout didn't rise to that of Sir Malcolm's.
Flash to the present moment. The current news media is head-in-sand over the allegations of Gulag. St Ronbo defeated the Gulag; they can't be talking about us, can they? Well Virginia, there is a Gulag, and in the words of Pogo, "We've met the Gulag, and the Gulag is US".
Let's go forth from this time and place, and proclaim the vision the world holds: G-Bay, Gulag Bay, or Guantanimo Bay, what ever you call it is the stain on our national ideals.
Wednesday, March 2, 2005
Advise and Consent
With typical double-speak, the Republicans, this time Bill Frist, are showing how to redefine the language to suit their ends. Everyone on the right side of the aisle jeered, and many on the left groaned, when Clinton needed to be told the definition of "is". Since it's a simpler word that "consent", one could forgive them for taking issue. One could go philosophical on them and challenge the definition of "being", etc... but it seems pointless in the present redefinition milieu.
When I hear "consent", I think consensus. For nearly 30 years now (make that since the late '70s), I've been involved in one group or another where the word "consensus" was the decision model. Early in that game, I recall learning to arrive at consensus, you had to avoid straw polls, show-of-hands, and certainly ballots. So, for years, the senate has had a few flavors of super-majority votes, as they are want to call them. Either 60 or 66 senators have been, or still are required for these super-majorities. The fuss arises over confirmation of flaming conservative judicial appointments, some of whom have been rejected in Bush's last court-packing attempt. Frist, giving his portrayal of the simple, moral man, "just want[s] an up or down vote". This of course is the simple majority. Simple majorities for simple folks. He thinks a simple majority is consensus. Time to visit the definition of "is", it seems. The "consent" of the senate should approach "consensus", so I'd say, one thing consent is not -- there's that messy "is" again -- is not one vote over half. That is not consensus. Nor consent.
Since we're picking on the whole package, let's dispel the Advise part too. If the senate is to speak with one voice, which it doesn't, its "advice" would be "send us confirmable judges". Failing that, and getting practical, they say things like "If you send us this name, we'll hold up the others. Is that what you want?" It doesn't take a super-majority to do this, rather the complement of the super-majority. We probably need a word for the super-minority! Their advice is delivered in necessarily negative terms. No reasonable person expects the recommendations of the minority to show up on the list of nominees.
So why is the media giving the Republican leadership a pass on their Orwellian twisting of Consent into meaning a simple majority. I'm sure the major media have writers who can make this simple argument much simpler:
Consent ~ Consensus
consensus >> majority
By the way, I think consensus is achieved when those who will always object, the remaining few see a sufficient number of their ideological brethren accede, probably not without some quid for their quo. But consensus is never "one more than half".
With typical double-speak, the Republicans, this time Bill Frist, are showing how to redefine the language to suit their ends. Everyone on the right side of the aisle jeered, and many on the left groaned, when Clinton needed to be told the definition of "is". Since it's a simpler word that "consent", one could forgive them for taking issue. One could go philosophical on them and challenge the definition of "being", etc... but it seems pointless in the present redefinition milieu.
When I hear "consent", I think consensus. For nearly 30 years now (make that since the late '70s), I've been involved in one group or another where the word "consensus" was the decision model. Early in that game, I recall learning to arrive at consensus, you had to avoid straw polls, show-of-hands, and certainly ballots. So, for years, the senate has had a few flavors of super-majority votes, as they are want to call them. Either 60 or 66 senators have been, or still are required for these super-majorities. The fuss arises over confirmation of flaming conservative judicial appointments, some of whom have been rejected in Bush's last court-packing attempt. Frist, giving his portrayal of the simple, moral man, "just want[s] an up or down vote". This of course is the simple majority. Simple majorities for simple folks. He thinks a simple majority is consensus. Time to visit the definition of "is", it seems. The "consent" of the senate should approach "consensus", so I'd say, one thing consent is not -- there's that messy "is" again -- is not one vote over half. That is not consensus. Nor consent.
Since we're picking on the whole package, let's dispel the Advise part too. If the senate is to speak with one voice, which it doesn't, its "advice" would be "send us confirmable judges". Failing that, and getting practical, they say things like "If you send us this name, we'll hold up the others. Is that what you want?" It doesn't take a super-majority to do this, rather the complement of the super-majority. We probably need a word for the super-minority! Their advice is delivered in necessarily negative terms. No reasonable person expects the recommendations of the minority to show up on the list of nominees.
