To all those who say government is the solution to all our problems:
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
-George Washington
I know that many who think government is the solution are dismissive of the founders unless it serves there purposes.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Maybe There Is Hope
I got this story from
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/02/25/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry4828759.shtml
Robert Byrd, the longest serving senator in history, criticized President Obama's appointment of numerous White House advisors, also called "czars," saying the presence of the czars gives the president too much power.
These czars report directly to Mr. Obama and have the power to shape national policy on their subject area. So far, Mr. Obama has recruited czars on health reform, urban affairs policy, and energy and climate change. Unlike Cabinet secretaries, they do not have to be approved by Congress.
In a letter to Obama on Wednesday, Byrd, a Democrat, said that the czar system "can threaten the Constitutional system of checks and balances," Politico reported. Byrd added that oversight of federal agencies is the responsibility of officials approved by the Senate.
"As presidential assistants and advisers, these White House staffers are not accountable for their actions to the Congress, to cabinet officials, or to virtually anyone but the president," Byrd wrote. "They rarely testify before congressional committees, and often shield the information and decision-making process behind the assertion of executive privilege. In too many instances, White House staff have been allowed to inhibit openness and transparency, and reduce accountability."
Byrd has been a longtime critic of policies that concentrate power in the executive branch. He often fought with the Bush Administration and Wednesday's letter shows that he doesn't mind going after a president from his own party.
These days, however, Byrd’s comments have less force as he is no longer the chairman of the powerful Senate Appropriations Committee.
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/02/25/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry4828759.shtml
Robert Byrd, the longest serving senator in history, criticized President Obama's appointment of numerous White House advisors, also called "czars," saying the presence of the czars gives the president too much power.
These czars report directly to Mr. Obama and have the power to shape national policy on their subject area. So far, Mr. Obama has recruited czars on health reform, urban affairs policy, and energy and climate change. Unlike Cabinet secretaries, they do not have to be approved by Congress.
In a letter to Obama on Wednesday, Byrd, a Democrat, said that the czar system "can threaten the Constitutional system of checks and balances," Politico reported. Byrd added that oversight of federal agencies is the responsibility of officials approved by the Senate.
"As presidential assistants and advisers, these White House staffers are not accountable for their actions to the Congress, to cabinet officials, or to virtually anyone but the president," Byrd wrote. "They rarely testify before congressional committees, and often shield the information and decision-making process behind the assertion of executive privilege. In too many instances, White House staff have been allowed to inhibit openness and transparency, and reduce accountability."
Byrd has been a longtime critic of policies that concentrate power in the executive branch. He often fought with the Bush Administration and Wednesday's letter shows that he doesn't mind going after a president from his own party.
These days, however, Byrd’s comments have less force as he is no longer the chairman of the powerful Senate Appropriations Committee.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Pravda
Today what keeps rolling around in my skull somewhere between the two brain cells, one that keeps me breathing and the one I share with Chris, is that it is amazing that anyone believes the press. Or do they?
When I was a kid, my step-dad read us a book called, Mig-Pilot. The pilot escaped from the Soviet Union in a Mig and landed in Japan. He said that you could always tell more about the press by what they were not reporting. This has been ringing through my head the last couple of years. How often do we see stories like this stupid "octomom" and ask "why is this the most important story in such a crucial time?" Why doesn't the press report on what is really happening? Is it because we have the government doing incredibly irresponsible and controversial things right now and they're busy carrying oceans of water for them right now?
No one can seriously argue that they're not.
CHRIS MATTHEWS: Yeah, well, you know what? I want to do everything I can to make this thing work, this new presidency work, and I think that --
JOE SCARBOROUGH: Is that your job? You just talked about being a journalist!
MATTHEWS: Yeah, it is my job. My job is to help this country.
I'm amazed that with some people if they see anything in print or in the media or on the Internet, they just accept it as gospel truth. I really wish everyone could be 'mormon' for a day, if they could they would see how full of Turkey turd the press is. It always amazes me what passes as 'truth' whenever they do a story about the church. Much of it is downright laughable and you're just left to think, "how can they get away with this BS?"
When I went to Idaho to high school, there was a law suit brought against the school for 'separation of church and state'. The ACLU was spearheading the action and it made the national news. The suit was brought by a disgruntled family who found a legal technicality, which they could use to beat up the superintendent with. Here was the situation: the school bought a building across the street, which had belonged to the LDS church. The church bought it with the proviso that they could use a classroom in the basement for seminary until the new seminary building was finished. The basement had no other use. The upstairs was used for band and drama. Since the seminary teacher knew that no one was ever down the hallway, except for church goers, he put pictures of temples and of Jesus Christ on the walls of the hall, either that or they'd never been taken down from the days it was just a church. This was a technical and legal gaff possibly, but certainly innocent and not intended to proselytize and none of the other non-LDS students thought twice about it. When I saw the reports on the national news, it was absolutely criminal the way it was being handled. They would show the pictures and say "the mormon church actually had pictures of mormon temples and Jesus Christ in the school building" making it seem like the church was forcing its religion on the students. They made absolutely no attempt to inform their viewers about details, making me wonder if it was ignorance, laziness or dishonesty.