So why is the media giving the Republican leadership a pass on their Orwellian twisting of Consent into meaning a simple majority. I'm sure the major media have writers who can make this simple argument much simpler:
Consent ~ Consensus
consensus >> majority
By the way, I think consensus is achieved when those who will always object, the remaining few see a sufficient number of their ideological brethren accede, probably not without some quid for their quo. But consensus is never "one more than half".
Friday, February 25, 2005
What Changed on 9/11?
Dr Khatemi, brother of the outgoing Iranian president offers this insight about 9/11: What changed on 9/11? Up until that date, the major supporter of repressive regimes was the United States.
This on tonight's News Hour.
One more time: the MAJOR Supporter of REPRSSIVE Regimes in the Middle East up until 9/11 was the United States.
Lest you think this Khatemi is some religious fundamentalist -- like Jerry Fallwell, James Dobson, ... -- think again. This Khatemi is a member of the liberal opposition.
Dr Khatemi, brother of the outgoing Iranian president offers this insight about 9/11: What changed on 9/11? Up until that date, the major supporter of repressive regimes was the United States.
This on tonight's News Hour.
One more time: the MAJOR Supporter of REPRSSIVE Regimes in the Middle East up until 9/11 was the United States.
Lest you think this Khatemi is some religious fundamentalist -- like Jerry Fallwell, James Dobson, ... -- think again. This Khatemi is a member of the liberal opposition.
Monday, February 21, 2005
Here's a nomination for Misleader-1st-Class: Doug Forrester who is papering the airwaves with his ads for the Republican nominee for NJ Governor. You can find him at doug.com.
One note I've picked up from his TV ads, not readily available on his web site, but he notes he build a "family business on cutting drug costs". You'd think this would qualify him for one of the problems of the day -- controlling drug costs. Think again. A business, presumably for profit, that survived by cutting drug costs. Does that mean Doug will be committed to cutting drug costs from the public, not-for-profit sector. I think not. (Imagine Descartes vanishing in a puff of smoke:-) What this does tell us is that while a profit may be made by fighting drug costs, from a New Jersey citizen, no less, someone, somewhere in government is not doing their job.
If Doug were running on a record of cutting future drug costs, I'd still be listening (for other prevarications), but, as it is, this one is disingenuous enough for me to toss him on the too-fat, too-white pile that defines the modern Republican.
One note I've picked up from his TV ads, not readily available on his web site, but he notes he build a "family business on cutting drug costs". You'd think this would qualify him for one of the problems of the day -- controlling drug costs. Think again. A business, presumably for profit, that survived by cutting drug costs. Does that mean Doug will be committed to cutting drug costs from the public, not-for-profit sector. I think not. (Imagine Descartes vanishing in a puff of smoke:-) What this does tell us is that while a profit may be made by fighting drug costs, from a New Jersey citizen, no less, someone, somewhere in government is not doing their job.
If Doug were running on a record of cutting future drug costs, I'd still be listening (for other prevarications), but, as it is, this one is disingenuous enough for me to toss him on the too-fat, too-white pile that defines the modern Republican.
Friday, February 18, 2005
Iran's Nukeular Capability
Contrary to selected acting president bush's assertions, Iran will never have a nukeular weapons capability. To be blunt no one will ever have a nukeular weapons capability. There is no such thing as a nukeular anything.
So long as our illiterate s.a.p. bush insists on trying to describe nuclear power as a nukeular capability, I'll take every opportunity to point out the difficulty I have in following an illiterate. I have this thesis: listen to those who are proponents of the simplistic "west-good, east-evil" view of international politics, and pay particular attention to their attempt at pronouncing nuclear. The word sylabificates: nu - clee -ahr. Those who are most likely in favor of a western control of all aspects of nuclear energy, particularly its use in weapons, have the nauseating habbit of calling it nukeular, sylabificated: nuke - you - lahr. Illiteracy at best.
Contrary to selected acting president bush's assertions, Iran will never have a nukeular weapons capability. To be blunt no one will ever have a nukeular weapons capability. There is no such thing as a nukeular anything.
So long as our illiterate s.a.p. bush insists on trying to describe nuclear power as a nukeular capability, I'll take every opportunity to point out the difficulty I have in following an illiterate. I have this thesis: listen to those who are proponents of the simplistic "west-good, east-evil" view of international politics, and pay particular attention to their attempt at pronouncing nuclear. The word sylabificates: nu - clee -ahr. Those who are most likely in favor of a western control of all aspects of nuclear energy, particularly its use in weapons, have the nauseating habbit of calling it nukeular, sylabificated: nuke - you - lahr. Illiteracy at best.
Thursday, February 10, 2005
Carly, Where Are You?
OK, Carly (Carleton, since her dad was expecting a son!?) is out at HP. Shame, Shame. Someone, somewhere had better connect the names of Rich McGinn and Carly Fiorina. In my short life at AT&T Bell Labs, both these icons of the New Economy were close at hand for many peers. Sadly, it took the higest levels of corporate America to realize the hollow shells these mere suits have been.
In the News Hour piece tonight (2/10/05), they exposed Carly as a marketeer, not an inventor. Hewlett Packard just prides itself as an inventor. Your editor has seen the demise of American intellect at the hands of American marketing from firsthand.
Carly and Rich grew up (corporatley) in an environment that valued the quarterly bottom line. Rich got his a few years ago by promising inflated growth in the face of saturated network technology.l Carly got hers yesterday by promising insight to the face of computing. The News' Dark Time tracked the HPCQ index. History records the value of the stock is less than 50% when she took over. Innovation is a commitment, not a commodity.
Compare the arc of Greek philosophers to their cultural history; contrast that with the history of American invention. We've passed the hump on the curve. The saddle point. It's an opinion. Is it an insight?
OK, Carly (Carleton, since her dad was expecting a son!?) is out at HP. Shame, Shame. Someone, somewhere had better connect the names of Rich McGinn and Carly Fiorina. In my short life at AT&T Bell Labs, both these icons of the New Economy were close at hand for many peers. Sadly, it took the higest levels of corporate America to realize the hollow shells these mere suits have been.
In the News Hour piece tonight (2/10/05), they exposed Carly as a marketeer, not an inventor. Hewlett Packard just prides itself as an inventor. Your editor has seen the demise of American intellect at the hands of American marketing from firsthand.
Carly and Rich grew up (corporatley) in an environment that valued the quarterly bottom line. Rich got his a few years ago by promising inflated growth in the face of saturated network technology.l Carly got hers yesterday by promising insight to the face of computing. The News' Dark Time tracked the HPCQ index. History records the value of the stock is less than 50% when she took over. Innovation is a commitment, not a commodity.
Compare the arc of Greek philosophers to their cultural history; contrast that with the history of American invention. We've passed the hump on the curve. The saddle point. It's an opinion. Is it an insight?
Sunday, January 16, 2005
How to Retire Rich.
Yesterday's post anticipated by one day, the New York Times editorial page weighing in on the subject of Social Security reform.
Their conclusion:
News to me is the Administration has two proposals on the table to increase investment incentives. The first is a no-cost, no-legislation-required proposal: the IRS can implement a two-account deposit for your tax return, one of which presumably is your savings account. The other was passed in 2001 is an incentive which "offers a matching tax credit for retirement savings by low- and middle-income taxpayers." They peg the total cost at a "relatively modest" $7B. It's yet to be implemented. The cost is of course, less than 10% the amount the Bush administration was willing to shovel to it's biggest contributors.
Read the Editorial.
Yesterday's post anticipated by one day, the New York Times editorial page weighing in on the subject of Social Security reform.
Their conclusion:
Preserving Social Security while increasing savings outside Social Security is a better way to achieve a prosperous retirement.
News to me is the Administration has two proposals on the table to increase investment incentives. The first is a no-cost, no-legislation-required proposal: the IRS can implement a two-account deposit for your tax return, one of which presumably is your savings account. The other was passed in 2001 is an incentive which "offers a matching tax credit for retirement savings by low- and middle-income taxpayers." They peg the total cost at a "relatively modest" $7B. It's yet to be implemented. The cost is of course, less than 10% the amount the Bush administration was willing to shovel to it's biggest contributors.
Read the Editorial.
Saturday, January 15, 2005
It's time to call the Bush proposal to "privatize" Social Security what it is: The Emperor's New Clothes.
The myth of fine garments has been bought by most of the major media, since there is little evaluation of the personal and collective merits or flaws of the plans.