This was the first chink in the armor for me. This was the first time that I saw for myself how blatantly dishonest the press was and how they could report something with a strain of truth, but spin it until it became an absolute lie.
Of course this is because the press was not interested in a discovery of the truth, but rather to advocate a secular agenda.
When the press becomes all about advocacy and not at all about discovery, you know our freedom is doomed. It is even more dire when the general public knows the press is lying, but they just don't care because they are in agreement with the ideology.
I grew up watching CNN and MSNBC, shows like Crossfire. It didn't take a genius for me to see that they were blatantly bias, heck if I could tell with my two brain cells, then anyone could see it. It was little things like, "well yeah they have two conservatives and two liberals on the panel, but they always have it in a venue like George Washington University so that everything the conservative says will get jeered and the liberal will get a standing ovation and they have to spend 5 minutes calming the crowd after every point he makes". That was a helpful hint.
So in short, I have absolutely no confidence left in the media. I had a chink in the armor when I was a kid, then it was an ever growing credibility gap through my 20s. With the last election, the press sold out every single shred of credibility they had left, if any. I hope they like their candidate, because they bought him at an incredible price. Only the 20% of complete idiots or ideologues have reason to believe.
By the way, in case you're saying, "this is just sour grapes because his guy lost", I didn't have a horse in this race. I wrote in a presidential and vice presidential candidate, ones who actually believe in the constitution unlike John "let's nationalize all the mortgages" McCain and Barack "let's nationalize everything because I am the Alpha and the Omega and am here to save the universe" Obama.
When I was a kid, my step-dad read us a book called, Mig-Pilot. The pilot escaped from the Soviet Union in a Mig and landed in Japan. He said that you could always tell more about the press by what they were not reporting. This has been ringing through my head the last couple of years. How often do we see stories like this stupid "octomom" and ask "why is this the most important story in such a crucial time?" Why doesn't the press report on what is really happening? Is it because we have the government doing incredibly irresponsible and controversial things right now and they're busy carrying oceans of water for them right now?
No one can seriously argue that they're not.
CHRIS MATTHEWS: Yeah, well, you know what? I want to do everything I can to make this thing work, this new presidency work, and I think that --
JOE SCARBOROUGH: Is that your job? You just talked about being a journalist!
MATTHEWS: Yeah, it is my job. My job is to help this country.
I'm amazed that with some people if they see anything in print or in the media or on the Internet, they just accept it as gospel truth. I really wish everyone could be 'mormon' for a day, if they could they would see how full of Turkey turd the press is. It always amazes me what passes as 'truth' whenever they do a story about the church. Much of it is downright laughable and you're just left to think, "how can they get away with this BS?"
When I went to Idaho to high school, there was a law suit brought against the school for 'separation of church and state'. The ACLU was spearheading the action and it made the national news. The suit was brought by a disgruntled family who found a legal technicality, which they could use to beat up the superintendent with. Here was the situation: the school bought a building across the street, which had belonged to the LDS church. The church bought it with the proviso that they could use a classroom in the basement for seminary until the new seminary building was finished. The basement had no other use. The upstairs was used for band and drama. Since the seminary teacher knew that no one was ever down the hallway, except for church goers, he put pictures of temples and of Jesus Christ on the walls of the hall, either that or they'd never been taken down from the days it was just a church. This was a technical and legal gaff possibly, but certainly innocent and not intended to proselytize and none of the other non-LDS students thought twice about it. When I saw the reports on the national news, it was absolutely criminal the way it was being handled. They would show the pictures and say "the mormon church actually had pictures of mormon temples and Jesus Christ in the school building" making it seem like the church was forcing its religion on the students. They made absolutely no attempt to inform their viewers about details, making me wonder if it was ignorance, laziness or dishonesty.
This was the first chink in the armor for me. This was the first time that I saw for myself how blatantly dishonest the press was and how they could report something with a strain of truth, but spin it until it became an absolute lie.
Of course this is because the press was not interested in a discovery of the truth, but rather to advocate a secular agenda.
When the press becomes all about advocacy and not at all about discovery, you know our freedom is doomed. It is even more dire when the general public knows the press is lying, but they just don't care because they are in agreement with the ideology.
I grew up watching CNN and MSNBC, shows like Crossfire. It didn't take a genius for me to see that they were blatantly bias, heck if I could tell with my two brain cells, then anyone could see it. It was little things like, "well yeah they have two conservatives and two liberals on the panel, but they always have it in a venue like George Washington University so that everything the conservative says will get jeered and the liberal will get a standing ovation and they have to spend 5 minutes calming the crowd after every point he makes". That was a helpful hint.
So in short, I have absolutely no confidence left in the media. I had a chink in the armor when I was a kid, then it was an ever growing credibility gap through my 20s. With the last election, the press sold out every single shred of credibility they had left, if any. I hope they like their candidate, because they bought him at an incredible price. Only the 20% of complete idiots or ideologues have reason to believe.