Imagine a future world in such a plan. You are splitting your contribution, say 50-50 between the public and private sectors. Your feelings about the value and necessity of your public contribution are likely the same as they are under the current arrangement. Let's inspect your attitude towards the private sector contribution.
You look at a private-sector Social (??) Security contribution as another form of IRA. But is it the same? Hardly. I may add $3500 to my IRA at my choice. I'm likely to, since at tax time, I can see the value to my bottom line, and importantly, it's my choice. But, now imagine I'm compelled, at federal regulation to "invest" a like amount of money. Do I have a choice. Not likely. Do I have a choice about the public sector contribution? No. Is it possible the private sector choice is optional? If so, I think I'd rather invest the money in an IRA. What is the value added of the federal government in compelled investing? Nothing. Other than to increase contempt for the federal government. That's the real purpose behind this scheme.
This administration has no sense of the "full faith and credit of the federal government". Their object is to diminish, if not eliminate the concept from the public forum.
If the government is really concerned about the less than lustrous savings record of the American Investor, and wanted to do something about it, our leaders would be talking about incentives to increase the average American's average investment.
When the public sees the current proposals are little more than government shoveling money to Sleazy Alley (the one off Wall Street), the awareness will stir the till-now somnambulent voters to action.
Some of the few discussions of the proposals are coming from the opinion pages: Here's a Paul Krugman editorial, The British Evasion in the Times about the failures of the British 20-year experiment with private retirement accounts. He answers one of my questions: some of the value-added will be restrictions on where the investments may be placed. And he adds a reason to why the public confidence in the government management will be further reduced.
Krugman references an illuminating article on the British experience by Norma Cohen in the American Prospect. Apologists for privatization will be left only with the theological argument after reading this article.
Not to overlook the American PAC, here's MoveOn.Org's take on privatization, where they ask, "What's the Rush, the Need, the Prospects for guaranteed benefits, and a few other pertinent points.
Where's the news, especially the fashion reporters who should be inspecting the Bush administration's social security garment?
The myth of fine garments has been bought by most of the major media, since there is little evaluation of the personal and collective merits or flaws of the plans.
Imagine a future world in such a plan. You are splitting your contribution, say 50-50 between the public and private sectors. Your feelings about the value and necessity of your public contribution are likely the same as they are under the current arrangement. Let's inspect your attitude towards the private sector contribution.
You look at a private-sector Social (??) Security contribution as another form of IRA. But is it the same? Hardly. I may add $3500 to my IRA at my choice. I'm likely to, since at tax time, I can see the value to my bottom line, and importantly, it's my choice. But, now imagine I'm compelled, at federal regulation to "invest" a like amount of money. Do I have a choice. Not likely. Do I have a choice about the public sector contribution? No. Is it possible the private sector choice is optional? If so, I think I'd rather invest the money in an IRA. What is the value added of the federal government in compelled investing? Nothing. Other than to increase contempt for the federal government. That's the real purpose behind this scheme.
This administration has no sense of the "full faith and credit of the federal government". Their object is to diminish, if not eliminate the concept from the public forum.
If the government is really concerned about the less than lustrous savings record of the American Investor, and wanted to do something about it, our leaders would be talking about incentives to increase the average American's average investment.
When the public sees the current proposals are little more than government shoveling money to Sleazy Alley (the one off Wall Street), the awareness will stir the till-now somnambulent voters to action.
Some of the few discussions of the proposals are coming from the opinion pages: Here's a Paul Krugman editorial, The British Evasion in the Times about the failures of the British 20-year experiment with private retirement accounts. He answers one of my questions: some of the value-added will be restrictions on where the investments may be placed. And he adds a reason to why the public confidence in the government management will be further reduced.
Krugman references an illuminating article on the British experience by Norma Cohen in the American Prospect. Apologists for privatization will be left only with the theological argument after reading this article.
Not to overlook the American PAC, here's MoveOn.Org's take on privatization, where they ask, "What's the Rush, the Need, the Prospects for guaranteed benefits, and a few other pertinent points.
Where's the news, especially the fashion reporters who should be inspecting the Bush administration's social security garment?
Monday, November 22, 2004
This evening, the News Hour is reviewing the Artest-Jackson-Wallace fracas in Detroit last Friday night. Jack McCallum (SI), Greg Anthony (ESPN), and Ray (NHr) are going over the causes and effects of the fight which broke out at the Pacers-Pistons basketball game.
Greg Anthony, former (NY) Knick presciently observed that if you were at work and someone threw racial epithets and beer at you, they would likely be subject to civil, if not criminal action. He certainly was not defending Ron Artest and his teammate Jackson, who both went into the stands to take on fans, but, is pointing out the justice needs to be handed out across the out-of-bounds line. It's quite interesting; "Ed" and "Mrs Ed" were out buying sneakers of a confidential size on Saturday A.M. at the local "ya gotta go ta ...'s" store. There, as she tried on her third pair was a previoiusly taped story from two of the local AM sports-talk racket in a slick journal touting the local snearker company's ware. They were on to the violence on the sports scene, of which the latest episode will take on pre-eminent postion. The debate, pro-or-con, was cages for fans. I'm on the con side of this one. Though, in terms of where the blame lies, I'm on the "pro-fan" side. Though before you think I'd cave for the money, it seems inconceivable someone who's making 10,000 times my imaginary limit would have any need to cross the out-of-bounds line to take on someone who's biggest decision in life is betweeen Bud and Miller lite. (We assume he's already duped into the Bush choice). So, my only conclusion is that money can't buy your restraint, given sufficient provocation. Which further underscores the depth of the pent up hatred over, say racial issues. No amount of dinero could, I guess, keep me from flattening the nose of a racist pig who threw the N-word and the remains of a pint in my face.
This is not about justification; it's about responsibilty. Every time a person hurls a racial epithet over the railing, I'm hurt. (I say this as one who did at the '64 MO-MN football game when an MN halfback fumbled a kickoff on our 5 yard line).
This is not a message of hope. Some recent reading of Spong tells me to be patient. Or more likely, allow for a worsening of the human condition as respect for God evaporates in the face of evidence a good deal of our former faith was misplaced. Searching for it in the storm will be challenging.
Greg Anthony, former (NY) Knick presciently observed that if you were at work and someone threw racial epithets and beer at you, they would likely be subject to civil, if not criminal action. He certainly was not defending Ron Artest and his teammate Jackson, who both went into the stands to take on fans, but, is pointing out the justice needs to be handed out across the out-of-bounds line. It's quite interesting; "Ed" and "Mrs Ed" were out buying sneakers of a confidential size on Saturday A.M. at the local "ya gotta go ta ...'s" store. There, as she tried on her third pair was a previoiusly taped story from two of the local AM sports-talk racket in a slick journal touting the local snearker company's ware. They were on to the violence on the sports scene, of which the latest episode will take on pre-eminent postion. The debate, pro-or-con, was cages for fans. I'm on the con side of this one. Though, in terms of where the blame lies, I'm on the "pro-fan" side. Though before you think I'd cave for the money, it seems inconceivable someone who's making 10,000 times my imaginary limit would have any need to cross the out-of-bounds line to take on someone who's biggest decision in life is betweeen Bud and Miller lite. (We assume he's already duped into the Bush choice). So, my only conclusion is that money can't buy your restraint, given sufficient provocation. Which further underscores the depth of the pent up hatred over, say racial issues. No amount of dinero could, I guess, keep me from flattening the nose of a racist pig who threw the N-word and the remains of a pint in my face.
This is not about justification; it's about responsibilty. Every time a person hurls a racial epithet over the railing, I'm hurt. (I say this as one who did at the '64 MO-MN football game when an MN halfback fumbled a kickoff on our 5 yard line).
This is not a message of hope. Some recent reading of Spong tells me to be patient. Or more likely, allow for a worsening of the human condition as respect for God evaporates in the face of evidence a good deal of our former faith was misplaced. Searching for it in the storm will be challenging.
Saturday, November 6, 2004
I was horrified this morning on waking to the rarely-watched TV news, reflecting on my post of yesterday, it could easily be construed to support the recent Democratic Leadership Council style of 'middle-of-the-road' . Such is not my wish.
Also, last night on "Bill Moyer's NOW", Christopher Edley, Dean of the UC Berkeley Law school was cautioning against just such a reaction. As we go back over the pass to reconnect with the wagon train, let's not camp safely within the circle. We have to move them over the mountain. Sharing with them the dangers of crossing, but also the hope of the fertile valleys on the other side. While we're at it, we have to allow that some will be perfectly happy to camp where they are now. It shouldn't be an affront to us who see the need to move on.