By the way, in case you're saying, "this is just sour grapes because his guy lost", I didn't have a horse in this race. I wrote in a presidential and vice presidential candidate, ones who actually believe in the constitution unlike John "let's nationalize all the mortgages" McCain and Barack "let's nationalize everything because I am the Alpha and the Omega and am here to save the universe" Obama.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Friction of Baby!
Chris, Carissa and I have all noted that everything is harder to do when you have a baby. Even the smallest task, like eating, can be a colossal undertaking. Clausewitz called this the friction of war. We call it the friction of baby!
"Everything in war is very simple," Clausewitz notes, "but the simplest thing is difficult." (119) "In war more than anywhere else things do not turn out as we expect. Nearby they do not appear as they did from a distance." (193) Moreover, "...every fault and exaggeration of [a] theory is instantly exposed in war."
Clausewitz terms "friction" the "only concept that more or less corresponds to the factors that distinguish real war from war on paper." (119) Friction is caused mainly by the danger of war, by war's demanding physical efforts, and by the presence of unclear information or the fog of war.
First, the intrinsically dangerous nature of war means that in an atmosphere of blood, bullets,and bombs, "the light of reason is refracted in a manner quite different from that which is normal in academic speculation." (113) Only the exceptional soldier keeps his incisive judgment intact during the heat of battle.
Second, physical effort in war also produces friction: "If no one had the right to give his views on military operations except when he is frozen, or faint from heat and thirst, or depressed from privation and fatigue, objective and accurate views would be even rarer than they are." (115) Clausewitz hence reminds strategists not to forget the immense effect of physical effort upon the soldiers engaging in combat.
Ambiguous information in war is yet a third element which Clausewitz says distinguishes real war from war in theory. Although strategists should gauge plans by probabilities, it is sometimes impossible to do so during war, when most intelligence is indeterminate:
"...[A] general in time of war is constantly bombarded by reports both true and false; by errors arising from fear or negligence or hastiness; by disobedience born of right or wrong interpretations, of ill will, of a proper or mistaken sense of duty, of laziness, or of exhaustion; and by accidents that nobody could have foreseen. In short, he is exposed to countless impressions, most of them disturbing, few of them encouraging...." (193)
To offset the friction of war which results inevitably from human frailty, Clausewitz advocates pushing ahead with all one's might:
"Perseverance in the chosen course is the essential counter-weight, provided that no compelling reasons intervene to the contrary. Moreover, there is hardly a worthwhile enterprise in war whose execution does not call for infinite effort, trouble, and privation; and as man under pressure tends to give in to physical and intellectual weakness, only great strength of will can lead to the objective. It is steadfastness that will earn the admiration of the world and of posterity." (193)
"Everything in war is very simple," Clausewitz notes, "but the simplest thing is difficult." (119) "In war more than anywhere else things do not turn out as we expect. Nearby they do not appear as they did from a distance." (193) Moreover, "...every fault and exaggeration of [a] theory is instantly exposed in war."
Clausewitz terms "friction" the "only concept that more or less corresponds to the factors that distinguish real war from war on paper." (119) Friction is caused mainly by the danger of war, by war's demanding physical efforts, and by the presence of unclear information or the fog of war.
First, the intrinsically dangerous nature of war means that in an atmosphere of blood, bullets,and bombs, "the light of reason is refracted in a manner quite different from that which is normal in academic speculation." (113) Only the exceptional soldier keeps his incisive judgment intact during the heat of battle.
Second, physical effort in war also produces friction: "If no one had the right to give his views on military operations except when he is frozen, or faint from heat and thirst, or depressed from privation and fatigue, objective and accurate views would be even rarer than they are." (115) Clausewitz hence reminds strategists not to forget the immense effect of physical effort upon the soldiers engaging in combat.
Ambiguous information in war is yet a third element which Clausewitz says distinguishes real war from war in theory. Although strategists should gauge plans by probabilities, it is sometimes impossible to do so during war, when most intelligence is indeterminate:
"...[A] general in time of war is constantly bombarded by reports both true and false; by errors arising from fear or negligence or hastiness; by disobedience born of right or wrong interpretations, of ill will, of a proper or mistaken sense of duty, of laziness, or of exhaustion; and by accidents that nobody could have foreseen. In short, he is exposed to countless impressions, most of them disturbing, few of them encouraging...." (193)
To offset the friction of war which results inevitably from human frailty, Clausewitz advocates pushing ahead with all one's might:
"Perseverance in the chosen course is the essential counter-weight, provided that no compelling reasons intervene to the contrary. Moreover, there is hardly a worthwhile enterprise in war whose execution does not call for infinite effort, trouble, and privation; and as man under pressure tends to give in to physical and intellectual weakness, only great strength of will can lead to the objective. It is steadfastness that will earn the admiration of the world and of posterity." (193)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