Edley was prepared to allow the moral issues to come in to the agenda of the left. On this one, our view should be "we are standing among you, let's go in this direction", rather than "come on, over here". Today's Newark Star Ledger offers a cartoon. The Bush caricature standing on the bank of a chasm, with hundreds of flanking supporters holds out a hand and says "I'm reaching out to you ... JUMP!". This is directed at an equally large crowd on the other side, a few with donkey ears. The bottom is not in sight; the width appears beyond any broad jump record!
Also, last night on "Bill Moyer's NOW", Christopher Edley, Dean of the UC Berkeley Law school was cautioning against just such a reaction. As we go back over the pass to reconnect with the wagon train, let's not camp safely within the circle. We have to move them over the mountain. Sharing with them the dangers of crossing, but also the hope of the fertile valleys on the other side. While we're at it, we have to allow that some will be perfectly happy to camp where they are now. It shouldn't be an affront to us who see the need to move on.
Edley was prepared to allow the moral issues to come in to the agenda of the left. On this one, our view should be "we are standing among you, let's go in this direction", rather than "come on, over here". Today's Newark Star Ledger offers a cartoon. The Bush caricature standing on the bank of a chasm, with hundreds of flanking supporters holds out a hand and says "I'm reaching out to you ... JUMP!". This is directed at an equally large crowd on the other side, a few with donkey ears. The bottom is not in sight; the width appears beyond any broad jump record!
Friday, November 5, 2004
To my LiberalsLikeChrist, I offer this assessment of the election this week: if we liberals (like Christ) want to prevail in future elections, we have to do that most Christ-like thing, and surrender our issue for the other person's issue. There should be little detectable self-interest in our advocacy. While we're at it, we can rightly ask what the other person is surrendering of their self-interest.
I've just started reading "Imperial Hubris" by Anonymous (who has 20+ years in the security of the USofA). He chastens our leaders for being blind on the motives of our south Asian adversaries. We liberals are as misunderstanding of the needs of our own country, as our leaders are misunderstanding of the needs of Afghanistan and Iraq.
This may be controversial, but it's now time to "turn our back" on some of those social issues which tend to divide, and pray we can work our agenda when we regain the popular platform.
Otherwise, to the rest of the nation, we're just another cadre of "Nader's Raiders". It's time to lead the wagons from the same side of the mountain, not as we have been doing, by being over the next pass, if not continental divide. We _can_ wait for the wagon train to catch up, or admit we've shirked our duty and have crossed "the pass too far" for the rest of the wagon train. Unless we return to the train, we'll find out they've selected a new wagonmaster, whose scouts are out in the prarie grass surrounding the wagon train.
This metaphor is purposeful.
I've just started reading "Imperial Hubris" by Anonymous (who has 20+ years in the security of the USofA). He chastens our leaders for being blind on the motives of our south Asian adversaries. We liberals are as misunderstanding of the needs of our own country, as our leaders are misunderstanding of the needs of Afghanistan and Iraq.
This may be controversial, but it's now time to "turn our back" on some of those social issues which tend to divide, and pray we can work our agenda when we regain the popular platform.
Otherwise, to the rest of the nation, we're just another cadre of "Nader's Raiders". It's time to lead the wagons from the same side of the mountain, not as we have been doing, by being over the next pass, if not continental divide. We _can_ wait for the wagon train to catch up, or admit we've shirked our duty and have crossed "the pass too far" for the rest of the wagon train. Unless we return to the train, we'll find out they've selected a new wagonmaster, whose scouts are out in the prarie grass surrounding the wagon train.
This metaphor is purposeful.
Saturday, October 23, 2004
Friday, June 18, 2004
The 100th issue of The News' Dark Time is now
on the news stands:
http://www.newsdarktime.com
While much is happening to disgust us on the
news we are receiving, this issue concludes
the review of Prof Kenneth Miller of Brown U
tolk on Evolution at Unino County College in
April.
"Culture Wars?" says who??
on the news stands:
http://www.newsdarktime.com
While much is happening to disgust us on the
news we are receiving, this issue concludes
the review of Prof Kenneth Miller of Brown U
tolk on Evolution at Unino County College in
April.
"Culture Wars?" says who??
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
